LA BigLaw GPA Minimums Forum

[Anonymous User]

Anyone know if GPA floors exist for LA Biglaw firms and if so, what they are?

[to116]

i imagine it depends on which school you're coming from

[OutoftheWoods]

You could go all day analyzing each firm, but I think generally:

3.4+
Paul Hastings

3.5+
Sidley

3.6+
Skadden
Gibson
Latham
STB
Sullivan & Cromwell
OMM
MTO
Arnold & Porter

There are prob a few im forgetting, but these are the most notable ones I think people look at.

If you're below 3.5, bid on everything else that makes sense to you. 3.4+ distinction is likely meaningless. no point below 3.3 bc well, you prob should just give up then (there are exceptions, of course).

[runinthefront]

You could go all day analyzing each firm, but I think generally:

3.5+
Paul Hastings
Sidley

3.6+
Skadden
Gibson
Latham
STB
Sullivan & Cromwell
OMM
MTO
Arnold & Porter

There are prob a few im forgetting, but these are the most notable ones I think people look at.

If you're below 3.5, bid on everything else that makes sense to you. 3.4+ distinction is likely meaningless. no point below 3.3 bc well, you prob should just give up then (there are exceptions, of course).

are you just making this up off the top of your head or nah? How could you possibly know what the cutoffs are for a UC Davis student vs. a Duke student?

[OutoftheWoods]

I'm speaking from a T20 perspective (which actually takes hold the same for T14 generally, from what I've seen).

If you want me to compare Davis to Duke, I'd say any school below T25 is likely 10% necessary for any big law firm (I will say specifically for davis, it is definitely ~10%...unless their 10% big law placement rate has changed).

[ManoftheHour]

It's ~15% for big law and 3% for fed clerk. You'd have some chance at at big law top quarter if you have WE or interview very well. Schools that rank lower usually have lower GPAs to begin with so I would imagine the cutoffs are different (of course, it goes without saying that regardless, fewer of them will get big law than higher ranked schools). Example, at my school (ranked in the 30s), 3.1 is around median and 3.5 is ~ top 15%. 3.5 at WUSTL is like median/below median IIRC.

[OutoftheWoods]

It's ~15% for big law and 3% for fed clerk. You'd have some chance at at big law top quarter if you have WE or interview very well. Schools that range usually have lower GPAs so I would imagine the cutoffs are different. Example, at my school (ranked in the 30s), 3.1 is around median and 3.5 is ~ top 15%.

Right. I would clarify at below T25, it does not matter what you're gpa is as long as you're in the top 10%. which tends to be the actual cutoff. 15% takes into account whatever the top 10% is (assuming you list that on your resume, being just below it by a bit)

[runinthefront]

It's ~15% for big law and 3% for fed clerk. You'd have some chance at at big law top quarter if you have WE or interview very well. Schools that rank lower usually have lower GPAs to begin with so I would imagine the cutoffs are different (of course, it goes without saying that regardless, fewer of them will get big law than higher ranked schools). Example, at my school (ranked in the 30s), 3.1 is around median and 3.5 is ~ top 15%. 3.5 at WUSTL is like median/below median IIRC.

How do your numbers help OP? I don't understand what's going on in this thread. The obvious answer is "go talk to your CSO who gets paid $45-$100k/year to track the historical cut-offs for your school"

[Glasseyes]

It's ~15% for big law and 3% for fed clerk. You'd have some chance at at big law top quarter if you have WE or interview very well. Schools that rank lower usually have lower GPAs to begin with so I would imagine the cutoffs are different (of course, it goes without saying that regardless, fewer of them will get big law than higher ranked schools). Example, at my school (ranked in the 30s), 3.1 is around median and 3.5 is ~ top 15%. 3.5 at WUSTL is like median/below median IIRC.

How do your numbers help OP? I don't understand what's going on in this thread. The obvious answer is "go talk to your CSO who gets paid $45-$100k/year to track the historical cut-offs for your school"

Yeah, this. GPA stats are utterly worthless unless they're for your school, and anything a firm puts forth as a "cutoff" is not to be trusted. Having seen the GULC and GW stats from OCI, there's a substantial difference in GPA requirements for most firms, which is probably based in part on school prestige but also differences in each school's curve.

[jbagelboy]

You could go all day analyzing each firm, but I think generally:

3.4+
Paul Hastings

3.5+
Sidley

3.6+
Skadden
Gibson
Latham
STB
Sullivan & Cromwell
OMM
MTO
Arnold & Porter

There are prob a few im forgetting, but these are the most notable ones I think people look at.

If you're below 3.5, bid on everything else that makes sense to you. 3.4+ distinction is likely meaningless. no point below 3.3 bc well, you prob should just give up then (there are exceptions, of course).

This is a vast oversimplification that also omits a ton of firms.

The "3.6+" category here ranges from firms that are nowhere near that selective at most T14s to firms that are considerably more selective than 3.6 at those same schools

[ManoftheHour]

It's ~15% for big law and 3% for fed clerk. You'd have some chance at at big law top quarter if you have WE or interview very well. Schools that rank lower usually have lower GPAs to begin with so I would imagine the cutoffs are different (of course, it goes without saying that regardless, fewer of them will get big law than higher ranked schools). Example, at my school (ranked in the 30s), 3.1 is around median and 3.5 is ~ top 15%. 3.5 at WUSTL is like median/below median IIRC.

How do your numbers help OP? I don't understand what's going on in this thread. The obvious answer is "go talk to your CSO who gets paid $45-$100k/year to track the historical cut-offs for your school"

I was trying to prove your point. I'd rather have a 3.5 at my school than a 3.5 at non-T14 school in which a 3.5 is median. Because schools have different ranks for the same GPA, it's not all that useful to put a generalization on firm cutoffs based on GPA alone.

[NYC2012]

.

[goden]

You could go all day analyzing each firm, but I think generally:

3.4+
Paul Hastings

3.5+
Sidley

3.6+
Skadden
Gibson
Latham
STB
Sullivan & Cromwell
OMM
MTO
Arnold & Porter

There are prob a few im forgetting, but these are the most notable ones I think people look at.

If you're below 3.5, bid on everything else that makes sense to you. 3.4+ distinction is likely meaningless. no point below 3.3 bc well, you prob should just give up then (there are exceptions, of course).

This sounds accurate for USC/UCLA at least

[registering]

That sounds like it could screw UCLA kids more than USC if the firms are looking at raw GPA considering UCLA's curve is a bit lower than 'SC.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know if I chance in big law with the following stats. First semester GPA: 3.23; Second semester GPA: 3.84; Cumulative: 3.56. I also I have a TA position starting in the fall. I go to the University of Florida and its currently ranked at 41. I know my first semester GPA was horrible but I'm planning to highlight the reasons for the jump in my cover letter.

[sparkytrainer]

Does anyone know if I chance in big law with the following stats. First semester GPA: 3.23; Second semester GPA: 3.84; Cumulative: 3.56. I also I have a TA position starting in the fall. I go to the University of Florida and its currently ranked at 41. I know my first semester GPA was horrible but I'm planning to highlight the reasons for the jump in my cover letter.

You go to UF. No la biglaw firm is gonna take a kid from across the country at a t50 school when they have more than enough kids in their backyard plus all the t13 kids.