NYU rising 2L, bottom of the class. What do I do? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm also a bottom 15% URM at NYU and I'm class of 2013 as well.

I called up OCS and had a counseling session with someone there. They were very helpful. They calculated my GPA and told me that 80% of people last year with that GPA and below got an offer from EIW, which is pretty good considering. Then the counselor gave me a list of the least grade-conscious firms and I made sure to rank them higher in my EIW choices. It was really worth my time because during "Strike a Match" they only gave us the most grade conscious firms, not the least.

I wouldn't be afraid to lean on OCS or PILC as a tool for getting a job. If they're familiar with you, there's no way they'll let you get to next summer without a place to work.

[Anonymous User]

I'm also a bottom 15% URM at NYU and I'm class of 2013 as well.

I called up OCS and had a counseling session with someone there. They were very helpful. They calculated my GPA and told me that 80% of people last year with that GPA and below got an offer from EIW, which is pretty good considering. Then the counselor gave me a list of the least grade-conscious firms and I made sure to rank them higher in my EIW choices. It was really worth my time because during "Strike a Match" they only gave us the most grade conscious firms, not the least.

I wouldn't be afraid to lean on OCS or PILC as a tool for getting a job. If they're familiar with you, there's no way they'll let you get to next summer without a place to work.

Can you share those least grade conscious firms with the rest of us?

I'm not at NYU and I'm sure you'll have a few employers coming that I don't, but my school has a large number coming and my OCS is notable for not having the information yours apparently gave you.

I'd really appreciate if you could pass that information on (as I'm sure many others would too).

[Anonymous User]

I'm also a bottom 15% URM at NYU and I'm class of 2013 as well.

I called up OCS and had a counseling session with someone there. They were very helpful. They calculated my GPA and told me that 80% of people last year with that GPA and below got an offer from EIW, which is pretty good considering. Then the counselor gave me a list of the least grade-conscious firms and I made sure to rank them higher in my EIW choices. It was really worth my time because during "Strike a Match" they only gave us the most grade conscious firms, not the least.

I wouldn't be afraid to lean on OCS or PILC as a tool for getting a job. If they're familiar with you, there's no way they'll let you get to next summer without a place to work.

Can you share those least grade conscious firms with the rest of us?

I'm not at NYU and I'm sure you'll have a few employers coming that I don't, but my school has a large number coming and my OCS is notable for not having the information yours apparently gave you.

I'd really appreciate if you could pass that information on (as I'm sure many others would too).

Ummm... I kind of feel like people should do their own research on firms, but I'll consider passing the information on if you PM me.

I'm not going to post it on the forum.

[Anonymous User]

Ummm... I kind of feel like people should do their own research on firms, but I'll consider passing the information on if you PM me.

I'm not going to post it on the forum.

I have done a lot of research, I can assure you but anecdotal stories from disparate sources aren't always reliable. And as I said my OCS doesn't track that sort of information and it would be nice to have a list that was vetted by NYU's career services.

I also can't PM you because you're posting anonymously.

[Anonymous User]

Not the above NYU poster but SAM data is confidential so I'm guessing that is too.....

[Anonymous User]

How low do y'all think I can get away with bidding Skadden?

[Anonymous User]

I am an AA male, and I can tell you from experience that URM status will not change how firms feel about a sub -3.0 GPA. Firms may value diversity but they also have their minimum cutoffs.

Yup. Those cutoffs are also almost never closer to 3.0 than 3.3.

[Kohinoor]

I'm also a bottom 15% URM. I called up OCS and had a counseling session with someone there. They were very helpful. They calculated my GPA and told me that 80% of people last year with that GPA and below got an offer from EIW.

80% of the bottom 15% of the class got something at EIW? Is there something about EIW that I'm missing?

[Aston2412]

I'm also a bottom 15% URM. I called up OCS and had a counseling session with someone there. They were very helpful. They calculated my GPA and told me that 80% of people last year with that GPA and below got an offer from EIW.

80% of the bottom 15% of the class got something at EIW? Is there something about EIW that I'm missing?

The cake isn't a lie?

[BenJ]

I'm also a bottom 15% URM. I called up OCS and had a counseling session with someone there. They were very helpful. They calculated my GPA and told me that 80% of people last year with that GPA and below got an offer from EIW.

80% of the bottom 15% of the class got something at EIW? Is there something about EIW that I'm missing?

I'm guessing a lot of the bottom of the class doesn't do EIW, especially here at NYU where public interest is pushed pretty hard.

[Anonymous User]

How low do y'all think I can get away with bidding Skadden?

bump. I am a bottom 1/4 URM (AA) at CLS.

[Anonymous User]

Is AA Asian American or African American?

[BenJ]

How low do y'all think I can get away with bidding Skadden?

bump. I am a bottom 1/4 URM (AA) at CLS.

Don't know about CLS, but at NYU Skadden tends to be the most overbid firm (because they're V5 and take people with relatively low grades compared to other V10s). You have to bid Skadden in the top 5, maybe even higher, to get an interview. Assuming it's the same at CLS, I'm not sure interviewing with a big reach like Skadden is worth giving up one of your top slots that should be used for less selective firms. (And bidding Skadden anywhere below 10 is just a waste of a slot.)

[Anonymous User]

How low do y'all think I can get away with bidding Skadden?

bump. I am a bottom 1/4 URM (AA) at CLS.

Don't know about CLS, but at NYU Skadden tends to be the most overbid firm (because they're V5 and take people with relatively low grades compared to other V10s). You have to bid Skadden in the top 5, maybe even higher, to get an interview. Assuming it's the same at CLS, I'm not sure interviewing with a big reach like Skadden is worth giving up one of your top slots that should be used for less selective firms. (And bidding Skadden anywhere below 10 is just a waste of a slot.)

Much to my chagrin (as someone who bid Skadden and K&E 11 and 12), this post is generally right. But I will say that the Skadden average and lowest GPAs from the last two years were surprisingly high. I think they dig deep into H (and YS, to the extent they can), but keep standards pretty high for the CCN tier.

I'd be curious to see the stone/non-stone breakdown for 2010.

[Anonymous User]

How low do y'all think I can get away with bidding Skadden?

bump. I am a bottom 1/4 URM (AA) at CLS.

Don't know about CLS, but at NYU Skadden tends to be the most overbid firm (because they're V5 and take people with relatively low grades compared to other V10s). You have to bid Skadden in the top 5, maybe even higher, to get an interview. Assuming it's the same at CLS, I'm not sure interviewing with a big reach like Skadden is worth giving up one of your top slots that should be used for less selective firms. (And bidding Skadden anywhere below 10 is just a waste of a slot.)

Much to my chagrin (as someone who bid Skadden and K&E 11 and 12), this post is generally right. But I will say that the Skadden average and lowest GPAs from the last two years were surprisingly high. I think they dig deep into H (and YS, to the extent they can), but keep standards pretty high for the CCN tier.

I'd be curious to see the stone/non-stone breakdown for 2010.

Yeah it did seem they had a spike in GPA standards, but it seemed to be a function of their shrinking class size?

Didn't think that we needed to bid it that high, but I guess I will find out tomorrow.

[traydeuce]

Could I ask an obnoxious question? How do these people who struggle so badly at law school expect to be able to do biglaw work well? Actual, you know, cases, or actual transactions, are wayyyyy more complicated than some fact pattern about a slip and fall, or some race-based government hiring plan, or subject matter jurisdiction. Unless you're someone who really gets it but is just lousy in time crunches, I don't get why someone bad at law school would even want to go out into a biglaw job. If I had a 2.9, I'd be terrified of legal work. People always say that working at a firm is so different than law school; yeah, it's so much harder. That's the difference. Law doesn't magically get easier once you're practicing, or clerking, or whatevering. It just gets harder, because in practice you're not writing 3 page answers to 1-page hypos in 45 minutes, relying on two or three cases of which you read tiny excerpts in a textbook, after which you got tons of explanation and hand-holding as to what the cases meant from an expert in the field.

[rayiner]

Could I ask an obnoxious question? How do these people who struggle so badly at law school expect to be able to do biglaw work well? Actual, you know, cases, or actual transactions, are wayyyyy more complicated than some fact pattern about a slip and fall, or some race-based government hiring plan, or subject matter jurisdiction. Unless you're someone who really gets it but is just lousy in time crunches, I don't get why someone bad at law school would even want to go out into a biglaw job. If I had a 2.9, I'd be terrified of legal work. People always say that working at a firm is so different than law school; yeah, it's so much harder. That's the difference. Law doesn't magically get easier once you're practicing, or clerking, or whatevering. It just gets harder, because in practice you're not writing 3 page answers to 1-page hypos in 45 minutes, relying on two or three cases of which you read tiny excerpts in a textbook, after which you got tons of explanation and hand-holding as to what the cases meant from an expert in the field.

First, legal practice is substantively different than law school. Even in litigation, the closest thing you do in law school to practice is legal writing (which very often people with lower GPAs do well in) not exams. You don't do much "issue spotting" in legal practice, at least not in the sense where you try and wring dozens of issues out of a fact pattern. And in corporate it's completely different.

Second, legal practice operates at a very different pace than law school. In practice you have to work quickly and diligently, but you don't have to think particularly quickly. You research every point thoroughly, because not doing so would amount to malpractice. The single thing that tends to separate exams in law school, being able to think through things very quickly, is largely absent in legal practice.

Based on a summer's worth of work, I'd rather be one of those LRW gunners with a mediocre GPA but the ability to focus on a task for 10 hours straight than someone whose good at exams.

[baboon309]

Could I ask an obnoxious question? How do these people who struggle so badly at law school expect to be able to do biglaw work well? Actual, you know, cases, or actual transactions, are wayyyyy more complicated than some fact pattern about a slip and fall, or some race-based government hiring plan, or subject matter jurisdiction. Unless you're someone who really gets it but is just lousy in time crunches, I don't get why someone bad at law school would even want to go out into a biglaw job. If I had a 2.9, I'd be terrified of legal work. People always say that working at a firm is so different than law school; yeah, it's so much harder. That's the difference. Law doesn't magically get easier once you're practicing, or clerking, or whatevering. It just gets harder, because in practice you're not writing 3 page answers to 1-page hypos in 45 minutes, relying on two or three cases of which you read tiny excerpts in a textbook, after which you got tons of explanation and hand-holding as to what the cases meant from an expert in the field.

0L ?
lol

[vanwinkle]

Could I ask an obnoxious question? How do these people who struggle so badly at law school expect to be able to do biglaw work well? Actual, you know, cases, or actual transactions, are wayyyyy more complicated than some fact pattern about a slip and fall, or some race-based government hiring plan, or subject matter jurisdiction. Unless you're someone who really gets it but is just lousy in time crunches, I don't get why someone bad at law school would even want to go out into a biglaw job. If I had a 2.9, I'd be terrified of legal work. People always say that working at a firm is so different than law school; yeah, it's so much harder. That's the difference. Law doesn't magically get easier once you're practicing, or clerking, or whatevering. It just gets harder, because in practice you're not writing 3 page answers to 1-page hypos in 45 minutes, relying on two or three cases of which you read tiny excerpts in a textbook, after which you got tons of explanation and hand-holding as to what the cases meant from an expert in the field.

This was pretty inflammatory and hostile toward OP and people like him/her. You even started out by saying it was an "obnoxious question". And it didn't reveal anything. This didn't need to be anon.

For questions or complaints, see this: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=130748

[$$$$$$]

Could I ask an obnoxious question? How do these people who struggle so badly at law school expect to be able to do biglaw work well? Actual, you know, cases, or actual transactions, are wayyyyy more complicated than some fact pattern about a slip and fall, or some race-based government hiring plan, or subject matter jurisdiction. Unless you're someone who really gets it but is just lousy in time crunches, I don't get why someone bad at law school would even want to go out into a biglaw job. If I had a 2.9, I'd be terrified of legal work. People always say that working at a firm is so different than law school; yeah, it's so much harder. That's the difference. Law doesn't magically get easier once you're practicing, or clerking, or whatevering. It just gets harder, because in practice you're not writing 3 page answers to 1-page hypos in 45 minutes, relying on two or three cases of which you read tiny excerpts in a textbook, after which you got tons of explanation and hand-holding as to what the cases meant from an expert in the field.

As someone with bad grades that wants to do transactional work, I can tell you that law school is NOTHING like the work I want to be doing. First of all, I am actually interested in in the work ill (hopefully) be doing and business makes a lot more sense to me than torts or con law. Also, you understand that you are basing hiring on 8 exams? 8 exams is not even a 1/3 of a representative sample size if we are really trying to figure out who is the "best" at law school. I had one bad semester and now im too dumb to do the work and should be afraid? Also, some people don't try that hard at school, but once they have their 160K check on the line will do anything to get the job done. Should I go on as to why your statement is stupid?

Edit: Also, on transactions, your client comes to you to get the job done the way they want it. They aren't giving 50 law firms the same project and then grading them on a curve to see who's debt offering is the best structured. At a T-10 school, a few mistakes can mean a huge gpa drop because everyone is smart (mostly) and extremely hard working (mostly).

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Could I ask an obnoxious question? How do these people who struggle so badly at law school expect to be able to do biglaw work well? Actual, you know, cases, or actual transactions, are wayyyyy more complicated than some fact pattern about a slip and fall, or some race-based government hiring plan, or subject matter jurisdiction. Unless you're someone who really gets it but is just lousy in time crunches, I don't get why someone bad at law school would even want to go out into a biglaw job. If I had a 2.9, I'd be terrified of legal work. People always say that working at a firm is so different than law school; yeah, it's so much harder. That's the difference. Law doesn't magically get easier once you're practicing, or clerking, or whatevering. It just gets harder, because in practice you're not writing 3 page answers to 1-page hypos in 45 minutes, relying on two or three cases of which you read tiny excerpts in a textbook, after which you got tons of explanation and hand-holding as to what the cases meant from an expert in the field.

I know people who have graded on to LR who have been no-offered over people with less stellar GPAs.

[Cavalier]

Practicing law is not at all like issue spotting on an exam. On an exam, when you are faced with a contract for a painted portrait, you have to make clever arguments based only on a handful of UCC and Restatement provisions and some unrelated landmark contracts cases about whether or not the portrait should be treated as a good in order to determine the applicability of the UCC. In practice, you open up Westlaw, read the UCC and the jurisdiction's case law, and find out whether or not the portrait will be or is likely to be treated as a good. Practicing law is more like LRW, except there's no hand-holding.

[Lawyerhead]

First, legal practice is substantively different than law school. Even in litigation, the closest thing you do in law school to practice is legal writing (which very often people with lower GPAs do well in) not exams. You don't do much "issue spotting" in legal practice, at least not in the sense where you try and wring dozens of issues out of a fact pattern. And in corporate it's completely different.

Second, legal practice operates at a very different pace than law school. In practice you have to work quickly and diligently, but you don't have to think particularly quickly. You research every point thoroughly, because not doing so would amount to malpractice. The single thing that tends to separate exams in law school, being able to think through things very quickly, is largely absent in legal practice.

Based on a summer's worth of work, I'd rather be one of those LRW gunners with a mediocre GPA but the ability to focus on a task for 10 hours straight than someone whose good at exams.

No issue spotting in legal practice? Uh... I don't even know what to say.

Have time to research your point thoroughly? Have you ever engaged in a negotiation? Or practiced law in a fast pace environment at all? You absolutely do not research every point thoroughly. You think your clients are going to put up with you billing 10 hours for every little question they ask?

I want to work in this slow paced mythical field

Anyway, OP, you have your work cut out for you. The advantage of being a URM and getting into law school isn't nearly what it is when it comes to law firms.

[Aqualibrium]

Could I ask an obnoxious question? How do these people who struggle so badly at law school expect to be able to do biglaw work well? Actual, you know, cases, or actual transactions, are wayyyyy more complicated than some fact pattern about a slip and fall, or some race-based government hiring plan, or subject matter jurisdiction. Unless you're someone who really gets it but is just lousy in time crunches, I don't get why someone bad at law school would even want to go out into a biglaw job. If I had a 2.9, I'd be terrified of legal work. People always say that working at a firm is so different than law school; yeah, it's so much harder. That's the difference. Law doesn't magically get easier once you're practicing, or clerking, or whatevering. It just gets harder, because in practice you're not writing 3 page answers to 1-page hypos in 45 minutes, relying on two or three cases of which you read tiny excerpts in a textbook, after which you got tons of explanation and hand-holding as to what the cases meant from an expert in the field.

As someone with bad grades that wants to do transactional work, I can tell you that law school is NOTHING like the work I want to be doing. First of all, I am actually interested in in the work ill (hopefully) be doing and business makes a lot more sense to me than torts or con law. Also, you understand that you are basing hiring on 8 exams? 8 exams is not even a 1/3 of a representative sample size if we are really trying to figure out who is the "best" at law school. I had one bad semester and now im too dumb to do the work and should be afraid? Also, some people don't try that hard at school, but once they have their 160K check on the line will do anything to get the job done. Should I go on as to why your statement is stupid?

Edit: Also, on transactions, your client comes to you to get the job done the way they want it. They aren't giving 50 law firms the same project and then grading them on a curve to see who's debt offering is the best structured. At a T-10 school, a few mistakes can mean a huge gpa drop because everyone is smart (mostly) and extremely hard working (mostly).

I just want to go ahead and say that "as someone with bad grades" you probably, unfortunately, won't be doing the type of transactional work you seem to be interested in...

[JCougar]

Could I ask an obnoxious question? How do these people who struggle so badly at law school expect to be able to do biglaw work well? Actual, you know, cases, or actual transactions, are wayyyyy more complicated than some fact pattern about a slip and fall, or some race-based government hiring plan, or subject matter jurisdiction. Unless you're someone who really gets it but is just lousy in time crunches, I don't get why someone bad at law school would even want to go out into a biglaw job. If I had a 2.9, I'd be terrified of legal work. People always say that working at a firm is so different than law school; yeah, it's so much harder. That's the difference. Law doesn't magically get easier once you're practicing, or clerking, or whatevering. It just gets harder, because in practice you're not writing 3 page answers to 1-page hypos in 45 minutes, relying on two or three cases of which you read tiny excerpts in a textbook, after which you got tons of explanation and hand-holding as to what the cases meant from an expert in the field.

Good god, what an obnoxious post.

No, I doubt that any time practicing law you will be subjected to a 3-hour typing race where whichever lawyer copies the highest amount of words from their outline wins.

Law exams are an exceptionally mediocre predictor of work success. They're an incredibly blunt instrument and they test an extremely narrow subset of skills, few of which actually are skills that are applied at a job.

The only reason big firms really care about top 10% apart from top 40% or so is that "law review" on your resume is a marketing opportunity for them. I heavily doubt that once you get into the T14 (or even the T25, for that matter), that median students or even those somewhat below median would have any reason to be scared that practicing law is too intellectually challenging for them.

Law is fairly easy to understand compared to stuff like multivariate statistics, organic chemistry, quantum physics, etc. You can succeed by having only decent intellect but doing extremely dilligent work. You can also succeed simply by being able to get the right clients. Some cases may be a bit tricky, but after reading them once or twice, it really only boils down to a few principles at play.

If you're one of those people that thinks acing law exams is the key to success, and that you've proved yourself before even setting foot in an actual law firm, you're doing it wrong.