Top Law Schools

Hi, all.

I’ve been getting mixed reports about the 1L median at UVA and how being at median affects your chances for big law. Some say the median is 3.3, others say the median has risen to 3.4. Additionally, median has been said to either be a good or just “not bad” spot to be. Which is it?

Does anyone have any insight as to how I should feel about my position atm? I don’t plan on bidding conservatively or aiming high.

https://abovethelaw.com/2014/06/oops-to ... applicants
https://www.scribd.com/document/2282837 ... kship-Data

Is median at UVA not a desirable place to be?

The data above suggests that 3.39ish is median at graduation. It's should be lower for 1Ls.

UVA placed 83.3% of its class of 2018 into BigLaw or federal clerkships. ~Median (~50%) is a terrific place to be at for landing BigLaw. You're not going to be landing a CoA clerkship or SDNY/NDCal/etc. from median at UVA, and you're probably out at the most grade-selective V10/V20 firms and lit boutiques (*not all of the V10/V20 are grade-selective), and you'd want to focus on NYC BigLaw instead of grade-selective D.C./CA, but generally you're in a great spot, so long as you're at least average at interviewing. Most law students aren't terrific interviewees, so you really just need to be "not terrible".

You'd need to be bottom quarter to have cause to worry about grades holding you back from BigLaw, and even bottom quarter at UVA isn't a terrible position to be in.

Median at the end of 1L is likely between 3.3 and 3.4. Professors are permitted (but not required) to bump the curve up to the class avaerage if it happens to be above 3.3, something that might come into play in the Spring semester electives.

Median at UVA puts you in a good spot for biglaw. Certainly keep hustling until you get an offer, but you are in the mix at most firms.

Where are you thinking of looking?

Anecdotal, but all my friends at medium (and also those below medium for that matter), that wanted big law got it through OGI.

I echo that you need to keep hustling until you get something. You should also be smart with your bid strategy. For example, don't bid on only DC firms and make sure to throw in a hand full of NY firms with big class sizes. Also keep in mind that you can often leverage an offer from a home office of a large NY firm into an offer at a satellite by asking to split your summer.

persia1921 wrote:Anecdotal, but all my friends at medium (and also those below medium for that matter), that wanted big law got it through OGI.

I echo that you need to keep hustling until you get something. You should also be smart with your bid strategy. For example, don't bid on only DC firms and make sure to throw in a hand full of NY firms with big class sizes. Also keep in mind that you can often leverage an offer from a home office of a large NY firm into an offer at a satellite by asking to split your summer.

Also skip the most prestigious/grade-whore firms. While it's not impossible to land those firms, you're better off skipping Cravath, Weil, Skadden, for firms that are more likely to offer you a job

The above is not really correct -- although the principle is. Weil and Skadden are not grade-selective firms for the tier that they are in. The firms in NY you DO want to avoid are more like: Cravath, Wachtell, SullCrom, Boies....You should absolutely bid Skadden and Weil if you are interested in them.

Some numbers suggest that median at a T6 might not even a good place to be at OCI, in this market at least. See LST’s “Job Search” Statistics.

For example, only 40% of Columbia students received their BigLaw job through OCI, which suggests that one has to be somewhere in the top 1/3rd at a T14 to be in a good place at OCI, if your relying on OCI to land a 2L BigLaw gig.

Of course, it’s possible that other scenarios may explain the discrepancy between the overall employment outcome and the OCI employment outcome at a T6 like Columbia. Maybe Columbia 2Ls are flooded with BigLaw options their 3L year after doing a 2L BigLaw summer associateship gained through OCI, such that they have sufficient marketable skills to find a BigLaw firm on their own. Or maybe some other set of conditions explain the discrepancy.

powerwhee wrote:Of course, it’s possible that other scenarios may explain the discrepancy between the overall employment outcome and the OCI employment outcome at a T6 like Columbia. Maybe Columbia 2Ls are flooded with BigLaw options their 3L year after doing a 2L BigLaw summer associateship gained through OCI, such that they have sufficient marketable skills to find a BigLaw firm on their own. Or maybe some other set of conditions explain the discrepancy.

Maybe Columbia students are reaching out to firms before OCI starts...?

Also, where are you getting that stat? It seems highly unlikely that Columbia's CSO would even publish that information internally.

Law School Transparency provides the OCI number. But something like 40% get their jobs through mass mail, other, or unknown, and there’s no basis for saying you need to be top third to be in a good position at OCI. Many more students get a job from OCI, even if they ultimately take a different job after graduation. The 40% isn’t the rate of OCI applicants who succeed at OCI.

cavalier1138 wrote:

powerwhee wrote:Of course, it’s possible that other scenarios may explain the discrepancy between the overall employment outcome and the OCI employment outcome at a T6 like Columbia. Maybe Columbia 2Ls are flooded with BigLaw options their 3L year after doing a 2L BigLaw summer associateship gained through OCI, such that they have sufficient marketable skills to find a BigLaw firm on their own. Or maybe some other set of conditions explain the discrepancy.

Maybe Columbia students are reaching out to firms before OCI starts...?

Also, where are you getting that stat? It seems highly unlikely that Columbia's CSO would even publish that information internally.

https://www.lstreports.com/schools/colu ... bs/search/

Maybe they are; maybe such students have preexisting connections. A multitude of inferences are possible. The site breaks up the methods that the students obtained their jobs, but not the timing from what I can see.

Repeating myself, but LST reports the number of students employed at *graduation.* The 40% stat means that 40% of students got the job they took *at graduation* through OCI. It doesn’t say anything about the success rates at OCI itself. It’s already clear that way more than 40% are employed at graduation.

nixy wrote:Repeating myself, but LST reports the number of students employed at *graduation.* The 40% stat means that 40% of students got the job they took *at graduation* through OCI. It doesn’t say anything about the success rates at OCI itself. It’s already clear that way more than 40% are employed at graduation.

That’s my point: the OCI success rate is unknown. The reported number could coincide with the success rate, or it could not.

I think a reasonable fact finder could draw different inferences, including mine and yours, when looking at the OCI number.

powerwhee wrote:

nixy wrote:Repeating myself, but LST reports the number of students employed at *graduation.* The 40% stat means that 40% of students got the job they took *at graduation* through OCI. It doesn’t say anything about the success rates at OCI itself. It’s already clear that way more than 40% are employed at graduation.

That’s my point: the OCI success rate is unknown. The reported number could coincide with the success rate, or it could not.

I think a reasonable fact finder could draw different inferences, including mine and yours, when looking at the OCI number.

I don’t think inferring you need to be top 30% to succeed at OCI at Columbia is at all reasonable, though. Apart from the arguments that apply to all schools about why percentage of students getting offers at OCI (we don’t know what percentage of students at Columbia actually go through OCI, students with connections or other desirable qualities may get jobs over people with higher grades), we know that some much higher percentage of students than 40% leaves Columbia with a biglaw job (it looks like the latest data is about 74%. That’s leaving out the fed clerks who likely either have or could get a biglaw offer, which is around 5% more). There’s no reason to believe that the additional 35-40% of students capable of getting a biglaw job didn’t succeed at OCI as 2Ls, especially since it’s much harder to get a biglaw job as a 3L without having got one as a 2L, than it is to get one as a 2L.

Plus none of this matches with anecdotal evidence from Columbia students (who also may get actual numbers for people getting offers through OCI).

powerwhee wrote:Some numbers suggest that median at a T6 might not even a good place to be at OCI, in this market at least. See LST’s “Job Search” Statistics.

For example, only 40% of Columbia students received their BigLaw job through OCI, which suggests that one has to be somewhere in the top 1/3rd at a T14 to be in a good place at OCI, if your relying on OCI to land a 2L BigLaw gig.

Of course, it’s possible that other scenarios may explain the discrepancy between the overall employment outcome and the OCI employment outcome at a T6 like Columbia. Maybe Columbia 2Ls are flooded with BigLaw options their 3L year after doing a 2L BigLaw summer associateship gained through OCI, such that they have sufficient marketable skills to find a BigLaw firm on their own. Or maybe some other set of conditions explain the discrepancy.

If you seriously think 60% of CLS students either strike out or do not participate in OCI, you prob haven't met very many CLS ppl... I guess that's not exactly what you said, but you're extrapolating from 40% CLS rate to where you would need to be in the T14 during OCI, so you're basically saying that.

In addition to clerks, people who switch firms after 2L SA, people who get SA via connections or pre-OCI interviews, and people who decide not to do biglaw post-law school despite doing an SA, the OCI figure probably also excludes people who took a biglaw job 1L (particularly common in certain markets in the South and Texas) and stayed at the same firm without taking a job from 2L OCI.

Pre-OCI mass mailing is huge, and only getting more popular by the year.

Landing a 2L SA, then going directly into a clerkship after graduation is a thing.

Landing a 2L SA, then switching to a different firm after graduation is a thing.

Landing a 2L SA, then going to DoJ Honors or some other government position after graduation is a thing.

Any implication that the OCI success rate at a T6 is 40% is flat-out wrong.

I can say with absolute confidence that, if you bid non-stupidly (i.e. some NYC) and can interview better than a plank of wood, you will be making 190,000 after graduation.

QContinuum wrote:Pre-OCI mass mailing is huge, and only getting more popular by the year.

Landing a 2L SA, then going directly into a clerkship after graduation is a thing.

Landing a 2L SA, then switching to a different firm after graduation is a thing.

Landing a 2L SA, then going to DoJ Honors or some other government position after graduation is a thing.

Any implication that the OCI success rate at a T6 is 40% is flat-out wrong.

That’s a pretty strong statement when you don’t have all the relevant facts, don’t you think? Columbia is the only T6 that posts these statistics. But your free to infer whatever you want.

I qualified my implication in my first post, and every example above fits that qualification. Giving me concrete examples of my qualification is irrelevant to my logic, which is simple.

No one knows the OCI success rate, so the success rate reasonably could or could not coincide with the 40% number. More evidence is required to determine whether that number reflects the success rate. No evidence exists requiring one conclusion or the other. No one has pointed me to any such evidence. Everyone has simply given me examples of my qualification. Sure, existence/lack of evidence for/against a conclusion is not necessarily dispositive.

But the burden of proof is on the party asserting that something could not exist to produce evidence to that effect. I have met by burden by producing evidence showing that my logic is possible and have qualified that logic accordingly.

And please note that I could have attended a T6 but chose a T20, so I have nothing against T6s.

powerwhee wrote:

QContinuum wrote:Pre-OCI mass mailing is huge, and only getting more popular by the year.

Landing a 2L SA, then going directly into a clerkship after graduation is a thing.

Landing a 2L SA, then switching to a different firm after graduation is a thing.

Landing a 2L SA, then going to DoJ Honors or some other government position after graduation is a thing.

Any implication that the OCI success rate at a T6 is 40% is flat-out wrong.

That’s a pretty strong statement when you don’t have all the relevant facts, don’t you think? Columbia is the only T6 that posts these statistics. But your free to infer whatever you want.

I qualified my implication in my first post, and every example above fits that qualification. Giving me concrete examples of my qualification is irrelevant to my logic, which is simple.

No one knows the OCI success rate, so the success rate reasonably could or could not coincide with the 40% number. More evidence is required to determine whether that number reflects the success rate. No evidence exists requiring one conclusion or the other. No one has pointed me to any such evidence. Everyone has simply given me examples of my qualification. Sure, existence/lack of evidence for/against a conclusion is not necessarily dispositive.

But the burden of proof is on the party asserting that something could not exist to produce evidence to that effect. I have met by burden by producing evidence showing that my logic is possible and have qualified that logic accordingly.

And please note that I could have attended a T6 but chose a T20, so I have nothing against T6s.

You were the guy in class who insisted on playing "devil's advocate" on civil rights cases, weren't you?

cavalier1138 wrote:

powerwhee wrote:

QContinuum wrote:Pre-OCI mass mailing is huge, and only getting more popular by the year.

Landing a 2L SA, then going directly into a clerkship after graduation is a thing.

Landing a 2L SA, then switching to a different firm after graduation is a thing.

Landing a 2L SA, then going to DoJ Honors or some other government position after graduation is a thing.

Any implication that the OCI success rate at a T6 is 40% is flat-out wrong.

That’s a pretty strong statement when you don’t have all the relevant facts, don’t you think? Columbia is the only T6 that posts these statistics. But your free to infer whatever you want.

I qualified my implication in my first post, and every example above fits that qualification. Giving me concrete examples of my qualification is irrelevant to my logic, which is simple.

No one knows the OCI success rate, so the success rate reasonably could or could not coincide with the 40% number. More evidence is required to determine whether that number reflects the success rate. No evidence exists requiring one conclusion or the other. No one has pointed me to any such evidence. Everyone has simply given me examples of my qualification. Sure, existence/lack of evidence for/against a conclusion is not necessarily dispositive.

But the burden of proof is on the party asserting that something could not exist to produce evidence to that effect. I have met by burden by producing evidence showing that my logic is possible and have qualified that logic accordingly.

And please note that I could have attended a T6 but chose a T20, so I have nothing against T6s.

You were the guy in class who insisted on playing "devil's advocate" on civil rights cases, weren't you?

Lol, actually I was the guy at the back of class walking in with sweatpants. I’d probably characterize myself as a silent gunner.

powerwhee wrote:But the burden of proof is on the party asserting that something could not exist to produce evidence to that effect. I have met by burden by producing evidence showing that my logic is possible and have qualified that logic accordingly.

This is one of the most annoying kind of lawyer behaviors that doesn’t apply in real life. And you haven’t shown that your logic is actually possible.

nixy wrote:

powerwhee wrote:But the burden of proof is on the party asserting that something could not exist to produce evidence to that effect. I have met by burden by producing evidence showing that my logic is possible and have qualified that logic accordingly.

This is one of the most annoying kind of lawyer behaviors that doesn’t apply in real life. And you haven’t shown that your logic is actually possible.

I've shown that my logic is theoretically possible; the mere fact that ambiguity exists regarding the OCI success rate, as conceded by all, makes it theoretically possible. Whether my logic is "actually possible" can never really be determined unless an empirical study is done on this issue.

How do you ever even make a decision about anything, relying on “theoretically possible” logic?

nixy wrote:How do you ever even make a decision about anything, relying on “theoretically possible” logic?

Theoretically, it's possible that going to OCI at Columbia causes cancer. Without further empirical study, we can't know that isn't true. Therefore, it's reasonable for me to posit that people shouldn't attend Columbia's OCI in order to avoid increased risk of cancer.