Top Law Schools

right now, i'm about .03 over the normal cuttoff at my school for order of the coif/magna (the cuttoff for magna is top 10%). the next level, cum laude, drops significantly (top 40%). have a job lined up... worth it to gun this semester? how big will order of coif/magna be (versus just cum laude) if i want to lateral/go-in house/clerk? finding it very hard to stay motivated...

Big deal if you want to go into academia -- but this only applies if you are at a top 6 school. (And Yale and Stanford don't award magna, and Chicago doesn't call it that, so this really only applies if you go to Harvard or Columbia or NYU.)

Modestly big deal if you want to try to go USDC -> COA.

Slightly big deal if you want USAO at some point.

Doesn't really matter after that. Though if it was me, I'd bust my butt for a semester to get it on my resume. That's going to stay with you for decades.

Was wondering same thing. Got the provisional order of the coif which apparently at my school is top 8%. They then award it for real when they see who lands in the top 10% when all grades are in. Finding it so so hard to care enough to maintain my grades though. No dreams of academia/clerking.

.

caring about magna and working hard are not mutually exclusive.
If I had a choice, I would rather graduate in the top of the class.

....coming from someone who's not good for this title.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: That's going to stay with you for decades.

exactly the type of attitude that stunts careers; resting our past laurels.

if i got magna/coif (and I wont), I'd get the job that the coif would get me, (e.g. CoA or whatever), and then burn the f'ing thing to cleanse the "past" and focus on the present.

and what exactly are you trying to say with coif "staying with you for decades" - you used to be smart and the proof is in some law professors' opinion of you? Might as well list your SAT scores, LSAT scores, and other stupid irrelevant nonsense. Better build on a reputation of intelligence based on WORK, rather than on a meaningless distinction

woops, unintentional anon

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: That's going to stay with you for decades.

exactly the type of attitude that stunts careers; resting our past laurels.

if i got magna/coif (and I wont), I'd get the job that the coif would get me, (e.g. CoA or whatever), and then burn the f'ing thing to cleanse the "past" and focus on the present.

and what exactly are you trying to say with coif "staying with you for decades" - you used to be smart and the proof is in some law professors' opinion of you? Might as well list your SAT scores, LSAT scores, and other stupid irrelevant nonsense. Better build on a reputation of intelligence based on WORK, rather than on a meaningless distinction

He mad, but he got a point

kaiser wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: That's going to stay with you for decades.

exactly the type of attitude that stunts careers; resting our past laurels.

if i got magna/coif (and I wont), I'd get the job that the coif would get me, (e.g. CoA or whatever), and then burn the f'ing thing to cleanse the "past" and focus on the present.

and what exactly are you trying to say with coif "staying with you for decades" - you used to be smart and the proof is in some law professors' opinion of you? Might as well list your SAT scores, LSAT scores, and other stupid irrelevant nonsense. Better build on a reputation of intelligence based on WORK, rather than on a meaningless distinction

He mad, but he got a point

What's his point? That working hard is more important than coif? Sure, but no one said otherwise. The question was "is coif better than no coif," and the answer to that is yes.

If we're comparing two equally hard workers, I'd rather be the one with coif than the one without. Simple as that.

Anonymous User wrote:Big deal if you want to go into academia -- but this only applies if you are at a top 6 school. (And Yale and Stanford don't award magna, and Chicago doesn't call it that, so this really only applies if you go to Harvard or Columbia or NYU.

Columbia doesn't have magna/coif, they have Kent (3.8+) and Stone (3.41+), kinda sucks since you could potentially be in the top 5% of your class and still miss out on Kent.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: That's going to stay with you for decades.

exactly the type of attitude that stunts careers; resting our past laurels.

if i got magna/coif (and I wont), I'd get the job that the coif would get me, (e.g. CoA or whatever), and then burn the f'ing thing to cleanse the "past" and focus on the present.

and what exactly are you trying to say with coif "staying with you for decades" - you used to be smart and the proof is in some law professors' opinion of you? Might as well list your SAT scores, LSAT scores, and other stupid irrelevant nonsense. Better build on a reputation of intelligence based on WORK, rather than on a meaningless distinction

This is quite misguided. Graduation honors are a signaling mechanism. It takes a lot of time to evaluate a person's work or reputation. Honors and other signals, on the other hand, provide quick indications that further attention might be warranted.

E.g. say I get a resume from someone who worked at XYZ, Inc. as a software engineer for 5 years before applying to my company. I've never heard of XYZ, Inc. What kind of work did he do at XYZ, Inc? Was it cutting-edge stuff, or something commonplace. Is he a superstar or just mediocre? Am I supposed to be impressed? Well, what if his resume listed no honors at Arizona State. What do I think of XYZ, Inc? What if his resume listed magna cum laude from MIT? What do I think of XYZ, Inc. now?

Ultimately, you have to be a superstar in your work. But stuff like graduation honors, etc, serve as a signaling mechanism to get people to perk up their attention, to get them to think that maybe it is worth their time to look deeper and evaluate this person's work and reputation.

EDIT: And I say this as someone who, before law school, blew off school but did great work. I got hired after college based on a recommendation from my former employer that amounted to "if you don't hire him, tell him to come back to work for us." However, most places I applied wouldn't even get to the point of making checking my references because I didn't have the grades/honors on my resume to pique their interest.

Agree with BK and to a lessor extent angry bro. I would be careful with that rest on your laurels attitude though... It really is always about tomorrow. Guess the "life's a journey" folks are right.

Yeah having something like honors on your resume separates it, whether it should or not. I think there are a lot easier ways to separate yourself though, and separating yourself is what the first stage of hiring is all about. Once you get that interview the playing field is fairly level.

If it were me, I'd still gun for those honors. You are so close! I bet everyone in your position will do the same though so likely some disappointed folks.

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Yeah having something like honors on your resume separates it, whether it should or not. I think there are a lot easier ways to separate yourself though, and separating yourself is what the first stage of hiring is all about. Once you get that interview the playing field is fairly level. .

But in this context, it's easy. All he has to do is keep on doing what he has been doing for another month and a half...

one of our partners is one of the most down to earth person i've met. Yet he framed his certificate saying Harvard magna cum and put it in his office.

despite years of legal training people still cannot see that one thing does not preclude the other. taking pride in a past honor =/= show off...

.

Anonymous User wrote:right now, i'm about .03 over the normal cuttoff at my school for order of the coif/magna (the cuttoff for magna is top 10%). the next level, cum laude, drops significantly (top 40%). have a job lined up... worth it to gun this semester? how big will order of coif/magna be (versus just cum laude) if i want to lateral/go-in house/clerk? finding it very hard to stay motivated...

it will matter significantly for clerking if you don't have profs calling for you. it will not matter for lateraling or going in-house so much. maybe a little.

it will not matter at all 5 years from now. for a grown fully-functioning adult lawyer, coif is as relevant as your MENSA membership.

Anonymous User wrote: Your point is pretty relevant for my own firm with its monumental aspie-to-human ratio.
so, yes, at my firm, you should probably change your middle name to t6 coif or something if you want to perk an aspie's attention.

Most firm profiles that I looked over when I was doing research for OCI usually contained a few lines containing 1) LR membership and ed position, if any, and 2) honors. They also devoted much more space to what the lawyer had most currently done with cases. I don't see how it's aspie to try a little harder in a single semester so you can put a single additional line on your profile/resume.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: it will not matter at all 5 years from now. for a grown fully-functioning adult lawyer, coif is as relevant as your MENSA membership.

Coif is a much less douchey signal than MENSA membership (and is a lot more difficult to do). (I think most people on TLS qualify for MENSA--I think a 164 on the LSAT qualifies you.)

Richie Tenenbaum wrote: Coif is a much less douchey signal than MENSA membership (and is a lot more difficult to do). (I think most people on TLS qualify for MENSA--I think a 164 on the LSAT qualifies you.)

Maybe less douchey. But equally relevant.

Coif also keeps your options open for the very top boutiques that won't hire outside of the top 10%, even if you have >5 years of experience. These firms are rare, but they exist.

Anonymous User wrote:

rayiner wrote: Ultimately, you have to be a superstar in your work. But stuff like graduation honors, etc, serve as a signaling mechanism to get people to perk up their attention, to get them to think that maybe it is worth their time to look deeper and evaluate this person's work and reputation.

yeah, where signaling matters.
no, where it doesn't. i don't know who you're signaling to "decades" removed from law school. At that point, your bio should be more about two dozen favorable settlements, arbs, and verdicts - and less about "coif" - but whatever. I'll play along.

Your point is pretty relevant for my own firm with its monumental aspie-to-human ratio.
so, yes, at my firm, you should probably change your middle name to t6 coif or something if you want to perk an aspie's attention.

I'm not necessarily saying your graduation honors should be your primary signaling mechanism decades out. As you get older, you are less reliant on sending in resumes, etc, to get jobs. But even ten years out, when you're applying for an in-house gig? Yeah, it's still relevant. For reasons that have nothing to do with people being aspie, and entirely to do with the fact that until you're well established there aren't many objective metrics for people to latch onto as a signaling mechanism.

Also, what happens if you're well-established and want to say teach a class at the local law school? How does the law schools distinguish you from all the other practitioners with a pile of favorable verdicts under their belt? What if you decide to witch out of law? A pile of favorable verdicts might not mean anything to a non-legal employer, but honors and the like are still a useful signal. The new CEO of my former company, who has several CEO-ships under his belt, still lists his law review and undergraduate honors on his one-paragraph bio. He's just about the opposite of the aspie-lawyer stereotype (he competes in triathlons and looks a little like Daniel Craig).

The point isn't that you'll be relying on your graduation honors 20 years from now. The point is that you never know what will pique the interest of someone relevant to your career, and slacking for a month and a half isn't worth trading that away for.

I disagree with the above that it means less and looks more douchey than Mensa. FWIW I put Mensa on my resume and I struck up a good conversation with a partner about it. He asked me how I qualified and I said via a qualifying test score and he mentioned he had done something similar. Ended up getting an offer there and I think the partner really liked me.

I would never put MENSA on my resume. Given that my school has something like a 172 LSAT average, and a 167 or 168 is enough to get you in to MENSA, I'm not sure what point it would serve. So I'd be celebrating the fact that I crossed a threshold that, in itself, would have gotten me rejected from my current school. Essentially anyone at a T14 school would automatically qualify, so it seems like its meaningless.

Anonymous User wrote:I disagree with the above that it means less and looks more douchey than Mensa. FWIW I put Mensa on my resume and I struck up a good conversation with a partner about it. He asked me how I qualified and I said via a qualifying test score and he mentioned he had done something similar. Ended up getting an offer there and I think the partner really liked me.

Congrats, you lucked out and interviewed with one of the few douchey people out there who thought it was necessary to prove their intellect by joining Mensa. Most people who are not in Mensa would probably just think you're a douchebag for putting that on your resume.

That's the exact thought process that me and the partner joked about and frankly I think it shows a ridiculous level of ignorance and naivety. The idea that simply because so many people are eligible for the organization somehow takes away from its mission and significance. We talked about how the organization isn't to show yourslef how smart you are but its a great source of networking, has strong philanthropic goals, and transcends borders and religions.

Think about all the other "clubs" you could join because you are "eligible" for that many people do put on their resume.
Take all of the "affinity" organizations. Example, Black Students Association - everyone in it puts it on their resume yet 100% of law students are eligible. Does that mean you don't put it on your resume? By your line of logic you would absolutely not put it on your resume.

I don't know if I've ever wanted an anon abuser outed so badly