Leak your school's OCI data here Forum

[FeuerFrei]

.

[clintonius]

s 35% to 40% of students at MVPB getting BigLaw through OCI really that much worse than anyone expected? Sounds about right to me.

My issue is that this wasn't what we bargained for. Many of us had acceptances at "superior" schools, but we choose Michigan because of fit and because we were assured that, even if there is a disparity in placement between MVPB and CCN, the disparity isn't significant enough to be worth worrying about.

But my impression is that ITE hit MVPB particularly hard. Think about it for a second... 70% of CLS's class received an offer from OCI, maybe 30-40% at M received an offer from OCI... isn't that difference far too much? I guess I'm just a little bitter.

I actually don't think it's that much of a disparity. In my experience (in knowing and talking to many transfers to MVP from T25 to tier 4 schools), somebody at Mich who is below top 35-40% would have trouble getting into the top 70% at Columbia. Thus, you would be in the same boat if you had gone to Columbia as if you had gone to Mich.

I don't understand your reasoning. You make it sound as if, had you gone to Columbia, you would have been in the top 35-40% because you were at Mich. Not true.

by this logic, everyone should go to mich if they have the choice between CLS and mich with a bit of $. given this data though, no one would (unless it's $$$$).

It relies on the mistaken assumption that the percentage who got jobs are the same who fill out the top same percentage of the class. But there is at least anecdotal evidence showing that some below-median people got offers and some top-third people did not.

[Renzo]

It relies on the mistaken assumption that the percentage who got jobs are the same who fill out the top same percentage of the class.

You are correct, that is a mistaken assumption.

Some firms use GPA cutoffs, others don't. So if you are in the top of the class, you can be considered by all firms, while if you are below median there are some firms that would not consider you. High GPA or no, if you blow the interview you're not getting a job; similarly, if you are below median and nail the interview at a firm that doesn't use a cutoff, you have a job. Since there are more potential jobs for those with high GPAs, you'd expect more of them to get offers, but it isn't as if the firms are just lining people up and having them count down to see who gets hired.

[dbt]

FWIW, NYU OCS is predicting a better year (and they seemed to be pretty honest/realistic - for instance, they repeatedly said how shitty the market was last year, etc.).

So we went from 7% not getting offer in 2008 to 30% in 2009. We're expecting somewhere in between. Not as terrible as I was expecting at all.

[clintonius]

Can you clarify what you mean by "not getting offer"? You mean getting no-offered from the SA position, not getting anything at OCI, something else? (I have a vested interest in this particular information)

[Action Jackson]

I actually don't think it's that much of a disparity. In my experience (in knowing and talking to many transfers to MVP from T25 to tier 4 schools), somebody at Mich who is below top 35-40% would have trouble getting into the top 70% at Columbia. Thus, you would be in the same boat if you had gone to Columbia as if you had gone to Mich.

I don't understand your reasoning. You make it sound as if, had you gone to Columbia, you would have been in the top 35-40% because you were at Mich. Not true.

No, your logic is messed up. If two people both get accepted to Columbia, and one chooses to go to Michigan, it doesn't automatically means that person is not as smart as the one at Columbia. Think about it.

[Action Jackson]

It relies on the mistaken assumption that the percentage who got jobs are the same who fill out the top same percentage of the class.

You are correct, that is a mistaken assumption.

Some firms use GPA cutoffs, others don't. So if you are in the top of the class, you can be considered by all firms, while if you are below median there are some firms that would not consider you. High GPA or no, if you blow the interview you're not getting a job; similarly, if you are below median and nail the interview at a firm that doesn't use a cutoff, you have a job. Since there are more potential jobs for those with high GPAs, you'd expect more of them to get offers, but it isn't as if the firms are just lining people up and having them count down to see who gets hired.

I think the myth of "you get the job unless you screw up the interview" needs to die. That's the way it used to be under the old market. People are now getting a lot fewer offers per interview.

[dbt]

Can you clarify what you mean by "not getting offer"? You mean getting no-offered from the SA position, not getting anything at OCI, something else? (I have a vested interest in this particular information)

Receiving offers from EIW.

[existenz]

I actually don't think it's that much of a disparity. In my experience (in knowing and talking to many transfers to MVP from T25 to tier 4 schools), somebody at Mich who is below top 35-40% would have trouble getting into the top 70% at Columbia. Thus, you would be in the same boat if you had gone to Columbia as if you had gone to Mich.

I don't understand your reasoning. You make it sound as if, had you gone to Columbia, you would have been in the top 35-40% because you were at Mich. Not true.

No, your logic is messed up. If two people both get accepted to Columbia, and one chooses to go to Michigan, it doesn't automatically means that person is not as smart as the one at Columbia. Think about it.

Yeah, but the competition at the two schools is probably different. Someone who gets into Yale and CLS, for example, would have a harder time placing in the top 10% at Yale versus Columbia.

That said, there are a lot of other variables that go into how someone places in their class.

[Anonymous User]

I actually don't think it's that much of a disparity. In my experience (in knowing and talking to many transfers to MVP from T25 to tier 4 schools), somebody at Mich who is below top 35-40% would have trouble getting into the top 70% at Columbia. Thus, you would be in the same boat if you had gone to Columbia as if you had gone to Mich.

I don't understand your reasoning. You make it sound as if, had you gone to Columbia, you would have been in the top 35-40% because you were at Mich. Not true.

No, your logic is messed up. If two people both get accepted to Columbia, and one chooses to go to Michigan, it doesn't automatically means that person is not as smart as the one at Columbia. Think about it.

No, but it does mean that if that person can't get in the top 40% at Michigan, he or she likely will not be in the top 70% at Columbia. Thus, similar job prospects.

[Action Jackson]

I actually don't think it's that much of a disparity. In my experience (in knowing and talking to many transfers to MVP from T25 to tier 4 schools), somebody at Mich who is below top 35-40% would have trouble getting into the top 70% at Columbia. Thus, you would be in the same boat if you had gone to Columbia as if you had gone to Mich.

I don't understand your reasoning. You make it sound as if, had you gone to Columbia, you would have been in the top 35-40% because you were at Mich. Not true.

No, your logic is messed up. If two people both get accepted to Columbia, and one chooses to go to Michigan, it doesn't automatically means that person is not as smart as the one at Columbia. Think about it.

No, but it does mean that if that person can't get in the top 40% at Michigan, he or she likely will not be in the top 70% at Columbia. Thus, similar job prospects.

Based on what math? If a person ends up median at Michigan how do you know they won't be median at CLS? Or is Michigan's class size nearly double Columbia's?

[Action Jackson]

I actually don't think it's that much of a disparity. In my experience (in knowing and talking to many transfers to MVP from T25 to tier 4 schools), somebody at Mich who is below top 35-40% would have trouble getting into the top 70% at Columbia. Thus, you would be in the same boat if you had gone to Columbia as if you had gone to Mich.

I don't understand your reasoning. You make it sound as if, had you gone to Columbia, you would have been in the top 35-40% because you were at Mich. Not true.

No, your logic is messed up. If two people both get accepted to Columbia, and one chooses to go to Michigan, it doesn't automatically means that person is not as smart as the one at Columbia. Think about it.

Yeah, but the competition at the two schools is probably different. Someone who gets into Yale and CLS, for example, would have a harder time placing in the top 10% at Yale versus Columbia.

That said, there are a lot of other variables that go into how someone places in their class.

You're saying the opposite of what the other guy was. Sure top 10% at Yale is harder vs top 10% at CLS, but is top 50% at Yale harder than top 20% at CLS?

[09042014]

I actually don't think it's that much of a disparity. In my experience (in knowing and talking to many transfers to MVP from T25 to tier 4 schools), somebody at Mich who is below top 35-40% would have trouble getting into the top 70% at Columbia. Thus, you would be in the same boat if you had gone to Columbia as if you had gone to Mich.

I don't understand your reasoning. You make it sound as if, had you gone to Columbia, you would have been in the top 35-40% because you were at Mich. Not true.

No, your logic is messed up. If two people both get accepted to Columbia, and one chooses to go to Michigan, it doesn't automatically means that person is not as smart as the one at Columbia. Think about it.

No, but it does mean that if that person can't get in the top 40% at Michigan, he or she likely will not be in the top 70% at Columbia. Thus, similar job prospects.

Ridiculous. What separates CLS from UMich students? A couple LSAT points?

I'd bet that top 40$ at Mich would be top 50% at CLS.

[sanpiero]

FWIW, NYU OCS is predicting a better year (and they seemed to be pretty honest/realistic - for instance, they repeatedly said how shitty the market was last year, etc.).

So we went from 7% not getting offer in 2008 to 30% in 2009. We're expecting somewhere in between. Not as terrible as I was expecting at all.

"Somewhere in between" could mean 29%, of course. Is your sense that it will be closer to the average of the two figures you cited?

[NayBoer]

Just to be clear, do they even really know percentiles at Y? Doesn't the honors/pass system make it hard to rank?

[Renzo]

FWIW, NYU OCS is predicting a better year (and they seemed to be pretty honest/realistic - for instance, they repeatedly said how shitty the market was last year, etc.).

So we went from 7% not getting offer in 2008 to 30% in 2009. We're expecting somewhere in between. Not as terrible as I was expecting at all.

"Somewhere in between" could mean 29%, of course. Is your sense that it will be closer to the average of the two figures you cited?

I went to a panel of legal headhunters/consultants recently, and the consensus was that hiring would probably be up 20% over last year. This doesn't close the gap, but means maybe 85% success rate instead of 70% at NYU/CLS.

[dbt]

FWIW, NYU OCS is predicting a better year (and they seemed to be pretty honest/realistic - for instance, they repeatedly said how shitty the market was last year, etc.).

So we went from 7% not getting offer in 2008 to 30% in 2009. We're expecting somewhere in between. Not as terrible as I was expecting at all.

"Somewhere in between" could mean 29%, of course. Is your sense that it will be closer to the average of the two figures you cited?

I don't know. OCS just said somewhere in between. My guess would be 20%ish - I don't think it's going to get much better, but OCS genuinely seems to believe that it will be better. Of course, 29% is better, but insignificantly better; I don't see why they'd hype it up if they expected such a small improvement.

[rayiner]

I actually don't think it's that much of a disparity. In my experience (in knowing and talking to many transfers to MVP from T25 to tier 4 schools), somebody at Mich who is below top 35-40% would have trouble getting into the top 70% at Columbia. Thus, you would be in the same boat if you had gone to Columbia as if you had gone to Mich.

I don't understand your reasoning. You make it sound as if, had you gone to Columbia, you would have been in the top 35-40% because you were at Mich. Not true.

No, your logic is messed up. If two people both get accepted to Columbia, and one chooses to go to Michigan, it doesn't automatically means that person is not as smart as the one at Columbia. Think about it.

No, but it does mean that if that person can't get in the top 40% at Michigan, he or she likely will not be in the top 70% at Columbia. Thus, similar job prospects.

LOL. There is a 1 point LSAT median difference from VPDN to Chi/NYU to CLS. Not going to make the difference between top 70% and top 40% even assuming 100% LSAT correlation!

[rayiner]

also don't buy the Michigan conjectures. Excuse my utter lack of faith in law students to do data analysis.

[starstruck393]

also don't buy the Michigan conjectures. Excuse my utter lack of faith in law students to do data analysis.

Anonymous User finds your lack of faith disturbing
--ImageRemoved--

But yeah, those numbers look way off...

[Anonymous User]

Just to be clear, do they even really know percentiles at Y? Doesn't the honors/pass system make it hard to rank?

Right. There are NO ranks. Ever. And by OCI, there's only a semester of H/P grades (first semester is just pass/fail, and everyone passes).

[YCrevolution]

..

[rayiner]

also don't buy the Michigan conjectures. Excuse my utter lack of faith in law students to do data analysis.

Anonymous User finds your lack of faith disturbing
--ImageRemoved--

But yeah, those numbers look way off...

I meanthy could be dead on. Or they could be completely wrong. But the methodology is severely flawed.

1) We don't even know what firms are included on that sheet, what offers might be excluded, etc.
2) We have total people getting an offer for CLS/NYU but something like total offers (but not really, see: (1)) for Michigan. We can't compare them.
3) We don't have offer distribution so we can't do anything about (2). Anon's attempt to divide by 2 and add 30 or whatever is completely meaningless.
4) We don't know anything about offers outside OCI, which could be significant ITR bc of bidding braindamage alluded to before.

In short, we have nothing. Barely better than knowing that he offer rate was somewhere between 10-90%

[09042014]

Any Michigan student want to leak the pdf you are getting the info from?

[NayBoer]

Still surprised Michigan really told its students to focus on Chicago. At least they didn't tell them to rely on Detroit.