. Forum

[hoos89]

/

[Lincoln]

I think an aberration in the form of a low grade is preferable to consistently mediocre grades. That way you've shown you have the capability of being a top student but that you had a bad day. I had one very bad grade on my transcript, and several interviewers asked me about it, but my offers were more reflective of my other grades than of my GPA as a whole.

[Gorki]

What range is school? Honestly though just talk about the grade more as you treated that low mark seriously and are doing XYZ to improve... But honestly the Q you are more like to get will be "Wow, so course X really got you by surprise, huh?" NEVER NEVER NEVER blame it on the course and/or professor. There are horror stories of people pinning it on a legitimately shitty prof only to hear interviewer say "Sorry you think that, I just had drinks with him the other night and we really are great friends."

[thesealocust]

Employers don't like using grades to make decisions. They're actually a very poor predictor of who will be smart, hard working, pleasant to be around, committed, etc.

Having said that, they have little else to go on, so they become quite important. To evaluate candidates, they will compare grade point averages. That's what matters - your GPA in the context of other GPAs at your school (i.e. your percentile).

That's it. No bonus points for certain compositions over others, no handicapping some people because of some grades, etc. In fact, at some large firms there's a chance decision makers will see your GPA and not your transcript for expediency's sake.

Most law students get a mixture of grades. It's much more common for somebody to have a wacky distribution of grades than to have consistent results.

The best explanation is to never discuss your grades in an interview. The odds are overwhelming you won't be asked. If you are, laugh it off and move on quickly. be humble instead of hyper-analytic. Everyone in the history of law school has tried hard and gotten inconsistent results. The interview is about establishing a personal connection and talking about grades and grading is not the way to do that.

[gaud]

Employers don't like using grades to make decisions. They're actually a very poor predictor of who will be smart, hard working, pleasant to be around, committed, etc.

Having said that, they have little else to go on, so they become quite important. To evaluate candidates, they will compare grade point averages. That's what matters - your GPA in the context of other GPAs at your school (i.e. your percentile).

That's it. No bonus points for certain compositions over others, no handicapping some people because of some grades, etc. In fact, at some large firms there's a chance decision makers will see your GPA and not your transcript for expediency's sake.

Most law students get a mixture of grades. It's much more common for somebody to have a wacky distribution of grades than to have consistent results.

The best explanation is to never discuss your grades in an interview. The odds are overwhelming you won't be asked. If you are, laugh it off and move on quickly. be humble instead of hyper-analytic. Everyone in the history of law school has tried hard and gotten inconsistent results. The interview is about establishing a personal connection and talking about grades and grading is not the way to do that.

Bro, thanks for sticking around TLS. I truly appreciate your insight.

[cinephile]

What range is school? Honestly though just talk about the grade more as you treated that low mark seriously and are doing XYZ to improve... But honestly the Q you are more like to get will be "Wow, so course X really got you by surprise, huh?" NEVER NEVER NEVER blame it on the course and/or professor. There are horror stories of people pinning it on a legitimately shitty prof only to hear interviewer say "Sorry you think that, I just had drinks with him the other night and we really are great friends."

Why can't you just say I had the flu the day of the exam and stupidly took it anyway rather than schedule a makeup? Sure it's a lie, but nothing that anyone can ever verify so whatever.

[hoos89]

/

[thesealocust]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'm mainly concerned that this will preclude me for a job for which I've interviewed already. One of the interviewers said they were looking for As, and while I have an A average and multiple As, this is a particularly prestigious position for a 1L (and exactly what I want to do). Note, they have not seen any of my grades yet: I got the interview largely through the recommendation of a professor.

There's no such thing as a particularly prestigious position for a 1L. What you do 1L summer does not matter outside of whether you're getting paid, what experience you receive, and the fact that you do something legal.

[hoos89]

/

[Jordan77]

I think it is better to have 2 high grades and 1 poor grade; the only exception being if the poor grade is in the practice area the firm is looking to place you in. It is a lot easier to explain 1 low grade as opposed to riding middle of the pack your entire law school career. As others have said, your GPA gets you the interview most of the time, but after that your connection with the interviewer and passion/determination is what lands you the job.