. Forum

[rayiner]

You have to put things in context. Cornell posted data recently showing that about 45% of folks got a biglaw 2L SA. In such a scenario, the top 15% will get a ton of callbacks, the top 35% will get some, and people between that and median might wring out out an offer from a handful of callbacks. The scenario is unlikely to be much different at the rest of T7-14. It's just ITE.

But you knew (or should have known) this going in. The numbers coming in from Cornell, Duke (which had 40% V100) are actually better than a lot of people projected for 2009 OCI. All you can do at this point is bid intelligently and make sure you cover your bases in your job search.

Cornell supposedly placed 40%, not 45%. Still shit though, considering most people are paying sticker, or close to it.

This is just to say that Cornell is shit then, not shit ITE. Because, as the link posted in the ATL article showed, just over 40% of Cornell grads got biglaw before the economy died.

The 40% figure is for OCI 2009, well after the economy died.

[rayiner]

You have to put things in context. Cornell posted data recently showing that about 45% of folks got a biglaw 2L SA. In such a scenario, the top 15% will get a ton of callbacks, the top 35% will get some, and people between that and median might wring out out an offer from a handful of callbacks. The scenario is unlikely to be much different at the rest of T7-14. It's just ITE.

But you knew (or should have known) this going in. The numbers coming in from Cornell, Duke (which had 40% V100) are actually better than a lot of people projected for 2009 OCI. All you can do at this point is bid intelligently and make sure you cover your bases in your job search.

Cornell supposedly placed 40%, not 45%. Still shit though, considering most people are paying sticker, or close to it.

I didn't say that 40% was great placement, I said it was better than was expected in summer 2009 when all those students paying sticker sent in their deposit checks.

[Anonymous User]

This is just to say that Cornell is shit then, not shit ITE. Because, as the link posted in the ATL article showed, just over 40% of Cornell grads got biglaw before the economy died.

How many times does this need to be spelled out?

Every year, a law school has two populations of students: Those spending their 2nd summer as summer associates and those graduating beginning work as associates.

Cornell historically placed 40-60% or so into associate positions UPON GRADUATION. Cornell historically placed 80%+ into associate positions DURING THE SECOND SUMMER.

Do you see why these numbers are so bad now? if 40% of the students got summer positions, some will: not be offered, take fed govt jobs instead, go on to clerkships, go on to PI work upon graduation.

Do you understand? Placing only 40% into summer associate positions is a devastating drop. The problem is schools rarely reported publicly the percentage of their class that got summer positions, only the percentage upon graduation, and people are making improper comparisons all over TLS.

TCR. A ton will be no offered, just like last year. This is why 40% sucks. T-14 schools historically placed 80% into 2L SAs, then some were no offered.

[270910]

This is just to say that Cornell is shit then, not shit ITE. Because, as the link posted in the ATL article showed, just over 40% of Cornell grads got biglaw before the economy died.

How many times does this need to be spelled out?

Every year, a law school has two populations of students: Those spending their 2nd summer as summer associates and those graduating beginning work as associates.

Cornell historically placed 40-60% or so into associate positions UPON GRADUATION. Cornell historically placed 80%+ into associate positions DURING THE SECOND SUMMER.

Do you see why these numbers are so bad now? if 40% of the students got summer positions, some will: not be offered, take fed govt jobs instead, go on to clerkships, go on to PI work upon graduation.

Do you understand? Placing only 40% into summer associate positions is a devastating drop. The problem is schools rarely reported publicly the percentage of their class that got summer positions, only the percentage upon graduation, and people are making improper comparisons all over TLS.

TCR. A ton will be no offered, just like last year. This is why 40% sucks. T-14 schools historically placed 80% into 2L SAs, then some were no offered.

Sigh. This is wrong too.

Almost every law firm has as close to a 100% offer rate as they can. Summer associates are VERY expensive and they do a lot of work to pick their class carefully. It's embarrassing to have a low offer rate, hurts recruitment later, and makes bad financial sense.

Recently, there was a minor problem in that a summer class of X was chosen (9 months before they even showed up to work at the firm) and then the economy detonated. In response to sudden emergency economic conditions, many firms were forced to no-offer large portions of their associates.

That was NOT the norm, it is NOT the way firms intend to operate, and there is no reason to expect it will happen again (unless the economy goes south again).

Even in boom times, FAR more summer associate positions were doled out at top schools than students wound up accepting them. Yale is probably the poster child for that phenomena.

Anybody no-offered will obviously be unable to start at a big firm, but the far large discrepancy will be the result of those who spend a summer at a large firm and then take a job at graduation with the federal government, a clerkship, a public interest group, academia, or any number of other things. It happens every year, and in large numbers.

[Person]

This is just to say that Cornell is shit then, not shit ITE. Because, as the link posted in the ATL article showed, just over 40% of Cornell grads got biglaw before the economy died.

How many times does this need to be spelled out?

Every year, a law school has two populations of students: Those spending their 2nd summer as summer associates and those graduating beginning work as associates.

Cornell historically placed 40-60% or so into associate positions UPON GRADUATION. Cornell historically placed 80%+ into associate positions DURING THE SECOND SUMMER.

Do you see why these numbers are so bad now? if 40% of the students got summer positions, some will: not be offered, take fed govt jobs instead, go on to clerkships, go on to PI work upon graduation.

Do you understand? Placing only 40% into summer associate positions is a devastating drop. The problem is schools rarely reported publicly the percentage of their class that got summer positions, only the percentage upon graduation, and people are making improper comparisons all over TLS.

TCR. A ton will be no offered, just like last year. This is why 40% sucks. T-14 schools historically placed 80% into 2L SAs, then some were no offered.

Reasoning behind this?

Class of 2010 went through OCI before firms realized they needed to cut back. Hence the huge number of no-offers. class of 2011 went into an OCI where law firms were incredibly timid when it came to hiring. The notion that there will be huge numbers of no offers this year is baseless. Why infer that something will happen in situation B based on situation A, when situation A is nothing like situation B and all of the root cause of situation A are not present in situation B.

Perhaps you have some other reason for thinking that there will be tons of no offers this year despite the fact that firms were hiring conservatively for this summer, but you will have to spell it out for me.

[rayiner]

It makes no sense for firms not to try and keep their offer rates near 100%. Every person the firm gives an SA to and then no-offers costs them probably $40k ($25k in salary + overhead + recruiting costs). In an environment where firms are already strapped for cash, if the firm intends to hire say 15 associates, they'll try to do so while spending as little cash as possible. That means hiring very close to 15 SAs.

[enygma]

i would just like to say this to the OP. fuck you for deleting your first post. the fucking post was anonymous, what the hell is the point of deleting it and removing all context for new people to the thread?

[NYAssociate]

.