Top Law Schools

Thanks everyone.

You have like a 2.8 which puts you at top third. While I struck out with better grades, I think that HH in WOA is going to save your ass. Bottom line: If you want to do litigation, you'll do great, transactional would be quite dangerous.

Don't put weight in the V50 v. V100 distinction, many lower ranked firms are SUPER SELECTIVE whereas many high ranked firms are less selective. Why? When you have 12 SA slots to give out you are gonna be a lot more selective than having 1 or 2.

Anyways, Bid lit, don't put too much stock in rankings, and I think you will get biglaw.

Your poll misunderstands the way Vault rankings work. The firms in the middle of the rankings are often easier to get because they hire many more people. You need to find better data to use, the Vault rankings are largely silly, especially if you're looking past the 'top' 20 or so firms in NYC.

boaltrising3l wrote:You have like a 2.8 which puts you at top third. While I struck out with better grades, I think that HH in WOA is going to save your ass. Bottom line: If you want to do litigation, you'll do great, transactional would be quite dangerous.

Strongly disagree. Nothing your first year of law school has anything to do with transactional work, and no single grade is even that important for going into litigation. Expressing an interest in transactional work can put you apart from most law students who expected to become litigators from day 1. A lot of people I know with grades up and down the spectrum did particularly well by expressing an interest in transactional work, no way it could be "quite dangerous" to do so.

OP here. Thanks to both of you for the input. BoaltRising3L, are you sure 2.8 is top 3rd? I would have no idea how to determine that with precision - any insight? (my gpa is technically a 2.78, I think; don't know if that matters)

V50 versus V100 is silly distinction (just like T50 versus T100). The relevant distinction is basically V20 and V80. There are a lot of firms with big summer classes from the 40s to the 60s.

V50 versus V100 is silly distinction (just like T50 versus T100). The relevant distinction is basically V20 and V80. There are a lot of firms with big summer classes from the 40s to the 60s.

Thanks, Rayiner. I didn't realize this, but it makes sense...

Where is the best place to find out the class sizes at each firm? Is it usually available on the firm's websites?

Anonymous User wrote:

V50 versus V100 is silly distinction (just like T50 versus T100). The relevant distinction is basically V20 and V80. There are a lot of firms with big summer classes from the 40s to the 60s.

Thanks, Rayiner. I didn't realize this, but it makes sense...

Where is the best place to find out the class sizes at each firm? Is it usually available on the firm's websites?

nalpdirectory

thesealocust wrote:Your poll misunderstands the way Vault rankings work. The firms in the middle of the rankings are often easier to get because they hire many more people. You need to find better data to use, the Vault rankings are largely silly, especially if you're looking past the 'top' 20 or so firms in NYC.

boaltrising3l wrote:You have like a 2.8 which puts you at top third. While I struck out with better grades, I think that HH in WOA is going to save your ass. Bottom line: If you want to do litigation, you'll do great, transactional would be quite dangerous.

Strongly disagree. Nothing your first year of law school has anything to do with transactional work, and no single grade is even that important for going into litigation. Expressing an interest in transactional work can put you apart from most law students who expected to become litigators from day 1. A lot of people I know with grades up and down the spectrum did particularly well by expressing an interest in transactional work, no way it could be "quite dangerous" to do so.

I have a good source that at least one firm has lower GPA requirements for those who express interest in corporate vs. those who express interest in litigation since their transactional practice is currently busier and fewer rising 2L's are interested in corporate as opposed to lit. But this could just be one firm.

Anonymous User wrote:I have a good source that at least one firm has lower GPA requirements for those who express interest in corporate vs. those who express interest in litigation since their transactional practice is currently busier and fewer rising 2L's are interested in corporate as opposed to lit. But this could just be one firm.

I don't know how often firms are explicit about the mechanics of it, but I do know that it is a common mentality and practice. If only because 70% of law students probably want lit and many major firms are more than 50% transactional.

Corporate Work in California IS DEAD ABSOLUTELY DEAD. The difference between people at school who wanted to do lit v transaction was tremendous. The lit group did amazingly better.

boaltrising3l wrote:Corporate Work in California IS DEAD ABSOLUTELY DEAD. The difference between people at school who wanted to do lit v transaction was tremendous. The lit group did amazingly better.

Gotcha. Likely an east coast vs. west coast thing then.

thesealocust wrote:

boaltrising3l wrote:Corporate Work in California IS DEAD ABSOLUTELY DEAD. The difference between people at school who wanted to do lit v transaction was tremendous. The lit group did amazingly better.

Gotcha. Likely an east coast vs. west coast thing then.

Anon from above. The firm I was referencing where corporate was less competitive than lit is on the east coast. So CA may be different.

A lot of people I know with grades up and down the spectrum did particularly well by expressing an interest in transactional work, no way it could be "quite dangerous" to do so.

If there's no corporate work, then it can be "quite dangerous" to express an interest in corporate work. It really depends on the economy.

OP here. Just my with the career office and I was advised to include more reaches in my bidding strategy. Specifically, the counselor I spoke with told me that because one of my HH's was in WOA, firms will expect good work-product out of me and may give me a second look over others that are similarly ranked. We discussed such reaches as WilmerHale, Jones Day, Sidley, and Gibson Dunn.

The last thing I want to do, though, is strike out because of a poor bidding strategy. And I am learning towards being as conservative as possible.

So what do you all think? Is my CDO's advice reliable? Or would it be too risky for me to potentially waste bids like that?

Thanks!

Just be careful. I mean if I could have a top mark in any class, it would be WOA; but still, this is not 2005. Striking out is a possibility. If I were in your shoes I would play it safe.

Anonymous User wrote: the counselor I spoke with told me that because one of my HH's was in WOA, firms will expect good work-product out of me and may give me a second look over others that are similarly ranked.

Rofl @ career services offices and the things they think about recruiting. That advice is so bad it's almost quaint.

It's not a BAD thing to have a great grade in a class, but it's farcical in the extreme to think it would have a meaningful impact on recruitment like that. Goes double for a class like WOA, which I assume is a skills or advocacy or writing course, which at many other good schools is a total joke and pass/fail.

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. Just my with the career office and I was advised to include more reaches in my bidding strategy. Specifically, the counselor I spoke with told me that because one of my HH's was in WOA, firms will expect good work-product out of me and may give me a second look over others that are similarly ranked. We discussed such reaches as WilmerHale, Jones Day, Sidley, and Gibson Dunn.

The last thing I want to do, though, is strike out because of a poor bidding strategy. And I am learning towards being as conservative as possible.

So what do you all think? Is my CDO's advice reliable? Or would it be too risky for me to potentially waste bids like that?

Thanks!

That's is the type of over-analyzing I'd expect from a law student. Firms will not dig that deep into your transcript. I would play it safe. But realize that "play it safe" doesn't necessarily mean just bidding lower in the Vault ranking. Many people have been screwed over because they mistook the Vault rankings for selectivity rankings.

For some reason CDOs tend to confuse "realism" with "pessimism that will negatively impact your interviewing skills," and they give really crappy advice in an attempt to lift your spirits. I actually had a CSO worker at my school try to tell me I should rely the 2008 OCI stats rather than 2009 because 2010 OCI was going to be back to normal.

It's not a BAD thing to have a great grade in a class, but it's farcical in the extreme to think it would have a meaningful impact on recruitment like that. Goes double for a class like WOA, which I assume is a skills or advocacy or writing course, which at many other good schools is a total joke and pass/fail.

Wait, I'm confused (genuinely; not just being a dick). Why would firms not be particularly interested in the one class that is the best indication of the quality of my work product? 2/3 of our grade in WOA was based on our brief - I feel like it is literally the most relevant thing I did all year (far more relevant than an law school exam I took), as far as law firm work is concerned. It is pure research and writing.

And at Boalt, now that WOA is graded, it is far from a total joke. People took it very seriously - in fact, when I think back to the week before the brief was due, I saw many students working harder than they did during finals week. Everyone was scared to get a P in that class. There are three HH's in each class (9 classes) and the top HH in each class gets an award of "Best Brief;" all 9 Best Briefs are then judged against each other and one is chosen as the best brief in the 1L class. It is a big deal here. Whether recruiters will know that is another story...

Anonymous User wrote:

It's not a BAD thing to have a great grade in a class, but it's farcical in the extreme to think it would have a meaningful impact on recruitment like that. Goes double for a class like WOA, which I assume is a skills or advocacy or writing course, which at many other good schools is a total joke and pass/fail.

Wait, I'm confused (genuinely; not just being a dick). Why would firms not be particularly interested in the one class that is the best indication of the quality of my work product? 2/3 of our grade in WOA was based on our brief - I feel like it is literally the most relevant thing I did all year (far more relevant than an law school exam I took), as far as law firm work is concerned. It is pure research and writing.

And at Boalt, now that WOA is graded, it is far from a total joke. People took it very seriously - in fact, when I think back to the week before the final brief was due, I saw many students working harder than they did during finals week. Everyone was scared to get a P in that class. There are three HH's in each class (9 classes) and the top HH gets an award of "Best Brief;" all 9 Best Briefs are then judged against each other and one is chosen as the best brief in the class. It is a big deal here. Whether recruiters will know that or not is another story...

My future schoolmate: The advice career services gave you seemed reasonable, why do you have misgivings? After all, it's their job to give good advice and in the school's best interest to help you succeed at OCI. I don't think non-Boalt TLSers should have any standing regarding your OCI strategy. Best of luck to you!

Anonymous User wrote:

It's not a BAD thing to have a great grade in a class, but it's farcical in the extreme to think it would have a meaningful impact on recruitment like that. Goes double for a class like WOA, which I assume is a skills or advocacy or writing course, which at many other good schools is a total joke and pass/fail.

Wait, I'm confused (genuinely; not just being a dick). Why would firms not be particularly interested in the one class that is the best indication of the quality of my work product? 2/3 of our grade in WOA was based on our brief - I feel like it is literally the most relevant thing I did all year (far more relevant than an law school exam I took), as far as law firm work is concerned. It is pure research and writing.

And at Boalt, now that WOA is graded, it is far from a total joke. People took it very seriously - in fact, when I think back to the week before the brief was due, I saw many students working harder than they did during finals week. Everyone was scared to get a P in that class. There are three HH's in each class (9 classes) and the top HH in each class gets an award of "Best Brief;" all 9 Best Briefs are then judged against each other and one is chosen as the best brief in the 1L class. It is a big deal here. Whether recruiters will know that is another story...

First, firms may not know much about the class and just assume it is like any other writing and research class, just graded.

Second, that's just not how they play. People always try to argue that getting a high grade in Torts or Contracts should make people more competitive for big firm jobs than Criminal Law or Con Law because those classes have more relevance to the type of litigation they do, and it always fails because firms really don't care about the intrinsic value of the class itself, only its value as a signal. Grades are just an easy way to screen hundreds of people from the same school. Don't try to find logic in law firm hiring. You're not going to find it.

Third, getting a high grade in Legal Research and Writing class doesn't necessarily prove you are an efficient researcher. Maybe you just poured 100 hours into the work when the average was 80. Maybe you did an ALLFEDS search and read 1000 cases instead of going to treatises or secondary sources first. If you spend 100 hours writing that brief and got an HH, that's great for the transcript. But in practice, if you spend 100 hours researching an issue that should take you around 20, that's time that needs to be written off and is also time taking you away from doing other work that can actually be billed. The grading curve in 1L classes is so tight that the extra 20 hours some people spend on their 1L briefs may actually matter, and it's nobody's time but your own. But firms know the quality of research and writing work turned out by the law schools, and they know good grades in LRW doesn't necessarily equal effective and efficent research.

It's probably the first two more than the third, although the third is a huge problem with LRW classes in general. People need to do dozens of memos and research assignments before they really get start to learn that skills.

timbs4339 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. Just my with the career office and I was advised to include more reaches in my bidding strategy. Specifically, the counselor I spoke with told me that because one of my HH's was in WOA, firms will expect good work-product out of me and may give me a second look over others that are similarly ranked. We discussed such reaches as WilmerHale, Jones Day, Sidley, and Gibson Dunn.

The last thing I want to do, though, is strike out because of a poor bidding strategy. And I am learning towards being as conservative as possible.

So what do you all think? Is my CDO's advice reliable? Or would it be too risky for me to potentially waste bids like that?

Thanks!

That's is the type of over-analyzing I'd expect from a law student. Firms will not dig that deep into your transcript. I would play it safe. But realize that "play it safe" doesn't necessarily mean just bidding lower in the Vault ranking. Many people have been screwed over because they mistook the Vault rankings for selectivity rankings.

For some reason CDOs tend to confuse "realism" with "pessimism that will negatively impact your interviewing skills," and they give really crappy advice in an attempt to lift your spirits. I actually had a CSO worker at my school try to tell me I should rely the 2008 OCI stats rather than 2009 because 2010 OCI was going to be back to normal.

Even at the callback stage, firms don't look at more than your bottom line GPA. In a callback I had assumed a partner had read my transcript and called attention to my (atrocious) con law grade. He was like "wait what?" then flipped through to look. Didn't get an offer.

Even at the callback stage, firms don't look at more than your bottom line GPA.

Yeah, I could see that being the case. On the other hand, Boalt does not have GPA's or even rankings, so it may be necessary for firms to dig a bit deeper with Boalt students. Additionally, I was told explicitly that I was hired for my summer job because of my WOA grade. Granted it is a General Counsel's office and not a firm, but the associate GC that hired me used to do OCI recruiting for a V100 firm.

OP here, by the way.

Rock-N-Roll wrote: My future schoolmate: The advice career services gave you seemed reasonable, why do you have misgivings? After all, it's their job to give good advice and in the school's best interest to help you succeed at OCI. I don't think non-Boalt TLSers should have any standing regarding your OCI strategy. Best of luck to you!

You can't be serious. This is a joke/sarcasm, right?

UCLAtransfer wrote:

Rock-N-Roll wrote: My future schoolmate: The advice career services gave you seemed reasonable, why do you have misgivings? After all, it's their job to give good advice and in the school's best interest to help you succeed at OCI. I don't think non-Boalt TLSers should have any standing regarding your OCI strategy. Best of luck to you!

You can't be serious. This is a joke/sarcasm, right?

Why? Was being totally sincere.

In terms of bidding strategy: I would expect that a career service office at any school would have a sense of their students' past profiles, how those students bid at past OCIs, and which strategies were or were not successful. This therefore makes such an office a repository of useful data that a student can apply to their own profile and bidding strategy. While on the other hand, as fun as TLS is, to me it seems primarily a repository of personal opinions, anecdotes, and supposition (as opposed to useful data).

In terms of the value of a WOA grade: Again, I would expect that the career service office would be basing a claim like this on Boalt students' past data, while here on TLS opinions are based for the most part on nothing concrete. However, what might be worth paying attention to in terms of primary anecdotal information, as I alluded to at the end of my previous post, would be if TLSers from Boalt came forward and posted that they had received an HH in WOA and were confident that it didn't do much for them.

Rock-N-Roll wrote:

UCLAtransfer wrote:

Rock-N-Roll wrote: My future schoolmate: The advice career services gave you seemed reasonable, why do you have misgivings? After all, it's their job to give good advice and in the school's best interest to help you succeed at OCI. I don't think non-Boalt TLSers should have any standing regarding your OCI strategy. Best of luck to you!

You can't be serious. This is a joke/sarcasm, right?

Why? Was being totally sincere.

In terms of bidding strategy: I would expect that a career service office at any school would have a sense of their students' past profiles, how those students bid at past OCIs, and which strategies were or were not successful. This therefore makes such an office a repository of useful data that a student can apply to their own profile and bidding strategy. While on the other hand, as fun as TLS is, to me it seems primarily a repository of personal opinions, anecdotes, and supposition (as opposed to useful data).
In terms of the value of a WOA grade: Again, I would expect that the career service office would be basing a claim like this on Boalt students' past data, while here on TLS opinions are based for the most part on nothing concrete. However, what might be worth paying attention to in terms of primary anecdotal information, as I alluded to at the end of my previous post, would be if TLSers from Boalt came forward and posted that they had received an HH in WOA and were confident that it didn't do much for them.

LOL, this is the first year WOA has been graded, totally PWNED!

I love the career offices advice by the way, only 30% of us get Biglaw at all and they are telling OP to bid Vault 20 firms. Unless you are IP or URM, I would say less than 20% chance at Biglaw and advise you to bid as conservatively as possible.