Columbia Law School EIP 2013

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:37 pm

Does anyone know what the old curve was? Or what the current 2L/elective curve is, for that matter? They seem to have taken both down.

-B.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:44 pm

anyone aiming for boston? any thoughts there?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Does anyone know what the old curve was? Or what the current 2L/elective curve is, for that matter? They seem to have taken both down.

-B.


The shift was small. In the old curve it was 45-55% B+ and over and in the new curve it's 55-65% B+ and over.

I think the 2L/3L curve is 40% A and A- and 35% B+, though they don't have to follow it as strictly.

- Hodor

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:35 pm

Here's a bit of stats nerding out: if all grades were assigned by throwing our papers down the stairs (i.e., all grades are random and independent of each other), the current curve would result in 39% of 1L's having Stone, 4% having Kent, and a median GPA of 3.37. By contrast, the same assumptions under the old curve--the one in place two years ago--would have 34% Stone, 4% Kent, and a median GPA of 3.34. So, as said above, not a huge change.

Disclaimer: The assumption of independent grades is surely wrong. People who made several As must have at least a slightly higher chance of making more As (unless someone really is throwing exams down a staircase). But I don't remember enough math to take co-linearity into account. Further, these numbers assume that all professors award the maximum allowable numbers of As, A-s, and B+s, give the minimum number of Bs, and do not give any A+s, B-s or Cs. These assumptions are also likely wrong, but probably don't matter much.

Correcting for that in rough terms, I suspect that more than 40% are currently Stone (since there will be fewer people right at median with high and low grades canceling out). On the other hand, I suspect that the true median is lower than a 3.37--if some of the high grades are clustered, there won't be as many to keep the median up.

Does all that seem right to you guys?

-B.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Here's a bit of stats nerding out: if all grades were assigned by throwing our papers down the stairs (i.e., all grades are random and independent of each other), the current curve would result in 39% of 1L's having Stone, 4% having Kent, and a median GPA of 3.37. By contrast, the same assumptions under the old curve--the one in place two years ago--would have 34% Stone, 4% Kent, and a median GPA of 3.34. So, as said above, not a huge change.

Disclaimer: The assumption of independent grades is surely wrong. People who made several As must have at least a slightly higher chance of making more As (unless someone really is throwing exams down a staircase). But I don't remember enough math to take co-linearity into account. Further, these numbers assume that all professors award the maximum allowable numbers of As, A-s, and B+s, give the minimum number of Bs, and do not give any A+s, B-s or Cs. These assumptions are also likely wrong, but probably don't matter much.

Correcting for that in rough terms, I suspect that more than 40% are currently Stone (since there will be fewer people right at median with high and low grades canceling out). On the other hand, I suspect that the true median is lower than a 3.37--if some of the high grades are clustered, there won't be as many to keep the median up.

Does all that seem right to you guys?

-B.


Wow, thanks for this. I don't know how much it helps you in terms of figuring out the co-linearity (I don't even know what this word means), but the old curve from two years ago had a median around 3.31 and Stone was about 29%.

I'd be surprised if the median was higher than 3.33 but maybe that's really misguided. Our curve is so far from a normal distribution at this point that I have no idea how you calculate anything, but I'm really bad at math.

-Ted "Theodore" Logan

ETA: I wonder how firms will treat this if we don't have a clue. It certainly seems like it'll move the median and that more people will end up with Stone. I figure some firms will probably notice a lack of B- grades, but given that the top end didn't move that much, I wonder how much it'll impact people who are above Stone but not Kent range. I'm assuming that Kenters will continue to be superstars who are above these concerns.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:50 pm

I think that's an overly conservative estimate. Under the old curve, the percent Stone was probably closer to ~29%. I highly doubt more than 40% are Stone -- my imagination is at most 40% are Stone, and median is at highest 3.33, though likely a tad bit lower.

- Hodor

Edit: looks like I was scooped.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:19 am

Anonymous User wrote:at most 40% are Stone, and median is at highest 3.33, though likely a tad bit lower.


I'm inclined to agree, though I'm not entirely sure what any of us are basing that on. If it's the case that 39% would be Stone with totally random grades and no more than 40% are Stone in real life, that must mean that grades are pretty random--or at least that there aren't too many people with higher grades than we'd expect from a random distribution. (Non-independent grades, at least in theory, should flatten out any bell-curve and end up with more people at the extremes but fewer in the middle. But as Ted said, we're probably not that close to theory at this point.) Even given all that, I really don't believe more than 40% are Stone. But I don't have much to back that up. Maybe professors give out enough B-s or extra Bs to drop the curve from what the numbers suggest?

-B.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:27 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:at most 40% are Stone, and median is at highest 3.33, though likely a tad bit lower.


I'm inclined to agree, though I'm not entirely sure what any of us are basing that on. If it's the case that 39% would be Stone with totally random grades and no more than 40% are Stone in real life, that must mean that grades are pretty random--or at least that there aren't too many people with higher grades than we'd expect from a random distribution. (Non-independent grades, at least in theory, should flatten out any bell-curve and end up with more people at the extremes but fewer in the middle. But as Ted said, we're probably not that close to theory at this point.) Even given all that, I really don't believe more than 40% are Stone. But I don't have much to back that up. Maybe professors give out enough B-s or extra Bs to drop the curve from what the numbers suggest?

-B.


FWIW, Lynch gave out 6 B-s and 1 C.

I know a few kids that get a couple As/A-s and then a couple Bs too. Obviously anecdotal, but it does seem a bit random.

- Hodor

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:33 am

FWIW, one of my professor's listed the percentage of the class who received a specific grade on the exam, along with percentages for previous years. B-s only went down by a small amount this term.
Edit: scooped

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:42 am

Anonymous User wrote:FWIW, Lynch gave out 6 B-s and 1 C.


Wow. If that's at all representative, it would throw off my numbers above by quite a lot. I guess that accounts for why Stone and median are lower than the numbers suggested.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 am

Anonymous User wrote:FWIW, one of my professor's listed the percentage of the class who received a specific grade on the exam, along with percentages for previous years. B-s only went down by a small amount this term.
Edit: scooped


I suppose this isn't too shocking. Professors (especially law professors) are creatures of habit. Why would they change the way they grade simply because the mandatory curve changed!? :lol:

But in all seriousness, I think there are so many variables here that it's hard to tell how much of a change there was/whether the change actually impacts people much past median in either direction. It is kinda upsetting that the school won't just rank us/tell us exactly what's going on, but I suppose that would defeat the purpose of messing with the curve to begin with.

I do know that after going through a year of law school, I wouldn't want an even more obfuscated curve like they have at Harvard or whatever. I really hope that the rumors of another new curve are wrong.

-Ted "Theodore" Logan

(Oh, and I laugh every time I read Hodor, so thank you for that, Hodor.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:35 am

On a different note, does anyone know which firms give the best training during the summer program?

Most of the data we've been given is aimed at evaluating the firms for longterm employment. But, given the decent odds that some of us will end up starting with a different firm than the one we summer with, I'd be interested in knowing which has the best summer program as summer program. Especially for skills training, that seems like it could mater.

-B

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:51 am

Anonymous User wrote:On a different note, does anyone know which firms give the best training during the summer program?

Most of the data we've been given is aimed at evaluating the firms for longterm employment. But, given the decent odds that some of us will end up starting with a different firm than the one we summer with, I'd be interested in knowing which has the best summer program as summer program. Especially for skills training, that seems like it could mater.

-B


Huh? What makes you say this?

- Hodor

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:01 am

Anonymous User wrote:On a different note, does anyone know which firms give the best training during the summer program?

Most of the data we've been given is aimed at evaluating the firms for longterm employment. But, given the decent odds that some of us will end up starting with a different firm than the one we summer with, I'd be interested in knowing which has the best summer program as summer program. Especially for skills training, that seems like it could mater.

-B


I'm pretty sure there are Vault rankings for this. You can get the full guide by going to Vault through Symplicity.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:11 am

Anonymous User wrote:What makes you say this?

Well, some people will clerk and switch firms, others might go back to a 1L employer (if they had a good experience/relationship) and others might change firms in 3L EIP. I've actually heard that most firms at 3L EIP are looking harder for people who want to trade firms than for people who struck out.

I'm not saying that most of us will change or anything, but it seems worth considering.

-B.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:59 pm

Anonymous User wrote:anyone aiming for boston? any thoughts there?


Interested in this as well. Thinking about bidding on a few Boston firms, but I've heard it's a very insular market and my ties are fairly tenuous (SO lives there). I'm not sure if these would be wasted bids, but I'd definitely appreciate any insight.

- Roger Sterling

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Thinking about bidding on a few Boston firms, but I've heard it's a very insular market and my ties are fairly tenuous (SO lives there).


I don't have any insight into Boston, but in general wouldn't write off the strength of a SO. My sense is that firms are mostly trying to make sure you'll like it in their city/not want to leave. I think a CLS student with a serious, long term SO who lived in and had strong ties to a city would do ok. That would be especially true if the CLS student didn't have strong ties to another area (e.g., family spread out) and had spent enough time in that city to credibly say they're sure it's where they'd want to be. Depending on how many of those boxes you can check, I think a SO could be a decent tie.

-B.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:54 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Here's a bit of stats nerding out: if all grades were assigned by throwing our papers down the stairs (i.e., all grades are random and independent of each other), the current curve would result in 39% of 1L's having Stone, 4% having Kent, and a median GPA of 3.37. By contrast, the same assumptions under the old curve--the one in place two years ago--would have 34% Stone, 4% Kent, and a median GPA of 3.34. So, as said above, not a huge change.

-B.


B, I'm not certain if your median numbers are correct. On the current 1L curve, even if all professors were to grade as generously as possible, the B+ bracket for a given exam would be 35-70% (65% B+ and up, and 30%+ A- and up). The median point for this bracket is 52.5%. The elective's more generous upperclass curve has a B+ bracket median of about 45%, so if we assume that all professors grade as generously as possible, a B+ average [3.33] comes out to median in every class. A 3.37 is basically 6 B+'s and 1 A-. I believe this has to be above median, as the 3.37 student, assuming his professors curved generously, scored ~median in 6 classes and scored ~80th percentile in another (roughly the median point for A-).

I do think it is possible for as much as 39% of the class to be Stone, but I too doubt whether that will be the case. I'd place my bets on roughly top 35-36%.

Also, to whoever was asking about whether we would need to bid ~stone cutoff firms higher to account for a larger stone bracket, you may not have to. Bear in mind that our class size is smaller than previous years, so even if the proportion of stone students increases, the actual number may not. Moreover, I do not believe the stone proportion will actually increase that much, as the high grade brackets required for stone (at least 2 A- or 1 A) were barely expanded. Then again, the expansion of the B+ bracket gives greater stone security for people who have already picked up the necessary high grades.

- Tiefighter

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote:B, I'm not certain if your median numbers are correct. On the current 1L curve, even if all professors were to grade as generously as possible, the B+ bracket for a given exam would be 35-70% (65% B+ and up, and 30%+ A- and up). The median point for this bracket is 52.5%. The elective's more generous upperclass curve has a B+ bracket median of about 45%, so if we assume that all professors grade as generously as possible, a B+ average [3.33] comes out to median in every class. A 3.37 is basically 6 B+'s and 1 A-. I believe this has to be above median, as the 3.37 student, assuming his professors curved generously, scored ~median in 6 classes and scored ~80th percentile in another (roughly the median point for A-).


I think the numbers I gave are "correct" in that they are an accurate representation of what follows from the starting assumptions: totally random, independent grades with all professors grading as generously as possible. At first, I was also surprised at the higher median generated by that model—like you, I thought the median would be at most a 3.33. But, thinking about it, it makes sense: if professors grade as generously as possible, they give As but not B-s which brings up the median. For example, someone with an A, a B, and the rest B+s will have around a 3.4. (Also, the assumption of independent grades probably brings up the median more than it should. From the point of view of having a high median, multiple As going to one person are essentially wasted, after all.)

But, in the end, I don't think any of this is much more than a diversion. I played around with my model a little bit and making slight changes to the number of B-s awarded can dramatically change the results. I bet changes to other assumptions would also change the results. Given how much they change, all I can say is that the median must be between 3.2 and 3.4 and that between 30–40% of people made Stone. Of course, that's not any more than we knew before I started messing around with half-forgotten math, so I don't think I accomplished anything.

(I saw a site linked to elsewhere on TLS that claimed to estimate median grades from two data points, but I can't vouch for its methodology.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:B, I'm not certain if your median numbers are correct. On the current 1L curve, even if all professors were to grade as generously as possible, the B+ bracket for a given exam would be 35-70% (65% B+ and up, and 30%+ A- and up). The median point for this bracket is 52.5%. The elective's more generous upperclass curve has a B+ bracket median of about 45%, so if we assume that all professors grade as generously as possible, a B+ average [3.33] comes out to median in every class. A 3.37 is basically 6 B+'s and 1 A-. I believe this has to be above median, as the 3.37 student, assuming his professors curved generously, scored ~median in 6 classes and scored ~80th percentile in another (roughly the median point for A-).


I think the numbers I gave are "correct" in that they are an accurate representation of what follows from the starting assumptions: totally random, independent grades with all professors grading as generously as possible. At first, I was also surprised at the higher median generated by that model—like you, I thought the median would be at most a 3.33. But, thinking about it, it makes sense: if professors grade as generously as possible, they give As but not B-s which brings up the median. For example, someone with an A, a B, and the rest B+s will have around a 3.4. (Also, the assumption of independent grades probably brings up the median more than it should. From the point of view of having a high median, multiple As going to one person are essentially wasted, after all.)

But, in the end, I don't think any of this is much more than a diversion. I played around with my model a little bit and making slight changes to the number of B-s awarded can dramatically change the results. I bet changes to other assumptions would also change the results. Given how much they change, all I can say is that the median must be between 3.2 and 3.4 and that between 30–40% of people made Stone. Of course, that's not any more than we knew before I started messing around with half-forgotten math, so I don't think I accomplished anything.

(I saw a site linked to elsewhere on TLS that claimed to estimate median grades from two data points, but I can't vouch for its methodology.)


Between 3.2 and 3.4? We can narrow it down far more than that. It's not going to be as low as 3.2 because it wasn't on the old curve. And there is no way that Stone would (almost) overlap with median.

That's just using a normal distribution, which is perfectly fine if you want to make that assumption.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:48 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Between 3.2 and 3.4? We can narrow it down far more than that. It's not going to be as low as 3.2 because it wasn't on the old curve. And there is no way that Stone would (almost) overlap with median.

That's just using a normal distribution, which is perfectly fine if you want to make that assumption.


Honestly, the more I think of it, the more I think that the "new" curve is not something to be concerned about. They moved the curve last year, but it was a small adjustment. This year they only applied that same curve for the full year. It's not like they totally reworked things or adjusted Stone or anything like that. That, coupled with the smaller class size means that the changes might not be significant. (to us or to employers)

If there are any changes, I'd think that people who received a B- might face more issues because they'll stand out more. Maybe a "B" is more of a black mark than it was before, but if your GPA is good I don't think it matters. We know from the old old curve that there is some relationship between performance in one class and performance in others, because fewer people made Stone than would have if everything were up to chance.

Anyway, when it comes to bidding and stuff like that, I don't know what the significance really would be. Stone is still Stone and there will probably be a similar number of people at Stone in the end. I think there are better things to lose sleep over.

-Ted "Theodore" Logan

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:10 pm

Anyone know if Boeis, WLRK, Sullcrom, and Cravath are worth bids with a 3.6-3.7? Thanks in advance.

imchuckbass58
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby imchuckbass58 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone know if Boeis, WLRK, Sullcrom, and Cravath are worth bids with a 3.6-3.7? Thanks in advance.


Yes. People get offers at all four with GPAs in that range (and significantly lower, in the case of cravath).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:17 pm

imchuckbass58 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Anyone know if Boeis, WLRK, Sullcrom, and Cravath are worth bids with a 3.6-3.7? Thanks in advance.


Yes. People get offers at all four with GPAs in that range (and significantly lower, in the case of cravath).


Could you define significantly lower? How much would it change things for someone much closer to 3.6 than 3.7?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273454
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia Law School EIP 2013

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone know if Boeis, WLRK, Sullcrom, and Cravath are worth bids with a 3.6-3.7? Thanks in advance.


I'm not sure WLRK and Boies are worth a bid in any event—at least last year they didn't fill up and thus could probably be picked up after bidding. At the very most, using one of your last bids would probably get you an screener.

-B.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.