Summer Classes of 2022 Edition Forum

[Anonymous User]

Still curious about Weil, Debevoise, Milbank, Cleary, among others.

[Anonymous User]

DPW NY (156 total, 21 1Ls)

Harvard (22) (1 1L)
NYU (20) (3 1Ls)
Columbia (17) (1 1L)
Stanford (11) (3 1Ls)
Yale (10)
...

Are you sure that this is only DPW NYC? The number of HLS, SLS and YLS folks choosing DPW is insane compared to STB.

One of the above schools is unlike the rest and should not be a measure of excellence lol

Are you slamming NYU?

I think he's talk about a T4 law school being lumped together with YS

[Anonymous User]

Still curious about Weil, Debevoise, Milbank, Cleary, among others.

someone already posted Cleary

[Anonymous User]

Still curious about Weil, Debevoise, Milbank, Cleary, among others.

someone already posted Cleary

Ah yes you're right.

[Anonymous User]

Still curious about Weil, Debevoise, Milbank, Cleary, among others.

Cleary and Debevoise are almost always ~66% Harvard/NYU/Columbia, with the rest of the class filled up with a sprinkling of YLS, Penn, Fordham, Michigan and Cornell etc. They're typically known to be more school snobby. More generally, it's actually pretty insane how those three schools tend to dominate placement into the NYC white shoe firms compared to the rest of the T14

Weil and Milbank are more likely to dip into lower ranked schools from what I've seen.

[Anonymous User]

Still curious about Weil, Debevoise, Milbank, Cleary, among others.

Cleary and Debevoise are almost always ~66% Harvard/NYU/Columbia, with the rest of the class filled up with a sprinkling of YLS, Penn, Fordham, Michigan and Cornell etc. They're typically known to be more school snobby. More generally, it's actually pretty insane how those three schools tend to dominate placement into the NYC white shoe firms compared to the rest of the T14

Weil and Milbank are more likely to dip into lower ranked schools from what I've seen.

Mainly because these 3 schools have the most students by far besides Gtwon which is borderline non-T14.

[Anonymous User]

Still curious about Weil, Debevoise, Milbank, Cleary, among others.

Cleary and Debevoise are almost always ~66% Harvard/NYU/Columbia, with the rest of the class filled up with a sprinkling of YLS, Penn, Fordham, Michigan and Cornell etc. They're typically known to be more school snobby. More generally, it's actually pretty insane how those three schools tend to dominate placement into the NYC white shoe firms compared to the rest of the T14

Weil and Milbank are more likely to dip into lower ranked schools from what I've seen.

Mainly because these 3 schools have the most students by far besides Gtwon which is borderline non-T14.

Those three (HLS/CLS/NYU) constitute ~33% of the total T14 student pool. Of course, based on proximity and such, those three probably have closer to half (or more) of all T14 students who are gunning for NY biglaw.

There’s a surprising amount of variance even among snobby NY white shoe firms. The T6 represents like 30-40% of associates for some, and 60-70% for others.

[Anonymous User]

Was KE class breakdown posted and I missed it due to derail? Can you guys post breakdown.

Kirkland Chicago
Includes 2Ls + 1Ls

Northwestern (17) (13 2Ls / 4 1Ls)
University of Chicago (9)
Loyola Chicago (7)
Harvard (6)
Michigan (6)
Notre Dame (6)
WUSTL (5)
UIC (5)
UIUC (4)
UVA (3)
VANDERBILT (3)
MINNESOTA (3)
IOWA (3)
KENT (3)
GULC (2)
DePaul (2)
Columbia (1)
Duke (1)
University of Texas (1)
Indiana University (1)
USC (1)
Howard (1)
Boston College (1)
Ohio State (1)

Dang NDLS tying Michigan this year in Chi. When I was a summer at KE there was like one ND guy in Chicago and like 15 Michigan.

[Anonymous User]

Have to respect that John Marshall hustle...beating out UIUC, Kent and DePaul

good washu representation too

Yeah definitely but I think a t20 placing five people in a huge SA class at what is either it's #1 or #2 target market (probably ahead of NYC I bet) is not as surprising as John Marshall (in some people's view the "worst" law school in chicago) placing five people at (in some people's view) the "best" firm in the city significantly outpacing. John Marshall has always produced some great attorneys and I can attest to that personally I'm just surprised K&E took so many this year. Shows not all law schools of similar ranks are created anywhere near the same, as a lower-ranked law school in a huge legal market with a ton of local alumni is a far, far cry from another unranked school in a market with few jobs and where it has minimal local connections

was a 1L at WashU, probably close to equal split between NYC and Chicago but weirdly Chi is seen as more attainable cuz limited number of NYC firms attend our OCI. 5 from WashU pretty surprising tho - historically, K&E has only taken 1 or 2 per year.

Winston is seen as a bit of a pipeline. Kirkland/Latham are seen as really tough to get with high GPA floors for screeners. Sidley/Jenner only take LCLD candidates. Mayer Brown doesn't hire out of WashU at all. Not really sure what happens after those 5 tho.

Strong points on John Marshall though. Agree about schools =/= rank within markets. Hence Fordham year after year in NYC

This isn't really true and it varies year to year anyway. As a recent grad, just wanted to correct that since I know there's always a number of WashU students that lurk on here

I'm curious where you would push back on this? WashU is 100% overrepresented at Winston compared to the other big Chicago firms. None of Jenner, Mayer Brown, and Latham came to OCI last year or attended the "Chicago Symposium." I think it is pretty well recognized that Kirkland/Sidley have high GPA thresholds, both based on the 2L's going to these firms and the profiles of WashU alums currently at these firms (either are magna or have extenuating circumstances - JD/MBA, post-clerkship hire, patent bar qualified, etc)

Interesting - is it a pipeline within a certain group? For instance KE Chicago has a 3.8+ GPA floor for litigation at NDLS but routinely hires 3.4s for Restructuring because a certain partner is very invested in keeping a pipeline open.

[Anonymous User]

Still curious about Weil, Debevoise, Milbank, Cleary, among others.

Cleary and Debevoise are almost always ~66% Harvard/NYU/Columbia, with the rest of the class filled up with a sprinkling of YLS, Penn, Fordham, Michigan and Cornell etc. They're typically known to be more school snobby. More generally, it's actually pretty insane how those three schools tend to dominate placement into the NYC white shoe firms compared to the rest of the T14

Weil and Milbank are more likely to dip into lower ranked schools from what I've seen.

Mainly because these 3 schools have the most students by far besides Gtwon which is borderline non-T14.

Those three (HLS/CLS/NYU) constitute ~33% of the total T14 student pool. Of course, based on proximity and such, those three probably have closer to half (or more) of all T14 students who are gunning for NY biglaw.

There’s a surprising amount of variance even among snobby NY white shoe firms. The T6 represents like 30-40% of associates for some, and 60-70% for others.

I'm curious how firms judge whether a recruiting strategy is paying off. On one hand, you have Kirkland drawing in a broad variety of schools and achieving almost Wachtell like PPP. On the other, you have Freshfields only taking T14 or Cleary being T6 focused but neither seem to be that much better off for it, at least based on financial metrics. Not trying to disparage firms here. Both have much to offer beyond pure financial performance, but merely using examples.

[Anonymous User]

Still curious about Weil, Debevoise, Milbank, Cleary, among others.

Cleary and Debevoise are almost always ~66% Harvard/NYU/Columbia, with the rest of the class filled up with a sprinkling of YLS, Penn, Fordham, Michigan and Cornell etc. They're typically known to be more school snobby. More generally, it's actually pretty insane how those three schools tend to dominate placement into the NYC white shoe firms compared to the rest of the T14

Weil and Milbank are more likely to dip into lower ranked schools from what I've seen.

Mainly because these 3 schools have the most students by far besides Gtwon which is borderline non-T14.

Those three (HLS/CLS/NYU) constitute ~33% of the total T14 student pool. Of course, based on proximity and such, those three probably have closer to half (or more) of all T14 students who are gunning for NY biglaw.

There’s a surprising amount of variance even among snobby NY white shoe firms. The T6 represents like 30-40% of associates for some, and 60-70% for others.

I'm curious how firms judge whether a recruiting strategy is paying off. On one hand, you have Kirkland drawing in a broad variety of schools and achieving almost Wachtell like PPP. On the other, you have Freshfields only taking T14 or Cleary being T6 focused but neither seem to be that much better off for it, at least based on financial metrics. Not trying to disparage firms here. Both have much to offer beyond pure financial performance, but merely using examples.

Because non YS law school admission which is primarily predicated on numbers alone is just a terrible process. One can take the LSAT 5 times and major in fashion history to gain admission to a top school whereas qualified candidates routinely get shut out for majoring in something that is actually challenging. So good performance in law school is much more indicative of a candidate's capabilities than law school names. These mid-tier law firms casting a school-focused narrow net limit themselves to a pool of mediocre students at those schools. Hardly surprising they perform horribly.

[Anonymous User]

Still curious about Weil, Debevoise, Milbank, Cleary, among others.

Cleary and Debevoise are almost always ~66% Harvard/NYU/Columbia, with the rest of the class filled up with a sprinkling of YLS, Penn, Fordham, Michigan and Cornell etc. They're typically known to be more school snobby. More generally, it's actually pretty insane how those three schools tend to dominate placement into the NYC white shoe firms compared to the rest of the T14

Weil and Milbank are more likely to dip into lower ranked schools from what I've seen.

Mainly because these 3 schools have the most students by far besides Gtwon which is borderline non-T14.

Those three (HLS/CLS/NYU) constitute ~33% of the total T14 student pool. Of course, based on proximity and such, those three probably have closer to half (or more) of all T14 students who are gunning for NY biglaw.

There’s a surprising amount of variance even among snobby NY white shoe firms. The T6 represents like 30-40% of associates for some, and 60-70% for others.

I'm curious how firms judge whether a recruiting strategy is paying off. On one hand, you have Kirkland drawing in a broad variety of schools and achieving almost Wachtell like PPP. On the other, you have Freshfields only taking T14 or Cleary being T6 focused but neither seem to be that much better off for it, at least based on financial metrics. Not trying to disparage firms here. Both have much to offer beyond pure financial performance, but merely using examples.

Because non YS law school admission which is primarily predicated on numbers alone is just a terrible process. One can take the LSAT 5 times and major in fashion history to gain admission to a top school whereas qualified candidates routinely get shut out for majoring in something that is actually challenging. So good performance in law school is much more indicative of a candidate's capabilities than law school names. These mid-tier law firms casting a school-focused narrow net limit themselves to a pool of mediocre students at those schools. Hardly surprising they perform horribly.

Something something law school isn't reflective of actual practice something.

[Anonymous User]

Still curious about Weil, Debevoise, Milbank, Cleary, among others.

Cleary and Debevoise are almost always ~66% Harvard/NYU/Columbia, with the rest of the class filled up with a sprinkling of YLS, Penn, Fordham, Michigan and Cornell etc. They're typically known to be more school snobby. More generally, it's actually pretty insane how those three schools tend to dominate placement into the NYC white shoe firms compared to the rest of the T14

Weil and Milbank are more likely to dip into lower ranked schools from what I've seen.

Mainly because these 3 schools have the most students by far besides Gtwon which is borderline non-T14.

Those three (HLS/CLS/NYU) constitute ~33% of the total T14 student pool. Of course, based on proximity and such, those three probably have closer to half (or more) of all T14 students who are gunning for NY biglaw.

There’s a surprising amount of variance even among snobby NY white shoe firms. The T6 represents like 30-40% of associates for some, and 60-70% for others.

I'm curious how firms judge whether a recruiting strategy is paying off. On one hand, you have Kirkland drawing in a broad variety of schools and achieving almost Wachtell like PPP. On the other, you have Freshfields only taking T14 or Cleary being T6 focused but neither seem to be that much better off for it, at least based on financial metrics. Not trying to disparage firms here. Both have much to offer beyond pure financial performance, but merely using examples.

Because non YS law school admission which is primarily predicated on numbers alone is just a terrible process. One can take the LSAT 5 times and major in fashion history to gain admission to a top school whereas qualified candidates routinely get shut out for majoring in something that is actually challenging. So good performance in law school is much more indicative of a candidate's capabilities than law school names. These mid-tier law firms casting a school-focused narrow net limit themselves to a pool of mediocre students at those schools. Hardly surprising they perform horribly.

Something something law school isn't reflective of actual practice something.

Agree with both posters. The overwhelming emphasis on GPA / LSAT and the downplaying of creativity, sociability, work history, leadership, academic interest, and even markers of well-roundedness like athletic achievement is not good for the profession as a whole. AND, law school GPAs, (except for the top and bottom 10%) are not a good indicator of long-term success. Ideally, the legal system would attract and be accessible to post-law school top performers relative to other professions and accurately sort students in law school to identify top performers within the legal profession.

Maybe the ABA proposal to drop the LSAT requirement will help.

[Anonymous User]

Still curious about Weil, Debevoise, Milbank, Cleary, among others.

Cleary and Debevoise are almost always ~66% Harvard/NYU/Columbia, with the rest of the class filled up with a sprinkling of YLS, Penn, Fordham, Michigan and Cornell etc. They're typically known to be more school snobby. More generally, it's actually pretty insane how those three schools tend to dominate placement into the NYC white shoe firms compared to the rest of the T14

Weil and Milbank are more likely to dip into lower ranked schools from what I've seen.

Mainly because these 3 schools have the most students by far besides Gtwon which is borderline non-T14.

Those three (HLS/CLS/NYU) constitute ~33% of the total T14 student pool. Of course, based on proximity and such, those three probably have closer to half (or more) of all T14 students who are gunning for NY biglaw.

There’s a surprising amount of variance even among snobby NY white shoe firms. The T6 represents like 30-40% of associates for some, and 60-70% for others.

I'm curious how firms judge whether a recruiting strategy is paying off. On one hand, you have Kirkland drawing in a broad variety of schools and achieving almost Wachtell like PPP. On the other, you have Freshfields only taking T14 or Cleary being T6 focused but neither seem to be that much better off for it, at least based on financial metrics. Not trying to disparage firms here. Both have much to offer beyond pure financial performance, but merely using examples.

Because non YS law school admission which is primarily predicated on numbers alone is just a terrible process. One can take the LSAT 5 times and major in fashion history to gain admission to a top school whereas qualified candidates routinely get shut out for majoring in something that is actually challenging. So good performance in law school is much more indicative of a candidate's capabilities than law school names. These mid-tier law firms casting a school-focused narrow net limit themselves to a pool of mediocre students at those schools. Hardly surprising they perform horribly.

lol Cleary is not a mid-tier firm.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Still curious about Weil, Debevoise, Milbank, Cleary, among others.

Cleary and Debevoise are almost always ~66% Harvard/NYU/Columbia, with the rest of the class filled up with a sprinkling of YLS, Penn, Fordham, Michigan and Cornell etc. They're typically known to be more school snobby. More generally, it's actually pretty insane how those three schools tend to dominate placement into the NYC white shoe firms compared to the rest of the T14

Weil and Milbank are more likely to dip into lower ranked schools from what I've seen.

Mainly because these 3 schools have the most students by far besides Gtwon which is borderline non-T14.

Those three (HLS/CLS/NYU) constitute ~33% of the total T14 student pool. Of course, based on proximity and such, those three probably have closer to half (or more) of all T14 students who are gunning for NY biglaw.

There’s a surprising amount of variance even among snobby NY white shoe firms. The T6 represents like 30-40% of associates for some, and 60-70% for others.

I'm curious how firms judge whether a recruiting strategy is paying off. On one hand, you have Kirkland drawing in a broad variety of schools and achieving almost Wachtell like PPP. On the other, you have Freshfields only taking T14 or Cleary being T6 focused but neither seem to be that much better off for it, at least based on financial metrics. Not trying to disparage firms here. Both have much to offer beyond pure financial performance, but merely using examples.

Because non YS law school admission which is primarily predicated on numbers alone is just a terrible process. One can take the LSAT 5 times and major in fashion history to gain admission to a top school whereas qualified candidates routinely get shut out for majoring in something that is actually challenging. So good performance in law school is much more indicative of a candidate's capabilities than law school names. These mid-tier law firms casting a school-focused narrow net limit themselves to a pool of mediocre students at those schools. Hardly surprising they perform horribly.

lol Cleary is not a mid-tier firm.

Agreed and IMO neither is Freshfields. less of a presence in the US but that’s a magic circle, world-class firm.

If partners at Cleary are mid-tier, are all the t14ers who do their 2 or 3 years at DPW before washing out of Biglaw upper tier?

[Anonymous User]

I'm curious how firms judge whether a recruiting strategy is paying off. On one hand, you have Kirkland drawing in a broad variety of schools and achieving almost Wachtell like PPP. On the other, you have Freshfields only taking T14 or Cleary being T6 focused but neither seem to be that much better off for it, at least based on financial metrics. Not trying to disparage firms here. Both have much to offer beyond pure financial performance, but merely using examples.

Ehhhh, I think the strategy & positioning of different firms are so incommensurable as to make drawing a line between OCI and financial results impossible.

Like, if you waved a magic wand and replaced everyone at Cleary tomorrow with the valedictorians of T50 schools (or however you’d oversimplify K&E’s recruiting strategy), Cleary as a firm would still achieve similar financial results. Or vice versa, replace everyone at K&E with meh T6 grads and K&E would still be pushing $6-7 MM PPP. Which is to say that the financial results are driven by practice area strengths, client bases, geographic footprints, leverage, and so on — and sometimes an army of NSPs. Like, Williams & Connolly is full of smart HYS people (as far as I can tell) and that firm will never achieve K&E-like profits, by design.

[Anonymous User]

Have to respect that John Marshall hustle...beating out UIUC, Kent and DePaul

good washu representation too

Yeah definitely but I think a t20 placing five people in a huge SA class at what is either it's #1 or #2 target market (probably ahead of NYC I bet) is not as surprising as John Marshall (in some people's view the "worst" law school in chicago) placing five people at (in some people's view) the "best" firm in the city significantly outpacing. John Marshall has always produced some great attorneys and I can attest to that personally I'm just surprised K&E took so many this year. Shows not all law schools of similar ranks are created anywhere near the same, as a lower-ranked law school in a huge legal market with a ton of local alumni is a far, far cry from another unranked school in a market with few jobs and where it has minimal local connections

was a 1L at WashU, probably close to equal split between NYC and Chicago but weirdly Chi is seen as more attainable cuz limited number of NYC firms attend our OCI. 5 from WashU pretty surprising tho - historically, K&E has only taken 1 or 2 per year.

Winston is seen as a bit of a pipeline. Kirkland/Latham are seen as really tough to get with high GPA floors for screeners. Sidley/Jenner only take LCLD candidates. Mayer Brown doesn't hire out of WashU at all. Not really sure what happens after those 5 tho.

Strong points on John Marshall though. Agree about schools =/= rank within markets. Hence Fordham year after year in NYC

This isn't really true and it varies year to year anyway. As a recent grad, just wanted to correct that since I know there's always a number of WashU students that lurk on here

I'm curious where you would push back on this? WashU is 100% overrepresented at Winston compared to the other big Chicago firms. None of Jenner, Mayer Brown, and Latham came to OCI last year or attended the "Chicago Symposium." I think it is pretty well recognized that Kirkland/Sidley have high GPA thresholds, both based on the 2L's going to these firms and the profiles of WashU alums currently at these firms (either are magna or have extenuating circumstances - JD/MBA, post-clerkship hire, patent bar qualified, etc)

Interesting - is it a pipeline within a certain group? For instance KE Chicago has a 3.8+ GPA floor for litigation at NDLS but routinely hires 3.4s for Restructuring because a certain partner is very invested in keeping a pipeline open.

Don't actually believe those floors exist, or if they do, they are soft. What's your source for this?

[Anonymous User]

I'm curious how firms judge whether a recruiting strategy is paying off. On one hand, you have Kirkland drawing in a broad variety of schools and achieving almost Wachtell like PPP. On the other, you have Freshfields only taking T14 or Cleary being T6 focused but neither seem to be that much better off for it, at least based on financial metrics. Not trying to disparage firms here. Both have much to offer beyond pure financial performance, but merely using examples.

Ehhhh, I think the strategy & positioning of different firms are so incommensurable as to make drawing a line between OCI and financial results impossible.

Like, if you waved a magic wand and replaced everyone at Cleary tomorrow with the valedictorians of T50 schools (or however you’d oversimplify K&E’s recruiting strategy), Cleary as a firm would still achieve similar financial results. Or vice versa, replace everyone at K&E with meh T6 grads and K&E would still be pushing $6-7 MM PPP. Which is to say that the financial results are driven by practice area strengths, client bases, geographic footprints, leverage, and so on — and sometimes an army of NSPs. Like, Williams & Connolly is full of smart HYS people (as far as I can tell) and that firm will never achieve K&E-like profits, by design.

YSC*

[Anonymous User]

Still curious about Weil, Debevoise, Milbank, Cleary, among others.

Cleary and Debevoise are almost always ~66% Harvard/NYU/Columbia, with the rest of the class filled up with a sprinkling of YLS, Penn, Fordham, Michigan and Cornell etc. They're typically known to be more school snobby. More generally, it's actually pretty insane how those three schools tend to dominate placement into the NYC white shoe firms compared to the rest of the T14

Weil and Milbank are more likely to dip into lower ranked schools from what I've seen.

Mainly because these 3 schools have the most students by far besides Gtwon which is borderline non-T14.

Those three (HLS/CLS/NYU) constitute ~33% of the total T14 student pool. Of course, based on proximity and such, those three probably have closer to half (or more) of all T14 students who are gunning for NY biglaw.

There’s a surprising amount of variance even among snobby NY white shoe firms. The T6 represents like 30-40% of associates for some, and 60-70% for others.

I'm curious how firms judge whether a recruiting strategy is paying off. On one hand, you have Kirkland drawing in a broad variety of schools and achieving almost Wachtell like PPP. On the other, you have Freshfields only taking T14 or Cleary being T6 focused but neither seem to be that much better off for it, at least based on financial metrics. Not trying to disparage firms here. Both have much to offer beyond pure financial performance, but merely using examples.

Because non YS law school admission which is primarily predicated on numbers alone is just a terrible process. One can take the LSAT 5 times and major in fashion history to gain admission to a top school whereas qualified candidates routinely get shut out for majoring in something that is actually challenging. So good performance in law school is much more indicative of a candidate's capabilities than law school names. These mid-tier law firms casting a school-focused narrow net limit themselves to a pool of mediocre students at those schools. Hardly surprising they perform horribly.

lol Cleary is not a mid-tier firm.

Compared to firms who also heavily draw from their target schools they are. How many candidates do you think would pick Cleary over CSM/S&C/DPW. Top students go to wachtell/DC lit or clerk, good students go to a top ranked white shoe, and firms like cleary are left with a flock of median students at HLS/CLS/NYU who are indistinguishable from their T50 median peers.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

.
Compared to firms who also heavily draw from their target schools they are. How many candidates do you think would pick Cleary over CSM/S&C/DPW. Top students go to wachtell/DC lit or clerk, good students go to a top ranked white shoe, and firms like cleary are left with a flock of median students at HLS/CLS/NYU who are indistinguishable from their T50 median peers.

Not sure where you are getting this low quality information from. Cleary mostly draws from above median even from CLS and NYU.

Why do you think HLS median students are indistinguishable from T50 median? Literally no biglaw firms agree with you. and given that Florida State or Indiana medians largely don’t really work in major market biglaw, what’s your frame of reference there?

Sounds like you’re overestimating the importance of grades and may be detached from reality. Raw intellectual horsepower + effort + common sense is what drives performance in my practice group. Sometimes top performers were CLS Kent or HLS magna, but most of the time they’re people who didn’t like law school as much as you probably did.

[Anonymous User]

.
Compared to firms who also heavily draw from their target schools they are. How many candidates do you think would pick Cleary over CSM/S&C/DPW. Top students go to wachtell/DC lit or clerk, good students go to a top ranked white shoe, and firms like cleary are left with a flock of median students at HLS/CLS/NYU who are indistinguishable from their T50 median peers.

Not sure where you are getting this low quality information from. Cleary mostly draws from above median even from CLS and NYU.

Why do you think HLS median students are indistinguishable from T50 median? Literally no biglaw firms agree with you. and given that Florida State or Indiana medians largely don’t really work in major market biglaw, what’s your frame of reference there?

Sounds like you’re overestimating the importance of grades and may be detached from reality. Raw intellectual horsepower + effort + common sense is what drives performance in my practice group. Sometimes top performers were CLS Kent or HLS magna, but most of the time they’re people who didn’t like law school as much as you probably did.

Another anon here. HLS median students are obviously distinguishable from T50 median. That being said, I can't comment anything about Cleary drawing above median folks from CLS and NYU. Do you have access to data?

[CLS2023A]

.
Compared to firms who also heavily draw from their target schools they are. How many candidates do you think would pick Cleary over CSM/S&C/DPW. Top students go to wachtell/DC lit or clerk, good students go to a top ranked white shoe, and firms like cleary are left with a flock of median students at HLS/CLS/NYU who are indistinguishable from their T50 median peers.

Not sure where you are getting this low quality information from. Cleary mostly draws from above median even from CLS and NYU.

Why do you think HLS median students are indistinguishable from T50 median? Literally no biglaw firms agree with you. and given that Florida State or Indiana medians largely don’t really work in major market biglaw, what’s your frame of reference there?

Sounds like you’re overestimating the importance of grades and may be detached from reality. Raw intellectual horsepower + effort + common sense is what drives performance in my practice group. Sometimes top performers were CLS Kent or HLS magna, but most of the time they’re people who didn’t like law school as much as you probably did.

Another anon here. HLS median students are obviously distinguishable from T50 median. That being said, I can't comment anything about Cleary drawing above median folks from CLS and NYU. Do you have access to data?

CLS student here: Cleary's offer by honors (OBH) percentage hovers around 80-90% (excluding the P/F semester in 2020, when OBH numbers were wack for most firms and the number was 62%). I don't have the data for the Class of 2023 yet. OBH is not the best metric by any means, but CLS doesn't release GPA data so honors is what we end up relying on to make estimates.

[Anonymous User]

.
Compared to firms who also heavily draw from their target schools they are. How many candidates do you think would pick Cleary over CSM/S&C/DPW. Top students go to wachtell/DC lit or clerk, good students go to a top ranked white shoe, and firms like cleary are left with a flock of median students at HLS/CLS/NYU who are indistinguishable from their T50 median peers.

Not sure where you are getting this low quality information from. Cleary mostly draws from above median even from CLS and NYU.

Why do you think HLS median students are indistinguishable from T50 median? Literally no biglaw firms agree with you. and given that Florida State or Indiana medians largely don’t really work in major market biglaw, what’s your frame of reference there?

Sounds like you’re overestimating the importance of grades and may be detached from reality. Raw intellectual horsepower + effort + common sense is what drives performance in my practice group. Sometimes top performers were CLS Kent or HLS magna, but most of the time they’re people who didn’t like law school as much as you probably did.

Another anon here. HLS median students are obviously distinguishable from T50 median. That being said, I can't comment anything about Cleary drawing above median folks from CLS and NYU. Do you have access to data?

Because all number driven schools admit people based on ugpa+lsat only and they don't mean shit. Is an ASU 4.0 dance major HLS student smarter than a 3.3 MIT physics major?

[Anonymous User]

.
Compared to firms who also heavily draw from their target schools they are. How many candidates do you think would pick Cleary over CSM/S&C/DPW. Top students go to wachtell/DC lit or clerk, good students go to a top ranked white shoe, and firms like cleary are left with a flock of median students at HLS/CLS/NYU who are indistinguishable from their T50 median peers.

Not sure where you are getting this low quality information from. Cleary mostly draws from above median even from CLS and NYU.

Why do you think HLS median students are indistinguishable from T50 median? Literally no biglaw firms agree with you. and given that Florida State or Indiana medians largely don’t really work in major market biglaw, what’s your frame of reference there?

Sounds like you’re overestimating the importance of grades and may be detached from reality. Raw intellectual horsepower + effort + common sense is what drives performance in my practice group. Sometimes top performers were CLS Kent or HLS magna, but most of the time they’re people who didn’t like law school as much as you probably did.

Another anon here. HLS median students are obviously distinguishable from T50 median. That being said, I can't comment anything about Cleary drawing above median folks from CLS and NYU. Do you have access to data?

CLS student here: Cleary's offer by honors (OBH) percentage hovers around 80-90% (excluding the P/F semester in 2020, when OBH numbers were wack for most firms and the number was 62%). I don't have the data for the Class of 2023 yet. OBH is not the best metric by any means, but CLS doesn't release GPA data so honors is what we end up relying on to make estimates.

Honors at CLS means median…

[Anonymous User]

.
Compared to firms who also heavily draw from their target schools they are. How many candidates do you think would pick Cleary over CSM/S&C/DPW. Top students go to wachtell/DC lit or clerk, good students go to a top ranked white shoe, and firms like cleary are left with a flock of median students at HLS/CLS/NYU who are indistinguishable from their T50 median peers.

Not sure where you are getting this low quality information from. Cleary mostly draws from above median even from CLS and NYU.

Why do you think HLS median students are indistinguishable from T50 median? Literally no biglaw firms agree with you. and given that Florida State or Indiana medians largely don’t really work in major market biglaw, what’s your frame of reference there?

Sounds like you’re overestimating the importance of grades and may be detached from reality. Raw intellectual horsepower + effort + common sense is what drives performance in my practice group. Sometimes top performers were CLS Kent or HLS magna, but most of the time they’re people who didn’t like law school as much as you probably did.

Another anon here. HLS median students are obviously distinguishable from T50 median. That being said, I can't comment anything about Cleary drawing above median folks from CLS and NYU. Do you have access to data?

Because all number driven schools admit people based on ugpa+lsat only and they don't mean shit. Is an ASU 4.0 dance major HLS student smarter than a 3.3 MIT physics major?

I guess they were smarter in the sense that they strategically planned things out in order to go to law school.