Which applicant do you like better? Forum

[Anonymous User]

edit: reposting

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks very much for the replies everyone. My plan so far is to adhere to TLS collective wisdom and follow the poll (recommendation is due in the new year).

A few responses and clarifications to the replies/comments:

My recommendation is only going to be for a callback interview, so whoever I push will still have to carry themselves through the callback (and maybe a short phone screener with HR).

Many of you mentioned personality and fit. I agree this SHOULD be the biggest determinant in the decision. But since all 3 of us are good friends, it's hard for me to make that distinction since I obviously like them both.

Others mentioned past employment. t14 was a paralegal at a mid law firm in a big city (not our home city). t20 was in sales. Don't want to give out the companies' names for fear of outting though.

Someone also mentioned writing grades, which was a pretty decent idea. I feel awkward asking a friend for his transcript but will think about it some more.

Lastly, a few mentioned giving it to the T20 because it may be harder for that friend to find a job. Interesting point. My plan was always to push the candidate with the better odds of landing the job (getting past the CB) but I'll think more about this too. My fear would just be that neither ends up getting the job.

edit: I've changed the poll to allow people to re-vote, just in case my above clarifications make anyone change their mind. Thanks again all.

[zot1]

I didn't mean fit as in do you like them, but rather, would they be a good fit at your firm. It is entirely possible that you find a person likeable but they still would not adapt well to your firm's culture for a variety of reasons.

[RaceJudicata]

I didn't mean fit as in do you like them, but rather, would they be a good fit at your firm. It is entirely possible that you find a person likeable but they still would not adapt well to your firm's culture for a variety of reasons.

Agree. Plenty of my best friends are excellent people, successful in their lines of work, etc. ...but I would never recommend some of them for employment at my firm based on the firm's culture.

[Anonymous User]

Personally, I think the specific school within T-14 or T-20 matters. Is it Georgetown vs. UCLA/Vanderbilt, or Georgetown v. BU/WashU

[TheatreofDreams]

Personally, I think the specific school within T-14 or T-20 matters. Is it Georgetown vs. UCLA/Vanderbilt, or Georgetown v. BU/WashU

[Ilovemydogxo]

Are either of them URM?

[nealric]

I don't think there is a material difference based on school alone. Most firms view academics as a baseline hurdle. Once it is cleared, it doesn't really matter if you are median at GULC or top of the class at Harvard.

It sounds like both candidates meet the basic academic bar for your firm. The question is which will be the better interview and which has the better background.

[Anonymous User]

Personally, I think the specific school within T-14 or T-20 matters. Is it Georgetown vs. UCLA/Vanderbilt, or Georgetown v. BU/WashU

How much a difference there is among UCLA, Vandy, or WashU? And UT?
I know WashU, Vandy, UCLA seems to rank the same, far ahead BU, but how reputation wise.

[Anonymous User]

Personally, I think the specific school within T-14 or T-20 matters. Is it Georgetown vs. UCLA/Vanderbilt, or Georgetown v. BU/WashU

How much a difference there is among UCLA, Vandy, or WashU? And UT?
I know WashU, Vandy, UCLA seems to rank the same, far ahead BU, but how reputation wise.

I don't think the difference is that large. But for NYC, Vandy is a clear step ahead WashU and BU.

[Anonymous User]

Personally, I think the specific school within T-14 or T-20 matters. Is it Georgetown vs. UCLA/Vanderbilt, or Georgetown v. BU/WashU

How much a difference there is among UCLA, Vandy, or WashU? And UT?
I know WashU, Vandy, UCLA seems to rank the same, far ahead BU, but how reputation wise.

I don't think the difference is that large. But for NYC, Vandy is a clear step ahead WashU and BU.

Thanks! Didn't realize Vandy has such a great reputation.

I heard UT is better than UCLA, in the long run or nationally, is this true? given that UCLA is more widely known than UT I think, and it also has the great benefit of being in LA.

[Phil Brooks]

Reward the person who took the money. If the person at T20 got a full-ride while the person at T14 paid sticker, and they're both competitive for the same job, the person at T20 proved to have a better sense of efficiency--he got just as far despite paying a fraction of the amount.

If you paid twice as much as someone else did for an education, you better be twice as intelligent. Otherwise you have not gotten the full value of the money that you spent/that was spent on you. If employers looked at it like that--instead of blindly rewarding prestige with no sense for how much that prestige costs--then maybe tuition would actually start to decrease.

[UVA2B]

Reward the person who took the money. If the person at T20 got a full-ride while the person at T14 paid sticker, and they're both competitive for the same job, the person at T20 proved to have a better sense of efficiency--he got just as far despite paying a fraction of the amount.

If you paid twice as much as someone else did for an education, you better be twice as intelligent. Otherwise you have not gotten the full value of the money that you spent/that was spent on you. If employers looked at it like that--instead of blindly rewarding prestige with no sense for how much that prestige costs--then maybe tuition would actually start to decrease.

Can you rightly make this assumption to begin with? Nothing in their resume/transcript will necessarily inform an employer they chose a big scholarship at T20 over full price at T14. It could even be the exact opposite. Unless you're also asking for uGPA and LSAT in the interview, this would never come up, and therefore should not be considered. Could you maybe extrapolate this through the interview process other ways? Possibly, but that would be laughably wasted interview time.

[Toni V]

I presume that firms continually face the challenge of selecting between T14 medians and those with honors from other schools. It is likely that firms believe T14ers are more attractive because they spent three years competing against the smartest students, gauged by their excellent LSATs and GPAs. If a candidate with a superior GPA/LSAT score chooses a non-T14 because of financial reasons, that reasoning should greatly benefit the candidate (since saving money is prudent). What is difficult to ascertain is how a non-T14 candidate would have performed at the T14 level. What levels the playing field is that firms with the experience of hiring non-T14 grads are often pleased with their performance.

[Phil Brooks]

Reward the person who took the money. If the person at T20 got a full-ride while the person at T14 paid sticker, and they're both competitive for the same job, the person at T20 proved to have a better sense of efficiency--he got just as far despite paying a fraction of the amount.

If you paid twice as much as someone else did for an education, you better be twice as intelligent. Otherwise you have not gotten the full value of the money that you spent/that was spent on you. If employers looked at it like that--instead of blindly rewarding prestige with no sense for how much that prestige costs--then maybe tuition would actually start to decrease.

Can you rightly make this assumption to begin with? Nothing in their resume/transcript will necessarily inform an employer they chose a big scholarship at T20 over full price at T14. It could even be the exact opposite. Unless you're also asking for uGPA and LSAT in the interview, this would never come up, and therefore should not be considered. Could you maybe extrapolate this through the interview process other ways? Possibly, but that would be laughably wasted interview time.

Good point. Most full scholarships are named, and anyone who received them should have the good sense to put on their resume, "Hamilton Scholarship (Full-Tuition)" or something like that.

[AZ123]

Reward the person who took the money. If the person at T20 got a full-ride while the person at T14 paid sticker, and they're both competitive for the same job, the person at T20 proved to have a better sense of efficiency--he got just as far despite paying a fraction of the amount.

If you paid twice as much as someone else did for an education, you better be twice as intelligent. Otherwise you have not gotten the full value of the money that you spent/that was spent on you. If employers looked at it like that--instead of blindly rewarding prestige with no sense for how much that prestige costs--then maybe tuition would actually start to decrease.

I don't think that employers should considering an applicant's financial decisions as part of their decision making process. That's ridiculous. Yes, it may be more financially prudent (in general) to take a scholarship at a T20 than to pay sticker at T14, but the employer has no idea what other factors went into the student's decision making process (GI bill, wealthy family, won the lottery, outside scholarships, etc).