approx. CLS GPA for different firms Forum

[timbs4339]

Did they at least make the Stone/non-Stone binder available?

I wish I had that because it would've helped a lot with my original question.

I might have my spreadsheet from last year, which includes data from the last two classes that we had available. I'll let you guys know if I find it.

Edit, yeah, I do. I'll make a googledoc and people can PM me for the link.

I know last year people who weren't in NYC for the summer had trouble getting their hands on this spreadsheet and had to get it from friends.

c/o 2011, a googledoc might be a good way to make sure all your non-NYC classmates have access to the info.

[Anonymous User]

On NALP, sometimes it says that there were, like, 40 summers but only 13 were considered for permanent offers (and those 13 all got offers). Why the huge discrepancy? Is this their way of disguising no-offering by only 'considering' 13 people for permanent offers so their offer rate is 100%?

This is Kirkland & Ellis.

[Anonymous User]

Is there much variation within Stone. I'm at 3.62... would I be able to get offers from firms like Cravath, S&C, Covington, and Wachtell?

[Anonymous User]

I'm curious as well. I'm at 3.68... (and a little bummed because if one A- had been an A I'd have such squeaked in as Kent) and wondering what firms are open to 3.6-3.75 that aren't open to 3.55 and hat firms are only for 3.75+

[of Benito Cereno]

.

[timbs4339]

Is there much variation within Stone. I'm at 3.62... would I be able to get offers from firms like Cravath, S&C, Covington, and Wachtell?

Cravath, S+C yes if you can get through the interviews. Covington (I'm assuming DC) and Wachtell are worth a shot at 3.62, but they call back very few people. It's worth it to try rather than just do bid on two lower ranked firms you're not going to accept offers at anyway. Most of these highly selective firms, including W+C, Boies, Susman, Irell, Munger, will be underbid and you'll be able to pick up interviews at all of them. Much better chance of swinging an offer from one than bidding on a V20 firm you probably won't even get a screening interview with.

[timbs4339]

I'm curious as well. I'm at 3.68... (and a little bummed because if one A- had been an A I'd have such squeaked in as Kent) and wondering what firms are open to 3.6-3.75 that aren't open to 3.55 and hat firms are only for 3.75+

There's really no "grade cutoff" when you are up in the top 5-10% of the class. Your targets are the V5s and your reaches are the elite firms. It's probably going to be very difficult to get, say, Munger, but it's difficult for Kent scholars too.

[desertlaw]

For those of us at other T14 schools or peers to CLS, can you tell us exactly what their GPA ranges are in terms of class rank/percentile? Kent = top __? Stone = top ___?

[swc65]

For those of us at other T14 schools or peers to CLS, can you tell us exactly what their GPA ranges are in terms of class rank/percentile? Kent = top _3%_? Stone = top _29%__?

[of Benito Cereno]

Stone is ~top 30% and Kent is ~ top 4%

http://www.law.columbia.edu/careers/car ... ng_and_Hon
according to this site 29 for stone and 2 for kent are historic lows. I think Kent ranges from 5-2.
This year there should be between 9-18 kents

[lakerfanimal]

It's cool to share info. But maybe you don't want to put up specific info? Didn't NYU kids do this last year and firms found out and got annoyed or something?

[lakerfanimal]

It's cool to share info. But maybe you don't want to put up specific info? Didn't NYU kids do this last year and firms found out and got annoyed or something?

The information is available in career services, and I've sent out a google doc available only to people who have the link. I sent the data out to a bunch of CLS people last year and we didn't encounter any problems.

Cool, thanks for clarifying!

[of Benito Cereno]

For those of us at other T14 schools or peers to CLS, can you tell us exactly what their GPA ranges are in terms of class rank/percentile? Kent = top _3%_? Stone = top _29%__?

Yeah, those percentages are about right for the 1L curve. Stone is 3.41; Kent 3.8.

remember, usually around 5 people with 3.7ish gpas make Kent every year by having 3 As, 3A-s, and a B or B+

[imchuckbass58]

Is there much variation within Stone. I'm at 3.62... would I be able to get offers from firms like Cravath, S&C, Covington, and Wachtell?

I'm curious as well. I'm at 3.68... (and a little bummed because if one A- had been an A I'd have such squeaked in as Kent) and wondering what firms are open to 3.6-3.75 that aren't open to 3.55 and hat firms are only for 3.75+

Once you are above 3.5 or so, there are really no NY firms where you will be disqualified or looked at skeptically because of your grades. Past a certain point, it doesn't matter what your grades are and it really all comes down to interviewing/experience/intangibles. A 3.65 isn't going to perform noticeable better than a 3.55 at pretty much any NY firm (Wachtell included).

The only real firms that make gradations above 3.5 are some DC firms and the random super selective firms - think W&C, Covington, DC offices of big firms with strong appellate practices (GDC, Mayer Brown, Wilmer, etc.), Irell, MTO, and Susman.

[Anonymous User]

On NALP, sometimes it says that there were, like, 40 summers but only 13 were considered for permanent offers (and those 13 all got offers). Why the huge discrepancy? Is this their way of disguising no-offering by only 'considering' 13 people for permanent offers so their offer rate is 100%?

This is Kirkland & Ellis.

I don't know what you're reading (I believe NALP is pretty accurate and not misleading). But aside from that, I'm 100% sure every summer associate (firmwide) at Kirkland & Ellis received an offer.

[rayiner]

On NALP, sometimes it says that there were, like, 40 summers but only 13 were considered for permanent offers (and those 13 all got offers). Why the huge discrepancy? Is this their way of disguising no-offering by only 'considering' 13 people for permanent offers so their offer rate is 100%?

This is Kirkland & Ellis.

You're looking at different dates. Kirkland NY had 13 summers in summer 2010, and 37 summers in summer 2011 (ie: this year). 13/13 summers from 2010 received offers. Obviously the 37 from summer 2011 have not received offers yet.

When it is relevant, the "considered for offers" bit distinguishes between 2L summers (who are eligible to receive permanent offers) and 1L summers (who do not receive a permanent offer).

[seriouslyinformative]

The only real firms that make gradations above 3.5 are some DC firms and the random super selective firms - think W&C, Covington, DC offices of big firms with strong appellate practices (GDC, Mayer Brown, Wilmer, etc.), Irell, MTO, and Susman.

Neither Covington nor Irell are nearly as selective as you indicate them to be. At the very least, they shouldn't be grouped with the other firms above, and they're definitely not as selective as WLRK.

[Anonymous User]

What are the chances for a 3.71 (that barely missed Kent) at......

WLRK
Munger
Susman
W&C
Covington (DC)
Gibson (DC)
Wilmer (DC)
Cravath
S&C
Davis Polk
STB
Cleary
Debevoise
Paul Weiss


thx

[thesealocust]

What are the chances for a 3.71 (that barely missed Kent) at......

WLRK
Munger
Susman
W&C
Covington (DC)
Gibson (DC)
Wilmer (DC)
Cravath
S&C
Davis Polk
STB
Cleary
Debevoise
Paul Weiss


thx

High? You can't give people "chances" at firms the way you can at law schools, they're all too 'selective' considering the number of people applying vs. the number of slots they have. Your GPA shouldn't really get in the way at any of those firms, but it's also not going to ensure you an offer at them all. The average person with a 3.71 from CLS is probably going to get a lot of offers off of that list, however.

It's definitely missing some firms though - Arnold & Porter, hogan lovells, and Skadden are pretty conspicuously absent.

[seriouslyinformative]

You have at least a shot at all of them, and a good shot at a lot of them. At this point, what'll make or break you is your interviewing skills. And yes, people with higher grades than you at better schools have struck out.

Something to keep in mind: There doesn't seem to be a clear rationale to your selection other than prestige. Some of those firms aren't doing super well in this economy: Cravath, Wilmer, Covington, and Debevoise. Other firms on that list aren't necessarily the best places to start your career in light of your grades: Paul Weiss being the most obvious.

Another thing to keep in mind is political leaning. Gibson DC, while an excellent appellate shop, is very conservative. If that's fine with you, you would also do well to consider Sidley DC and Kirkland DC. If you think that's a problem, you would do well to consider the more liberal firms: Arnold & Porter and Jenner DC.

If you're looking to do corporate, your list is good, though I would exclude Debevoise. You rightfully excluded Skadden and Weil.

If you're looking to do litigation, Susman will be great, as will Munger. Paul Weiss is good overall, but Kirkland might be a better fit if you want responsibility earlier. Boies is another very good option. Quinn you can try, but every one of my friends there is miserable, and they seem to do more doc review than just about any other litigation associate I know. Kasowitz Benson and Patterson Belknap are also great litigation firms. The rest of the firms on that list are going to be decent, but a lot of the work their litigation groups handle is sourced from their corporate departments. If you want the really meaty stuff like products liability and toxic torts, going to a litigation group not so closely tied to the financials sector is a good idea. If the idea of doing securities litigation and white collar crime appeals to you, then they're also great picks.

[Anonymous User]

You have at least a shot at all of them, and a good shot at a lot of them. At this point, what'll make or break you is your interviewing skills. And yes, people with higher grades than you at better schools have struck out.

Something to keep in mind: There doesn't seem to be a clear rationale to your selection other than prestige. Some of those firms aren't doing super well in this economy: Cravath, Wilmer, Covington, and Debevoise. Other firms on that list aren't necessarily the best places to start your career in light of your grades: Paul Weiss being the most obvious.

Another thing to keep in mind is political leaning. Gibson DC, while an excellent appellate shop, is very conservative. If that's fine with you, you would also do well to consider Sidley DC and Kirkland DC. If you think that's a problem, you would do well to consider the more liberal firms: Arnold & Porter and Jenner DC.

If you're looking to do corporate, your list is good, though I would exclude Debevoise. You rightfully excluded Skadden and Weil.

If you're looking to do litigation, Susman will be great, as will Munger. Paul Weiss is good overall, but Kirkland might be a better fit if you want responsibility earlier. Boies is another very good option. Quinn you can try, but every one of my friends there is miserable, and they seem to do more doc review than just about any other litigation associate I know. Kasowitz Benson and Patterson Belknap are also great litigation firms. The rest of the firms on that list are going to be decent, but a lot of the work their litigation groups handle is sourced from their corporate departments. If you want the really meaty stuff like products liability and toxic torts, going to a litigation group not so closely tied to the financials sector is a good idea. If the idea of doing securities litigation and white collar crime appeals to you, then they're also great picks.

thanks man

I'll look into everything you said

[Anonymous User]

Looks like I will also miss Stone and end up around a B+ average. I have strong work experience (think top IBD or MBB consulting), strong leadership experiences (for whatever that is worth) and have proven to be a strong interviewer in the past. Should I bid on some top firms (particularly interested in DPW, STB, Weil, K&E, and GDC) and hope that these "softs" get me through the door or should I be more conservative? I absolutely do not want to be shut out due to reckless bidding but I also do not want to be wondering "what if" (yes I realize that this is everyone's dilemma). Am I being foolish in thinking that things other than grades matter?

[imchuckbass58]

Looks like I will also miss Stone and end up around a B+ average. I have strong work experience (think top IBD or MBB consulting), strong leadership experiences (for whatever that is worth) and have proven to be a strong interviewer in the past. Should I bid on some top firms (particularly interested in DPW, STB, Weil, K&E, and GDC) and hope that these "softs" get me through the door or should I be more conservative? I absolutely do not want to be shut out due to reckless bidding but I also do not want to be wondering "what if" (yes I realize that this is everyone's dilemma). Am I being foolish in thinking that things other than grades matter?

You should figure out which top firms really care about grades and which top firms care less, and bid accordingly. For instance, even with your other redeeming qualities, DPW and GDC probably will not take you if you miss stone, because they are very grade-conscious. They are probably not worth bidding on. Weil, on the other hand, is probably the least selective V10, and often takes people with median-ish grades who also have other good qualities/experiences. You should bid on them K&E is more grade conscious than Weil, but also values work experience a lot, so you should throw a bid in for it also.

Your next question is probably how you find out which firms are grade selective or not. The answer is talk to rising 3Ls and career services - you should be able to figure it out.

Off the top of my head in the V20 (and speaking roughly - others may disagree):

-S&C, DPW, Wachtell, and GDC are very grade conscious (i.e., you pretty much have to be Stone or even significantly above)

-Debevoise, STB, Kirkland, Cleary, Paul Weiss and Cravath are pretty grade conscious, but probably not as much as the above (i.e., take mostly stone and above, but dip down to take some others on occasion)

-Skadden, Weil and Latham are not particularly grade conscious (i.e., often take non-stone people)

[Anonymous User]

Looks like I will also miss Stone and end up around a B+ average. I have strong work experience (think top IBD or MBB consulting), strong leadership experiences (for whatever that is worth) and have proven to be a strong interviewer in the past. Should I bid on some top firms (particularly interested in DPW, STB, Weil, K&E, and GDC) and hope that these "softs" get me through the door or should I be more conservative? I absolutely do not want to be shut out due to reckless bidding but I also do not want to be wondering "what if" (yes I realize that this is everyone's dilemma). Am I being foolish in thinking that things other than grades matter?

You should figure out which top firms really care about grades and which top firms care less, and bid accordingly. For instance, even with your other redeeming qualities, DPW and GDC probably will not take you if you miss stone, because they are very grade-conscious. They are probably not worth bidding on. Weil, on the other hand, is probably the least selective V10, and often takes people with median-ish grades who also have other good qualities/experiences. You should bid on them K&E is more grade conscious than Weil, but also values work experience a lot, so you should throw a bid in for it also.

Your next question is probably how you find out which firms are grade selective or not. The answer is talk to rising 3Ls and career services - you should be able to figure it out.

Off the top of my head in the V20 (and speaking roughly - others may disagree):

-S&C, DPW, Wachtell, and GDC are very grade conscious (i.e., you pretty much have to be Stone or even significantly above)

-Debevoise, STB, Kirkland, Cleary, Paul Weiss and Cravath are pretty grade conscious, but probably not as much as the above (i.e., take mostly stone and above, but dip down to take some others on occasion)

-Skadden, Weil and Latham are not particularly grade conscious (i.e., often take non-stone people)

Bumping an old thread. Could anyone speak to whether or not the grade selectivity in these firms has changed or not in the past 5 years?

[TheoO]

Some of the cut offs may have become more loose at some more selective firms to meet needs. I'm not sure that it's worth the risk, however. And prior results shouldnt be indicative of future ones, since some of the boost to employment may have dwindled with the slowdown in m&a. And I'm not sure it's worth the risk to change your strategy much. Check your eip results for a better picture.