Right.... So you can feel reassured.I mean follow-up with your firm dude. You are an adult.
I don't know what that clown is being such a jerk about.A ding shouldn't be presumed yet. Basically, firms offered candidates who would have been overqualified pre-ITE. But a firm doesn't know how these kids are going to react to the offers--maybe the market is tight and they accept, maybe the firm overreached and they decline, whatever. So until the first round of offers come due, firms are sitting on borderline applicants. That's you. Good luck.
I know this first hand. The reasoning--that they're reaching up in their offers--is clear from the offer landscape, at my school anyway. The strategy--that firms are giving tiered offers and refraining from dinging/offering other candidates until the first offer set explodes--has been confirmed (to me personally, and to at least a couple others in my class) by a few different recruiters, with various degrees of directness (from "we're still considering your candidacy, but are waiting to see how our class shapes up" to "you'll have an answer from us when we get our answers from currently outstanding offers").The other side of the coin, and this is plainly obvious though no one I know has heard it directly, is that nobody's taking chances on their yield--having your program oversubscribed is not a good scenario. Hence the controlled tiering.Do I know that's what's going on with the OP's specific situation? Obviously not. But I'd put good money it, since the callback result lapse is generally a new phenomenon, so there probably aren't too many different reasons for it to happen.
I told OP my take on the situation. You called it "lame speculation." I cited to classmates, recruiters, and associates, then ATL confirmed it all five days later. Anyway, the fact that I know what I'm talking about isn't the point. The point is that you tried to call BS when I described a strategy that virtually EVERYONE involved with hiring this year knows about. Like I said on the 4th: the 2Ls know it, the recruiters are open about it and even the damn junior associates you knew from college will give you their takes on their firms' newfangled offer waitlists.It made me when you you went but now I know that you were just . And I mean, I'm being sarcastic about it, but if you aren't involved this year then there's really no reason for you to have known that (though, "lame speculation"? Really?).Then we get:Quote from: TheDudeMan on October 09, 2009, 10:49:27 AMWell, if my firm was that TTT I'd hope for the best and accept another offer elsewhere if and when I received it. I wouldn't want to work for a firm that plays games like that.But hey, that's just me.Yowzers. Pretty bold statement to make. Observe: You say you wouldn't work at one of these "game playing TTTs." I wouldn't work anywhere else. These "TTTs" are ranked all across Vault, from the V100 to the V5, and they include some especially healthy firms that have just chosen to be conservative ITE. The "game playing" is nothing more than a hiring schedule based on good business sense; it isn't remotely shady, or whatever it is that the phrase "game playing" might intone. And, lastly, with respect to the type of firm you're saying you would choose: a firm that doesn't carefully control its class size ITE is a firm that's setting itself up for oversubscription and subsequent no-offers (refer again to today's ATL article), so, with a few exceptions (WLRK and CSM come to mind), watch out for that.Anyway, to speak to your ultimate point; if you got an offer at S&C, you'd be batshit crazy to turn it down for Debevoise just because Deb doesn't maintain an offer waitlist. So, yes, that's just you.
Well, if my firm was that TTT I'd hope for the best and accept another offer elsewhere if and when I received it. I wouldn't want to work for a firm that plays games like that.But hey, that's just me.