The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Harvard OCI should just go ahead and pre-screen
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 22nd, 2005 1:50 PM Author: Racy Jewess 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 1:51 PM Author: massive soul-stirring faggot firefighter people who are hurt Correct. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3879739) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 1:57 PM Author: Racy Jewess On the other hand, I feel like it doesn't have to go down like that. If they would just give me even 5 minutes of the conversation to talk about what I want to talk about, I think I could convince someone to at least take a second glance at me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3879779) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 3:15 PM Author: Diverse twisted forum faggotry don't give them the transcript till the end (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3880348) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 3:37 PM Author: Bull headed dragon philosopher-king it's pretty TTT for them to look first anyway. usually they sneak a glance. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3880469) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 4:27 PM Author: Diverse twisted forum faggotry i just had an interview and my interviewer kind of made a show of not looking at the transcript. i wish he would have looked and just said, "oh, ok i'll give you a callback" or "well, sorry, but we need more a's" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3880922) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 7:10 PM Author: fiercely-loyal mediation Subject: yeah at Michigan they tell the employers not to ask till the end and none of mine asked till the end, nor did any of them ask about my grades (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3881980) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 3:38 PM Author: Bull headed dragon philosopher-king Use it as a chance to polish your interview skills. Shoot for the stars. See what happens. Why are you people so negative? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3880473) |
|
Date: September 26th, 2005 9:02 PM Author: Vermilion cerebral native cause it sucks to get rejected (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3912024) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 7:07 PM Author: sooty mother senate 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. |
Date: September 22nd, 2005 4:28 PM Author: Aromatic citrine factory reset button weed whacker 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: histrionic crystalline cuck partner 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: Yellow becky corn cake 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.
|
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 7:36 PM Author: salmon alcoholic generalized bond skinny woman So don't bid on Wachtell. Wtf. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3882130) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 8:11 PM Author: adulterous kitchen well said. if you're not good enough for the firms you're interviewing with, it suggests more of a problem with your own judgment than with the OCI process. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3882407) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 8:35 PM Author: Yellow becky corn cake We don't know if we're "good enough." Most of us are very close to a B+ average. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3882576) |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 8:52 PM Author: sooty mother senate 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. |
|
Date: September 22nd, 2005 9:05 PM Author: adulterous kitchen 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? |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2005 12:29 AM Author: charismatic elite private investor chapel "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. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2005 3:35 AM Author: adulterous kitchen well that's dumb. that, not pre-screening, is what needs to change, IMO. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3885909) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2005 12:31 PM Author: sooty mother senate 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. |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2005 12:40 PM Author: Cheese-eating provocative fat ankles Are you David Katz? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3886632) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2005 3:14 PM Author: sooty mother senate no, but i'm actually really upset that you think I am... so maybe I should cut the shtick. I apologize to everyone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3887653) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2005 3:15 PM Author: histrionic crystalline cuck partner Aren't there 14 people named Davis Katz at HLS? This does not help. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3887661) |
|
Date: September 23rd, 2005 3:21 PM Author: sooty mother senate Yes, but I know exactly who he is referring to. There is only one of this guy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=264461&forum_id=2#3887714) |
|
Date: September 26th, 2005 9:08 PM Author: Vermilion cerebral native 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: autistic box office pistol 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. |
|
Date: September 26th, 2005 9:52 PM Author: pearly supple hairy legs 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.
|