Former V5/V15 NYC Associate Involved with Hiring; AMA Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hello!

Below median at a T14 and offered a screener at a V10. After I heard i hot the screener, networked ASAP (spoke to both of the summers that worked for my interviewer) and got a partner in the location of the v10 to talk
To recruitment. My interviewer was the head of the practice group Im interviewing for. I’d say good work experience kjd (published in court of appeals, helped on supreme court amicus brief)

My question: since they gave me the screener, did they overlook my gpa? Other people said I’m in the clear, but i would rather hear from someone directly involved in recruiting.

Also, any tips to help them look past my gpa?
Thank you so much!

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Hello!

Below median at a T14 and offered a screener at a V10. After I heard i hot the screener, networked ASAP (spoke to both of the summers that worked for my interviewer) and got a partner in the location of the v10 to talk
To recruitment. My interviewer was the head of the practice group Im interviewing for. I’d say good work experience kjd (published in court of appeals, helped on supreme court amicus brief)

My question: since they gave me the screener, did they overlook my gpa? Other people said I’m in the clear, but i would rather hear from someone directly involved in recruiting.

Also, any tips to help them look past my gpa?
Thank you so much!

I assume you got preselected for the screener, rather than just getting the screener by bidding? If so, you're likely fine, somebody definitely saw your GPA and picked you anyway. It's not like your GPA's totally moot, but I'd feel fine about it. That said, whatever impact your GPA might have shouldn't affect how you approach the interview. Act like you have a good shot at it and make an honest effort.

I'm a little confused, though. You said your interviewer was a practice group head. Does that mean your screener's already done, and you're just waiting to see if you get a callback? Also, what does it mean to be published in a Court of Appeals... like you helped file an amicus brief?

Edit: About tips for helping them look past your GPA... literally don't change your interview approach at all based on your grades. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by bringing your grades into any conversation. All you can do is hustle for more screeners and work on your general interviewing. Don't get held up by your grades and do what you can to come across like a thoughtful, diligent person who'd be a good addition to the team.

[Anonymous User]

Hi! Previous poster. I wrote a brief in the court of appeals during my 1L summer. As an undergrad I helped contribute research for a think think amicus brief for a Supreme Court case. (Don’t mean to be braggy, just trying to figure out ways I Can frame myself during interviews as I wasn’t sure how much I needed to compensate for gpa)

And yes, I was pre-selected for the screener outside of OCI. Thank you for the insight, I will definitely keep that in mind and try to pillage through!!

Edit: and yes, I am now waiting for a callback

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Hi! Previous poster. I wrote a brief in the court of appeals during my 1L summer. As an undergrad I helped contribute research for a think think amicus brief for a Supreme Court case. (Don’t mean to be braggy, just trying to figure out ways I Can frame myself during interviews as I wasn’t sure how much I needed to compensate for gpa)

And yes, I was pre-selected for the screener outside of OCI. Thank you for the insight, I will definitely keep that in mind and try to pillage through!!

Edit: and yes, I am now waiting for a callback

Got it. Good luck with the interview results, but if you don't get an offer, just keep hustling for screeners.

I can't emphasize enough how important it is to keep mailing and networking until you have at least one job offer in hand. You'll have some interviews that just won't seem to go right for reasons that aren't your fault (interviewer having an off day, who knows what), and you'll have others that'll go far better than expected. Given the slight element of randomness, having a larger sample size of firms you've applied to is crucial.

Maybe you already have another offer by now, but if not, please don't slack now or wait to see how your currently set up interviews pan out. Apply broadly. If you decide you don't like any firm you apply to, it's at least interview experience, and the time to be picky is after you have offers in hand.

[Anonymous User]

Is it normal for first year lateral to have to class back a year if they are coming from lets say an amlaw100 to a v5? In this situation I've only been at my current firm for 9 months. The first years at this firm have about a 4 year month headstart on me as far as start dates (they started sept 2020, we started Jan 2021).

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Is it normal for first year lateral to have to class back a year if they are coming from lets say an amlaw100 to a v5? In this situation I've only been at my current firm for 9 months. The first years at this firm have about a 4 year month headstart on me as far as start dates (they started sept 2020, we started Jan 2021).

If you're switching practice groups at all, it's normal. If you'll be doing exactly the same thing you were doing at the original firm, however, it's a bit strange in your particular situation, especially since they presumably really need bodies.

I doubt they're thinking too hard about your exact start date when they request a year cut.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Is it normal for first year lateral to have to class back a year if they are coming from lets say an amlaw100 to a v5? In this situation I've only been at my current firm for 9 months. The first years at this firm have about a 4 year month headstart on me as far as start dates (they started sept 2020, we started Jan 2021).

If you're switching practice groups at all, it's normal. If you'll be doing exactly the same thing you were doing at the original firm, however, it's a bit strange in your particular situation, especially since they presumably really need bodies.

I doubt they're thinking too hard about your exact start date when they request a year cut.

Replying here.


Same practice group pretty much. However, the new firm has a WAY more robust group and volume than my current.

Their rationale for the classback is that they want to put me in the best position to be compared fairly. And being compared against the entering year would be best since my current year would be at an advantage since they’re already ramped up and accustomed to the firm.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous User]

OP.

OP.

Is it normal for first year lateral to have to class back a year if they are coming from lets say an amlaw100 to a v5? In this situation I've only been at my current firm for 9 months. The first years at this firm have about a 4 year month headstart on me as far as start dates (they started sept 2020, we started Jan 2021).

If you're switching practice groups at all, it's normal. If you'll be doing exactly the same thing you were doing at the original firm, however, it's a bit strange in your particular situation, especially since they presumably really need bodies.

I doubt they're thinking too hard about your exact start date when they request a year cut.

Replying here.


Same practice group pretty much. However, the new firm has a WAY more robust group and volume than my current.

Their rationale for the classback is that they want to put me in the best position to be compared fairly. And being compared against the entering year would be best since my current year would be at an advantage since they’re already ramped up and accustomed to the firm.

Thoughts?

If you don't think you know that much about this particular practice compared to your peers, a year cut's not so bad. If a partner needs to staff a second year on a deal, and one's done 3x the deals the other one with the same billing rate has, they're probably going to try to work with the other one. The fear is that this imbalance persists and/or grows over the years (more and better work keeps getting fed to the initially more experienced one). If the firm's completely swamped, though, you'll get good work no matter what.

If you think you've gotten enough experience at the old firm to feel decently competent for your year, despite the reduced deal flow/count you previously had, you can make more of a case for yourself to not take the year cut. It'll rely on you proving that competence through your early deals and making good first impressions on partners/seniors, though.

I wouldn't be too outraged about the year cut but it does get to be a meaningful chunk of change once you hit the 4th year mark especially (and it's not insignificant before that, either).

[Anonymous User]

If you have an offer to join a firm after graduation but need to relocate to a different market for personal reasons, what is the best way to approach the firm and request to be placed at a different office?

[Anonymous User]

OP.

If you have an offer to join a firm after graduation but need to relocate to a different market for personal reasons, what is the best way to approach the firm and request to be placed at a different office?

It's gonna be firm-dependent. Does your firm generally accommodate transfer requests? Have you seen people (even like third years/etc.) move from office to office?

At some firms, it's very easy, at others, you may need the support of some of your partners. Regardless, though, if you definitely need to relocate, you should definitely ask. You can start with an HR person at the firm, I guess, and just say that for personal reasons you'll need to live in X city directly after graduation. You have nothing to lose if the city's inflexible.

If you're very worried they'll say no, start applying to other firms in your preferred area, honestly. Now's the time to start, assuming you're starting your 3L year now.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

OP.

Is it normal for first year lateral to have to class back a year if they are coming from lets say an amlaw100 to a v5? In this situation I've only been at my current firm for 9 months. The first years at this firm have about a 4 year month headstart on me as far as start dates (they started sept 2020, we started Jan 2021).

If you're switching practice groups at all, it's normal. If you'll be doing exactly the same thing you were doing at the original firm, however, it's a bit strange in your particular situation, especially since they presumably really need bodies.

I doubt they're thinking too hard about your exact start date when they request a year cut.

Replying here.


Same practice group pretty much. However, the new firm has a WAY more robust group and volume than my current.

Their rationale for the classback is that they want to put me in the best position to be compared fairly. And being compared against the entering year would be best since my current year would be at an advantage since they’re already ramped up and accustomed to the firm.

Thoughts?

If you don't think you know that much about this particular practice compared to your peers, a year cut's not so bad. If a partner needs to staff a second year on a deal, and one's done 3x the deals the other one with the same billing rate has, they're probably going to try to work with the other one. The fear is that this imbalance persists and/or grows over the years (more and better work keeps getting fed to the initially more experienced one). If the firm's completely swamped, though, you'll get good work no matter what.

If you think you've gotten enough experience at the old firm to feel decently competent for your year, despite the reduced deal flow/count you previously had, you can make more of a case for yourself to not take the year cut. It'll rely on you proving that competence through your early deals and making good first impressions on partners/seniors, though.

I wouldn't be too outraged about the year cut but it does get to be a meaningful chunk of change once you hit the 4th year mark especially (and it's not insignificant before that, either).

Thanks OP. Replying here.

Assuming I accept the offer, what are the possibilities of renegotiating to go back to my original class? Let’s say after the first 4-6 months of be proving competence? Is this something that’s unheard of?

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Thanks OP. Replying here.

Assuming I accept the offer, what are the possibilities of renegotiating to go back to my original class? Let’s say after the first 4-6 months of be proving competence? Is this something that’s unheard of?

Pretty low. I haven't seen it before, anyway. I'd assume you're stuck with whatever you started with. Your only hope's that a bunch of people leave and you have more leverage to request a year increase/true-up at that time, but even then, that can be an awkward conversation to have and I wouldn't rely on it.

You could ask whomever's been contacting you about this stuff if not taking a year cut might be possible (or if you might have a chance for an upgrade at a later time, based on performance), but if they insist on it, I'd just take whatever they give you. This is not a sword worth falling on in your case. I'd ask just once and then go with whatever's offered.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Hi OP! Appreciate you jumping back on! I have two questions as I’m going through OCI right now.

(1) Is there a tangible difference between V10 firms (barring WLRK) when it comes to M&A? Currently choosing between Skadden and STB and have heard STB M&A isn’t on par with Skadden…but I like STB a lot more in terms of culture. Would choosing one over the other have any impact on lateral (or exit) opportunities down the line? Or are both viewed as belonging to the same tier of firms?

(2) How feasible is it to lateral to other firms, either in 3L OCI or after graduation? Given my interests in M&A, I’d probably only be interested in CSM/S&C/WLRK (lol). Do these places hire 3Ls/recent grads regularly, and how can I best position myself for next year? I imagine raising my grades is key, but are there any other things you’d recommend (e.g., try to work on some big M&A deal next summer, do relevant research with a professor, etc.)?

Thanks a lot!

1. In terms of prestige, there isn't a difference, but there can be a general difference in types of clients between some of them. Some notes on that (and some other thoughts on your firms):

• Cravath does hardly any private equity work, but if you're at Kirkland/Latham/STB you may see quite a bit more of that. That's not to say Cravath's all public M&A (a lot of it's acquisitions of private companies for strategic acquirers), there's plenty of private M&A there, but you won't often deal with PE clients. STB does a pretty good amount of both PE and non-PE work. Just something loose to consider.
• What about STB culture draws you there? For what it's worth, their M&A group can be a tough place to work (they were pretty horribly understaffed a year or two ago... maybe they've hired more now).
• Skadden is a niche place. I'm less familiar with it then some of the other NYC firms, so I could be totally off-base here, but my rough understanding was that you end up in "partner groups" within M&A, each of which has some slightly different expertise (e.g., one deals with more clients in one area). I don't have a sense of how much control you have over who you work with or what group you end up in.
• For all of these firms, cultural fit is more important that perceived prestige/etc. They're all pretty close. Your exit options will be fine from whichever but hating yourself and regretting your decision is a much greater risk.

2. You can lateral, but you really, really shouldn't count on it. Cravath has summer classes of 100+. Maybe they take 1 or 2 people in 3L OCI that aren't focused on benefits or something not general Corporate. You really shouldn't place those firms on a pedestal, though. Wachtell I get if you're desperate for money, but the approach to forcing yourself in there is to make yourself an exec comp associate and then pray they need people. Exec comp is pretty boring, to me at least.

It's got a low chance of success, and most of what impacts that success rate is outside of your control. You're relying on the firm to (1) underhire during their summer class, (2) happen to underhire specifically for the exact niche you want to fill (e.g., they may need a tax person, but not a corp person), (3) have an economy and deal flow that can support a new hire in that precise field on an ongoing basis, and (4) not have other people more competitive than you apply for that same niche that's already got a low chance of panning out.

Again, please don't get fixated on these firms. STB and Skadden are fine. I know plenty of people at Cravath/S&C who've chosen to lateral to each. You're going to hate your job if you decide (needlessly) that it's not somewhere you want to be at before you even start.

Not the person who originally asked back in June, but also interested - mainly in terms of moving up in firms. Do you think it is worth going through the hassle of 3L EIP to jump a couple of spots? Also, how hard is it to get a general corporate/litigation spot at, say, a V10 through 3L recruiting? I’ve heard it’s virtually impossible at CSM/Wachtell?? What about other firms like Skadden or SullCrom?

See the reply earlier in this post.

It's a huge hassle, and you can try, I just wouldn't count on it. It's like starting law school intending to transfer, but with even more factors out of your control.

There honestly isn't a huge difference between STB and CSM or similar. If it's a financially unstable firm to a stable firm well known in your field, then yeah, definitely, that's worth it (like K&L Gates a couple years ago to Weil or something like that).

Getting WLRK/CSM through 3L OCI is pretty difficult. CSM hired 2 last year (according to NALP) and WLRK didn't hire any 3Ls. But, FWIW, some other firms are more active. S&C hired 19 3Ls last year, which is a pretty huge cohort if you think about the size of their 2L summer class. Idk what's going on with them (e.g., they specifically underhire 2Ls with the expectation of taking in a decent chunk of 3Ls...OR a bunch of 2Ls just didn't accept FT offers?). Also, STB and DPW hired 11 and 8 3Ls, respectively, last year. So, it definitely does happen [outside of WLRK/CSM], but idk why you'd want to "trade up" a few spots from Skadden/STB to S&C or Cravath when you're being paid the same and working the same mind-numbing hours...

[Anonymous User]

OP.

I was rejected from a lateral interview because I didn't meet the firm's general grade threshold. I was about 1.5 years out of law school then, so maybe it would have mattered less after. That said, I dont think this was about grade drop, just general mediocre law school grades.

Yours is an earlier lateral move than most, but I'm surprised. For what it's worth, I lateraled myself around the 2.5-3 year mark. If you already have experience running deals of any type (and can speak coherently to that), you're probably past the point of most law firms looking too much at your grades.

I was rejected from a lateral interview because I didn't meet the firm's general grade threshold. I was about 1.5 years out of law school then, so maybe it would have mattered less after. That said, I dont think this was about grade drop, just general mediocre law school grades.

Curious what is considered a decent cumulative law school GPA, say from a CCN or even T14 in general? As in, at what point would it be like, OK grades aren’t the thing holding back this lateral applicant? 3.3? 3.5?

It's really context-specific, and that's if it even matters at all. In general, you'd probably be fine with a 3.3, at least at Columbia (it's the one I went to so I know it better, that's all).

The far bigger thing than grades is whether you have experience running deals and/or notable drafting experience, at least for corporate. You're less likely to have that in the first year or two, so grades might matter more. The whole point is that the firm you're moving to wants to hire someone who the old firm valued (like they're getting someone who can contribute, and wasn't just a dud at the old place). Everything is just a proxy for is this person going to be a decent contributor.

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about grades/the curve in 2L/3L at Columbia. I realize things become way less comparable after 1L because of clinics/seminars/etc., but roughly speaking, where would you fall in the class at the end of 2L with, say, a 3.5? What about a 3.6 or 3.7? Didn't do so hot in 2L EIP (bombed a few 1L classes lol) and hoping to trade up next fall, so I'm trying to figure out how competitive I'll be if I can get my grades up. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

OP.

I was rejected from a lateral interview because I didn't meet the firm's general grade threshold. I was about 1.5 years out of law school then, so maybe it would have mattered less after. That said, I dont think this was about grade drop, just general mediocre law school grades.

Yours is an earlier lateral move than most, but I'm surprised. For what it's worth, I lateraled myself around the 2.5-3 year mark. If you already have experience running deals of any type (and can speak coherently to that), you're probably past the point of most law firms looking too much at your grades.

I was rejected from a lateral interview because I didn't meet the firm's general grade threshold. I was about 1.5 years out of law school then, so maybe it would have mattered less after. That said, I dont think this was about grade drop, just general mediocre law school grades.

Curious what is considered a decent cumulative law school GPA, say from a CCN or even T14 in general? As in, at what point would it be like, OK grades aren’t the thing holding back this lateral applicant? 3.3? 3.5?

It's really context-specific, and that's if it even matters at all. In general, you'd probably be fine with a 3.3, at least at Columbia (it's the one I went to so I know it better, that's all).

The far bigger thing than grades is whether you have experience running deals and/or notable drafting experience, at least for corporate. You're less likely to have that in the first year or two, so grades might matter more. The whole point is that the firm you're moving to wants to hire someone who the old firm valued (like they're getting someone who can contribute, and wasn't just a dud at the old place). Everything is just a proxy for is this person going to be a decent contributor.

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about grades/the curve in 2L/3L at Columbia. I realize things become way less comparable after 1L because of clinics/seminars/etc., but roughly speaking, where would you fall in the class at the end of 2L with, say, a 3.5? What about a 3.6 or 3.7? Didn't do so hot in 2L EIP (bombed a few 1L classes lol) and hoping to trade up next fall, so I'm trying to figure out how competitive I'll be if I can get my grades up. Thanks!

I'm not OP but I was at CLS a little while ago so maybe I can help. They don't do class rank (as you should know?) or at least didn't while I was there. And the honors are by year, but you effectively only need it for one year to add it to your resume. The demarcations in my mind are three: Stone (comfortably above median, 3.41+ gpa), Kent (top tier, 3.8+ gpa) and Law Review (self explanatory).

And the curve is a little more complex. I dont remember exactly what it is but there should be some file somewhere explaining it. For 1L it was something like 10-15% get As or A-, 35-40% get B+ and the rest get B with discretionary B- and C or something close to that. In 2L and 3L, the curve is explicitly easier. I would guess something like 30% get A, 50% get A- or B+, 20% get B.

If you can't tell, it's relatively easy to get Stone in your 2L or 3L years if you put in a modicum of effort. Kent is harder to achieve in 2L or 3L year but not impossible. The trick is that for 1L it was hard to get these honors but in 2L and 3L it's not but on a resume it looks the same.

This next part is a bit of speculation and the career services people can give you more detail on this. Kent/Law Review students can basically get any firm they want (or at least they won't be limited by gpa). Stone are in pretty good shape, probably comfortably v10, v15 easily area. Of course your specific grades will matter as the firm will calculate your cumulative gpa by looking at your transcript.

Since we're talking about after EIP, you are probably thinking either lateraling or 3L hire. I can't say for sure whether grades explicitly matter while lateraling but I will say I had shit 1L grades (so nothing impressive at EIP) but had Stone by the time I graduated. A few years into a decent (not grade conscious) v20 firm, I lateraled to a very grade conscious v5 firm so maybe Stone played a part. Idk about 3L hiring but it obviously can't hurt to have 2L stone or kent on your resume (and your firm bio page).

[Anonymous User]

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about grades/the curve in 2L/3L at Columbia. I realize things become way less comparable after 1L because of clinics/seminars/etc., but roughly speaking, where would you fall in the class at the end of 2L with, say, a 3.5? What about a 3.6 or 3.7? Didn't do so hot in 2L EIP (bombed a few 1L classes lol) and hoping to trade up next fall, so I'm trying to figure out how competitive I'll be if I can get my grades up. Thanks!

Not OP. CLS grading and honors (deliberately?) make rank and percentile obscure, but the standard TLS lore is that upper-year Kent is 10-15% and upper-year Stone is 40-45%. (Corroborated by this super old CLS webpage: https://web.archive.org/web/20100623025 ... ng_and_Hon). So, very rough guesses: 3.5/3.6/3.7 cumulative is equivalent to 35%/25%/15% in class standing?

It might be worth pushing for Kent in your 2L (achievable if you take the right mix of courses) to make your 3L resume pop a bit more, and to reap the "lifetime" benefits of Kent on your resume/bio. You can then chill out at Stone or N/A for your 3L year.

[Anonymous User]

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about grades/the curve in 2L/3L at Columbia. I realize things become way less comparable after 1L because of clinics/seminars/etc., but roughly speaking, where would you fall in the class at the end of 2L with, say, a 3.5? What about a 3.6 or 3.7? Didn't do so hot in 2L EIP (bombed a few 1L classes lol) and hoping to trade up next fall, so I'm trying to figure out how competitive I'll be if I can get my grades up. Thanks!

Not OP. CLS grading and honors (deliberately?) make rank and percentile obscure, but the standard TLS lore is that upper-year Kent is 10-15% and upper-year Stone is 40-45%. (Corroborated by this super old CLS webpage: https://web.archive.org/web/20100623025 ... ng_and_Hon). So, very rough guesses: 3.5/3.6/3.7 cumulative is equivalent to 35%/25%/15% in class standing?

It might be worth pushing for Kent in your 2L (achievable if you take the right mix of courses) to make your 3L resume pop a bit more, and to reap the "lifetime" benefits of Kent on your resume/bio. You can then chill out at Stone or N/A for your 3L year.

Got it! Thanks (to you and the poster above you) for the rough estimates. I agree, the ambiguity of CLS grading is nice when you don't do so well (I probably benefited a bit from the murkiness during EIP lol), but it's hard to figure out where you stand in the class (outside of RBG scholars, I suppose) after 1L.

[Anonymous User]

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about grades/the curve in 2L/3L at Columbia. I realize things become way less comparable after 1L because of clinics/seminars/etc., but roughly speaking, where would you fall in the class at the end of 2L with, say, a 3.5? What about a 3.6 or 3.7? Didn't do so hot in 2L EIP (bombed a few 1L classes lol) and hoping to trade up next fall, so I'm trying to figure out how competitive I'll be if I can get my grades up. Thanks!

Not OP. CLS grading and honors (deliberately?) make rank and percentile obscure, but the standard TLS lore is that upper-year Kent is 10-15% and upper-year Stone is 40-45%. (Corroborated by this super old CLS webpage: https://web.archive.org/web/20100623025 ... ng_and_Hon). So, very rough guesses: 3.5/3.6/3.7 cumulative is equivalent to 35%/25%/15% in class standing?

It might be worth pushing for Kent in your 2L (achievable if you take the right mix of courses) to make your 3L resume pop a bit more, and to reap the "lifetime" benefits of Kent on your resume/bio. You can then chill out at Stone or N/A for your 3L year.

Also at CLS and interested in trading up in 3L OCI next year. Does anyone know what GPA floor makes a rising 3L at CLS an attractive candidate for a V5/V10 (sans WLRK)? Low-Stone, mid-Stone...Kent??? Any info on specific firms? I'm at a V50 next summer - is making a jump to a V10 possible, or do Cravath/S&C/STB/DPW only "poach" summers from each other?

Edit: I mean cumulative GPA, at end of 2L, btw. Given my dumpster fire 1L, I realize there's a tangible difference between making Stone 2L year and having a cumulative GPA above Stone lol

[Anonymous User]

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about grades/the curve in 2L/3L at Columbia. I realize things become way less comparable after 1L because of clinics/seminars/etc., but roughly speaking, where would you fall in the class at the end of 2L with, say, a 3.5? What about a 3.6 or 3.7? Didn't do so hot in 2L EIP (bombed a few 1L classes lol) and hoping to trade up next fall, so I'm trying to figure out how competitive I'll be if I can get my grades up. Thanks!

Not OP. CLS grading and honors (deliberately?) make rank and percentile obscure, but the standard TLS lore is that upper-year Kent is 10-15% and upper-year Stone is 40-45%. (Corroborated by this super old CLS webpage: https://web.archive.org/web/20100623025 ... ng_and_Hon). So, very rough guesses: 3.5/3.6/3.7 cumulative is equivalent to 35%/25%/15% in class standing?

It might be worth pushing for Kent in your 2L (achievable if you take the right mix of courses) to make your 3L resume pop a bit more, and to reap the "lifetime" benefits of Kent on your resume/bio. You can then chill out at Stone or N/A for your 3L year.

Also at CLS and interested in trading up in 3L OCI next year. Does anyone know what GPA floor makes a rising 3L at CLS an attractive candidate for a V5/V10 (sans WLRK)? Low-Stone, mid-Stone...Kent??? Any info on specific firms? I'm at a V50 next summer - is making a jump to a V10 possible, or do Cravath/S&C/STB/DPW only "poach" summers from each other?

Edit: I mean cumulative GPA, at end of 2L, btw. Given my dumpster fire 1L, I realize there's a tangible difference between making Stone 2L year and having a cumulative GPA above Stone lol

V5? At least Kent, probably closer to all As in legit black letter classes (fed courts, corporations, evidence, sec reg etc.) Give them a sob story about your dog dying or something 1L year then say your 2L year speaks for itself. V10 same but more wiggle room.

FYI, you're probably not going to accomplish this if you didn't actually have a crisis 1L year. Your performance 1L year will likely indicate your 2L and 3L performance in relevant classes. Your best bet for a v5ish is to aim at a v25ish for 3L OCI and then survive for 3-5 years then lateral up because everyone loves mid-level associates

[Anonymous User]

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about grades/the curve in 2L/3L at Columbia. I realize things become way less comparable after 1L because of clinics/seminars/etc., but roughly speaking, where would you fall in the class at the end of 2L with, say, a 3.5? What about a 3.6 or 3.7? Didn't do so hot in 2L EIP (bombed a few 1L classes lol) and hoping to trade up next fall, so I'm trying to figure out how competitive I'll be if I can get my grades up. Thanks!

Not OP. CLS grading and honors (deliberately?) make rank and percentile obscure, but the standard TLS lore is that upper-year Kent is 10-15% and upper-year Stone is 40-45%. (Corroborated by this super old CLS webpage: https://web.archive.org/web/20100623025 ... ng_and_Hon). So, very rough guesses: 3.5/3.6/3.7 cumulative is equivalent to 35%/25%/15% in class standing?

It might be worth pushing for Kent in your 2L (achievable if you take the right mix of courses) to make your 3L resume pop a bit more, and to reap the "lifetime" benefits of Kent on your resume/bio. You can then chill out at Stone or N/A for your 3L year.

Also at CLS and interested in trading up in 3L OCI next year. Does anyone know what GPA floor makes a rising 3L at CLS an attractive candidate for a V5/V10 (sans WLRK)? Low-Stone, mid-Stone...Kent??? Any info on specific firms? I'm at a V50 next summer - is making a jump to a V10 possible, or do Cravath/S&C/STB/DPW only "poach" summers from each other?

Edit: I mean cumulative GPA, at end of 2L, btw. Given my dumpster fire 1L, I realize there's a tangible difference between making Stone 2L year and having a cumulative GPA above Stone lol

V5? At least Kent, probably closer to all As in legit black letter classes (fed courts, corporations, evidence, sec reg etc.) Give them a sob story about your dog dying or something 1L year then say your 2L year speaks for itself. V10 same but more wiggle room.

FYI, you're probably not going to accomplish this if you didn't actually have a crisis 1L year. Your performance 1L year will likely indicate your 2L and 3L performance in relevant classes. Your best bet for a v5ish is to aim at a v25ish for 3L OCI and then survive for 3-5 years then lateral up because everyone loves mid-level associates

Wait, you mean get Kent in 2L year to balance out with 1L for, e.g., a 3.5-3.6 overall right? There's no way I can get overall grades up to 3.8+, even if I max out credits and get an A in every single class, so if that's what you mean...rip me lol. Appreciate the advice on the lateraling option though!

[Anonymous User]

Does an interviewer's specialty usually correlate to the department for which the interviewee is being considered? What if the application only let you choose between very broad categories, like transactional and litigation?

For example, am I starting with a disadvantage if I'm interested in M&A but my interviewer is in the tax group?

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about grades/the curve in 2L/3L at Columbia. I realize things become way less comparable after 1L because of clinics/seminars/etc., but roughly speaking, where would you fall in the class at the end of 2L with, say, a 3.5? What about a 3.6 or 3.7? Didn't do so hot in 2L EIP (bombed a few 1L classes lol) and hoping to trade up next fall, so I'm trying to figure out how competitive I'll be if I can get my grades up. Thanks!

Honestly, though, it's less about your grades for 3L EIP (assuming they aren't godawful... a 3.5-3.7 would be fine) and more about (1) how much you hustle for interviews and (2) how well you interview, in that order. The one nice thing about the market right now is that firms need bodies, so you have that going for you.

Just hustle and look for firms that need people. Check any postings on Symplicity (if CLS still uses it) but also feel free to email firms' recruiting pipelines.

Agreed with the other posters here on Columbia GPA to rough class rank conversions, that's my general understanding, too. Like they noted, it's not too hard to get at least Stone for one year of 2L/3L, in part 'cause you can game it a little bit. Concentrate seminars (the curve's substantially more generous, and they're generally more interesting classes anyway) and classes like FSA in one year.

But again, 3L hiring is less about grades than 2L EIP and more about landing initial interviews. The tricky part here is fitting the hiring needs that the firms happen to have for their upcoming starting class (sometimes you'll hear about firms that only want to hire 3Ls into bankruptcy or cap markets or something specific, etc.). Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

Also at CLS and interested in trading up in 3L OCI next year. Does anyone know what GPA floor makes a rising 3L at CLS an attractive candidate for a V5/V10 (sans WLRK)? Low-Stone, mid-Stone...Kent??? Any info on specific firms? I'm at a V50 next summer - is making a jump to a V10 possible, or do Cravath/S&C/STB/DPW only "poach" summers from each other?

Edit: I mean cumulative GPA, at end of 2L, btw. Given my dumpster fire 1L, I realize there's a tangible difference between making Stone 2L year and having a cumulative GPA above Stone lol

V5? At least Kent, probably closer to all As in legit black letter classes (fed courts, corporations, evidence, sec reg etc.) Give them a sob story about your dog dying or something 1L year then say your 2L year speaks for itself. V10 same but more wiggle room.

FYI, you're probably not going to accomplish this if you didn't actually have a crisis 1L year. Your performance 1L year will likely indicate your 2L and 3L performance in relevant classes. Your best bet for a v5ish is to aim at a v25ish for 3L OCI and then survive for 3-5 years then lateral up because everyone loves mid-level associates

Wait, you mean get Kent in 2L year to balance out with 1L for, e.g., a 3.5-3.6 overall right? There's no way I can get overall grades up to 3.8+, even if I max out credits and get an A in every single class, so if that's what you mean...rip me lol. Appreciate the advice on the lateraling option though!

this person is an idiot. if you're corporate, you could comfortably interview across the V10 w/o ever sniffing Kent even once in 3 years

"close to all As across 2L and 3L" is the sort of GPA you would be targeting to secure a federal court of appeals clerkship, not a job at Skadden lmao

[Anonymous User]

Not OP, but I know several ppl who traded up in 3L without spectacular grades, definitely lower than they've have needed for regular OCI/SA. It's all about practice group needs, and maybe grades or specific experiences in that practice group.

[Anonymous User]

OP.

Not sure if OP is still checking this thread, but I had a question about grades/the curve in 2L/3L at Columbia. I realize things become way less comparable after 1L because of clinics/seminars/etc., but roughly speaking, where would you fall in the class at the end of 2L with, say, a 3.5? What about a 3.6 or 3.7? Didn't do so hot in 2L EIP (bombed a few 1L classes lol) and hoping to trade up next fall, so I'm trying to figure out how competitive I'll be if I can get my grades up. Thanks!

Honestly, though, it's less about your grades for 3L EIP (assuming they aren't godawful... a 3.5-3.7 would be fine) and more about (1) how much you hustle for interviews and (2) how well you interview, in that order. The one nice thing about the market right now is that firms need bodies, so you have that going for you.

Just hustle and look for firms that need people. Check any postings on Symplicity (if CLS still uses it) but also feel free to email firms' recruiting pipelines.

Agreed with the other posters here on Columbia GPA to rough class rank conversions, that's my general understanding, too. Like they noted, it's not too hard to get at least Stone for one year of 2L/3L, in part 'cause you can game it a little bit. Concentrate seminars (the curve's substantially more generous, and they're generally more interesting classes anyway) and classes like FSA in one year.

But again, 3L hiring is less about grades than 2L EIP and more about landing initial interviews. The tricky part here is fitting the hiring needs that the firms happen to have for their upcoming starting class (sometimes you'll hear about firms that only want to hire 3Ls into bankruptcy or cap markets or something specific, etc.). Good luck.

Got it. Thank you so much!