Top Law Schools

I have a GPA between a 3.5 and 3.6. I have already talked to the CPP office but the person I talked to seemed skeptical of my top-10 or any bid on a V20 after that. She said that if I wanted to be on the safe side I should take Latham, Skadden, Weil, and Cleary out of my top-10 and not waste a bid on them so high. When I asked if I should at least take a shot at them, the CPP officer told me that there was no problem of doing so but also mentioned that "people sometimes get the winning lottery ticket as well." I knew these were reaches before, but are these V20 firms and my top-10 more specifically so out of place with my grades? (I am a solid interviewer.) Also something to note is that i do have 2 B-minuses, and that is something that the CPP representative seemed to be keenly wary about.


1. Latham & Watkins (NY)
2. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (NY)
3. Weil, Gotshal & Manges (NY)
4. Cahill Gordon & Reindel (NY)
5. White & Case (NY)
6. WilmerHale (NY)
7. dla piper (NY)
8. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (NY)
9. clifford chance US (NY)
10. Linklaters (NY)
11. freshfields bruckhaus deringer (NY)
12. Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (NY)
13. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy (NY)
14. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (NY)
15. Allen & Overy LLP (NY)
16. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (NY)
17. Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman (NY)
18. Dechert (NY)
19. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (NY)
20. Chadbourne & Parke (NY)
21. Shearman & Sterling (NY)
22. Kaye Scholer (NY)
23. Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (NY)
24. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan (NY)
25. Schulte Roth & Zabel (NY)
26. Hughes Hubbard & Reed (NY)
27. Cravath, Swaine & Moore (NY)
28. Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel (NY)
29. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (NY)
30. Debevoise & Plimpton (NY)
31. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (NY)
32. Proskauer (NY)
33. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (NY)
34. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson (NY)
35. Greenberg Traurig (NY)
36. Hughes Hubbard & Reed (NY)
37. Jones Day (NY)
38. Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman (NY)
39. Davis Polk & Wardwell (NY)
40. Kirkland & Ellis (NY)
41. Willkie Farr & Gallagher (NY)
42. Sidley Austin (NY)
43. Paul Hastings (NY)
44. O'Melveny & Myers (NY)
45. Morrison & Foerster (NY)

Interesting. I have slightly over a 3.6, am exclusively targeting NYC, have almost all V5-V15 in my top 10, and CPP said my list looked good.

I have a mix of A, A-, B+, with a lucky A+ thrown in the mix. If you have a 3.5-3.6, and you have 2 B- grades, I assume the rest of your marks must be pretty impressive. I can't imagine that your situation would be that much different, unless the B- grades are seen as some kind of irredeemable blemish. I mean, if you take the grade pie chart for Weil, and assume equal parts A, A-, B+, B, it only averages out to a 3.5.

Anonymous User wrote:Interesting. I have slightly over a 3.6, am exclusively targeting NYC, have almost all V5-V15 in my top 10, and CPP said my list looked good.

I have a mix of A, A-, B+, with a lucky A+ thrown in the mix. If you have a 3.5-3.6, and you have 2 B- grades, I assume the rest of your marks must be pretty impressive. I can't imagine that your situation would be that much different, unless the B- grades are seen as some kind of irredeemable blemish. I mean, if you take the grade pie chart for Weil, and assume equal parts A, A-, B+, B, it only averages out to a 3.5.

OP here. Yeah, that's what I (perhaps naively) assumed as well. But I'm now thinking that the sliver of B-minuses in the pie charts is indicative of firms' apprehensions against B-minuses.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Interesting. I have slightly over a 3.6, am exclusively targeting NYC, have almost all V5-V15 in my top 10, and CPP said my list looked good.

I have a mix of A, A-, B+, with a lucky A+ thrown in the mix. If you have a 3.5-3.6, and you have 2 B- grades, I assume the rest of your marks must be pretty impressive. I can't imagine that your situation would be that much different, unless the B- grades are seen as some kind of irredeemable blemish. I mean, if you take the grade pie chart for Weil, and assume equal parts A, A-, B+, B, it only averages out to a 3.5.

OP here. Yeah, that's what I (perhaps naively) assumed as well. But I'm now thinking that the sliver of B-minuses in the pie charts is indicative of firms' apprehensions against B-minuses.

It could also just be indicative of the fact that most students with 3.5+ won't have any B-. I'm assuming all your other grades are A- and above, so it's a little abnormal

I saw this thread and had to comment.

The entire body of my experience with CP&P has been negative. The entire 3 years. The office is staffed with incompetents who have little practical experience with the job market beyond self-reported data from Penn students. The annual chart they release is idiotic for a number of reasons-e.g., it displays only conclusions produced from aggregate data (collected from since before the recession) that really don't reflect current market hiring conditions; they make easily correctable mistakes in compiling data (see, e.g., Quinn's "total office size" number for this year's chart--it's some random number that's about 30% too large). I could go on.

Bottom line for OP--you're between the top 30-20%, and you should keep those V20 firms on your bidlist because you have a respectable shot at getting them.

Funny, I have close to a 3.43ish and Cpp told me I was being too risk adverse and encouraged me to add a couple more V20s.

Anonymous User wrote:Funny, I have close to a 3.43ish and Cpp told me I was being too risk adverse and encouraged me to add a couple more V20s.

Sounds like it just depends on who you meet with in CP&P.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Funny, I have close to a 3.43ish and Cpp told me I was being too risk adverse and encouraged me to add a couple more V20s.

Sounds like it just depends on who you meet with in CP&P.

The inconsistency of opinions/advice that I have encountered within the CPP office is quite disappointing.

OP here, does my ordering look ok? This is also something CPP was very vague about.