Jump to content
harveyspecter993

Are some firms more selective than others?

Recommended Posts

Does the conventional wisdom of needing around a B+ average hold true for all big firms or are there some which have higher thresholds? For example, since Davies pays so much I get the sense that they only hire A students. Is that accurate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares? If there are hard thresholds, nobody outside the firms knows them and certainly no one is going to talk about them. Also obviously some firms are more selective than others - there's a reason better grades usually means more OCI opportunities.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are hard thresholds. Those thresholds are fluid year to year. There are also clear school-based biases, those are fluid year to year. There are all sorts of thresholds, biases, etc. both conscious and subconscious on the parts of firms. 

They aren't worth worrying about, because you can't control them. Do your best, put your best foot forward in your materials and your interviews, and let the chips fall where they may. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davies doesn't pay more because they hire better students. They pay more to hire the same students because of their reputation.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whoknows said:

There are hard thresholds. Those thresholds are fluid year to year. There are also clear school-based biases, those are fluid year to year. There are all sorts of thresholds, biases, etc. both conscious and subconscious on the parts of firms. 

They aren't worth worrying about, because you can't control them. Do your best, put your best foot forward in your materials and your interviews, and let the chips fall where they may. 

How can a hard threshold be fluid year to year? If it’s fluid year to year, it would just mean that the threshold is whatever the lowest GPA they interview is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, the answer is yes. Firms that are more competitive in the market can hire what they need student wise without going lower into the class. 


As for the conventional wisdom of needing a B+ average, that is bad wisdom given that schools have different reputation, curves, etc. Some schools don't even give out letter grades.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rashabon said:

Who cares? If there are hard thresholds, nobody outside the firms knows them and certainly no one is going to talk about them. Also obviously some firms are more selective than others - there's a reason better grades usually means more OCI opportunities.

 

28 minutes ago, Ambit said:

Obviously, the answer is yes. Firms that are more competitive in the market can hire what they need student wise without going lower into the class. 


As for the conventional wisdom of needing a B+ average, that is bad wisdom given that schools have different reputation, curves, etc. Some schools don't even give out letter grades.  

Ok so if it's understood that some firms are more competitive than others could you kindly name said firms?

10 hours ago, whoknows said:

 There are also clear school-based biases, those are fluid year to year.

What are these biases based on? Is it simply the fact that a particular firm might have more alumni from a particular school or are there perceptions about the strength of the student bodies at various schools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, harveyspecter993 said:

 

Ok so if it's understood that some firms are more competitive than others could you kindly name said firms?

What are these biases based on? Is it simply the fact that a particular firm might have more alumni from a particular school or are there perceptions about the strength of the student bodies at various schools?

Go look at the UV report and look how many students are hired from each school comparatively. Also look at the entrance statistics for each school. Of course there are "perceptions" about the strength of student bodies at various schools - certain schools are more competitive and selective than others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've mentioned it before and I'll do it again: the UV numbers, at least for McGill, we're way off (as in they got our numbers wrong by half). I dont know why that was, or if it's only McGill, but their credibility is suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jaggers said:

Davies doesn't pay more because they hire better students. They pay more to hire the same students because of their reputation.

What’s their reputation? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rashabon said:

Go look at the UV report and look how many students are hired from each school comparatively. Also look at the entrance statistics for each school. Of course there are "perceptions" about the strength of student bodies at various schools - certain schools are more competitive and selective than others.

So why does everyone on here say that all schools are equal and you can get a great education at any one?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, harveyspecter993 said:

So why does everyone on here say that all schools are equal and you can get a great education at any one?

The legal version of political correctness?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, harveyspecter993 said:

So why does everyone on here say that all schools are equal and you can get a great education at any one?

You can get a great education at any of them. But not all schools are created equal in terms of their incoming classes. And when your grades are marked relative to the class, then it makes sense for employers to take into account incoming class strength when assessing the strength of applicants.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, harveyspecter993 said:

So why does everyone on here say that all schools are equal and you can get a great education at any one?

Everyone on here assumes they’ll be at the top of their class so the relative school at which they do it loses some significance.

Edited by FingersCr0ssed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RollMaster said:

What’s their reputation? 

One of if not the top law firm in Toronto. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, harveyspecter993 said:

So why does everyone on here say that all schools are equal and you can get a great education at any one?

Good question as they are not equal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I’ve suspected that employers prefer U of T JDs to Windsor Dual JDs for years” is the most dramatic statement of an obvious fact I’ve ever read. 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

“I’ve suspected that employers prefer U of T JDs to Windsor Dual JDs for years” is the most dramatic statement of an obvious fact I’ve ever read. 

 

Not even all that much drama...certainly an obvious fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roughly speaking, because there is a distinction between the quality of education you receive, and how competitive you are when you rank at a given place in your class. 

The argument goes that you get taught just as well at any given school. I think that's probably close to correct, but there is a value in being surrounded by brilliant classmates (although the intimidation factor can be enormous, it certainly was for me!). That being said, other schools have other education-based advantages. For example, UVIC,  is considered a leader in Indigenous law. 

But employers don't just care about how well you were taught. They care about what your grades signal, in terms of work ethic and intelligence. When you come in, say, the top quartile of a class of students who got into every law school in the country and have outstanding academic backgrounds, that means something different than when you come in the top quartile of a class of students that only got into the least competitive program in the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I definitely think you should call since they've started pulling from the waitlist
    • For anyone not from the Victoria area,  what are you doing for housing?  Any areas you looking to avoid? 
    • Keep your fingers crossed. I had my interview last week and received my acceptance this morning. They seem to be pulling from the waitlist so let's hope you hear something soon. 
    • I just want to point out that applying access DOES NOT disadvantage you. If you apply access you are also automatically considered under general if your stats meet the requirements. So for the people saying you would be better off applying general, that is simply not true. You would be worse off as you would only be considered in general as opposed to both. 
    • I am so sorry. That sounds like such an incredibly frustrating position to be in and I just want you to know I feel for you and will be keeping my fingers crossed. Unfortunately, I don't really have any revolutionary advice other than try contacting your school's CDO? Even though they focus on 1L/2L/articling recruit, they have great connections with the recruiters at various firms. It can never hurt to let them know that you're looking for an opportunity. 
×
×
  • Create New...