Top Law Schools

I'm trying to figure out basically which NY V10-ish firm known for being at least somewhat grade selective people who are median or slightly better at have the best shot with. My own limited experience says it goes (from best shot from median to worst):


1. Skadden
2. Debevoise
3. Paul Weiss
4. Cleary
5. Davis Polk
6. Simpson
7. S&C
8. Cravath

If anyone thinks that any of these firms handle grades differently (i.e., say one firm will look at all candidates holistically who pass a certain cutoff, while for another top 10% trumps everything), I'd appreciate that too. Just trying to give some good advice.

Median where?

this list makes no sense. why are you cherry picking v20+ to form a list

toothbrush wrote:this list makes no sense. why are you cherry picking v20+ to form a list

because these places seem to care the most about grades, as far as I can tell, and they have huge classes, so it is beneficial to get an interview with them if you have a real shot.

To poster above, Median at CCN.

bowser wrote:

toothbrush wrote:this list makes no sense. why are you cherry picking v20+ to form a list

because these places seem to care the most about grades, as far as I can tell, and they have huge classes, so it is beneficial to get an interview with them if you have a real shot.

To poster above, Median at CCN.

Huh? Since when is e.g. Paul Weiss more grade-selective than Cravath. Nothing about this list or ordering matches up with the data I have seen.

You may have a shot at Deveboise and Cleary, but it will still be difficult without honors.
The rest is pretty much a lost cause.

ymmv wrote:

bowser wrote:

toothbrush wrote:this list makes no sense. why are you cherry picking v20+ to form a list

because these places seem to care the most about grades, as far as I can tell, and they have huge classes, so it is beneficial to get an interview with them if you have a real shot.

To poster above, Median at CCN.

Huh? Since when is e.g. Paul Weiss more grade-selective than Cravath. Nothing about this list or ordering matches up with the data I have seen.

I think the list is written so that firms higher up are less selective (better chance of getting them at median at CCN)

ymmv wrote:

bowser wrote:

toothbrush wrote:this list makes no sense. why are you cherry picking v20+ to form a list

because these places seem to care the most about grades, as far as I can tell, and they have huge classes, so it is beneficial to get an interview with them if you have a real shot.

To poster above, Median at CCN.

Huh? Since when is e.g. Paul Weiss more grade-selective than Cravath. Nothing about this list or ordering matches up with the data I have seen.

like i said the list makes no sense. #1 = least selective, #7 is the most. so PW is median-ish for selectivity. according to this guy.

and from experience at my low t14 cleary is more selective than others, say skadden and KE

lol @ people who should worry they might leave OCI with nothing asking this question

toothbrush wrote: like i said the list makes no sense. #1 = least selective, #7 is the most. so PW is median-ish for selectivity. according to this guy.

and from experience at my low t14 cleary is more selective than others, say skadden and KE

Are you saying PW is like super selective grade-wise?

bowser wrote:

toothbrush wrote: like i said the list makes no sense. #1 = least selective, #7 is the most. so PW is median-ish for selectivity. according to this guy.

and from experience at my low t14 cleary is more selective than others, say skadden and KE

Are you saying PW is like super selective grade-wise?

Just reverse your list and end the confusion.

Fine Ill play your game but I think you should figure this out with your own schools data. The firms are now ranked according to their grade selectivity at my t14 school. didnt change the #s cause idc

LEAST SELECTIVE
1. Skadden
3. Paul Weiss
5. Davis Polk
2. Debevoise
6. Simpson
4. Cleary
6. Simpson
7. S&C 8. Cravath
MOST SELECTIVE

Why are you trying to trick people into thinking you have good grades?

haha. I'm a 3L; not worried about grades. I'm looking over bidlists from 2Ls, who are in between 3.41--3.5 and have all of these places. I tell them Cravath and S&C are most likely wasted, but I believe with that GPA you probably should have 2-4 interviews with some of these places cuz they're so frickin' big.

It's hard to distinguish b/t Cleary, Davis Polk, and Debevoise especially. I'm pretty sure you have an okay shot at Skadden at 3.5; not sure how good it is at the other places.

bowser wrote:haha. I'm a 3L; not worried about grades. I'm looking over bidlists from 2Ls, who are in between 3.41--3.5 and have all of these places. I tell them Cravath and S&C are most likely wasted, but I believe with that GPA you probably should have 2-4 interviews with some of these places cuz they're so frickin' big.

It's hard to distinguish b/t Cleary, Davis Polk, and Debevoise especially. I'm pretty sure you have an okay shot at Skadden at 3.5; not sure how good it is at the other places.

You asked this question really weirdly.

Desert Fox wrote:

bowser wrote:haha. I'm a 3L; not worried about grades. I'm looking over bidlists from 2Ls, who are in between 3.41--3.5 and have all of these places. I tell them Cravath and S&C are most likely wasted, but I believe with that GPA you probably should have 2-4 interviews with some of these places cuz they're so frickin' big.

It's hard to distinguish b/t Cleary, Davis Polk, and Debevoise especially. I'm pretty sure you have an okay shot at Skadden at 3.5; not sure how good it is at the other places.

You asked this question really weirdly.

I couldn't understand the OP at all. It may have been a top 10 worst written OPs on TLS (that were not intentionally terrible).

OP, retitle this to "Reach firms for people at median"

alphasteve wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

bowser wrote:haha. I'm a 3L; not worried about grades. I'm looking over bidlists from 2Ls, who are in between 3.41--3.5 and have all of these places. I tell them Cravath and S&C are most likely wasted, but I believe with that GPA you probably should have 2-4 interviews with some of these places cuz they're so frickin' big.

It's hard to distinguish b/t Cleary, Davis Polk, and Debevoise especially. I'm pretty sure you have an okay shot at Skadden at 3.5; not sure how good it is at the other places.

You asked this question really weirdly.

I couldn't understand the OP at all. It may have been a top 10 worst written OPs on TLS (that were not intentionally terrible).

The man just wants the least selective of the most selective in reverse order of selectivity.

Desert Fox wrote:
The man just wants the least selective of the most selective in reverse order of selectivity.

Yep.

Well I have a ~3.5 at CLS and decided to drop SullCrom. So I suppose this list helps for people in my situation. I have been told I have a shot at the rest.

bowser wrote:haha. I'm a 3L; not worried about grades. I'm looking over bidlists from 2Ls, who are in between 3.41--3.5 and have all of these places. I tell them Cravath and S&C are most likely wasted, but I believe with that GPA you probably should have 2-4 interviews with some of these places cuz they're so frickin' big.

It's hard to distinguish b/t Cleary, Davis Polk, and Debevoise especially. I'm pretty sure you have an okay shot at Skadden at 3.5; not sure how good it is at the other places.

what's been communicated to me and what I've seen from your year in terms of grade selectivity specifically (NOT overall difficult to get a CB) would have Sullivan as actually more competitive than Cravath; Cleary be less selective than Cravath, S&C & wachtell but equal to or more than the rest; Davis Polk and STB as more than PW and Debevoise, maybe roughly equal to Cleary but definitely less than CSM/S&C/Wachtell, and then PW/Skadden and lastly (for this list) Debevoise.

So 1. S&C, 2. Cravath, 3. Cleary/Davis Polk/Simpson, 4. Paul Weiss, 5. Skadden, 6. Debevoise (with the differences between them not being very significant). Gibson and Latham are probably both at least as competitive as Debevoise - Latham didn't even take a single non-honors candidate last year. If you're not stone (or equivalent at another t6), don't bother with 1 - 4. If you're barely stone (<3.5), 1 -3 is probably not worth your time and a slot on your list. If you're b/t 3.5 and 3.6, anything but S&C is definitely worth a bid, and above 3.6 all are possible. And all these minutes distinctions probably don't matter much compared to interviewing and shit.

Inside the T14, S&C is the most grade selective, followed by CSM, then DPW/Clearly/STB/PW/Debevoise. Weil, Latham, Gibson, K&E (both NY) and Skadden are a notch below that. Probably not worth trying to draw finer distinctions than that.

From my experience w/ UChi all are functionally identical GPA wise.

2014 wrote:From my experience w/ UChi all are functionally identical GPA wise.

That's because no one can understand UChi's GPA.

rpupkin wrote:

2014 wrote:From my experience w/ UChi all are functionally identical GPA wise.

That's because no one can understand UChi's GPA.

This is true lol

First point was not sarcastic though