Columbia EIP 2014 Forum

[Anonymous User]

As someone who went through this a few years back I wanted to add that I think people are parsing grades a little too much (still very relevant for identifying targets, reaches and safeties). In granting callbacks, these screener-interviewers are glancing at grades and looking for Kent, Stone, median and below. Maybe they can parse low stone and high stone with a glance. My point is that if you are, say, low Stone, you absolutely have a solid shot a DPW and Clearly. It will be entirely interview-based at that point. Might they take a Kent over you though they liked you better? Yes. But will they take the 3.55 over the 3.45 despite fit? No way.

Is that really true?

I'd have thought that the difference between mid- and low-Stone was noteworthy. I think it would matter, at least to firms like Davis Polk, Simpson, and so on. For a firm that traditionally reaches just slightly lower, say Debevoise Paul Weiss, I can see fit being prized more highly, but even then... Could you still say that once you hit Stone, grades matter much less for most firms?

Rising 3L here - I have heard similar from many people who interview for the firms (including DPW, STB, S&C, Cravath, etc). This forum places too big of an emphasis on very small GPA differences. Ultimately it does not matter as much given that interviewers glance at your transcript quickly. You will make much more of an impression through what you communicate during the interview, not a mere a 0.05 or 0.1 difference in GPA. Law firms are not all about numbers. This is why work experience, and particularly interesting work experience, can help an interviewee.

One thing that recruiting told me to keep in mind is that when you start at the firms and they publish your bios, they don't post your GPA, just whatever honors you have (if that). Take all of this with a grain of salt but I really do think TLS' focus on GPA (and autocallbacks, etc etc) isn't completely credited. You all should focus much more on telling a compelling story.

Edit: This might not apply to the super selective firms like Wachtell or W&C in DC - just to most NY firms.

This isn't quite right. GPA is being used not just as a prestige measure, but as a proxy for intelligence / competence. There is - believe it or not - a noticeable difference in the caliber of work you can expect from a low-Stone and a high-Stone. Do hundreths of a point matter? Certainly not. But firms hire for the highest GPAs because they believe GPA provides meaningful information about your talent, not just so they can post your honors on their website. (To use a couple of obvious examples, neither S&C or Cravath posts honors on associate bio pages, and they are both extremely grade-conscious.)

A notable difference in work product caliber between a 3.45 and a 3.65? Really?

[Anonymous User]

A notable difference in work product caliber between a 3.45 and a 3.65? Really?

Not OP, but I'd say it'd be reasonable to think that the odds of getting a stronger candidate would be slightly higher between a 3.45 and a 3.65, yeah.

It's not guaranteed by any means, but it's not like every choice is between a 3.45 with an incredible personality and a dreary 3.65. Finding the ambitious, experienced, all-around nice guy law student who genuinely loves your firm from the bottom of his heart can go a long way, but that doesn't mean that every median applicant should shoot for all the top firms. It's non-zero, sure, but a lot of low Stone-median applicants aren't special snowflakes, either.

The people who strike out are the ones who bid poorly. Part of bidding poorly is overshooting. If you're low Stone and want to bid some of the top firms, by all means, do so. But don't bid them all without including a decent number of firms that aren't quite as selective. Make room for the ones you really want and have even some chance of getting but give yourself options.

[Anonymous User]

As someone who went through this a few years back I wanted to add that I think people are parsing grades a little too much (still very relevant for identifying targets, reaches and safeties). In granting callbacks, these screener-interviewers are glancing at grades and looking for Kent, Stone, median and below. Maybe they can parse low stone and high stone with a glance. My point is that if you are, say, low Stone, you absolutely have a solid shot a DPW and Clearly. It will be entirely interview-based at that point. Might they take a Kent over you though they liked you better? Yes. But will they take the 3.55 over the 3.45 despite fit? No way.

Is that really true?

I'd have thought that the difference between mid- and low-Stone was noteworthy. I think it would matter, at least to firms like Davis Polk, Simpson, and so on. For a firm that traditionally reaches just slightly lower, say Debevoise Paul Weiss, I can see fit being prized more highly, but even then... Could you still say that once you hit Stone, grades matter much less for most firms?

Rising 3L here - I have heard similar from many people who interview for the firms (including DPW, STB, S&C, Cravath, etc). This forum places too big of an emphasis on very small GPA differences. Ultimately it does not matter as much given that interviewers glance at your transcript quickly. You will make much more of an impression through what you communicate during the interview, not a mere a 0.05 or 0.1 difference in GPA. Law firms are not all about numbers. This is why work experience, and particularly interesting work experience, can help an interviewee.

One thing that recruiting told me to keep in mind is that when you start at the firms and they publish your bios, they don't post your GPA, just whatever honors you have (if that). Take all of this with a grain of salt but I really do think TLS' focus on GPA (and autocallbacks, etc etc) isn't completely credited. You all should focus much more on telling a compelling story.

Edit: This might not apply to the super selective firms like Wachtell or W&C in DC - just to most NY firms.

This isn't quite right. GPA is being used not just as a prestige measure, but as a proxy for intelligence / competence. There is - believe it or not - a noticeable difference in the caliber of work you can expect from a low-Stone and a high-Stone. Do hundreths of a point matter? Certainly not. But firms hire for the highest GPAs because they believe GPA provides meaningful information about your talent, not just so they can post your honors on their website. (To use a couple of obvious examples, neither S&C or Cravath posts honors on associate bio pages, and they are both extremely grade-conscious.)

OP here. I agree that GPA is a proxy for intelligence and competence, but it is only true to an extent in the evaluation stage. It is absolutely not the be-all and end-all and neither is interviewing/soft skills. This is why I said to take what I wrote with a grain of salt.

I have plenty of family and (older) family friends involved with the big NY firms and they have told me that few firms will focus on and make decisions based on GPA alone, or weigh it as the most important factor. It is, of course, not unimportant, but at the end of the day, the skills you need to be a great practicing attorney (junior AND senior) do not overlap 100% with the skills you need to be a great law school student. My impression from speaking to people on the other side is that interviewers know this and evaluate candidates accordingly.

I hope this helps assuage some fears and anxiety about high GPAs = autocallbacks, low GPAs = no hope. This is DEFINITELY not true and if you talk to 2Ls and 3Ls I'm positive that their experiences will confirm this. Obviously balance your bid lists with reach, target and safety firms, but, to the 1Ls: Please don't let the idea that you're not a Kent or high Stone keep you from doing the best you can in selling yourself during an interview! Good luck!

[Anonymous User]

Everyone should focus on interviewing, even with Stone or Kent.

Multiple Stones and at least one Kent have struck out at EIP in recent years.

Multiple people without honors have gotten jobs with highly ranked firms.

Grades matter, but you are not (just) your grades.

[Anonymous User]

Everyone should focus on interviewing, even with Stone or Kent.

Multiple Stones and at least one Kent have struck out at EIP in recent years.

Multiple people without honors have gotten jobs with highly ranked firms.

Grades matter, but you are not (just) your grades.

Sage advice. Nothing we can do about grades at this pt. Just gotta nail those interviews.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know which firms have had stealth layoffs in the last two years? I've heard Cleary, White and Case, and possibly Debevoise, but it could be hearsay. Can anyone confirm/refute this?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know which firms have had stealth layoffs in the last two years? I've heard Cleary, White and Case, and possibly Debevoise, but it could be hearsay. Can anyone confirm/refute this?

Weil last summer.

[toothbrush]

Does anyone know which firms have had stealth layoffs in the last two years? I've heard Cleary, White and Case, and possibly Debevoise, but it could be hearsay. Can anyone confirm/refute this?

Here's info on Cleary's layoffs last year. ~40-50 staff laid off. http://abovethelaw.com/2013/05/a-myster ... ottlieb/2/

Nothing on ATL about W&C or Debevoise I don't think.

Also, Weil last year.

[Anonymous User]

How long do callback interviews normally last?

[Anonymous User]

How long do callback interviews normally last?

I have a pre-EIP callback in a couple weeks and was told it would take ~2 hours for the actual interviews, then another ~2 hours for lunch.

[Anonymous User]

How long do callback interviews normally last?

I have a pre-EIP callback in a couple weeks and was told it would take ~2 hours for the actual interviews, then another ~2 hours for lunch.

Ok thanks. I have one scheduled for a few weeks from now and was shocked at how long it was scheduled to last (roughly that amount of time), but I guess it makes sense.

[NYSprague]

Does anyone know which firms have had stealth layoffs in the last two years? I've heard Cleary, White and Case, and possibly Debevoise, but it could be hearsay. Can anyone confirm/refute this?

Weil last summer.

You mean the well-publicized Boston layoffs or something else?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know which firms have had stealth layoffs in the last two years? I've heard Cleary, White and Case, and possibly Debevoise, but it could be hearsay. Can anyone confirm/refute this?

Weil last summer.

You mean the well-publicized Boston layoffs or something else?

If that was last summer, yes. I don't remember what office fell victim, but I remember having a convo with a friend working there when it was happening.

[Anonymous User]

How long do callback interviews normally last?

I have a pre-EIP callback in a couple weeks and was told it would take ~2 hours for the actual interviews, then another ~2 hours for lunch.

Ok thanks. I have one scheduled for a few weeks from now and was shocked at how long it was scheduled to last (roughly that amount of time), but I guess it makes sense.

Yea and it goes by very quickly.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Everyone should focus on interviewing, even with Stone or Kent.

Multiple Stones and at least one Kent have struck out at EIP in recent years.

Multiple people without honors have gotten jobs with highly ranked firms.

Grades matter, but you are not (just) your grades.

That should scare everyone. Or at least convince them that there really is no such thing as being good enough on grades alone.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know which firms have had stealth layoffs in the last two years? I've heard Cleary, White and Case, and possibly Debevoise, but it could be hearsay. Can anyone confirm/refute this?

Here's info on Cleary's layoffs last year. ~40-50 staff laid off. http://abovethelaw.com/2013/05/a-myster ... ottlieb/2/

Nothing on ATL about W&C or Debevoise I don't think.

Also, Weil last year.

Are these something to actually be concerned about?

[Tiago Splitter]

In regards to the discussion about low Stone vs. high Stone, there's really nothing for people bidding mostly or all NYC to waste time worrying about. You're going to bid on Cleary and Davis Polk regardless of where you fall on that spectrum, so just do your best once you get inside that hotel room.

[Anonymous User]

I just thought I'd point out that S&C is not " extremely grade conscious" at CCN. They regularly hire down to median. They have tons of summer positions to fill and people that are on the edge should be bidding them.

[Tiago Splitter]

I just thought I'd point out that S&C is not " extremely grade conscious" at CCN. They regularly hire down to median. They have tons of summer positions to fill and people that are on the edge should be bidding them.

No they don't, unless the curve has changed so much that the median is 3.41 or higher.

[Anonymous User]

I just thought I'd point out that S&C is not " extremely grade conscious" at CCN. They regularly hire down to median. They have tons of summer positions to fill and people that are on the edge should be bidding them.

No they don't, unless the curve has changed so much that the median is 3.41 or higher.

They only hired one non-stone/kent last year per the honors report, so not sure what anon is getting at.

Quick edit: Anon said CCN, so I'm guessing they're not CLS.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I just thought I'd point out that S&C is not " extremely grade conscious" at CCN. They regularly hire down to median. They have tons of summer positions to fill and people that are on the edge should be bidding them.

How's 125 Broad Street? Did you get the shoulder bag yet?

[officer-rabbit]

Anyone know which firms ask for your undergrad transcript? For bonus points, can anyone describe how it factors in? E.g. is it a tiebreaker between 2 otherwise equal candidates, or is it a blackball if you had bad UG grades?

[smaug_]

Anyone know which firms ask for your undergrad transcript? For bonus points, can anyone describe how it factors in? E.g. is it a tiebreaker between 2 otherwise equal candidates, or is it a blackball if you had bad UG grades?

Cravath (only Cravath) who knows how it comes into play, but I really really wouldn't swear you ug grades

[Anonymous User]

Anyone know which firms ask for your undergrad transcript? For bonus points, can anyone describe how it factors in? E.g. is it a tiebreaker between 2 otherwise equal candidates, or is it a blackball if you had bad UG grades?

I can't for the life of me understand why they look at it. Based on my experience at Cravath, it's not like you have to have particularly stellar undergrad grades--I got an offer with GPA slightly below the average for my CLS class (though I had a 3.7 at CLS). I would imagine if you took a bunch of bullshit classes that might look bad, but otherwise it's hard to understand given that for them to consider you: (1) you must have had a decent enough GPA to get into Columbia and (2) you must have done really well 1L.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone know which firms ask for your undergrad transcript? For bonus points, can anyone describe how it factors in? E.g. is it a tiebreaker between 2 otherwise equal candidates, or is it a blackball if you had bad UG grades?

I can't for the life of me understand why they look at it. Based on my experience at Cravath, it's not like you have to have particularly stellar undergrad grades--I got an offer with GPA slightly below the average for my CLS class (though I had a 3.7 at CLS). I would imagine if you took a bunch of bullshit classes that might look bad, but otherwise it's hard to understand given that for them to consider you: (1) you must have had a decent enough GPA to get into Columbia and (2) you must have done really well 1L.

I'd imagine it's a very small tiebreaker at the margins so it wouldn't matter at all if you got a 3.7 at CLS.