Emory scholly v. T14 sticker Forum

[BruceWayne]

Hibiki, your analysis of LRAP relies on a flawed premise that a lot of guys like Tiago Splitter and others who have not gone through the legal job search--getting a biglaw job is NOT easier than getting a LRAP qualifying job. People on here who haven't gone through OCI's summered etc. and hustled for a job seriously do not understand that biglaw is atrociously hard to get for most law students. Even at the top 14 it's hard (instead of just very hard). Here's the hard reality that people just don't want to accept: if you land below median at any non HYS top 14 biglaw is VERY hard to achieve (especially non NYC biglaw). It is not anywhere near as easy to land just from attending a top 14 (and that includes "CCN") as people like to think. Big firms have brutally hard and fast cutoffs that they rely on.

I'll readily admit that my only basis for thinking that biglaw is an easier path is anecdotal. That said, I'm more willing to believe PI minded folks who ended up with biglaw when they say that good PI work is harder to come by than biglaw. They have one thing and want the other, which seems to imply that it is harder to get. There might be people on LRAP who wanted biglaw, but I'd doubt that many of them are in good PI jobs. So, I hope that my post isn't too optimistic. If anything, I'd suggest that the wishful thinking here is often done by people who didn't get biglaw and are still grinding for something more. But missing the biglaw boat and still grinding doesn't apply to any of the older posters ITT, right?

It is easier IF you land above the median. That's the other side of what I was saying earlier. PI employers (excluding big fed and a few others) don't hire based primarily off of grades and their hiring is very unstructured. They hire off of qualitative factors. Whereas big firms are essentially: step 1) does this person meet the grade cutoff (if no resume is discarded/no callback is given from screener)? step 2) Do you meet the firm's (rather low) interpersonal skill requirements based off of the callback step? 3) If the answer to step 2 is yes then you are hired. Big firm hiring is extremely structured/streamlined (see the OCI process, hiring based on school/grade combo, and hiring from summer classes). Thus, the irony of biglaw is that, while it's very hard to get from an overall perspective, once you do hit that GPA requirement it's probably THE easiest type of legal job to get. I mean the employers literally come to you (via the OCI process) and all you have to do is submit your resume and transcript to them via symplicity. Some of them don't even require cover letters. After that go on a screener where you just chat about yourself and sports, then go to a callback and get a free lunch after meeting people at the firm and voila--you've got a six figure job lined up.

No matter what your grades are, PI hiring just doesn't work like that. Government and non-profit employers want to see demonstrated interest in their type of work, they want someone with professionalism who can also relate to the common man (many of them work with everyday people much more than big firms do), often they want you to prove your dedication by working an unpaid internship and interning during the school year (like Rad mentioned). Further, they want to see that you've done things like mock trial and clinics while in law school (as well as taking courses in the subject areas that they practice. They also care about references and recommendations.

You are again projecting your personal experience onto not only everyone at UVA but everyone at all non-HYS T14s. You are right that bad grades will keep you out of many firms and decrease your chances at getting a firm job. But as far as I can tell at CLS, they don't act as an absolute bar to a firm job, mainly because there are hundreds of firms who have different requirements and needs. Below a 3.0 or multiple B-s definitely gets dicey, but very few people are that low. I personally know two people at CLS with below a 3.0 who got jobs through EIP....those two people may make up 5-10% of people with grades that low. But you are implying median is the cutoff, not 3.0. That is simply not empirically true. 85% of the CLS c/o 2012 who participated in EIP got offers (I have seen the data). Some kids with terrible grades may not participate (although I think that is a dumb decision - I mean, why not?), so maybe firms aren't going down to the bottom 10% of the class, but they are clearly going below median regularly. Big law is not "VERY HARD" to achieve at below median (but not bottom of the class) from CLS. It is, however, unpredictable. Median people will fail to get offers while my friends with sub-3.0 will. This next point, however, I agree on....

First, I think you are evaluating some of what I'm saying in too pedantic a fashion. I certainly realize that some people below median at non HYS top 14's get biglaw. What I am saying is that their chances are AWFUL. Go talk to the vast majority of people below median at non HYS top 14s and see how many of them are headed to biglaw. The nlj 250 charts show this alone (again I realize that just because 40%, for example of a school on the nlj chart gets biglaw that that doesn't mean it's exactly the top 40%).

You may disagree but let me say something that you and Tiago's post both highlight that I think is doing more for your school than you realize. In fact, I believe that's why they recently changed their policy. These big firms DEFINITELY have hard and fast cutoffs. That's why it's best to have a very murky grading system--particularly for grades below the median. From what you and Tiago are describing Columbia has enough damn sense to make it VERY difficult to get grades below a B (unlike idiotic schools like UVA that allow professors to give out ANY grade they want as long as the MEAN of the course is a 3.3). For most biglaw firms that is going to be an absolute cutoff. Thus, by making it very difficult to get that sort of grade at CLS, your school has set up a system where it's actually difficult for a student to get the grades that would put them below every big firm's cutoff. Now don't get me wrong--I don't think that's the only thing helping CLS out in regards to placing well. I personally believe that they have sort of a perfect storm for keeping employment high as a non HYS top 14. They are in the city with the most big firm jobs, while being an ivy league top 14. That's perfect because it combines the top 14 prestige that people often overestimate with the regional factor (which people often underestimate). Kids at Columbia can intern during the year with major legal employers and network in a city with a ton of lawyers. That's CRITICAL for a below median student--all while KEEPING the top 14 prestige.

[bk1]

Whereas big firms are essentially: step 1) does this person meet the grade cutoff (if no resume is discarded/no callback is given from screener)? step 2) Do you meet the firm's (rather low) interpersonal skill requirements based off of the callback step? 3) If the answer to step 2 is yes then you are hired.

Step 2 to 3 is not as easy as you imply it is. Step 1 to 2 also isn't necessarily easy, even for someone with the grades.

[Borg]

Whereas big firms are essentially: step 1) does this person meet the grade cutoff (if no resume is discarded/no callback is given from screener)? step 2) Do you meet the firm's (rather low) interpersonal skill requirements based off of the callback step? 3) If the answer to step 2 is yes then you are hired.

Step 2 to 3 is not as easy as you imply it is. Step 1 to 2 also isn't necessarily easy, even for someone with the grades.

Agreed. I think that firms in general actually don't care about grades as much as people are led to believe. I know people in the bottom 1/3 at both HYS and CCN who got V100 jobs (some people even in V10 with bad grades), and the evidence posted above from Columbia is pretty compelling in terms of their ability to place nearly everyone who wants it.

If you go in thinking they are going to carefully parse your grades and not pay much attention in the interview, you're doing it wrong. In my experience the process during the first round is (1) do I like this person? If yes, continue to (2) are their grades prohibitively bad? If no, proceed to (3) invite interviewee to callback. Building rapport with interviewers is the most crucial aspect of the whole thing.

[AllTheLawz]

Whereas big firms are essentially: step 1) does this person meet the grade cutoff (if no resume is discarded/no callback is given from screener)? step 2) Do you meet the firm's (rather low) interpersonal skill requirements based off of the callback step? 3) If the answer to step 2 is yes then you are hired.

Step 2 to 3 is not as easy as you imply it is. Step 1 to 2 also isn't necessarily easy, even for someone with the grades.

Agreed. I think that firms in general actually don't care about grades as much as people are led to believe. I know people in the bottom 1/3 at both HYS and CCN who got V100 jobs (some people even in V10 with bad grades), and the evidence posted above from Columbia is pretty compelling in terms of their ability to place nearly everyone who wants it.

If you go in thinking they are going to carefully parse your grades and not pay much attention in the interview, you're doing it wrong. In my experience the process during the first round is (1) do I like this person? If yes, continue to (2) are their grades prohibitively bad? If no, proceed to (3) invite interviewee to callback. Building rapport with interviewers is the most crucial aspect of the whole thing.

Ding ding.. we finally have a winner. Everyone is overestimating both the importance of grades at the very top schools and severely underestimating the importance of interpersonal factors. A person in the 3rd quartile at Chicago or Columbia that strikes out stood a very, very good chance of striking out at HYS as well, even assuming same performance. At that point the person is almost certainly weak in ways beyond grades.

[BruceWayne]

Agreed. I think that firms in general actually don't care about grades as much as people are led to believe. I know people in the bottom 1/3 at both HYS and CCN who got V100 jobs (some people even in V10 with bad grades), and the evidence posted above from Columbia is pretty compelling in terms of their ability to place nearly everyone who wants it.

If you go in thinking they are going to carefully parse your grades and not pay much attention in the interview, you're doing it wrong. In my experience the process during the first round is (1) do I like this person? If yes, continue to (2) are their grades prohibitively bad? If no, proceed to (3) invite interviewee to callback. Building rapport with interviewers is the most crucial aspect of the whole thing.

You're looking at it the wrong way. They don't carefully parse your grades and then interview you. They have a person quickly run through the bids on symplicity and then they discard those bids with GPAs below the floor at preselect schools so that those below the cutoff don't even get a screener. For 0Ls what this means is that you NEVER get to interview with the firm. You are finished before you even get a chance to start. That's something that is not publicized enough on here. Many people like to talk about how you can do so much with an interview and how much those matter--well if you end up below median and then get 3 preselects from OCI, guess you how much your interview skills matter then? You can't interview with an employer who will not talk to you. Further, many associates who interview for screeners are told straight up by their firm that they are not allowed to give callbacks--regardless--to those below a certain GPA. At lottery schools they interview you in the screener, and then check GPA's before they give out either the callback or if not that stage then before the offer. And if it's a close call between you and someone else at the callback stage many firms will take a look at the transcript again. Again, I think what many people don't realize is that firms will not even give you a SCREENER if your GPA is below the cutoff.

[SportsFan]

Do you guys have any idea what the GPA cutoffs for some big firms are? Or is this specific information basically impossible to find?

[Borg]

Agreed. I think that firms in general actually don't care about grades as much as people are led to believe. I know people in the bottom 1/3 at both HYS and CCN who got V100 jobs (some people even in V10 with bad grades), and the evidence posted above from Columbia is pretty compelling in terms of their ability to place nearly everyone who wants it.

If you go in thinking they are going to carefully parse your grades and not pay much attention in the interview, you're doing it wrong. In my experience the process during the first round is (1) do I like this person? If yes, continue to (2) are their grades prohibitively bad? If no, proceed to (3) invite interviewee to callback. Building rapport with interviewers is the most crucial aspect of the whole thing.

You're looking at it the wrong way. They don't carefully parse your grades and then interview you. They have a person quickly run through the bids on symplicity and then they discard those bids with GPAs below the floor at preselect schools so that those below the cutoff don't even get a screener. For 0Ls what this means is that you NEVER get to interview with the firm. You are finished before you even get a chance to start. That's something that is not publicized enough on here. Many people like to talk about how you can do so much with an interview and how much those matter--well if you end up below median and then get 3 preselects from OCI, guess you how much your interview skills matter then? You can't interview with an employer who will not talk to you. Further, many associates who interview for screeners are told straight up by their firm that they are not allowed to give callbacks--regardless--to those below a certain GPA. At lottery schools they interview you in the screener, and then check GPA's before they give out either the callback or if not that stage then before the offer. And if it's a close call between you and someone else at the callback stage many firms will take a look at the transcript again. Again, I think what many people don't realize is that firms will not even give you a SCREENER if your GPA is below the cutoff.

A) To my knowledge, none of HYSCCN are preselect schools. I'm only talking about those here, but correct me if I'm wrong about NYU.

B) If you have bad grades, don't bid on fucking Cravath. It's that simple. You look through prior results, see who was grade sensitive, and avoid them. If you build a good relationship with interviewers it won't be a close call and they aren't going to carefully parse your grades. If you go in thinking about your grades beyond merely avoiding firms that are out of reach and with the mindset that grades will be dispositive then you're already fucked.

[BruceWayne]

Do you guys have any idea what the GPA cutoffs for some big firms are? Or is this specific information basically impossible to find?

They're different for different schools and different firms (also note that schools FIERCELY guard this info). But here's an article that gives an example of how things work.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/09/an-insid ... g-process/

" The S&C grade guideline for Michigan is a 3.7 / A- average.
The maximum number of summer callbacks is 15 (out of 18 interviews per schedule).
Callbacks for permanent positions (as opposed to summer positions): “Our 3L hiring target is focused on filling needs in GP [General Practice - S&C-speak for Corporate] and Litigation, applying the usual standards.”

A) To my knowledge, none of HYSCCN are preselect schools. I'm only talking about those here, but correct me if I'm wrong about NYU.

B) If you have bad grades, don't bid on fucking Cravath. It's that simple. You look through prior results, see who was grade sensitive, and avoid them. If you build a good relationship with interviewers it won't be a close call and they aren't going to carefully parse your grades. If you go in thinking about your grades beyond merely avoiding firms that are out of reach and with the mindset that grades will be dispositive then you're already fucked.

So what do you suggest for students who fall below all of the firms cutoffs? Or are you just assuming that no one actually gets grades that put them below all firms' cutoffs? Also I'm not sure where the HYSCCN limitation is coming from. Are you implying that all of those schools are able to place anyone at any rank into biglaw and that what you're talking about doesn't pertain to the rest of the top 14?

[somewhatwayward]

You are again projecting your personal experience onto not only everyone at UVA but everyone at all non-HYS T14s. You are right that bad grades will keep you out of many firms and decrease your chances at getting a firm job. But as far as I can tell at CLS, they don't act as an absolute bar to a firm job, mainly because there are hundreds of firms who have different requirements and needs. Below a 3.0 or multiple B-s definitely gets dicey, but very few people are that low. I personally know two people at CLS with below a 3.0 who got jobs through EIP....those two people may make up 5-10% of people with grades that low. But you are implying median is the cutoff, not 3.0. That is simply not empirically true. 85% of the CLS c/o 2012 who participated in EIP got offers (I have seen the data). Some kids with terrible grades may not participate (although I think that is a dumb decision - I mean, why not?), so maybe firms aren't going down to the bottom 10% of the class, but they are clearly going below median regularly. Big law is not "VERY HARD" to achieve at below median (but not bottom of the class) from CLS. It is, however, unpredictable. Median people will fail to get offers while my friends with sub-3.0 will. This next point, however, I agree on....

First, I think you are evaluating some of what I'm saying in too pedantic a fashion. I certainly realize that some people below median at non HYS top 14's get biglaw. What I am saying is that their chances are AWFUL. Go talk to the vast majority of people below median at non HYS top 14s and see how many of them are headed to biglaw. The nlj 250 charts show this alone (again I realize that just because 40%, for example of a school on the nlj chart gets biglaw that that doesn't mean it's exactly the top 40%).

You may disagree but let me say something that you and Tiago's post both highlight that I think is doing more for your school than you realize. In fact, I believe that's why they recently changed their policy. These big firms DEFINITELY have hard and fast cutoffs. That's why it's best to have a very murky grading system--particularly for grades below the median. From what you and Tiago are describing Columbia has enough damn sense to make it VERY difficult to get grades below a B (unlike idiotic schools like UVA that allow professors to give out ANY grade they want as long as the MEAN of the course is a 3.3). For most biglaw firms that is going to be an absolute cutoff. Thus, by making it very difficult to get that sort of grade at CLS, your school has set up a system where it's actually difficult for a student to get the grades that would put them below every big firm's cutoff. Now don't get me wrong--I don't think that's the only thing helping CLS out in regards to placing well. I personally believe that they have sort of a perfect storm for keeping employment high as a non top 14. They are in the city with the most big firm jobs, while being an ivy league top 14. That's perfect because it combines the top 14 prestige that people often overestimate with the regional factor (which people often underestimate). Kids at Columbia can intern during the year with major legal employers and network in a city with a ton of lawyers. That's CRITICAL for a below median student--all while KEEPING the top 14 prestige.

I agree that UVA's grading system and their preselect system is screwing the below median students over. I didn't apply to UVA and I am glad I didn't consider it because I wasn't savvy enough when I was a 0L to understand that UVA's grading system and preselect system were a real liability. They are protecting the interests of the top students at the expense of the interests of the bottom students, which is stupid because the top students don't need OCI to get the firm job they desire. Even if they don't get Wiliams & Connolly in the lottery, they can always shoot them an email or drop by their hospitality suite, and they will get an interview outside the system. The same cannot be said of students at the bottom of the class.

But I still disagree that below median CLS students have "awful" chances at a big law job. They are not great but not awful either. You can see it with the 85% figure. Assuming everyone in the top half got jobs (which we know is not how it works), that still leaves 70% of the below median students getting offers at EIP. Now that figure will overstate your chances probably because we know not everyone participates in EIP and I would guess that students with low grades are disproportionately represented among non-participants. Thus, the pool of people who did participate, 85% of whom got offers, probably have a median GPA that is actually maybe the 55th percentile of the class as a whole or whatever....meaning that some of that 70% are actually people at or above the class-as-a-whole's median but not the EIP participants median.

TL;DR: CLS students below median probably have at least a 50% chance of getting a firm job, which I don't think is awful.

[jenesaislaw]

Oh boy. I wish I'd seen this thread earlier before totally incorrect readings of my post created a wacky tangent.

Let me parse what I said. Hopefully it will clarify my point.

One thing that's often overlooked, besides the difficulty of staying in biglaw for more than 3 years, is the lost investment income. If you're paying $1800 a month in loans instead of saving that money, it adds up to millions of dollars in retirement that the extra income from UVA (or wherever) may not justify.

There are a few things overlooked in analyzing the choice to attend law school, particularly for those banking on biglaw to service debts.

Point 1: Staying in biglaw (and therefore making a biglaw salary for longer than 3 years) is difficult. I said this is often overlooked. Attrition rates are crazy high for a bunch of reasons.

Point 2: Lost investment income is a consequence of student loan payments for everybody with student loan payments. $1800 loan payments actually wasn't pulled out of my ass. That's about (my memory was wrong -- it's actually about $1900) the standard payment at 160k of debt, which is what OP is looking at if he's debt-financing UVA with a 75k scholarship and no other discounts on the full cost of attendance (like savings, family contributions, leaving cheaper, summer salary). Whether OP has that $1900 to invest is deeply relevant but not something I was getting into.

If you invest the $1900/month you're otherwise spending on loans, which you can do if you do not have loans, it turns out to be a lot of money by the time you hit retirement (10 years in payment + 30 years). Assuming no money besides loan payments into your retirement account: At a 5% annual return (using 12 periods pear year), it's $1.25m at age 65 (somebody who started saving loan payments at age 25). 7% is $2.53m. 10% is $7.3m.

I recognize that OP will still have debt from Emory for living expenses, but my point was not about Emory. It was about often-unconsidered opportunity costs of debt.

"You wouldn't have that 1800 a month to save if you didn't have big law right ? I must be missing something."

Depends on how you live, I guess. The point is just that retirement savings are an opportunity cost of student loans. Likewise, a nicer apartment/house/car/lifestyle are opportunity costs of retirement savings too. But those are analyses you should do regardless of whether you're thinking about taking on debt.

"The dude implied that anyone who doesn't make BigLaw could be putting tens of thousands of dollars away into savings while the BigLaw guy will have to put that same money into his loans. It makes no sense."

I do not think I implied it at all. That can't even qualify as a strained reading of my post.

"To be fair the LST guy was probably saying someone making 50K with no debt service could put 5-10K a year towards savings and earn a large return over a 40 year career, while the BigLaw guy has to put everything toward his debt early, and the difference erases some of the benefits of making that extra money. The problem arose when he said you'd be missing out on millions of dollars by doing BigLaw, because in doing so he implied that the guy going to Emory (or not going to law school at all) could afford to put away tens of thousands of dollars each year towards savings that Mr. BigLaw would have to miss out on. He just overstated the point."

The early part of this quote is right. But the problem did not arise when I said OP would be missing out on millions of dollars by doing biglaw because I never implied something so ridiculous.


Zuck: "LST guy once told a poster that it was better for him to go to Alabama than UT if he wanted to become a lawyer because Alabama's employment score was like 2% higher. Totally ignored the vastly better options for UT grads (not to mention the fact that the poster was a Texas resident). When I asked him to clarify he fled the thread. Again, LST is amazing but I would take his posts on here with at least a couple grains of salt."

Choices: a) I was scared of you. b) you were wasting my time.

I didn't suggest he go to Bama because its employment score was higher. OP was not interested in biglaw and I asked questions, did not provide (many, if any, I don't recall) answers.

[Tiago Splitter]

"The dude implied that anyone who doesn't make BigLaw could be putting tens of thousands of dollars away into savings while the BigLaw guy will have to put that same money into his loans. It makes no sense."

I do not think I implied it at all. That can't even qualify as a strained reading of my post.

If you invest the $1900/month you're otherwise spending on loans, which you can do if you do not have loans, it turns out to be a lot of money by the time you hit retirement (10 years in payment + 30 years). Assuming no money besides loan payments into your retirement account: At a 5% annual return (using 12 periods pear year), it's $1.25m at age 65 (somebody who started saving loan payments at age 25). 7% is $2.53m. 10% is $7.3m.

No strained reading necessary. $1800/month is $21,600 a year.

"Lost investment income" means that it's something you can't do while working in BigLaw but otherwise would be able to. Either that or "lost" means something different between the two of us. I simply can't get on board with the idea that someone who makes BigLaw has given up on the ability to put $1900/month into savings but would have had that option had he foregone law school altogether. If someone goes to grad school and makes 80K/year when they would have made 60K/year without the extra schooling but has to pay 15k/year in debt service, they aren't losing out on 15k/year in lost investment income.

The only way your argument makes any sense whatsoever is a) if the person who chooses to take on lots of debt to get Biglaw gave up a substantial salary to go to law school or b) you are telling people who sneak into the T-14 with low LSAT scores to retake the LSAT to get a bigger scholarship so that they can put the money they'd have to put towards loans toward savings instead.

[Rahviveh]

If you're the typical liberal arts graduate making 40-50k (and that's generous for a lot of us) there's no way you are setting half of that aside for retirement savings

[jenesaislaw]

"Lost investment income" means that it's something you can't do while working in BigLaw but otherwise would be able to. Either that or "lost" means something different between the two of us. I simply can't get on board with the idea that someone who makes BigLaw has given up on the ability to put $1900/month into savings but would have had that option had he foregone law school altogether. If someone goes to grad school and makes 80K/year when they would have made 60K/year without the extra schooling but has to pay 15k/year in debt service, they aren't losing out on 15k/year in lost investment income.

The only way your argument makes any sense whatsoever is a) if the person who chooses to take on lots of debt to get Biglaw gave up a substantial salary to go to law school or b) you are telling people who sneak into the T-14 with low LSAT scores to retake the LSAT to get a bigger scholarship so that they can put the money they'd have to put towards loans toward savings instead.

I said: "Point 2: Lost investment income is a consequence of student loan payments for everybody with student loan payments."

If you have to make a $1900 payment every month, you could be investing that money instead. It's a really basic point. Separately, people need to consider whether they will have the opportunity to invest that money (and at what expected return), which requires analyzing alternatives. For OP it seems the two alternatives are Emory (with probably 50k of debt, about a $600 loan payment) and no law school (whatever that means to OP).

For Emory, some people do get biglaw, so he might be able to invest the difference ($1300) or he might end up just being able to invest $100 or $500 (or whatever). It gets really complicated really fast, so I didn't get into it. My purpose was to point out that there are opportunity costs to loan payments and that this should factor into the analysis. You read some crazy stuff into what I said for reasons I'm not going to try to analyze.

[Tiago Splitter]

My purpose was to point out that there are opportunity costs to loan payments and that this should factor into the analysis.

No. There are not opportunity costs when it's money you would not have otherwise had. If your salary after law school is equal to or less than what you're making in Biglaw then sure.

[jenesaislaw]

My purpose was to point out that there are opportunity costs to loan payments and that this should factor into the analysis.

No. There are not opportunity costs when it's money you would not have otherwise had. If your salary after law school is equal to or less than what you're making in Biglaw then sure.

Objection non-responsive.

[Borg]

Do you guys have any idea what the GPA cutoffs for some big firms are? Or is this specific information basically impossible to find?

They're different for different schools and different firms (also note that schools FIERCELY guard this info). But here's an article that gives an example of how things work.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/09/an-insid ... g-process/

" The S&C grade guideline for Michigan is a 3.7 / A- average.
The maximum number of summer callbacks is 15 (out of 18 interviews per schedule).
Callbacks for permanent positions (as opposed to summer positions): “Our 3L hiring target is focused on filling needs in GP [General Practice - S&C-speak for Corporate] and Litigation, applying the usual standards.”

A) To my knowledge, none of HYSCCN are preselect schools. I'm only talking about those here, but correct me if I'm wrong about NYU.

B) If you have bad grades, don't bid on fucking Cravath. It's that simple. You look through prior results, see who was grade sensitive, and avoid them. If you build a good relationship with interviewers it won't be a close call and they aren't going to carefully parse your grades. If you go in thinking about your grades beyond merely avoiding firms that are out of reach and with the mindset that grades will be dispositive then you're already fucked.

So what do you suggest for students who fall below all of the firms cutoffs? Or are you just assuming that no one actually gets grades that put them below all firms' cutoffs? Also I'm not sure where the HYSCCN limitation is coming from. Are you implying that all of those schools are able to place anyone at any rank into biglaw and that what you're talking about doesn't pertain to the rest of the top 14?

I think it's rare for someone at HYSCCN to be below every cutoff for all biglaw firms. If you somehow manage to get straight B-'s, then yeah you've probably screwed yourself out of a job. Based on the CLS data posted above, though, it looks like 90% of students at Columbia are viable for biglaw, and based on that I think that the situation is probably similar for its peers and for HYS. If you fall below every firm's cutoff, then go for the least selective ones you can find and try your best. If you can build a strong connection with interviewers, you can get a job. Grades can be a threshold question at firms, but if they like you and believe that you can do a good job and have a good head for business you can get a summer associate position from HYSCCN.

[BruceWayne]

I think it's rare for someone at HYSCCN to be below every cutoff for all biglaw firms. If you somehow manage to get straight B-'s, then yeah you've probably screwed yourself out of a job. Based on the CLS data posted above, though, it looks like 90% of students at Columbia are viable for biglaw, and based on that I think that the situation is probably similar for its peers and for HYS. If you fall below every firm's cutoff, then go for the least selective ones you can find and try your best. If you can build a strong connection with interviewers, you can get a job. Grades can be a threshold question at firms, but if they like you and believe that you can do a good job and have a good head for business you can get a summer associate position from HYSCCN.

Why are you limiting this discussion to HYSCCN? I think people were talking about top 14 in general in this thread. And I'm not sure why you're grouping them together since the biglaw placement ability difference between HYS and CCN is so big (unless you're defining biglaw as exclusively being NYC firms). I'm also wondering where you're getting the 90% of CLS can get biglaw thing from considering their placement data has not shown them that high recently (see the nlj 250 chart http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/20 ... tatistics/, http://abovethelaw.com/2011/03/best-law ... -job-2011/). I know there's a post earlier in the thread with callback/offer ratios but it doesn't tell you about the % of the class that got biglaw (unless I missed the link somewhere else in the thread).

The problem with the "if they like you" thing when someone falls below the firm's GPA cutoff is that most firms simply tell the associates doing the screener that they cannot give a callback to someone below the cutoff--period. If it's a lottery interview they just go through the transcripts after the screeners are done and before they give out callbacks they toss out the apps with grades below the cutoff.

[Justin Genious]

I think it's rare for someone at HYSCCN to be below every cutoff for all biglaw firms. If you somehow manage to get straight B-'s, then yeah you've probably screwed yourself out of a job. Based on the CLS data posted above, though, it looks like 90% of students at Columbia are viable for biglaw, and based on that I think that the situation is probably similar for its peers and for HYS. If you fall below every firm's cutoff, then go for the least selective ones you can find and try your best. If you can build a strong connection with interviewers, you can get a job. Grades can be a threshold question at firms, but if they like you and believe that you can do a good job and have a good head for business you can get a summer associate position from HYSCCN.

Why are you limiting this discussion to HYSCCN? I think people were talking about top 14 in general in this thread. And I'm not sure why you're grouping them together since the biglaw placement ability difference between HYS and CCN is so big (unless you're defining biglaw as exclusively being NYC firms). I'm also wondering where you're getting the 90% of CLS can get biglaw thing from considering their placement data has not shown them that high recently (see the nlj 250 chart http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/20 ... tatistics/, http://abovethelaw.com/2011/03/best-law ... -job-2011/). I know there's a post earlier in the thread with callback/offer ratios but it doesn't tell you about the % of the class that got biglaw (unless I missed the link somewhere else in the thread).

The problem with the "if they like you" thing when someone falls below the firm's GPA cutoff is that most firms simply tell the associates doing the screener that they cannot give a callback to someone below the cutoff--period. If it's a lottery interview they just go through the transcripts after the screeners are done and before they give out callbacks they toss out the apps with grades below the cutoff.

In 2011 the graduating class of Columbia had 59% go into an NLJ 250 firm, 8% in a federal clerkship, 9% government, 6% PI, and 1% academia. Lets say only 5% wanted government, and I wouldn't think it'd be too far-fetched to say that the 6% in PI went in wanting PI. This leaves us with ~80% of the class getting what they want. So unless the below median kids are the ones getting the government and PI jobs, which I think it'd be safe to assume those positions are highly regarded anyways, there are plenty of students under that 50% cutoff getting biglaw--that or ~80% is hitting median

[Borg]

I think it's rare for someone at HYSCCN to be below every cutoff for all biglaw firms. If you somehow manage to get straight B-'s, then yeah you've probably screwed yourself out of a job. Based on the CLS data posted above, though, it looks like 90% of students at Columbia are viable for biglaw, and based on that I think that the situation is probably similar for its peers and for HYS. If you fall below every firm's cutoff, then go for the least selective ones you can find and try your best. If you can build a strong connection with interviewers, you can get a job. Grades can be a threshold question at firms, but if they like you and believe that you can do a good job and have a good head for business you can get a summer associate position from HYSCCN.

Why are you limiting this discussion to HYSCCN? I think people were talking about top 14 in general in this thread. And I'm not sure why you're grouping them together since the biglaw placement ability difference between HYS and CCN is so big (unless you're defining biglaw as exclusively being NYC firms). I'm also wondering where you're getting the 90% of CLS can get biglaw thing from considering their placement data has not shown them that high recently (see the nlj 250 chart http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/20 ... tatistics/, http://abovethelaw.com/2011/03/best-law ... -job-2011/). I know there's a post earlier in the thread with callback/offer ratios but it doesn't tell you about the % of the class that got biglaw (unless I missed the link somewhere else in the thread).

The problem with the "if they like you" thing when someone falls below the firm's GPA cutoff is that most firms simply tell the associates doing the screener that they cannot give a callback to someone below the cutoff--period. If it's a lottery interview they just go through the transcripts after the screeners are done and before they give out callbacks they toss out the apps with grades below the cutoff.

I'm limiting it to those schools because those are the ones where I have friends, so I am not as familiar with how OCI works elsewhere. The 90% figure is what the person who posted that link gave, and I was too lazy to double check him. Based on LST it looks like at least Columbia and Chicago students have a similar chance of getting biglaw to HYS, and it's possible that PI self selection explains a little bit of NYU's stats. I personally know people with below median grades at each of those schools who scored good firms, so it seems unlikely to me that most firms have strict cutoffs for HYSCCN. If anything, grades can only really tell you which firms not to bid on. They may be a threshold issue, but beyond that they don't really matter.

[jenesaislaw]

In 2011 the graduating class of Columbia had 59% go into an NLJ 250 firm, 8% in a federal clerkship, 9% government, 6% PI, and 1% academia. Lets say only 5% wanted government, and I wouldn't think it'd be too far-fetched to say that the 6% in PI went in wanting PI. This leaves us with ~80% of the class getting what they want. So unless the below median kids are the ones getting the government and PI jobs, which I think it'd be safe to assume those positions are highly regarded anyways, there are plenty of students under that 50% cutoff getting biglaw--that or ~80% is hitting median

Keep in mind 8.3% of the class had school-funded jobs, probably all in gov't and PI. That leaves 7% (just using your numbers, haven't looked to verify) in gov't and PI that you need to guess on.

[BruceWayne]

In 2011 the graduating class of Columbia had 59% go into an NLJ 250 firm, 8% in a federal clerkship, 9% government, 6% PI, and 1% academia. Lets say only 5% wanted government, and I wouldn't think it'd be too far-fetched to say that the 6% in PI went in wanting PI. This leaves us with ~80% of the class getting what they want. So unless the below median kids are the ones getting the government and PI jobs, which I think it'd be safe to assume those positions are highly regarded anyways, there are plenty of students under that 50% cutoff getting biglaw--that or ~80% is hitting median

Keep in mind 8.3% of the class had school-funded jobs, probably all in gov't and PI. That leaves 7% (just using your numbers, haven't looked to verify) in gov't and PI that you need to guess on.

Not probably. As far as I know, school "fellowships" require that the employer be a non-profit. Hell doesn't the law require that too?

I will say that we've really drifted away from the thread's purpose. It's a bit rude for us to continue to move it away from Emory full ride + tuition vs. T 14 sticker. I'll just say that for someone like the OP this is actually a difficult decision since he doesn't know where he wants to work and isn't in love with Georgia/Atlanta. Still, I don't think sticker is a good idea with this option on the table. He needs to be offered some money by the top 14 (assuming it's not HYS) for it to be worth it. The 75K at UVA doesn't sound bad--but I would see if they could push it up to 2 years tuition free (somewhere around 90K I think?).

[jenesaislaw]

In 2011 the graduating class of Columbia had 59% go into an NLJ 250 firm, 8% in a federal clerkship, 9% government, 6% PI, and 1% academia. Lets say only 5% wanted government, and I wouldn't think it'd be too far-fetched to say that the 6% in PI went in wanting PI. This leaves us with ~80% of the class getting what they want. So unless the below median kids are the ones getting the government and PI jobs, which I think it'd be safe to assume those positions are highly regarded anyways, there are plenty of students under that 50% cutoff getting biglaw--that or ~80% is hitting median

Keep in mind 8.3% of the class had school-funded jobs, probably all in gov't and PI. That leaves 7% (just using your numbers, haven't looked to verify) in gov't and PI that you need to guess on.

Not probably. As far as I know, school "fellowships" require that the employer be a non-profit. Hell doesn't the law require that too?

I don't know what Columbia's fellowship program is, but the academia category includes nonprofits too, hence "probably." The law does not require it. I'm guessing you're confusing the volunteer/internship rules around for-profit companies with what these fellowships are. "Fellows" are independent contractors of the law schools.