Harvard OCI should just go ahead and pre-screen
| Gold Excitant Kitty Cat | 09/22/05 | | fishy adventurous cuckoldry community account | 09/22/05 | | Gold Excitant Kitty Cat | 09/22/05 | | vigorous cream philosopher-king hissy fit | 09/22/05 | | Razzmatazz Mauve Kitty | 09/22/05 | | vigorous cream philosopher-king hissy fit | 09/22/05 | | Slimy spectacular feces trust fund | 09/22/05 | | Razzmatazz Mauve Kitty | 09/22/05 | | Bipolar base gaping | 09/26/05 | | milky dashing ape masturbator | 09/22/05 | | navy orchestra pit | 09/22/05 | | Vivacious Drab Pervert Spot | 09/22/05 | | Silver tanning salon gaming laptop | 09/22/05 | | iridescent windowlicker home | 09/22/05 | | Aquamarine Insane Rehab | 09/22/05 | | Silver tanning salon gaming laptop | 09/22/05 | | milky dashing ape masturbator | 09/22/05 | | Aquamarine Insane Rehab | 09/22/05 | | Salmon goyim skinny woman | 09/23/05 | | Aquamarine Insane Rehab | 09/23/05 | | milky dashing ape masturbator | 09/23/05 | | Honey-headed Wonderful Hairy Legs Keepsake Machete | 09/23/05 | | milky dashing ape masturbator | 09/23/05 | | Vivacious Drab Pervert Spot | 09/23/05 | | milky dashing ape masturbator | 09/23/05 | | Bipolar base gaping | 09/26/05 | | Mind-boggling Parlour | 09/26/05 | | Duck-like sapphire site reading party | 09/26/05 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 22nd, 2005 1:50 PM Author: Gold Excitant Kitty Cat
If that firm wanted to ding me based on my subpar transcript, there was absoultely nothing I got in during that 20 minutes that would have changed their mind.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3879736) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 7:07 PM Author: milky dashing ape masturbator
Simpson Thacher guy totally "peaked." So stupid. I guess they want to get the diversity canidates in there without and stupidity, but its usually a waste of time anyway.
Wachtell gave me a speech about "we have decided to take commited people beyond the top of the class." More bullshit. Seriously, HLS should totally let them pre-screen.
That being said, I agree with being positive. I interviewed well with the Wachtell guy, even if I have no chance in hell.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3881969) |
Date: September 22nd, 2005 4:28 PM Author: navy orchestra pit
my friend at columbia said the same thing. he did alot of interviews with firms that wouldn't consider hiring him because of his grades.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3880938) |
Date: September 22nd, 2005 7:21 PM Author: Vivacious Drab Pervert Spot
I agree completely. The fucking OCS office tells you in not so many words to look at your transcript, research firms, and apply to firms that match well to your transcript. Pre-screening would eliminate that step. You'd just dump your resume and then the firms would sort out who goes where on their own.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3882019) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 8:34 PM Author: Silver tanning salon gaming laptop
And of course, they don't give us any information on the OCI chart about callbacks as a function of GPA. This is easy to do. It would help us know where to interview. OCS sucks.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3882570)
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 7:36 PM Author: iridescent windowlicker home
So don't bid on Wachtell. Wtf.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3882130) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 8:52 PM Author: milky dashing ape masturbator
You guys are so quick to being rude and dismissive that you miss the whole point. Its not that I don't think I'm good enough, its that they have a reputation for not looking beyond grades. I have good grades, but not top 5%.
They claim (without my bringing it up) that they "have overcome this reputation" and are trying to choose people "who actually want to practice and not go to a hedge fund after a year." If they are serious about that, fine, maybe I have a chance because of my W/E. If they aren't, then they should pre-screen and save a lot of wasted time.
If they have open interviews, it would be dumb for someone not to sign up and shoot for the stars. If OCI took a leadership position and made some stricter pre-screening requirements, it would save everyone a lot of time and the more elite firms could have longer first round interviews that were actually relevant. I understand that isn't a practical idea, that it would never work because people would complain, and so on, I just wish they did.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3882697) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 9:05 PM Author: Aquamarine Insane Rehab
I'm pretty sure you have access to your school's OCI data, so there's no reason not to know whether you're good enough, as judged by the firm's metrics. If you're on the fence, your guess is as good as theirs whether your soft factors will be good enough to push you over. That's what the interview is for.
"They claim (without my bringing it up) that they 'have overcome this reputation' and are trying to choose people 'who actually want to practice and not go to a hedge fund after a year.' If they are serious about that, fine, maybe I have a chance because of my W/E. If they aren't, then they should pre-screen and save a lot of wasted time."
Law schools all claim to care about the applicant's whole package, but we all know it's generally a lie except when you are right on the fence. (Yale and Stanford are of course the two exceptions here.) Where is your insistence that law schools "pre-screen" their applicants?
"If they have open interviews, it would be dumb for someone not to sign up and shoot for the stars."
False. Shooting for the stars is a waste of time if you know you cannot reach escape velocity.
Besides, if we accept your premise that it is dumb not to take the one-in-a-million chance, why are you lobbying to have them stop offering it to you?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3882829) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2005 12:29 AM Author: Salmon goyim skinny woman
"I'm pretty sure you have access to your school's OCI data, so there's no reason not to know whether you're good enough, as judged by the firm's metrics."
This doesn't exist.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3884913) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2005 12:31 PM Author: milky dashing ape masturbator
clearly you just don't know what you are talking about, by the fact that you don't even know what info is available.
like I said before, shooting for the starts makes sense if you don't know if you have a chance. Think next time before you dismiss someone as stupid, especially if you don't know all the facts.
there is no one-in-a-million chance if the firm has a grade cut-off. It would save them time and us time if they pre-screened. The fact that they are too touchy-feely to admit they have a grade cut off it stupid. End of story.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3886588) |
Date: September 26th, 2005 9:08 PM Author: Bipolar base gaping
you guys are right. i wish they pre-secreened. i've been wasting my time running all over harvard square, sweating up a storm (and ruining my suit in the process) just to interview with firms who would end the interview once they saw my grades if they could. It's a total waste of time. i thought i'd shoot for the stars, but there's a grade cut-off that keeps you "from reaching escape velocity."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3912072) |
Date: September 26th, 2005 9:22 PM Author: Mind-boggling Parlour
firms don't have hard cutoffs at hls, right? i'm pretty sure these firms would give some callbacks to below median people who they liked in the interivews and it's not a waste of time for crappy gpa people to have a shot.
at sls, career services does have gpa data and every firm has given offers to below median with the exception of munger and from my personal experience, i'd be a lot worse off if firms did pre-screen b/c of my shitty grades.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3912230) |
|
Date: September 26th, 2005 9:52 PM Author: Duck-like sapphire site reading party
I'm highly suspicious that the people who claim there are hard cutoffs are crappy interviewees. I know these people, I go to school with them every day. They look, dress, and act like dorks. I bet they try to feed their interviewers rehearsed lines and have no clue how to establish true rapport. Look how many people on this board ask ridiculous questions about how to handle common relationship situations.
I'm not saying I'm great at interviews, but I'm certain that coming across as a likeable person plays a major role in getting callbacks.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3912491)
|
|
|