Milbank/Davis Polk/Cravath Scale: NYC to 215-415k Forum

[VentureMBA]

I don't think a lot of people hate HLS. But in the biglaw context (that this thread was discussing pre-hijack), pretty much no one cares that HLS grads went to HLS instead of CCN.

As a senior associate that switched firms a few times, I confirm that for midlevels and above, nobody cares about which school somebody went to, not just HLS. Nobody cares if you went to Stanford for law school either. Or Chicago. Yale, admittedly, can get you some attention just because they are so rare. However, for juniors trying to lateral, because they have little experience under their belt, where they went to school and their school grades still do matter to some extent.

This is totally false, by the way. There are definitely firms who absolutely care about what schools you went to, as a proxy for intelligence, marketability to clients and what not. Go scan through the websites of DPW/Cleary/STB or whatever and see what schools laterals went to. Certainly not a random distribution,

Correlation does not equal causation. DPW/STB etc. hire laterals from peer firms. Those peer firms pick their summers from top law schools. Thus, their laterals tend to be from top schools.

If you think that a HLS 5th year at cravath has an advantage lateraling to DPW over a Fordham 5th year at cravath simply because he went to law school at Harvard - you’re dead wrong. At that point, it’s going to be about need/fit/personality.

Having been in a dozen hiring meetings evaluating competing lateral candidates, this is 100% wrong.

[Anonymous User]

Having been in a dozen hiring meetings evaluating competing lateral candidates, this is 100% wrong.

Making this more specific would be helpful. Was school a tie-breaker? Are we talking about HLS v. NYU or HLS v. Georgetown? Transactional? Lit? Level of seniority? etc.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think a lot of people hate HLS. But in the biglaw context (that this thread was discussing pre-hijack), pretty much no one cares that HLS grads went to HLS instead of CCN.

As a senior associate that switched firms a few times, I confirm that for midlevels and above, nobody cares about which school somebody went to, not just HLS. Nobody cares if you went to Stanford for law school either. Or Chicago. Yale, admittedly, can get you some attention just because they are so rare. However, for juniors trying to lateral, because they have little experience under their belt, where they went to school and their school grades still do matter to some extent.

This is totally false, by the way. There are definitely firms who absolutely care about what schools you went to, as a proxy for intelligence, marketability to clients and what not. Go scan through the websites of DPW/Cleary/STB or whatever and see what schools laterals went to. Certainly not a random distribution,

Correlation does not equal causation. DPW/STB etc. hire laterals from peer firms. Those peer firms pick their summers from top law schools. Thus, their laterals tend to be from top schools.

If you think that a HLS 5th year at cravath has an advantage lateraling to DPW over a Fordham 5th year at cravath simply because he went to law school at Harvard - you’re dead wrong. At that point, it’s going to be about need/fit/personality.

Having been in a dozen hiring meetings evaluating competing lateral candidates, this is 100% wrong.

I’ve been in a few meeting discussing candidates and this is what I’ve gathered:

There will always be an advantage to going fo a better school, but I don’t think it’ll matter if it’s Harvard v. most t-14 at that point. However, the t-14 will always be given more weight than most schools.

And, contrary to popular belief, based on what I’ve witnessed and seen discussed, there isn’t much weight given to school when it comes to comparing candidates from any of the following: Vandy/UCLA/UT/WUSTL/BU/ND/Emory/GW/Fordham/BC

And the 20-something schools I just discussed make up a significant majority of biglaw attorneys, so these schools will almost always give you a boost over any other school.

Not sure it has anything to do with the quality of the school, but firms don’t really like change.

[Anonymous User]

Where you worked before (unless clerk, obviously) doesn't go in your law firm bio and clients don't care. What clients like makes hiring decisions. So yes, a HYS grad will always have an advantage.

[jsnow212]

Where you worked before (unless clerk, obviously) doesn't go in your law firm bio and clients don't care. What clients like makes hiring decisions. So yes, a HYS grad will always have an advantage.

YSC*

[Joachim2017]

Correlation does not equal causation. DPW/STB etc. hire laterals from peer firms. Those peer firms pick their summers from top law schools. Thus, their laterals tend to be from top schools.

If you think that a HLS 5th year at cravath has an advantage lateraling to DPW over a Fordham 5th year at cravath simply because he went to law school at Harvard - you’re dead wrong. At that point, it’s going to be about need/fit/personality.

I'm not going to wade in too deeply here or parse through causation/correlation distinctions, but wow is the bolded flat-out wrong. Thankfully others also also called BS. And I say this as someone who's been on both sides of the hiring process, at 2 V10 firms. What's even more astonishing is how confident this anon poster is in his/her claim.

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Didn't mean to say H is the K&E of law schools. H is like K&E in terms of being big and therefore inevitably having more people with strange personalities

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

[Anonymous User]

Where you worked before (unless clerk, obviously) doesn't go in your law firm bio and clients don't care. What clients like makes hiring decisions. So yes, a HYS grad will always have an advantage.

Georgetown over UVA then. Wonder why the numbers don’t show it.
Also, YSC*

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

I actually wonder what a biglaw "acceptance rate" is, if there is a comparable way to compute that, compared to every person who clicks Harvard on the law school application portal. While we think of the megafirms as accepting "anybody," the universe of "anybody" is already very limited compared to HLS applicants. The appearance of YSC selectivity is boosted by Johnny Whatever saying "Fuck it" because of his 3.8 in Liberal Studies at Second-Best State U With a Good Football Team, even though he's got a 165.

[Anonymous User]

Where you worked before (unless clerk, obviously) doesn't go in your law firm bio and clients don't care. What clients like makes hiring decisions. So yes, a HYS grad will always have an advantage.

YSC*

Well no, because clients don't follow USNWR.

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

I actually wonder what a biglaw "acceptance rate" is, if there is a comparable way to compute that, compared to every person who clicks Harvard on the law school application portal. While we think of the megafirms as accepting "anybody," the universe of "anybody" is already very limited compared to HLS applicants. The appearance of YSC selectivity is boosted by Johnny Whatever saying "Fuck it" because of his 3.8 in Liberal Studies at Second-Best State U With a Good Football Team, even though he's got a 165.

But if Johnny is a URM or his dad is a major donor, he may get into HLS anyway. I'm generally of the opinion that HLS > Chicago. The one factor I see in Chicago's favor is that it's a rigorous, competitive environment, whereas HLS is often treated like a three year long victory lap. So Chicago can take a 170/3.9 kid and sharpen them into a better thinker/worker, making them potentially better than a 173/3.9 kid at HLS who pleasured himself to his admission letter for three years.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

Last year was a fluke. Usually hovering around 15%. Takes anyone with 173/3.9. Hardly that selective..just like the megafirms. Cravath actually looks at fit.

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

Last year was a fluke. Usually hovering around 15%. Takes anyone with 173/3.9. Hardly that selective..just like the megafirms. Cravath actually looks at fit.

My only problem with this is the mega firms are a whole lot more desirable in CA. People would kill for Latham, Skadden beats out the white shoes, and other places like Gibson are much stronger…

[Anonymous User]

Because these are the most common kind. More like CCN has been replaced by HCN. with YS are in a different tier. Harvard is far closer to Columbia in every aspect than Yale Stanford or even Chicago.

Backed up by new US news rankings.

Well Harvard is still more selective than Chicago and Columbia (and in terms of medians still beats Stanford), but who knows how long that will last.

Harvard is still Harvard.

Btw, HBS also fell out of top 3 in the MBA rankings. Columbia surprisingly made it to top 3 in the undergrad rankings. Maybe there's something wrong with this year's US News rankings.

Harvard has never been Harvard in the law school world.

I don't even know what you are trying to say. US News has not been ranking Harvard 1 in many other fields (e.g. MBA, undergrad) either

In other fields Harvard is usually both the most selective and the best school. In law Y and S are definitely better by a landslide and anyone with a community college degree who flipped burgers at McDonald’s for 3 years can get in HLS with requisite numbers.

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

Last year was a fluke. Usually hovering around 15%. Takes anyone with 173/3.9. Hardly that selective..just like the megafirms. Cravath actually looks at fit.

It was 15% only in 2014, 2015 or so. From 2020, it's gotten quite low as the number of people applying to law school surged. Not even sure whether you ever applied to HLS. Back in my days they used to do interviews. In 2020, someone I know got rejected despite having graduated from Columbia for undergrad with 3.8 gpa and lsat of 176. I'm a sixth year at a V20, but getting into HLS several years ago was hardly a walk in the park back then. I don't think I would get in if I applied now.

Based on the caliber of those I know that lateraled to K&E or Latham last year, it just seems so easy lateraling to those firms given their huge hiring needs and expansion plans. For HLS, however, you do need to maintain a top gpa in college and do well on a standardized test to have a shot. K&E? Latham? Just last 2~3 years at a V20, V30, or what have you, in a transactional practice area and you automatically have a shot at K&E and Latham.

Comparing law schools to firms is quite a dumb exercise to begin with. The expansion of the mega firms is driven largely by laterals, and lateral decisions are based largely on hiring needs. Sometimes they just need a warm body with okay credentials.

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

Last year was a fluke. Usually hovering around 15%. Takes anyone with 173/3.9. Hardly that selective..just like the megafirms. Cravath actually looks at fit.

It was 15% only in 2014, 2015 or so. From 2020, it's gotten quite low as the number of people applying to law school surged. Not even sure whether you ever applied to HLS. Back in my days they used to do interviews. In 2020, someone I know got rejected despite having graduated from Columbia for undergrad with 3.8 gpa and lsat of 176. I'm a sixth year at a V20, but getting into HLS several years ago was hardly a walk in the park back then. I don't think I would get in if I applied now.

Based on the caliber of those I know that lateraled to K&E or Latham last year, it just seems so easy lateraling to those firms given their huge hiring needs and expansion plans. For HLS, however, you do need to maintain a top gpa in college and do well on a standardized test to have a shot. K&E? Latham? Just last 2~3 years at a V20, V30, or what have you, in a transactional practice area and you automatically have a shot at K&E and Latham.

Comparing law schools to firms is quite a dumb exercise to begin with. The expansion of the mega firms is driven largely by laterals, and lateral decisions are based largely on hiring needs. Sometimes they just need a warm body with okay credentials.

No one is saying getting in HLS is a walk in the park. It is, just like lateraling to megafirms, not that hard. For laterally, you need to first of all get in a semi good law school, have good enough grades to get in biglaw, and then survive 2-3 years. It's not just cake walk either.

For HLS, you need a top GPA majoring in WHATEVER the easiest at your WHATEVER local college, and take a standardized test that practically allows INFINITE tries. There, you automatically have a shot at HLS. I have always believed the most unselective law schools are Harvard, Columbia, NYU and GULC, which because of their sheer sizes, are almost compelled to take anyone with the right numbers regardless softs.

As to your Columbia friend anecdote, first of all that is sample size of 1, and second, he didn't get in probably because he majored in something challenging in college which brought his gpa down to a 3.8. If his stats were 3.9 and lsat, he would have gotten in, regardless of whether he attended Columbia or not. For almost every year, a 3.9/173 is a shoo-in at HLS, and I think even the most HLS stan would not argue that.

I am glad you mentioned laterals. HLS also takes 50 transfers from TTT every year, much like the megafirms..

[becodalapa]

This debate over whether or not Harvard is “selective” is so pathetic. Even sadder than the guys who still talk about their high school football career well into their 30s.

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

Last year was a fluke. Usually hovering around 15%. Takes anyone with 173/3.9. Hardly that selective..just like the megafirms. Cravath actually looks at fit.

It was 15% only in 2014, 2015 or so. From 2020, it's gotten quite low as the number of people applying to law school surged. Not even sure whether you ever applied to HLS. Back in my days they used to do interviews. In 2020, someone I know got rejected despite having graduated from Columbia for undergrad with 3.8 gpa and lsat of 176. I'm a sixth year at a V20, but getting into HLS several years ago was hardly a walk in the park back then. I don't think I would get in if I applied now.

Based on the caliber of those I know that lateraled to K&E or Latham last year, it just seems so easy lateraling to those firms given their huge hiring needs and expansion plans. For HLS, however, you do need to maintain a top gpa in college and do well on a standardized test to have a shot. K&E? Latham? Just last 2~3 years at a V20, V30, or what have you, in a transactional practice area and you automatically have a shot at K&E and Latham.

Comparing law schools to firms is quite a dumb exercise to begin with. The expansion of the mega firms is driven largely by laterals, and lateral decisions are based largely on hiring needs. Sometimes they just need a warm body with okay credentials.

No one is saying getting in HLS is a walk in the park. It is, just like lateraling to megafirms, not that hard. For laterally, you need to first of all get in a semi good law school, have good enough grades to get in biglaw, and then survive 2-3 years. It's not just cake walk either.

For HLS, you need a top GPA majoring in WHATEVER the easiest at your WHATEVER local college, and take a standardized test that practically allows INFINITE tries. There, you automatically have a shot at HLS. I have always believed the most unselective law schools are Harvard, Columbia, NYU and GULC, which because of their sheer sizes, are almost compelled to take anyone with the right numbers regardless softs.

As to your Columbia friend anecdote, first of all that is sample size of 1, and second, he didn't get in probably because he majored in something challenging in college which brought his gpa down to a 3.8. If his stats were 3.9 and lsat, he would have gotten in, regardless of whether he attended Columbia or not. For almost every year, a 3.9/173 is a shoo-in at HLS, and I think even the most HLS stan would not argue that.

I am glad you mentioned laterals. HLS also takes 50 transfers from TTT every year, much like the megafirms..

Can't HLS just cut down their class size by 1/2 or even 1/3 and easily become #1 if they wanted to? Maybe it's time for them to seriously consider making this move. The level of hate they are getting for not hitting the right metrics (arbitrarily) set by a magazine does not seem justified lol

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

Last year was a fluke. Usually hovering around 15%. Takes anyone with 173/3.9. Hardly that selective..just like the megafirms. Cravath actually looks at fit.

It was 15% only in 2014, 2015 or so. From 2020, it's gotten quite low as the number of people applying to law school surged. Not even sure whether you ever applied to HLS. Back in my days they used to do interviews. In 2020, someone I know got rejected despite having graduated from Columbia for undergrad with 3.8 gpa and lsat of 176. I'm a sixth year at a V20, but getting into HLS several years ago was hardly a walk in the park back then. I don't think I would get in if I applied now.

Based on the caliber of those I know that lateraled to K&E or Latham last year, it just seems so easy lateraling to those firms given their huge hiring needs and expansion plans. For HLS, however, you do need to maintain a top gpa in college and do well on a standardized test to have a shot. K&E? Latham? Just last 2~3 years at a V20, V30, or what have you, in a transactional practice area and you automatically have a shot at K&E and Latham.

Comparing law schools to firms is quite a dumb exercise to begin with. The expansion of the mega firms is driven largely by laterals, and lateral decisions are based largely on hiring needs. Sometimes they just need a warm body with okay credentials.

No one is saying getting in HLS is a walk in the park. It is, just like lateraling to megafirms, not that hard. For laterally, you need to first of all get in a semi good law school, have good enough grades to get in biglaw, and then survive 2-3 years. It's not just cake walk either.

For HLS, you need a top GPA majoring in WHATEVER the easiest at your WHATEVER local college, and take a standardized test that practically allows INFINITE tries. There, you automatically have a shot at HLS. I have always believed the most unselective law schools are Harvard, Columbia, NYU and GULC, which because of their sheer sizes, are almost compelled to take anyone with the right numbers regardless softs.

As to your Columbia friend anecdote, first of all that is sample size of 1, and second, he didn't get in probably because he majored in something challenging in college which brought his gpa down to a 3.8. If his stats were 3.9 and lsat, he would have gotten in, regardless of whether he attended Columbia or not. For almost every year, a 3.9/173 is a shoo-in at HLS, and I think even the most HLS stan would not argue that.

I am glad you mentioned laterals. HLS also takes 50 transfers from TTT every year, much like the megafirms..

Can't HLS just cut down their class size by 1/2 or even 1/3 and easily become #1 if they wanted to? Maybe it's time for them to seriously consider making this move. The level of hate they are getting for not hitting the right metrics (arbitrarily) set by a magazine does not seem justified lol

No, they can't. Too many mouths to feed: firing tenured faculty is virtually impossible, and firing overpaid administrators is very difficult.

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

Last year was a fluke. Usually hovering around 15%. Takes anyone with 173/3.9. Hardly that selective..just like the megafirms. Cravath actually looks at fit.

It was 15% only in 2014, 2015 or so. From 2020, it's gotten quite low as the number of people applying to law school surged. Not even sure whether you ever applied to HLS. Back in my days they used to do interviews. In 2020, someone I know got rejected despite having graduated from Columbia for undergrad with 3.8 gpa and lsat of 176. I'm a sixth year at a V20, but getting into HLS several years ago was hardly a walk in the park back then. I don't think I would get in if I applied now.

Based on the caliber of those I know that lateraled to K&E or Latham last year, it just seems so easy lateraling to those firms given their huge hiring needs and expansion plans. For HLS, however, you do need to maintain a top gpa in college and do well on a standardized test to have a shot. K&E? Latham? Just last 2~3 years at a V20, V30, or what have you, in a transactional practice area and you automatically have a shot at K&E and Latham.

Comparing law schools to firms is quite a dumb exercise to begin with. The expansion of the mega firms is driven largely by laterals, and lateral decisions are based largely on hiring needs. Sometimes they just need a warm body with okay credentials.

No one is saying getting in HLS is a walk in the park. It is, just like lateraling to megafirms, not that hard. For laterally, you need to first of all get in a semi good law school, have good enough grades to get in biglaw, and then survive 2-3 years. It's not just cake walk either.

For HLS, you need a top GPA majoring in WHATEVER the easiest at your WHATEVER local college, and take a standardized test that practically allows INFINITE tries. There, you automatically have a shot at HLS. I have always believed the most unselective law schools are Harvard, Columbia, NYU and GULC, which because of their sheer sizes, are almost compelled to take anyone with the right numbers regardless softs.

As to your Columbia friend anecdote, first of all that is sample size of 1, and second, he didn't get in probably because he majored in something challenging in college which brought his gpa down to a 3.8. If his stats were 3.9 and lsat, he would have gotten in, regardless of whether he attended Columbia or not. For almost every year, a 3.9/173 is a shoo-in at HLS, and I think even the most HLS stan would not argue that.

I am glad you mentioned laterals. HLS also takes 50 transfers from TTT every year, much like the megafirms..

Bro wtf is your deal, this is just dumb. I'm sorry you didn't get into HLS but move on.

[Anonymous User]

Lol @ the notion that HLS would consider cutting down class size to compete with ysc. Law school is a major cash cow for universities, and they don't even bother giving merit scholarships. I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank over their post prestige.

Plus it's not like they aren't doing right by their students (like eg GULC and arguably Fordham). HLS kids at the median are getting biglaw, gasp, not clerkships. And the bottom of the class is too. And they still have enough clerks and judges and SCOTUS to parade around their successes. So why should they care about a magazine or a handful of ppl on the internet?