University of Chicago Employment Forum

[pehaigllleises]

Sorry to keep the requests coming, but I think those numbers could be a huge help to me as well. Fake email: funtimeschicago2l@gmail.com

Got you

[shamrock]

Any possibility of me getting those as well?

lairishvitaebella@gmail.com

[pehaigllleises]

Any possibility of me getting those as well?

lairishvitaebella@gmail.com

sent

[Anonymous User]

I hope I am not too late to the party here. Could you please send it to me as well? I would be super grateful.

realmendrinkpinkmartinis@gmail.com

[Anonymous User]

To the person who suggested that New York will be easier I am curious why you think OP is in a weak position. Chicago is the best school in the market and probably only half the class is serious about being hired into the Chicago market. I would think a little below median is still going to fare well there when around 70% of the class got big law even last year.

[pehaigllleises]

I hope I am not too late to the party here. Could you please send it to me as well? I would be super grateful.

realmendrinkpinkmartinis@gmail.com

Sent

[dresden doll]

I might just be massively incompetent, but nowhere did I find the data on the number of callbacks/offers firms extended last year. Since I'd like to avoid firms that interviewed 50 people without actually offering a job to anyone, I'd appreciate it if anyone had the info and was willing to share.

[doyleoil]

I might just be massively incompetent, but nowhere did I find the data on the number of callbacks/offers firms extended last year. Since I'd like to avoid firms that interviewed 50 people without actually offering a job to anyone, I'd appreciate it if anyone had the info and was willing to share.

Nobody has data from last year. It might be something to ask OCS about, though.

[pehaigllleises]

You could try to use the current list and number of interview slots and try to match it up with the Who Worked Where list. It won't tell you how many offers were extended, just how many accepted, but it might not be a bad approximation to give you an idea of what you want to know.

[dresden doll]

I might just be massively incompetent, but nowhere did I find the data on the number of callbacks/offers firms extended last year. Since I'd like to avoid firms that interviewed 50 people without actually offering a job to anyone, I'd appreciate it if anyone had the info and was willing to share.

Nobody has data from last year. It might be something to ask OCS about, though.

What about the year before, in your opinion? CLS did have that data for their students.

Pehaigllleises, thanks for the suggestion.

[iwantawhiteiphone4]

...

[dresden doll]

Maybe some should simply email the lists over lawannounce.

This reminds me of the time Braman gave an outline to a few students. The outline secretly percolated through the class until someone finally emailed Braman.

Oh, and a list from last year's OCI would be super helpful. I wonder if OCS doesn't want to distribute the list because it would reveal how bad last year really was.

Assuming they've got the data, I'm at loss to understand WHY they wouldn't distribute it. Surely they want as few people screwed out of a job through unwise bidding as possible.

Better to make us aware of how it went than not. Really, given that we performed slightly better than our peers - over 2/3 ITE is really respectable - it's not like they have much to be embarrassed about anyhow.

[iwantawhiteiphone4]

...

[Anonymous User]

there is no class of 2011 data in terms of callbacks/offers/GPAs. i confirmed this with OCS.

[pehaigllleises]

I agree that the data would be useful and that they should give it to us anyway. Their reasoning though might be because they don't want to discourage people or really give any assistance to a few firms' practices of shunning certain students. How much difference is there in intellect or ability, really, functionally, between someone with a 180 average and someone with a 176 point something at a school like this? Probably not very much. I understand them wanting to protect the Chicago "brand" that every student here graduates with. It gets easy to lose sight of that with all of the distinctions being given out and bidding going on in our class at the same time.

[Anonymous User]

imo, if they wanted to protect the brand they would have instituted an easier curve, instead of dividing the B range into 176/177/178. the school loves making these tiny distinctions. and they have no problem calculating our gpa for things like kirkland scholars and law review, but then tell us not to put that gpa on our resume. all the talk about protecting the bottom half of the class and grades not mattering always seemed like huge bs to me.

i think that they stopped distributing oci data to keep up the company line that everything is going to be ok. we know that things didn't go well last year at oci. but the actual numbers would be a huge help to a lot of kids. for whatever reason though, the priority for the administration seems to be keeping up the illusion that everything is hunky dory.

[dresden doll]

I agree that the data would be useful and that they should give it to us anyway. Their reasoning though might be because they don't want to discourage people or really give any assistance to a few firms' practices of shunning certain students. How much difference is there in intellect or ability, really, functionally, between someone with a 180 average and someone with a 176 point something at a school like this? Probably not very much. I understand them wanting to protect the Chicago "brand" that every student here graduates with. It gets easy to lose sight of that with all of the distinctions being given out and bidding going on in our class at the same time.

I would generally agree. I'd also add that the lack of preselect of the kind that goes on at UVA does help those with strong interviewing skills/soft factors since it allows them to talk to the firm in the first place. Presumably, anyone get their foot in the door. After that, it's up to them to take it away with a solid interview.

But that said, I think that, ultimately, there isn't really a solid excuse for withholding data from us. Ultimately, those confident in the strength of their resumes/interviewing skills can assess the odds they're fighting against and make a rational decision on whether or not to take the risk. Meanwhile, firms don't get to waste their times with candidates that aren't competitive to begin with. Seems like a win to me.

[dresden doll]

imo, if they wanted to protect the brand they would have instituted an easier curve, instead of dividing the B range into 176/177/178. the school loves making these tiny distinctions. and they have no problem calculating our gpa for things like kirkland scholars and law review, but then tell us not to put that gpa on our resume. all the talk about protecting the bottom half of the class and grades not mattering always seemed like huge bs to me.

i think that they stopped distributing oci data to keep up the company line that everything is going to be ok. we know that things didn't go well last year at oci. but the actual numbers would be a huge help to a lot of kids. for whatever reason though, the priority for the administration seems to be keeping up the illusion that everything is hunky dory.

If they are in fact attempting to encourage us beyond what's warranted, they're certainly departing from the current OCS practice across the board. BU OCS told students not to hope for a job out of OCI. My good friend at UVA tells me that their OCS informed them that only a top third can count on a job from their OGI (the functional equivalent of OCI, to note).

Agreed with you that the curve is truly hair splitting. It punishes and rewards at once, as far as class rank goes.

As for keeping the data to themselves, it's possible, I suppose, that firms demand it of them.

On a side note in re: curve, was anyone else slightly peeved on a sheer principle with the fact that some firms posted cutoffs expressed in averages rather than class rank? Whatever our 177 may be - and I suspect it translates into a 3.0 - it's certainly not the equivalent of a B+. Meanwhile, our grade-inflating neighbor NU curves at what is essentially a B+. The nonsensical consequence, of course, is that an NU median kid would satisfy the cutoff whereas the Chi median kid wouldn't. I prefer to believe that they do adjust for us, but damn if I'd take my chances if I were looking at a firm whose cutoff I didn't satisfy. Not to mention that it helps explain the median-inflating frenzy documented in the NYT article some months ago.

[doyleoil]

imo, if they wanted to protect the brand they would have instituted an easier curve, instead of dividing the B range into 176/177/178. the school loves making these tiny distinctions. and they have no problem calculating our gpa for things like kirkland scholars and law review, but then tell us not to put that gpa on our resume. all the talk about protecting the bottom half of the class and grades not mattering always seemed like huge bs to me.

i think that they stopped distributing oci data to keep up the company line that everything is going to be ok. we know that things didn't go well last year at oci. but the actual numbers would be a huge help to a lot of kids. for whatever reason though, the priority for the administration seems to be keeping up the illusion that everything is hunky dory.

If they are in fact attempting to encourage us beyond what's warranted, they're certainly departing from the current OCS practice across the board. BU OCS told students not to hope for a job out of OCI. My good friend at UVA tells me that their OCS informed them that only a top third can count on a job from their OGI (the functional equivalent of OCI, to note).

Agreed with you that the curve is truly hair splitting. It punishes and rewards at once, as far as class rank goes.

As for keeping the data to themselves, it's possible, I suppose, that firms demand it of them.

On a side note in re: curve, was anyone else slightly peeved on a sheer principle with the fact that some firms posted cutoffs expressed in averages rather than class rank? Whatever our 177 may be - and I suspect it translates into a 3.0 - it's certainly not the equivalent of a B+. Meanwhile, our grade-inflating neighbor NU curves at what is essentially a B+. The nonsensical consequence, of course, is that an NU median kid would satisfy the cutoff whereas the Chi median kid wouldn't. I prefer to believe that they do adjust for us, but damn if I'd take my chances if I were looking at a firm whose cutoff I didn't satisfy. Not to mention that it helps explain the median-inflating frenzy documented in the NYT article some months ago.

Dres - first off, don't freak out about this cutoff thing. Second, a 3.0 is below median at (I think?) every t14 that uses a 4 point system. So, if 3.0 is the posted cutoff, a 177 is absolutely "above" it.

[dresden doll]

Dres - first off, don't freak out about this cutoff thing. Second, a 3.0 is below median at (I think?) every t14 that uses a 4 point system. So, if 3.0 is the posted cutoff, a 177 is absolutely "above" it.

You do not think that firms are serious about cutoffs? I'd be curious to know why since I know you're not given to unrealistic optimism.

I also notice that some firms didn't ask for transcripts. (Most interestingly, DC branch of Cleary asks for a transcript, where the NYC Cleary office does not.) I wonder if they really aren't going to look at grades or whether they just get our transcripts from the OCS.

[doyleoil]

You do not think that firms are serious about cutoffs?

all depends on the firm, its hiring needs, and how much it wants "any" u.c. kid, vs. a particular u.c. kid

(oh, and i wouldn't read too much into the cleary thing either - i think it's likely that cleary nyc is more selective, gradewise, than dc - it's certainly not significantly less selective)

[dresden doll]

You do not think that firms are serious about cutoffs?

all depends on the firm, its hiring needs, and how much it wants "any" u.c. kid, vs. a particular u.c. kid

(oh, and i wouldn't read too much into the cleary thing either - i think it's likely that nyc is more selective, gradewise, than dc - it's certainly not significantly less selective)

While I'd disagree that NYC is more selective for a few reasons, I agree w/r/t to not looking too much into it. Cleary is always selective, and that's exactly why I was surprised to see lack of transcript requirement. I just wonder how they get their hands on the grades. Perhaps they simply require one at a callback interview, although that seems rather inefficient.

[doyleoil]

I just wonder how they get their hands on the grades.

hmm - that's a good question

[dresden doll]

I just wonder how they get their hands on the grades.

hmm - that's a good question

It's possible that presence/absence of LR on the transcript tells the story. But that seems a highly inefficient tool for discerning the class rank.

[270910]

Dres - first off, don't freak out about this cutoff thing. Second, a 3.0 is below median at (I think?) every t14 that uses a 4 point system. So, if 3.0 is the posted cutoff, a 177 is absolutely "above" it.

You do not think that firms are serious about cutoffs? I'd be curious to know why since I know you're not given to unrealistic optimism.

I also notice that some firms didn't ask for transcripts. (Most interestingly, DC branch of Cleary asks for a transcript, where the NYC Cleary office does not.) I wonder if they really aren't going to look at grades or whether they just get our transcripts from the OCS.

PSA: When a firm lists its GPA preference and requirements, you should do the following: Ignore them entirely and mother fucking ask career services.

Firms lie through their god damned teeth on those things, and I want to keep harping on it, because it is VERY IMPORTANT TO YOUR CAREER PROSPECTS. The firms are lying or naive or outsourching their symplicity profiles to India or who knows what, but if you ask a 3 year old with a box of crayons to draw you the cut off for a firm you'll get a better answer than the firms published cutoff on your OCI software.

Firms aren't consistently high, or consistently low - they're just consistently full of shit. A firm that says "top third required" might hire to median, it might hire from the top 3% without exception, and there's even a remote chance it will hire from the top third. But those pieces of data simply cannot be relied upon at all. Not even in a cursory way. Not for comparison's sake, not when nothing else will do. You need to completely disregard them, and beg/borrow/steal data from career services. Your (and that's the royal 'your' for everyone out their reading in paranoid law student land) career depends on it.