Top Law Schools

The wisdom at xoxo appears to be that at the top schools, A=A, B=D, and C=F. If you've got, say, a 3.6 at a T14, but that results from having mostly A's and A-'s tarnished by a few sub-median grades, is that really looked at as "wow, this guy REALLY FUCKED UP on those classes?"

dude. . . .

Tsispilos wrote:The wisdom at xoxo appears to be that at the top schools, A=A, B=D, and C=F. If you've got, say, a 3.6 at a T14, but that results from having mostly A's and A-'s tarnished by a few sub-median grades, is that really looked at as "wow, this guy REALLY FUCKED UP on those classes?"

This is pertinent to my interests. 6 A's, an A-, and a B. Should I address this, will they ask about it? I'm happy to just stand on my cumulative, but I don't want them to think I blew off the class or something.

Tsispilos wrote:The wisdom at xoxo appears to be that at the top schools, A=A, B=D, and C=F. If you've got, say, a 3.6 at a T14, but that results from having mostly A's and A-'s tarnished by a few sub-median grades, is that really looked at as "wow, this guy REALLY FUCKED UP on those classes?"

What exactly is the question? Whether you need to have a 4.0 because anythin less than an A is bad? Or whether it is better to have consistent A-'s rather than a smattering of A+'s and B's but have the same gpa?

rando wrote:

Tsispilos wrote:The wisdom at xoxo appears to be that at the top schools, A=A, B=D, and C=F. If you've got, say, a 3.6 at a T14, but that results from having mostly A's and A-'s tarnished by a few sub-median grades, is that really looked at as "wow, this guy REALLY FUCKED UP on those classes?"

What exactly is the question? Whether you need to have a 4.0 because anythin less than an A is bad? Or whether it is better to have consistent A-'s rather than a smattering of A+'s and B's but have the same gpa?

the emphasized part.

Tsispilos wrote:

rando wrote:

Tsispilos wrote:The wisdom at xoxo appears to be that at the top schools, A=A, B=D, and C=F. If you've got, say, a 3.6 at a T14, but that results from having mostly A's and A-'s tarnished by a few sub-median grades, is that really looked at as "wow, this guy REALLY FUCKED UP on those classes?"

What exactly is the question? Whether you need to have a 4.0 because anythin less than an A is bad? Or whether it is better to have consistent A-'s rather than a smattering of A+'s and B's but have the same gpa?

the emphasized part.

In my experience it doesnt matter. Basically have a perfect transcript except a flat B in a core class that many think essential. Never got questions about it and it never affected my prospects. You have to realize that the question cuts both ways. Employers seeing you booked classes know that you are a great student but they also realize what can happen on any random exam; time pressures, laptop issues, crazy profs etc.

I don't think it matters. If you are looking for an entry level position with no other WE, then its class rank that matters.

Specific grades in specific classes (if they're all A's and B's) only really matter if you are looking for a job in academia.

The real world runs on bullet points, like honors at graduation, memberships, GPA, competitions won, and class rank; the things a firm will say about you in three sentences in their newletter after you are hired.

As your carreer progresses, fewer and fewer of your academic accomplishments will make it onto your resume as real world accomplishments give the academics the boot.

It's not going to matter unless the grade is awful, like a C+. Few people are perfect.

During EIW, I had a few conversations with interviewers about an A+ I was fortunate to receive. So I think unusual grades (D's, C's, maybe B-'s, and A+'s/book awards) may get noticed. But, if your overall GPA is respectable, I don't think any firm (other than WLRK) is going to care about whether you got a couple B's.