firms in terms of grade selectivity Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
SLS_AMG

Bronze
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:18 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by SLS_AMG » Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:46 pm

I think this is a good topic, but the original post is incredibly confusing and weirdly worded.

A couple years ago there was a similar topic, and someone posted the following:
At least at my school...

Super Grade Selective:

Cravath
Sullivan & Cromwell
Williams & Connolly
Gibson Dunn (DC)
Covington

Very Grade Selective:

Paul Weiss
Gibson Dunn (LA)
Kirkland
Debevoise
Boies Schiller
Arnold & Porter

Not That Grade Selective:

Davis Polk
Simpson Thacher
Cleary
Gibson Dunn (NY)
Quinn Emanuel
O'Melveny
MoFo
WilmerHale
Ropes & Gray

Even Less Grade Selective:

Skadden
Weil
Latham
Sidley Austin
Jones Day
White & Case
Shearman & Sterling
Obviously that's more than just the top 10 NY firms, but the selectivity seems to be a bit different from what some on here are saying. At my school (and given the people I know working at some of those firms), I'd say this list is more in line with what I would have guessed. Cravath and S&C are definitely the two most selective (leaving out Wachtell, of course). I would have thought Cravath is at least as selective as S&C, but I do get the sense that Cravath may be a bit more flexible if they really like a candidate, where I've heard from numerous people that S&C just has hard grade cutoffs regardless of whether or not they like you.

I'm also a bit surprised by the seeming consensus that DPW and Skadden are more selective than Debevoise. I had considered Debevoise to be one of the more grade conscious firms -- though not as grade conscious as S&C or Cravath.

It also seems that Quinn has moved up in its selectivity in the last couple years (though I know that wasn't one of the firms in the OP).

User avatar
Yukos

Gold
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Yukos » Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:59 pm

SLS_AMG wrote:I think this is a good topic, but the original post is incredibly confusing and weirdly worded.

A couple years ago there was a similar topic, and someone posted the following:
At least at my school...

Super Grade Selective:

Cravath
Sullivan & Cromwell
Williams & Connolly
Gibson Dunn (DC)
Covington

Very Grade Selective:

Paul Weiss
Gibson Dunn (LA)
Kirkland
Debevoise
Boies Schiller
Arnold & Porter

Not That Grade Selective:

Davis Polk
Simpson Thacher
Cleary
Gibson Dunn (NY)
Quinn Emanuel
O'Melveny
MoFo
WilmerHale
Ropes & Gray

Even Less Grade Selective:

Skadden
Weil
Latham
Sidley Austin
Jones Day
White & Case
Shearman & Sterling
Obviously that's more than just the top 10 NY firms, but the selectivity seems to be a bit different from what some on here are saying. At my school (and given the people I know working at some of those firms), I'd say this list is more in line with what I would have guessed. Cravath and S&C are definitely the two most selective (leaving out Wachtell, of course). I would have thought Cravath is at least as selective as S&C, but I do get the sense that Cravath may be a bit more flexible if they really like a candidate, where I've heard from numerous people that S&C just has hard grade cutoffs regardless of whether or not they like you.

I'm also a bit surprised by the seeming consensus that DPW and Skadden are more selective than Debevoise. I had considered Debevoise to be one of the more grade conscious firms -- though not as grade conscious as S&C or Cravath.

It also seems that Quinn has moved up in its selectivity in the last couple years (though I know that wasn't one of the firms in the OP).
Multi-city lists either need to really break down city-by-city or else they're useless. At my school Latham is relatively easy to get in Chi, LA and NY, relatively hard in DC and very hard in SF. OMM is one of the easiest to get in LA but relatively hard to get in CC. Etc. In general DC > SF >>> LA >> NY and the difference is at least as meaningful as the difference between firms.

And I second that QE is either misplaced or has gotten more grade selective since this list was made.

SLS_AMG

Bronze
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:18 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by SLS_AMG » Tue Jul 08, 2014 7:05 pm

I didn't clarify what was posted after that, so I'll do so now:
Unless otherwise noted, I was thinking either NY or the firm's main office. For Sidley, I was thinking NY.
At least at my school...

Super Grade Selective:

Cravath
Sullivan & Cromwell


Very Grade Selective:

Paul Weiss
Debevoise
Boies Schiller

Not That Grade Selective:

Davis Polk
Simpson Thacher
Cleary
Gibson Dunn (NY)
WilmerHale (NY)

Even Less Grade Selective:

Skadden
Weil
Latham
Sidley Austin
Jones Day
White & Case
Shearman & Sterling

Took out the non-NY offices. I'd also add that I think Latham should be a category or two up as well, thought your experience seems to indicate otherwise.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Jul 08, 2014 7:16 pm

What's wrong with someone at median at CCN bidding on these firms? Genuinely curious

I bid about 5 of these dead last or in the last 10 of my list. The way I saw it, I could try bidding on less selective firm with 20 slots and have a very, very low shot at these or bid 5 of these last and get interviews at all 5. Furthermore, the "less selective" firms will have only 2-3 summer hires, meaning they will be difficult to get. The selective firms have 100+ class sizes and it seems like they have a history of dipping to median (Skadden, Cleary, STB, Debevoise) at CCN. I figured I'll have a greater chance at getting a screener, though turning it into an offer might be more difficult.

Did I screw up? In fact, now that I'm thinking, I think most of my last 10 bids were all reaches (those mentioned above + Cravath + Gibson). I hear they dip to median sometimes. Was that wrong? If not, do you need crazy WE to snag one of these at median?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Jul 08, 2014 7:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What's wrong with someone at median at CCN bidding on these firms? Genuinely curious

I bid about 5 of these dead last or in the last 10 of my list. The way I saw it, I could try bidding on less selective firm with 20 slots and have a very, very low shot at these or bid 5 of these last and get interviews at all 5. Furthermore, the "less selective" firms will have only 2-3 summer hires, meaning they will be difficult to get. The selective firms have 100+ class sizes and it seems like they have a history of dipping to median (Skadden, Cleary, STB, Debevoise) at CCN. I figured I'll have a greater chance at getting a screener, though turning it into an offer might be more difficult.

Did I screw up? In fact, now that I'm thinking, I think most of my last 10 bids were all reaches (those mentioned above + Cravath + Gibson). I hear they dip to median sometimes. Was that wrong? If not, do you need crazy WE to snag one of these at median?
There's nothing wrong with bidding those firms with median and above grades if you have otherwise a smart bid list. It's a different story if you are going for other markets and have the most selective firms as your back-up in NYC. So if you are primarily targeting NYC, it's not always true that it's a waste of time and a spot, and it's overplaying the slight differences in GPA way too much IMO. I have a close friend working at one of those firms with median grades (K-JD, non-URM) from CLS. I know this is just a tiny example but it's definitely possible with strong interviewing skills, which are probably much more important than splitting hairs between median, low Stone, mid Stone and so on.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5653
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by rpupkin » Tue Jul 08, 2014 7:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What's wrong with someone at median at CCN bidding on these firms? Genuinely curious

I bid about 5 of these dead last or in the last 10 of my list. The way I saw it, I could try bidding on less selective firm with 20 slots and have a very, very low shot at these or bid 5 of these last and get interviews at all 5. Furthermore, the "less selective" firms will have only 2-3 summer hires, meaning they will be difficult to get. The selective firms have 100+ class sizes and it seems like they have a history of dipping to median (Skadden, Cleary, STB, Debevoise) at CCN. I figured I'll have a greater chance at getting a screener, though turning it into an offer might be more difficult.
Did I screw up? In fact, now that I'm thinking, I think most of my last 10 bids were all reaches (those mentioned above + Cravath + Gibson). I hear they dip to median sometimes. Was that wrong? If not, do you need crazy WE to snag one of these at median?
There's nothing wrong with bidding those firms with median and above grades if you have otherwise a smart bid list.
Those firms, though, don't really belong together. A high Vault ranking doesn't necessarily mean that a firm is highly selective. As others have suggested, there is a pretty big difference between Skadden (very gettable with median grades from CCN) and Cravath (very unlikely with median grades absent an unusual circumstance).

User avatar
Yukos

Gold
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Yukos » Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:16 pm

SLS_AMG wrote:I didn't clarify what was posted after that, so I'll do so now:
Unless otherwise noted, I was thinking either NY or the firm's main office. For Sidley, I was thinking NY.
Yeah, I probably should've figured that out on my own. Anyway, I think my point that city > firm (sometimes) is worth mentioning.
SLS_AMG wrote: Took out the non-NY offices. I'd also add that I think Latham should be a category or two up as well, thought your experience seems to indicate otherwise.
Might be true. I'm not applying to NY so I have no idea how they stack up to other NY firms. The "relatively easy/hard" was more in relation to SF/DC firms.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:19 pm

If median at CCN

Least grade selective: public interest
Most grade selective, with potential risk of getting nothing: all firms outside of NYC

User avatar
jbagelboy

Diamond
Posts: 10361
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by jbagelboy » Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:40 pm

DC and CA are a different ballgame. Many firms you can get from median or lower in NY will require honors grades in DC or CA.
SLS_AMG wrote: Not That Grade Selective:

Davis Polk
Simpson Thacher
Cleary Gottlieb
Gibson Dunn (NY)
WilmerHale (NY)

Even Less Grade Selective:

Skadden
Weil (ehhh)
Latham
Sidley Austin
Jones Day
White & Case
Shearman & Sterling


I think this info may be a bit dated; also not to nitpick, but "Not That Grade Selective"? I mean, sure, relatively speaking but the firms in that category are still "Pretty Grade Selective." They will look for students who have done well, and I think they qualify as serious reaches without honors. Maybe Wilmer in NY is less.

I also wouldn't group the crossed out firms with Skadden and Latham. White & Case and Shearman are classic targets for people with noncompetitive (bad) grades - legitimately not selective, whereas the remaining are still mehh at median (at least the data would suggest there's a big difference there).

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:45 pm

At lower T14, this is from my experience + some others.

Super Grade Selective:

Wachtell
Munger
Covington
Williams & Connolly
Boies Schiller
Cravath

Very Grade Selective:

Sullivan & Cromwell
Quinn Emanuel

Grade Selective:

Paul Weiss
Sidley Austin
Davis Polk
Cleary
O'Melveny

Not That Grade Selective:

Skadden
Weil
Kirkland
Simpson Thacher
Latham

Even Less Grade Selective:

Jones Day
White & Case
Shearman & Sterling
Paul Hastings
Milbank
Cahill

eta: Took out some non-NY. Apart from some firms in the super selective group, assume everything is NY.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:47 pm

At my CCN there were a significant number of minorities/women that nabbed CSM from below median.

There are also a significant number of median people at S&C.

I always imagined that DPW was on the more-selective side.

2transferornot

New
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:11 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by 2transferornot » Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote:At lower T14, this is from my experience + some others.

Super Grade Selective:

Wachtell
Munger
Covington
Williams & Connolly
Boies Schiller
Cravath

Very Grade Selective:

Sullivan & Cromwell
Quinn Emanuel
Paul Weiss

Grade Selective:

Sidley Austin
Davis Polk
Cleary
O'Melveny

Not That Grade Selective:

Skadden
Weil
Kirkland
Simpson Thacher
Latham

Even Less Grade Selective:

Jones Day
White & Case
Shearman & Sterling
Paul Hastings
Milbank
Cahill

eta: Took out some non-NY. Apart from some firms in the super selective group, assume everything is NY.
Sounds about right

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:56 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What's wrong with someone at median at CCN bidding on these firms? Genuinely curious

I bid about 5 of these dead last or in the last 10 of my list. The way I saw it, I could try bidding on less selective firm with 20 slots and have a very, very low shot at these or bid 5 of these last and get interviews at all 5. Furthermore, the "less selective" firms will have only 2-3 summer hires, meaning they will be difficult to get. The selective firms have 100+ class sizes and it seems like they have a history of dipping to median (Skadden, Cleary, STB, Debevoise) at CCN. I figured I'll have a greater chance at getting a screener, though turning it into an offer might be more difficult.
Did I screw up? In fact, now that I'm thinking, I think most of my last 10 bids were all reaches (those mentioned above + Cravath + Gibson). I hear they dip to median sometimes. Was that wrong? If not, do you need crazy WE to snag one of these at median?
There's nothing wrong with bidding those firms with median and above grades if you have otherwise a smart bid list.
Those firms, though, don't really belong together. A high Vault ranking doesn't necessarily mean that a firm is highly selective. As others have suggested, there is a pretty big difference between Skadden (very gettable with median grades from CCN) and Cravath (very unlikely with median grades absent an unusual circumstance).
OP. Yea this is true.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:At my CCN there were a significant number of minorities/women that nabbed CSM from below median.
I highly doubt there were a "significant" number at Cravath below median.
Anonymous User wrote:
There are also a significant number of median people at S&C.
There's no way that's true. I've actually seen the data at CLS and I believe 100% of S&C SAs were Kent or Stone scholars. No way they dropped to median for "a significant number of students" at UChi or NYU.

09042014

Diamond
Posts: 18203
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by 09042014 » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:00 pm

This doesn't just vary by firm and office, but school by school.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:At my CCN there were a significant number of minorities/women that nabbed CSM from below median.
I highly doubt there were a "significant" number at Cravath below median.
Anonymous User wrote:
There are also a significant number of median people at S&C.
There's no way that's true. I've actually seen the data at CLS and I believe 100% of S&C SAs were Kent or Stone scholars. No way they dropped to median for "a significant number of students" at UChi or NYU.
If memory serves no NY offices are fully 100% honors except Wachtell and Boies. S&C came close (97%) but had like 2 non-honors candidates.

Still you're right, it would be more like, "i knew this one incredible candidate with median grades at s&c," not "significant number." Since CLS drives out NYU by a long shot in summers per capita at top firms, it's definitely not "CN." And who the fuck knows what chicago grades mean. Even at Harvard though its traditionally top 40% for bidding S&C. Only at Yale would there be a "lot" of middling students at Cravath and S&C, and that doesn't really even mean anything since they don't have grades.

Anon b/c we aren't supposed to release/discuss the honors report data.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:At my CCN there were a significant number of minorities/women that nabbed CSM from below median.
I highly doubt there were a "significant" number at Cravath below median.
Anonymous User wrote:
There are also a significant number of median people at S&C.
There's no way that's true. I've actually seen the data at CLS and I believe 100% of S&C SAs were Kent or Stone scholars. No way they dropped to median for "a significant number of students" at UChi or NYU.

If memory serves no NY offices are fully 100% honors except Wachtell and Boies. S&C came close (97%) but had like 2 non-honors candidates.

Still you're right, it would be more like, "i knew this one incredible candidate with median grades at s&c," not "significant number." Since CLS drives out NYU by a long shot in summers per capita at top firms, it's definitely not "CN." And who the fuck knows what chicago grades mean. Even at Harvard though its traditionally top 40% for bidding S&C. Only at Yale would there be a "lot" of middling students at Cravath and S&C, and that doesn't really even mean anything since they don't have grades.

Anon b/c we aren't supposed to release/discuss the honors report data.
By significant number, I meant that I know three personally (two this year, one last year). I think three is significant, especially when there may be more floating out there.

I also know two this year around median at S&C and two from the year prior. Keep in mind all of these people didn't accept, so they wouldn't show up on honors reports. There may also be some self-selection where people who have good grades and are on LR feel pressure to be at a prestigious firm (I know someone at my school who said he'd be embarrassed to go to his other offers because everyone on LR was at much better firms--I doubt this made his decision but I'm sure it influenced it).

I think people overblow the importance of grades at non-WLRK v5 and it hurts some candidates. One person at my school thought the CSM interviewer was ignoring her because her grades were below the cutoff, when it turns out she was above the cutoff and the interviewer was just being a jerk--so she proceeded to explain her grades and it sank her interview.

Keep in mind these firms have HUGE summer classes. I'm not saying that below median people should be gunning for them, but bidding them, or picking them up when they are underbid (which often happens at my CCN because people don't think they can make the cutoff) is generally a smart thing to do if you are above median (you can almost never go wrong picking up a free interview regardless of grades).

Obviously this is all anecdotal, but if I were a rising 2L, I'd at least want to hear the anecdotes.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Neal Patrick Harris

Bronze
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Neal Patrick Harris » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:13 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
There are also a significant number of median people at S&C.
There's no way that's true. I've actually seen the data at CLS and I believe 100% of S&C SAs were Kent or Stone scholars. No way they dropped to median for "a significant number of students" at UChi or NYU.
Welcome to the era of HYSChi.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:13 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:At my CCN there were a significant number of minorities/women that nabbed CSM from below median.
I highly doubt there were a "significant" number at Cravath below median.
Anonymous User wrote:
There are also a significant number of median people at S&C.
There's no way that's true. I've actually seen the data at CLS and I believe 100% of S&C SAs were Kent or Stone scholars. No way they dropped to median for "a significant number of students" at UChi or NYU.

If memory serves no NY offices are fully 100% honors except Wachtell and Boies. S&C came close (97%) but had like 2 non-honors candidates.

Still you're right, it would be more like, "i knew this one incredible candidate with median grades at s&c," not "significant number." Since CLS drives out NYU by a long shot in summers per capita at top firms, it's definitely not "CN." And who the fuck knows what chicago grades mean. Even at Harvard though its traditionally top 40% for bidding S&C. Only at Yale would there be a "lot" of middling students at Cravath and S&C, and that doesn't really even mean anything since they don't have grades.

Anon b/c we aren't supposed to release/discuss the honors report data.
By significant number, I meant that I know three personally (two this year, one last year). I think three is significant, especially when there may be more floating out there.

I also know two this year around median at S&C and two from the year prior. Keep in mind all of these people didn't accept, so they wouldn't show up on honors reports. There may also be some self-selection where people who have good grades and are on LR feel pressure to be at a prestigious firm (I know someone at my school who said he'd be embarrassed to go to his other offers because everyone on LR was at much better firms--I doubt this made his decision but I'm sure it influenced it).

I think people overblow the importance of grades at non-WLRK v5 and it hurts some candidates. One person at my school thought the CSM interviewer was ignoring her because her grades were below the cutoff, when it turns out she was above the cutoff and the interviewer was just being a jerk--so she proceeded to explain her grades and it sank her interview.

Keep in mind these firms have HUGE summer classes. I'm not saying that below median people should be gunning for them, but bidding them, or picking them up when they are underbid (which often happens at my CCN because people don't think they can make the cutoff) is generally a smart thing to do if you are above median (you can almost never go wrong picking up a free interview regardless of grades).

Obviously this is all anecdotal, but if I were a rising 2L, I'd at least want to hear the anecdotes.
I'm pretty sure the bolded does not accurately describe how the CLS honors report works. It does not reflect only offers accepted by the student - it captures all offers "extended." So 97% really means 97% of all offers given were to stone+; there aren't median applicants hiding in the woodwork who turned down the big firms.

You make some other fair points, esp re: pressure to take a sweatshop b/c of the name cache, and it's true that vault =/= selectivity and too many people mistake the too, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:17 am

Anonymous User wrote: I'm pretty sure the bolded does not accurately describe how the CLS honors report works. It does not reflect only offers accepted by the student - it captures all offers "extended." So 97% really means 97% of all offers given were to stone+; there aren't median applicants hiding in the woodwork who turned down the big firms.

You make some other fair points, esp re: pressure to take a sweatshop b/c of the name cache, and it's true that vault =/= selectivity and too many people mistake the too, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Quoted anon--thought people were reporting some sort of S&C honors reports. Good call. Sorry about that.

At least at my school there are slightly above median applicants who turned down S&C for other v15 firms (and sometimes firms in other markets). A close friend is one of those people.

User avatar
jbagelboy

Diamond
Posts: 10361
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by jbagelboy » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:17 am

Neal Patrick Harris wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
There are also a significant number of median people at S&C.
There's no way that's true. I've actually seen the data at CLS and I believe 100% of S&C SAs were Kent or Stone scholars. No way they dropped to median for "a significant number of students" at UChi or NYU.
Welcome to the era of HYSChi.
you can scream it from the rooftops, but y'all can't post those numbers either. Neither can HS, really.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Neal Patrick Harris

Bronze
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Neal Patrick Harris » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:21 am

jbagelboy wrote:
Neal Patrick Harris wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
There are also a significant number of median people at S&C.
There's no way that's true. I've actually seen the data at CLS and I believe 100% of S&C SAs were Kent or Stone scholars. No way they dropped to median for "a significant number of students" at UChi or NYU.
Welcome to the era of HYSChi.

you can scream it from the rooftops, but y'all can't post those numbers either. Neither can HS, really.

I choose to believe that the enormous number of awkward people at UChi are keeping the numbers down, not the cutoffs. There are plenty of people in the top 1/3 who struck out.

This isn't to say they are unpleasant or deserve it, they are good/friendly people who are eccentric/strange.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:34 am

HYS grad here. Only SullCrom and Williams & Connelly have hard, high grade cutoffs at HYS. Everywhere else is flexible, within reason (i.e. a person at median would not get automatically ruled out). SullCrom seems to make decisions based primarily on grades, often absorbing the high-performing students who didn't get offers from more desirable New York firms.

Obviously better grades will make you a more competitive candidate, all things being equal, but grades matter a lot less than you think. Having a technical background, a specialization, valuable work experience, or just coming across as hardworking and non-irritating adds more value than being "above median" as opposed to "median," or "near the top" as opposed to "above median." And on the margins, that's what makes the difference.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:50 am

This varies by office, school and practice area.

For example, Paul Weiss is grades snooty if you're interviewing for litigation, but they care a heck of a lot less about your grades for corporate.

Skadden's NYC office has grade-selectivity comparable to Davis Polk NYC; some of its smaller offices are less grade selective. (I think that's the root of the "Skadden doesn't care about grades" myth, because some offices do and some don't as much).

Cravath is definitely attainable at median from T6. I got an offer as T10 median.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: firms in terms of grade selectivity

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:01 am

Based on what I've read, I disagree with the above post. This is what I've found (ALL NYC):

Very attainable at median at CCN:
Weil

Attainable at median, but reach-y:
Skadden
Latham
Sidley

Slightly more difficult:
Kirkland
STB
Debevoise
Cleary

Difficult:
Gibson
Davis Polk
Paul Weiss
Cravath

Impossible/almost impossible
Covington (? not sure)
S&C
WLRK
W&C
Last edited by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”