Stressed out 1L: What are considered "decent" or "strong" grades at Columbia? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I get the sense that people with a 3.7 and higher at Columbia have a shot at even the most selective firms, so those are obviously great grades. But what about the rest of the class? What is the difference between, e.g., a 3.1, 3.3, and 3.6? First semester was pretty rough, so I'm trying to figure out roughly where I stand in the class and how much I should be freaking out.

[Anonymous User]

3.1 = bid grade insensitive firms but you will likely get an offer somewhere. 3.3 = a little under median, so don't get too aggressive, but you have nothing to worry about if you want NYC corporate. 3.4-3.5 is sufficient for all the NY corporate firms but WLRK (S&C is second most grade sensitive and I think they want ~3.5). 3.7+ for WLRK, top lit firms (MTO, Susman, etc.), and elite DC firms (Gibson, Wilmer, etc.).

[Anonymous User]

CLS alum here. When I attended, 3.41 was Stone (was somewhere between top third and top 40%-ish?), and median was presumably a 3.3 or 3.33 or whatever.

You can get a great job from Columbia with poor grades, let alone grades that are simply below median. You just have to hustle and do as many interviews as you can with firms that will take non-Stone students (which is the vast majority, especially in New York). I think your EIP's happening right now, so it's too late to offer bidding advice, but pick up interviews if you can, do as many practice interviews as you can (with OCS, upperclassmen, friends, or otherwise) and you'll be perfectly fine.

Everything's still within your control. If you still only have your first semester grades back, that's crazy, but extra reason not to sweat it - maybe you figured out the exam-taking process for second semester, who knows.

[Anonymous User]

Doesn't this depend a bit on the fact that grades are now split between the 1L curve and the 2L curve?

I would say all those benchmarks apply under the old system, but I might be careful to bid more grade insensitive firms if I got something like 3 B's in 1L fall, passes in the spring, and 3 A-'s 2L fall, even though that would be a 3.3 and normally that would be a little more solid.

[Anonymous User]

What do you guys think about 3.11 in 1L and 3.91 in 2L? Would that be enough to be equivalent to a low Stone?

[Anonymous User]

To some extent I think it would depend on the classes. For example, was one of the 2L fall classes you got an A in Federal Courts? If so, then that shows a better upward trend. Was it a clinic or a seminar with easier curves? Then less clear.

[Anonymous User]

3.1 = bid grade insensitive firms but you will likely get an offer somewhere. 3.3 = a little under median, so don't get too aggressive, but you have nothing to worry about if you want NYC corporate. 3.4-3.5 is sufficient for all the NY corporate firms but WLRK (S&C is second most grade sensitive and I think they want ~3.5). 3.7+ for WLRK, top lit firms (MTO, Susman, etc.), and elite DC firms (Gibson, Wilmer, etc.).

This is super helpful - thank you!

[Anonymous User]

CLS alum here. When I attended, 3.41 was Stone (was somewhere between top third and top 40%-ish?), and median was presumably a 3.3 or 3.33 or whatever.

You can get a great job from Columbia with poor grades, let alone grades that are simply below median. You just have to hustle and do as many interviews as you can with firms that will take non-Stone students (which is the vast majority, especially in New York). I think your EIP's happening right now, so it's too late to offer bidding advice, but pick up interviews if you can, do as many practice interviews as you can (with OCS, upperclassmen, friends, or otherwise) and you'll be perfectly fine.

Everything's still within your control. If you still only have your first semester grades back, that's crazy, but extra reason not to sweat it - maybe you figured out the exam-taking process for second semester, who knows.

Got it. I'm a 1L so EIP should be next January (I think). Hoping to bump up my grades at least a few tenths over the next two semesters. Thanks for the advice on practice interviews!

[Anonymous User]

3.1 = bid grade insensitive firms but you will likely get an offer somewhere. 3.3 = a little under median, so don't get too aggressive, but you have nothing to worry about if you want NYC corporate. 3.4-3.5 is sufficient for all the NY corporate firms but WLRK (S&C is second most grade sensitive and I think they want ~3.5). 3.7+ for WLRK, top lit firms (MTO, Susman, etc.), and elite DC firms (Gibson, Wilmer, etc.).

Piggybacking off of OP’s question: Does anyone know what these GPAs translate into in terms of class “rank” (e.g. 3.5 is top 25%)? Also a 1L at Columbia.

[Anonymous User]

3.1 = bid grade insensitive firms but you will likely get an offer somewhere. 3.3 = a little under median, so don't get too aggressive, but you have nothing to worry about if you want NYC corporate. 3.4-3.5 is sufficient for all the NY corporate firms but WLRK (S&C is second most grade sensitive and I think they want ~3.5). 3.7+ for WLRK, top lit firms (MTO, Susman, etc.), and elite DC firms (Gibson, Wilmer, etc.).

Piggybacking off of OP’s question: Does anyone know what these GPAs translate into in terms of class “rank” (e.g. 3.5 is top 25%)? Also a 1L at Columbia.

It’s mostly useless to try to figure this out after the first semester since grades will be all over the place. But what I’ve heard is that for 1Ls, Stone is the benchmark for the top 1/3 of the class. Beyond that, it’s hard to say.

[Anonymous User]

3.1 = bid grade insensitive firms but you will likely get an offer somewhere. 3.3 = a little under median, so don't get too aggressive, but you have nothing to worry about if you want NYC corporate. 3.4-3.5 is sufficient for all the NY corporate firms but WLRK (S&C is second most grade sensitive and I think they want ~3.5). 3.7+ for WLRK, top lit firms (MTO, Susman, etc.), and elite DC firms (Gibson, Wilmer, etc.).

Piggybacking off of OP’s question: Does anyone know what these GPAs translate into in terms of class “rank” (e.g. 3.5 is top 25%)? Also a 1L at Columbia.

I copied this from a TLS thread about Columbia a long time ago, and don't know where the original source is anymore, but it roughly checks out, assuming a normal distribution. I think Stone is probably closer to 40% than 30% though:

3.9 = top 1%

3.85 = top 2%

3.8 = top 3% (Kent)

3.75 = top 4%

3.7 = top 6%

3.65 = top 8%

3.6 = top 11%

3.55 = top 15%

3.5 = top 20%

3.45 = top 25%

3.41 = top 30% (Stone)

3.35 = top 37%

3.3 = top 45%

3.26 = Median

3.2 = top 58%

3.15 = top 66%

3.1 = top 72%

3.05 = top 77%

3.0 = top 82%

Apparently based on the # of kent scholars, # of stone scholars, and assuming normal distribution.

[Anonymous User]

3.1 = bid grade insensitive firms but you will likely get an offer somewhere. 3.3 = a little under median, so don't get too aggressive, but you have nothing to worry about if you want NYC corporate. 3.4-3.5 is sufficient for all the NY corporate firms but WLRK (S&C is second most grade sensitive and I think they want ~3.5). 3.7+ for WLRK, top lit firms (MTO, Susman, etc.), and elite DC firms (Gibson, Wilmer, etc.).

Piggybacking off of OP’s question: Does anyone know what these GPAs translate into in terms of class “rank” (e.g. 3.5 is top 25%)? Also a 1L at Columbia.

I copied this from a TLS thread about Columbia a long time ago, and don't know where the original source is anymore, but it roughly checks out, assuming a normal distribution. I think Stone is probably closer to 40% than 30% though:

3.9 = top 1%

3.85 = top 2%

3.8 = top 3% (Kent)

3.75 = top 4%

3.7 = top 6%

3.65 = top 8%

3.6 = top 11%

3.55 = top 15%

3.5 = top 20%

3.45 = top 25%

3.41 = top 30% (Stone)

3.35 = top 37%

3.3 = top 45%

3.26 = Median

3.2 = top 58%

3.15 = top 66%

3.1 = top 72%

3.05 = top 77%

3.0 = top 82%

Apparently based on the # of kent scholars, # of stone scholars, and assuming normal distribution.

This is too generous. 3.8 is like ~3%; 3.7: 8%; 3.6: 15%; 3.5: 25%; 3.4: 40%: 3.3: 50-55%; 3.2: 70%.

[Anonymous User]

Is the prior post based on the 1L curve (harder) or some blended version of the upper-year courses (easier)?

[dabigchina]

3.1 = bid grade insensitive firms but you will likely get an offer somewhere. 3.3 = a little under median, so don't get too aggressive, but you have nothing to worry about if you want NYC corporate. 3.4-3.5 is sufficient for all the NY corporate firms but WLRK (S&C is second most grade sensitive and I think they want ~3.5). 3.7+ for WLRK, top lit firms (MTO, Susman, etc.), and elite DC firms (Gibson, Wilmer, etc.).

This is the credited response, although I remember SC wanting 3.6+. Might have gone down in the last few years since I've done EIP.

[Anonymous User]

3.1 = bid grade insensitive firms but you will likely get an offer somewhere. 3.3 = a little under median, so don't get too aggressive, but you have nothing to worry about if you want NYC corporate. 3.4-3.5 is sufficient for all the NY corporate firms but WLRK (S&C is second most grade sensitive and I think they want ~3.5). 3.7+ for WLRK, top lit firms (MTO, Susman, etc.), and elite DC firms (Gibson, Wilmer, etc.).

Piggybacking off of OP’s question: Does anyone know what these GPAs translate into in terms of class “rank” (e.g. 3.5 is top 25%)? Also a 1L at Columbia.

I copied this from a TLS thread about Columbia a long time ago, and don't know where the original source is anymore, but it roughly checks out, assuming a normal distribution. I think Stone is probably closer to 40% than 30% though:

3.9 = top 1%

3.85 = top 2%

3.8 = top 3% (Kent)

3.75 = top 4%

3.7 = top 6%

3.65 = top 8%

3.6 = top 11%

3.55 = top 15%

3.5 = top 20%

3.45 = top 25%

3.41 = top 30% (Stone)

3.35 = top 37%

3.3 = top 45%

3.26 = Median

3.2 = top 58%

3.15 = top 66%

3.1 = top 72%

3.05 = top 77%

3.0 = top 82%

Apparently based on the # of kent scholars, # of stone scholars, and assuming normal distribution.

This is too generous. 3.8 is like ~3%; 3.7: 8%; 3.6: 15%; 3.5: 25%; 3.4: 40%: 3.3: 50-55%; 3.2: 70%.

Thx!!