What Happened to Vault Rankings?? Forum

[Anonymous User]

It’s more like Wachtell > CSM/S&C/DPW/Simpson > Cleary > P, W/Debevoise/Skadden > Kirkland/Latham/Weil/Gibson for NY corporate at my T6.

Debevoise and Cleary are extremely school snobby firms and that is rewarded at top schools. Nobody wants to socialize with the riffraff.

It is funny to me how obvious it is that Cleary would much rather take a median — or even slightly below median — kid at NYU/CLS, rather than (god forbid) scooping up somebody in the top 10-15% at Fordham. I think their summer class numbers would bear that out.

No, no, you are deeply mistaken. Median at NYU is not getting Debevoise or Cleary. Those firms generally hire only top 10% from NYU.

?? What on earth do you mean? Median at NYU can get Debevoise or Cleary as non-URM. For example, I did — but I interview well and have a HYPS undergrad degree. It’s hard at median but not unheard of. I have a sub-median CLS friend who also got both as Asian woman — again with a top undergrad.

Skadden, Simpson, Cravath, Davis, Deb, Cleary possible at median but more likely at top 40% at NYU. After that it’s basically mostly interviewing unless you’re like top 20% or higher, when firms of this caliber become a borderline lock. Latham and Kirkland are possible from below median and become very very likely at top 1/3.

Top 40% at nyu is definitely enough for every firm short of S&C which prefers top 33% or so. There is a huge empty space above top 33% up until top 10% at T6. Those grades won’t get you any better firm because the only thing better is WLRK or Munger or W&C, which are super difficult even for top 10%.

[Wild Card]

?? What on earth do you mean? Median at NYU can get Debevoise or Cleary as non-URM. For example, I did — but I interview well and have a HYPS undergrad degree. It’s hard at median but not unheard of. I have a sub-median CLS friend who also got both as Asian woman — again with a top undergrad.

Skadden, Simpson, Cravath, Davis, Deb, Cleary possible at median but more likely at top 40% at NYU. After that it’s basically mostly interviewing unless you’re like top 20% or higher, when firms of this caliber become a borderline lock. Latham and Kirkland are possible from below median and become very very likely at top 1/3.

Top 40% at nyu is definitely enough for every firm short of S&C which prefers top 33% or so. There is a huge empty space above top 33% up until top 10% at T6. Those grades won’t get you any better firm because the only thing better is WLRK or Munger or W&C, which are super difficult even for top 10%.

To be clear, median at NYU is 3.27/3.28. At that range, you're looking at very good V50 firms. Think Ropes, Hogan, or Sidley. But not Debevoise or Cleary.

NYU's "strike-a-match" data confirm that Cleary is extremely selective, whereas Debevoise is more often only highly selective (top 33-40%). IIRC, Kirkland and Latham generally are also in the top 33-40% range.

So, back on topic, if we equate presitge with hiring selectivity, Vault seems flawed.

I took this thread slightly off topic to disabuse Fordhamites or Carbozos of the notion that median (3.27/3.28) from NYU is landing the very best firms. That is not to say that it doesn't happen; it's the exception and not the rule.

[Lukky]

Serious question: For anyone criticizing Vault rankings, what would be your alternative?

Do you think, instead of having a survey format, you should just have the editors arbitrarily decide?
Do you think you should go by OCI recruiting selectivity?

In the absence of Vault rankings, would you just go by financial metrics? Kirkland would be at #2 after Wachtell most years, in that case (not saying this is necessarily wrong, but it would probably be a more disagreeable result for the most of you).

I think Vault is pretty good for what it is - a sample of the collective opinion about the prestige of firms using a consistent methodology.

[Anonymous User]

Serious question: For anyone criticizing Vault rankings, what would be your alternative?

This seems like kind of a ridiculous question when Chambers already exists.

That being said, I would eliminate the general ranking. It is unclear what it actually measures--corp AND lit? All markets? etc.

[cheaptilts]

Serious question: For anyone criticizing Vault rankings, what would be your alternative?

This seems like kind of a ridiculous question when Chambers already exists.

That being said, I would eliminate the general ranking. It is unclear what it actually measures--corp AND lit? All markets? etc.

It’s not unclear at all. It asks lawyers around the country to rank law firms based on how prestigious each law firm appears. It’s a measure of nationwide prestige. Then there are regional rankings that do the same thing, only using lawyers from that region. Which can help explain why, e.g., Wachtell is #3 in the overall rankings and #1 in New York rankings.

[Anonymous User]

It’s not unclear at all. It asks lawyers around the country to rank law firms based on how prestigious each law firm appears. It’s a measure of nationwide prestige. Then there are regional rankings that do the same thing, only using lawyers from that region. Which can help explain why, e.g., Wachtell is #3 in the overall rankings and #1 in New York rankings.

"How prestigious each law firm appears" is such a vague metric as to be completely useless. Why would I trust a NY corporate lawyer to be able to discern "prestige" of CA litigation boutiques? Do the responses from each market have the same aggregate weight, or does NY dominate by sheer numbers of BL attorneys? Talk about low-information responses. It makes absolutely no sense.

At some point, the "overall" ranking becomes meaningless.

[ExpOriental]

Serious question: For anyone criticizing Vault rankings, what would be your alternative?

Do you think, instead of having a survey format, you should just have the editors arbitrarily decide?
Do you think you should go by OCI recruiting selectivity?

In the absence of Vault rankings, would you just go by financial metrics? Kirkland would be at #2 after Wachtell most years, in that case (not saying this is necessarily wrong, but it would probably be a more disagreeable result for the most of you).

I think Vault is pretty good for what it is - a sample of the collective opinion about the prestige of firms using a consistent methodology.

1. Does the firm pay market?

2. Is the firm strong in my preferred practice area? (Use Chambers, talk to practitioners, professors, etc.)

3. Do I like the people I interviewed with? Do they seem happy?

Vault either adds nothing to this research or is actively misleading. It is not difficult to imagine a low-info law student who wants to exit into tech choosing, say, Paul Hastings over Fenwick because the former has a much higher Vault rank, and they don't know what else to go on.

If you do even a modicum of due diligence, there is nothing of value to glean from Vault rank.

[Anonymous User]

Serious question: For anyone criticizing Vault rankings, what would be your alternative?

Do you think, instead of having a survey format, you should just have the editors arbitrarily decide?
Do you think you should go by OCI recruiting selectivity?

In the absence of Vault rankings, would you just go by financial metrics? Kirkland would be at #2 after Wachtell most years, in that case (not saying this is necessarily wrong, but it would probably be a more disagreeable result for the most of you).

I think Vault is pretty good for what it is - a sample of the collective opinion about the prestige of firms using a consistent methodology.

1. Does the firm pay market?

2. Is the firm strong in my preferred practice area? (Use Chambers, talk to practitioners, professors, etc.)

3. Do I like the people I interviewed with? Do they seem happy?

Vault either adds nothing to this research or is actively misleading. It is not difficult to imagine a low-info law student who wants to exit into tech choosing, say, Paul Hastings over Fenwick because the former has a much higher Vault rank, and they don't know what else to go on.

If you do even a modicum of due diligence, there is nothing of value to glean from Vault rank.

What professors (lol) have to say about firms, as well as who you interview with (even more lol) should have no bearing on any rankings.

[Anonymous User]

?? What on earth do you mean? Median at NYU can get Debevoise or Cleary as non-URM. For example, I did — but I interview well and have a HYPS undergrad degree. It’s hard at median but not unheard of. I have a sub-median CLS friend who also got both as Asian woman — again with a top undergrad.

Skadden, Simpson, Cravath, Davis, Deb, Cleary possible at median but more likely at top 40% at NYU. After that it’s basically mostly interviewing unless you’re like top 20% or higher, when firms of this caliber become a borderline lock. Latham and Kirkland are possible from below median and become very very likely at top 1/3.

Top 40% at nyu is definitely enough for every firm short of S&C which prefers top 33% or so. There is a huge empty space above top 33% up until top 10% at T6. Those grades won’t get you any better firm because the only thing better is WLRK or Munger or W&C, which are super difficult even for top 10%.

To be clear, median at NYU is 3.27/3.28. At that range, you're looking at very good V50 firms. Think Ropes, Hogan, or Sidley. But not Debevoise or Cleary.

NYU's "strike-a-match" data confirm that Cleary is extremely selective, whereas Debevoise is more often only highly selective (top 33-40%). IIRC, Kirkland and Latham generally are also in the top 33-40% range.

So, back on topic, if we equate presitge with hiring selectivity, Vault seems flawed.

I took this thread slightly off topic to disabuse Fordhamites or Carbozos of the notion that median (3.27/3.28) from NYU is landing the very best firms. That is not to say that it doesn't happen; it's the exception and not the rule.

Both Cleary and Deb dipped this year, compared to the "usual" profiles of their offers. However, this may be due to the weird situation of 1L/2L grades which may have led to firms weighing non-academic factors more.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that most V10-quality law students tend to view NY firms in rough tiers, including my peers when I was a law student at a T-10. But agree that the large geographic footprint is probs what pushed Skadden over the edge over Wachtell. I disagree with that ranking, but I don't find it that absurd since Skadden is clearly elite as well.

I think the general consensus among NY lawyers is something like the following:
Wachtell > Cravath/Skadden/S&C/DPW/STB/PW > Cleary > Kirkland/Latham/Gibson > Weil/Debevoise

I would say the consensus somewhat shifted to the following (at least in corporate): Wachtell > Cravath/S&C/DPW > Skadden/STB/PW/Cleary/Kirkland/Latham > Gibson/Weil/Debevoise

It’s more like Wachtell > CSM/S&C/DPW/Simpson > Cleary > P, W/Debevoise/Skadden > Kirkland/Latham/Weil/Gibson for NY corporate at my T6.

Debevoise and Cleary are extremely school snobby firms and that is rewarded at top schools. Nobody wants to socialize with the riffraff.

I agree with this. Cleary and Debevoise are very strong NYC firms and seem to be more sought after than the KE and Latham type at my T6, but not quite at the STB/Cravath/etc. level.

Regardless, Vault rankings are trash. Use Chambers.

Check nationwide rankings for elite M&A.

[ExpOriental]

Serious question: For anyone criticizing Vault rankings, what would be your alternative?

This seems like kind of a ridiculous question when Chambers already exists.

That being said, I would eliminate the general ranking. It is unclear what it actually measures--corp AND lit? All markets? etc.

It’s not unclear at all. It asks lawyers around the country to rank law firms based on how prestigious each law firm appears. It’s a measure of nationwide prestige. Then there are regional rankings that do the same thing, only using lawyers from that region. Which can help explain why, e.g., Wachtell is #3 in the overall rankings and #1 in New York rankings.

People can't even agree on what "prestige" means. But if you really want to sit there with a straight face and argue that K&L Gates is "more prestigious" than MTO, Susman, and Kellogg, then I'm just not going to take you seriously.

Also, the regional vs. national distinction doesn't hold up under scrutiny. At one point Wachtell was #1 in the national ranking, and has actually declined below Cravath and Skadden, which makes no sense.

Additionally, Cravath, which is now #1, also has only one office - in NY - and an extremely NY-centric practice, just like Wachtell.

I cannot understand why people have such an attachment to Vault and feel the need to make excuses for it.

[ExpOriental]

Serious question: For anyone criticizing Vault rankings, what would be your alternative?

Do you think, instead of having a survey format, you should just have the editors arbitrarily decide?
Do you think you should go by OCI recruiting selectivity?

In the absence of Vault rankings, would you just go by financial metrics? Kirkland would be at #2 after Wachtell most years, in that case (not saying this is necessarily wrong, but it would probably be a more disagreeable result for the most of you).

I think Vault is pretty good for what it is - a sample of the collective opinion about the prestige of firms using a consistent methodology.

1. Does the firm pay market?

2. Is the firm strong in my preferred practice area? (Use Chambers, talk to practitioners, professors, etc.)

3. Do I like the people I interviewed with? Do they seem happy?

Vault either adds nothing to this research or is actively misleading. It is not difficult to imagine a low-info law student who wants to exit into tech choosing, say, Paul Hastings over Fenwick because the former has a much higher Vault rank, and they don't know what else to go on.

If you do even a modicum of due diligence, there is nothing of value to glean from Vault rank.

What professors (lol) have to say about firms, as well as who you interview with (even more lol) should have no bearing on any rankings.

You seem to have missed my point completely. I'm not saying those things should factor into Vault rankings, I'm saying Vault rankings shouldn't factor in to anyone's decision making, and are thus irrelevant.

Also, some professors, particularly those who practiced semi-recently and are still plugged in, have good reads on this stuff. I'm obviously not referring to the con law professors who went straight into academia after clerking for SCOTUS.

[cheaptilts]

It’s not unclear at all. It asks lawyers around the country to rank law firms based on how prestigious each law firm appears. It’s a measure of nationwide prestige. Then there are regional rankings that do the same thing, only using lawyers from that region. Which can help explain why, e.g., Wachtell is #3 in the overall rankings and #1 in New York rankings.

"How prestigious each law firm appears" is such a vague metric as to be completely useless. Why would I trust a NY corporate lawyer to be able to discern "prestige" of CA litigation boutiques? Do the responses from each market have the same aggregate weight, or does NY dominate by sheer numbers of BL attorneys? Talk about low-information responses. It makes absolutely no sense.

At some point, the "overall" ranking becomes meaningless.

The word prestige is no more vague than “best” or “strongest.” Each individual has their own way of defining those terms.

And no one is asking anyone to trust Vault. It’s literally just a survey that ranks law firms based on their perceived prestige by lawyers nationwide in the aggregate—a completely subjective inquiry to support a completely subjective concept: prestige. I’m always confused by why people get so worked up about it.

[Anonymous User]

?? What on earth do you mean? Median at NYU can get Debevoise or Cleary as non-URM. For example, I did — but I interview well and have a HYPS undergrad degree. It’s hard at median but not unheard of. I have a sub-median CLS friend who also got both as Asian woman — again with a top undergrad.

Skadden, Simpson, Cravath, Davis, Deb, Cleary possible at median but more likely at top 40% at NYU. After that it’s basically mostly interviewing unless you’re like top 20% or higher, when firms of this caliber become a borderline lock. Latham and Kirkland are possible from below median and become very very likely at top 1/3.

Top 40% at nyu is definitely enough for every firm short of S&C which prefers top 33% or so. There is a huge empty space above top 33% up until top 10% at T6. Those grades won’t get you any better firm because the only thing better is WLRK or Munger or W&C, which are super difficult even for top 10%.

To be clear, median at NYU is 3.27/3.28. At that range, you're looking at very good V50 firms. Think Ropes, Hogan, or Sidley. But not Debevoise or Cleary.

NYU's "strike-a-match" data confirm that Cleary is extremely selective, whereas Debevoise is more often only highly selective (top 33-40%). IIRC, Kirkland and Latham generally are also in the top 33-40% range.

So, back on topic, if we equate presitge with hiring selectivity, Vault seems flawed.

I took this thread slightly off topic to disabuse Fordhamites or Carbozos of the notion that median (3.27/3.28) from NYU is landing the very best firms. That is not to say that it doesn't happen; it's the exception and not the rule.

Both Cleary and Deb dipped this year, compared to the "usual" profiles of their offers. However, this may be due to the weird situation of 1L/2L grades which may have led to firms weighing non-academic factors more.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think you're both basically right. Cleary at median might be tough, but I certainly know people who got Latham and Deb at around median. It's are attainable but I'd guess ~top 40% is more common. The strike a match data also can be a little skewed by high GPA students who get a ton of interviews at less selective firms.

[Anonymous User]

?? What on earth do you mean? Median at NYU can get Debevoise or Cleary as non-URM. For example, I did — but I interview well and have a HYPS undergrad degree. It’s hard at median but not unheard of. I have a sub-median CLS friend who also got both as Asian woman — again with a top undergrad.

Skadden, Simpson, Cravath, Davis, Deb, Cleary possible at median but more likely at top 40% at NYU. After that it’s basically mostly interviewing unless you’re like top 20% or higher, when firms of this caliber become a borderline lock. Latham and Kirkland are possible from below median and become very very likely at top 1/3.

Top 40% at nyu is definitely enough for every firm short of S&C which prefers top 33% or so. There is a huge empty space above top 33% up until top 10% at T6. Those grades won’t get you any better firm because the only thing better is WLRK or Munger or W&C, which are super difficult even for top 10%.

To be clear, median at NYU is 3.27/3.28. At that range, you're looking at very good V50 firms. Think Ropes, Hogan, or Sidley. But not Debevoise or Cleary.

NYU's "strike-a-match" data confirm that Cleary is extremely selective, whereas Debevoise is more often only highly selective (top 33-40%). IIRC, Kirkland and Latham generally are also in the top 33-40% range.

So, back on topic, if we equate presitge with hiring selectivity, Vault seems flawed.

I took this thread slightly off topic to disabuse Fordhamites or Carbozos of the notion that median (3.27/3.28) from NYU is landing the very best firms. That is not to say that it doesn't happen; it's the exception and not the rule.

Can confirm and agree with this post.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that most V10-quality law students tend to view NY firms in rough tiers, including my peers when I was a law student at a T-10. But agree that the large geographic footprint is probs what pushed Skadden over the edge over Wachtell. I disagree with that ranking, but I don't find it that absurd since Skadden is clearly elite as well.

I think the general consensus among NY lawyers is something like the following:
Wachtell > Cravath/Skadden/S&C/DPW/STB/PW > Cleary > Kirkland/Latham/Gibson > Weil/Debevoise

I would say the consensus somewhat shifted to the following (at least in corporate): Wachtell > Cravath/S&C/DPW > Skadden/STB/PW/Cleary/Kirkland/Latham > Gibson/Weil/Debevoise

It’s more like Wachtell > CSM/S&C/DPW/Simpson > Cleary > P, W/Debevoise/Skadden > Kirkland/Latham/Weil/Gibson for NY corporate at my T6.

Debevoise and Cleary are extremely school snobby firms and that is rewarded at top schools. Nobody wants to socialize with the riffraff.

I agree with this. Cleary and Debevoise are very strong NYC firms and seem to be more sought after than the KE and Latham type at my T6, but not quite at the STB/Cravath/etc. level.

Regardless, Vault rankings are trash. Use Chambers.

Check nationwide rankings for elite M&A.

If you are in NY biglaw, the NY rankings for elite M&A/corporate are accurate.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that most V10-quality law students tend to view NY firms in rough tiers, including my peers when I was a law student at a T-10. But agree that the large geographic footprint is probs what pushed Skadden over the edge over Wachtell. I disagree with that ranking, but I don't find it that absurd since Skadden is clearly elite as well.

I think the general consensus among NY lawyers is something like the following:
Wachtell > Cravath/Skadden/S&C/DPW/STB/PW > Cleary > Kirkland/Latham/Gibson > Weil/Debevoise

I would say the consensus somewhat shifted to the following (at least in corporate): Wachtell > Cravath/S&C/DPW > Skadden/STB/PW/Cleary/Kirkland/Latham > Gibson/Weil/Debevoise

It’s more like Wachtell > CSM/S&C/DPW/Simpson > Cleary > P, W/Debevoise/Skadden > Kirkland/Latham/Weil/Gibson for NY corporate at my T6.

Debevoise and Cleary are extremely school snobby firms and that is rewarded at top schools. Nobody wants to socialize with the riffraff.

I agree with this. Cleary and Debevoise are very strong NYC firms and seem to be more sought after than the KE and Latham type at my T6, but not quite at the STB/Cravath/etc. level.

Regardless, Vault rankings are trash. Use Chambers.

Check nationwide rankings for elite M&A.

If you are in NY biglaw, the NY rankings for elite M&A/corporate are accurate.

So based on chambers corporate/M&A, the tiers are Cravath/DPW/Kirkland/STB/Skadden/Wachtell/S&C > Cleary/PW/Weil > Debevoise/Latham > others? Sounds roughly in line with what others were saying above

[Anonymous User]

Why would I trust a NY corporate lawyer to be able to discern "prestige" of CA litigation boutiques? Do the responses from each market have the same aggregate weight, or does NY dominate by sheer numbers of BL attorneys?

Yes. Vault is NYC-centric and so is TLS (and Reddit), due to the size of the market. As someone in a different major market, I could give two fucks what all the New Yorkers think. You’ll notice that firms that are not NYC native (Latham, Gibson, Kirkland, Sidley, etc.) tend to see downward pressure in the rankings and TLS discussions, in comparison to what Chambers and AmLaw would suggest.

[Anonymous User]

Serious question: For anyone criticizing Vault rankings, what would be your alternative?

Do you think, instead of having a survey format, you should just have the editors arbitrarily decide?
Do you think you should go by OCI recruiting selectivity?

In the absence of Vault rankings, would you just go by financial metrics? Kirkland would be at #2 after Wachtell most years, in that case (not saying this is necessarily wrong, but it would probably be a more disagreeable result for the most of you).

I think Vault is pretty good for what it is - a sample of the collective opinion about the prestige of firms using a consistent methodology.

Vault is only useful for law students. For those of who have been practicing, we generally are more focused on actual practice area expertise and firms. For example, Wachtell is #1 in M&A. That means nothing to me because I don't practice M&A and Wachtell doesn't even have my practice area. My firm is generally considered #1 or #2 in our practice area among people in the know of the practice area. That's really the only thing I care about. And to be clear, being #1/#2 doesn't mean you have the best work. It means you have high volume and high profits (ie a lot of deals where clients are willing to pay high rates for your services). There are many "lower" firms that I think do more interesting/complex legal work.

[cheaptilts]

Serious question: For anyone criticizing Vault rankings, what would be your alternative?

Do you think, instead of having a survey format, you should just have the editors arbitrarily decide?
Do you think you should go by OCI recruiting selectivity?

In the absence of Vault rankings, would you just go by financial metrics? Kirkland would be at #2 after Wachtell most years, in that case (not saying this is necessarily wrong, but it would probably be a more disagreeable result for the most of you).

I think Vault is pretty good for what it is - a sample of the collective opinion about the prestige of firms using a consistent methodology.

Vault is only useful for law students. For those of who have been practicing, we generally are more focused on actual practice area expertise and firms. For example, Wachtell is #1 in M&A. That means nothing to me because I don't practice M&A and Wachtell doesn't even have my practice area. My firm is generally considered #1 or #2 in our practice area among people in the know of the practice area. That's really the only thing I care about. And to be clear, being #1/#2 doesn't mean you have the best work. It means you have high volume and high profits (ie a lot of deals where clients are willing to pay high rates for your services). There are many "lower" firms that I think do more interesting/complex legal work.

No, being #1/#2 simply means that more lawyers ranked your law firm as a 9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale of prestige relative to all other law firms. That’s it’s. The concept of prestige is idiosyncratic to each lawyer, which is why Vault is dumb. But the way it measures prestige makes a ton of sense to me.

[bigboybob]

Lets all calm down. We all got raises and are paid the same. Lets just try and bill less and have a good life.

[Anonymous User]

?? What on earth do you mean? Median at NYU can get Debevoise or Cleary as non-URM. For example, I did — but I interview well and have a HYPS undergrad degree. It’s hard at median but not unheard of. I have a sub-median CLS friend who also got both as Asian woman — again with a top undergrad.

Skadden, Simpson, Cravath, Davis, Deb, Cleary possible at median but more likely at top 40% at NYU. After that it’s basically mostly interviewing unless you’re like top 20% or higher, when firms of this caliber become a borderline lock. Latham and Kirkland are possible from below median and become very very likely at top 1/3.

Top 40% at nyu is definitely enough for every firm short of S&C which prefers top 33% or so. There is a huge empty space above top 33% up until top 10% at T6. Those grades won’t get you any better firm because the only thing better is WLRK or Munger or W&C, which are super difficult even for top 10%.

To be clear, median at NYU is 3.27/3.28. At that range, you're looking at very good V50 firms. Think Ropes, Hogan, or Sidley. But not Debevoise or Cleary.

NYU's "strike-a-match" data confirm that Cleary is extremely selective, whereas Debevoise is more often only highly selective (top 33-40%). IIRC, Kirkland and Latham generally are also in the top 33-40% range.

So, back on topic, if we equate presitge with hiring selectivity, Vault seems flawed.

I took this thread slightly off topic to disabuse Fordhamites or Carbozos of the notion that median (3.27/3.28) from NYU is landing the very best firms. That is not to say that it doesn't happen; it's the exception and not the rule.

I feel like I have to clarify bc this is misleading. If you are an NYU student please remember that OCS's strike a match data is not accurate, they only provide average GPA, not median GPA, for offers. I have several friends who are at cleary/deb this summer and can confirm median is def enough, this is even more true if you are set on transactional (this was also the case with last year). Average GPA number tend to be higher since a lot of the 3.8-4.0 folks are getting offers from all over the place and also brought up the average gpa. If you are interested in a specific firm, email OCS, schedule a meeting, and ask for median specifically. They will tell you the grades distribution.

[Anonymous User]

^^^ thank you for clarifying. I know that data > personal experience, but it just did not jibe with the dozens of people I know who’ve landed offers at Cleary & Debevoise, for them to be called extremely or even highly selective at T6 schools.