Top Law Schools

I graduated cum laude (top third) at a T20. However, due to a weird way the school calculates ranking (including people who graduate in Winter), my actual rank ends up something like top 34.5%. Given that OSCAR only lets me select top 33% or top 50%, am I screwed?

Do the judges just see that I'm "top 50%" and think my grades suck?

And yes, I know top top third at t20 isn't impressive at all but I feel like I have some other pretty good factors (2 publications, a few years of v10 expereince), if I can just get past this.

Basically I'm concerned that nobody even looks at my resume because my OSCAR generated cover makes me look crappy.

Just fucking lol

I don't know the answer to your question, but you could always send paper apps if you're concerned.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't know the answer to your question, but you could always send paper apps if you're concerned.

thanks, I've been doing this as much as I can but most judges require online apps

los blancos wrote:Just fucking lol

For what it's worth, if a judge is willing to go down to top 33% at a T20, then the judge is not particularly grade-conscious. Once you're in that range, I'm not sure it matters much whether you're top 33% or top 34.5% or top 45%. I suppose there could be a few judges who filter according to "top 33%" but who don't filter out your law school, but it's probably not a large number of judges.

Frankly, with those grades from a T20, you're very likely going to need someone to call the judge on your behalf anyway. Without a connection of some sort, you'll have a steep uphill climb.

Anonymous User wrote:

los blancos wrote:Just fucking lol

I just found strange the implication that there is some earth shattering difference between ~top 30% and ~top 45% such that the latter "sucks" but the former is merely unimpressive.

los blancos wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

los blancos wrote:Just fucking lol

I just found strange the implication that there is some earth shattering difference between ~top 30% and ~top 45% such that the latter "sucks" but the former is merely unimpressive.

In fairness to the OP, I think the concern is that some judges will use Oscar's prescriptive criteria to screen out apps that fall below 33%--which would mean that no one in chambers would even look at the OP's application materials. As a practical matter, I don't think falling below 33% will make much difference, for the reasons I mentioned above. But it's not an irrational concern.

rpupkin wrote:

los blancos wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

los blancos wrote:Just fucking lol

I just found strange the implication that there is some earth shattering difference between ~top 30% and ~top 45% such that the latter "sucks" but the former is merely unimpressive.

In fairness to the OP, I think the concern is that some judges will use Oscar's prescriptive criteria to screen out apps that fall below 33%--which would mean that no one in chambers would even look at the OP's application materials. As a practical matter, I don't think falling below 33% will make much difference, for the reasons I mentioned above. But it's not an irrational concern.

Oh yeah, I totally get that - I was reacting more to the assertion that all of a sudden top half is terrible.


(If it's any encouragement to OP - in my highly anecdotal experience, I've seen people with "worse" paper credentials [not cum laude and not v10 experience] get D Ct. gigs. It's an uphill climb but certainly worth a shot.)

los blancos wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

los blancos wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

los blancos wrote:Just fucking lol

I just found strange the implication that there is some earth shattering difference between ~top 30% and ~top 45% such that the latter "sucks" but the former is merely unimpressive.

In fairness to the OP, I think the concern is that some judges will use Oscar's prescriptive criteria to screen out apps that fall below 33%--which would mean that no one in chambers would even look at the OP's application materials. As a practical matter, I don't think falling below 33% will make much difference, for the reasons I mentioned above. But it's not an irrational concern.

Oh yeah, I totally get that - I was reacting more to the assertion that all of a sudden top half is terrible.


(If it's any encouragement to OP - in my highly anecdotal experience, I've seen people with "worse" paper credentials [not cum laude and not v10 experience] get D Ct. gigs. It's an uphill climb but certainly worth a shot.)

By the way, I often see alumni clerkship applicants focusing on the Vault rank of their firm when discussing their credentials. Although all judges are different, I think the Vault ranking of your firm is largely irrelevant to your chances. Sure, if a particular judge worked at your firm and knows partners who will recommend you, that's a huge plus--but that's true regardless of Vault rank. As I've stated repeatedly in other contexts, working at a "V10" firm is nothing like graduating from a T10 law school: the correlation between Vault ranking and prestige--particularly for litigation--is so weak that it's close to useless.

rpupkin wrote:For what it's worth, if a judge is willing to go down to top 33% at a T20, then the judge is not particularly grade-conscious. Once you're in that range, I'm not sure it matters much whether you're top 33% or top 34.5% or top 45%. I suppose there could be a few judges who filter according to "top 33%" but who don't filter out your law school, but it's probably not a large number of judges.

Frankly, with those grades from a T20, you're very likely going to need someone to call the judge on your behalf anyway. Without a connection of some sort, you'll have a steep uphill climb.

Yeah, you're probably right. My general idea is just to apply to as many D. Ct. judges as I can and just hope I get lucky.

los blancos wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

los blancos wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

los blancos wrote:Just fucking lol

I just found strange the implication that there is some earth shattering difference between ~top 30% and ~top 45% such that the latter "sucks" but the former is merely unimpressive.

In fairness to the OP, I think the concern is that some judges will use Oscar's prescriptive criteria to screen out apps that fall below 33%--which would mean that no one in chambers would even look at the OP's application materials. As a practical matter, I don't think falling below 33% will make much difference, for the reasons I mentioned above. But it's not an irrational concern.

Oh yeah, I totally get that - I was reacting more to the assertion that all of a sudden top half is terrible.


(If it's any encouragement to OP - in my highly anecdotal experience, I've seen people with "worse" paper credentials [not cum laude and not v10 experience] get D Ct. gigs. It's an uphill climb but certainly worth a shot.)

Thanks, that is actually IS pretty encouraging haha.

rpupkin wrote:

los blancos wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

los blancos wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

los blancos wrote:Just fucking lol

I just found strange the implication that there is some earth shattering difference between ~top 30% and ~top 45% such that the latter "sucks" but the former is merely unimpressive.

In fairness to the OP, I think the concern is that some judges will use Oscar's prescriptive criteria to screen out apps that fall below 33%--which would mean that no one in chambers would even look at the OP's application materials. As a practical matter, I don't think falling below 33% will make much difference, for the reasons I mentioned above. But it's not an irrational concern.

Oh yeah, I totally get that - I was reacting more to the assertion that all of a sudden top half is terrible.


(If it's any encouragement to OP - in my highly anecdotal experience, I've seen people with "worse" paper credentials [not cum laude and not v10 experience] get D Ct. gigs. It's an uphill climb but certainly worth a shot.)

By the way, I often see alumni clerkship applicants focusing on the Vault rank of their firm when discussing their credentials. Although all judges are different, I think the Vault ranking of your firm is largely irrelevant to your chances. Sure, if a particular judge worked at your firm and knows partners who will recommend you, that's a huge plus--but that's true regardless of Vault rank. As I've stated repeatedly in other contexts, working at a "V10" firm is nothing like graduating from a T10 law school: the correlation between Vault ranking and prestige--particularly for litigation--is so weak that it's close to useless.

I can understand this too. My firm is no Williams and Connolly despite the higher V rank. In my cover letters, I do name the firm and mention that I'm in litigation, but I don't mention prestige or whatever. I took the advice of many in this firm and kept my covers short.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't know the answer to your question, but you could always send paper apps if you're concerned.

I'm an idiot. But how do I submit paper LORs? I just ask my recommender for a copy, right?

Anonymous User wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't know the answer to your question, but you could always send paper apps if you're concerned.

I'm an idiot. But how do I submit paper LORs? I just ask my recommender for a copy, right?

Yes. Ideally, you want a sealed copy. If the recommender is a law prof, he or she should have support staff who can seal the LOR before it gets to you.

rpupkin wrote:For what it's worth, if a judge is willing to go down to top 33% at a T20, then the judge is not particularly grade-conscious. Once you're in that range, I'm not sure it matters much whether you're top 33% or top 34.5% or top 45%. I suppose there could be a few judges who filter according to "top 33%" but who don't filter out your law school, but it's probably not a large number of judges.

Frankly, with those grades from a T20, you're very likely going to need someone to call the judge on your behalf anyway. Without a connection of some sort, you'll have a steep uphill climb.

Just out of curiosity, and not being a prick at all, what were your stats, rupupkin?

kellyfrost wrote:
Just out of curiosity, and not being a prick at all, what were your stats, rupupkin?

PM'd.

rpupkin wrote: By the way, I often see alumni clerkship applicants focusing on the Vault rank of their firm when discussing their credentials. Although all judges are different, I think the Vault ranking of your firm is largely irrelevant to your chances. Sure, if a particular judge worked at your firm and knows partners who will recommend you, that's a huge plus--but that's true regardless of Vault rank. As I've stated repeatedly in other contexts, working at a "V10" firm is nothing like graduating from a T10 law school: the correlation between Vault ranking and prestige--particularly for litigation--is so weak that it's close to useless.

Oh yeah this makes complete sense - this wasn't clear in my post, but I was referring to less well-known firms altogether rather than just the Vault ranking.

If you graduated cum laude and your transcript makes clear that this is top 1/3, I think you can probably use the 33% thing for OSCAR purposes. Did you get the 34.5% figure from doing your own math based on a ranking like 69/200? We had folks do stuff like put "top 1%" on their resume and then a submit a transcript that said 6/400 and those applications went in the trash. But those were cases where there was nothing official from the school giving the student a license to say top 1%, so it seemed like they were just inflating their credentials in a dishonest way. Just my 2 cents, but If your transcript says cum laude is top 33%, then using that for OSCAR doesn't seem dishonest.

Emma. wrote:If you graduated cum laude and your transcript makes clear that this is top 1/3, I think you can probably use the 33% thing for OSCAR purposes. Did you get the 34.5% figure from doing your own math based on a ranking like 69/200? We had folks do stuff like put "top 1%" on their resume and then a submit a transcript that said 6/400 and those applications went in the trash. But those were cases where there was nothing official from the school giving the student a license to say top 1%, so it seemed like they were just inflating their credentials in a dishonest way. Just my 2 cents, but If your transcript says cum laude is top 33%, then using that for OSCAR doesn't seem dishonest.

I agree with this.

Emma. wrote:If you graduated cum laude and your transcript makes clear that this is top 1/3, I think you can probably use the 33% thing for OSCAR purposes. Did you get the 34.5% figure from doing your own math based on a ranking like 69/200? We had folks do stuff like put "top 1%" on their resume and then a submit a transcript that said 6/400 and those applications went in the trash. But those were cases where there was nothing official from the school giving the student a license to say top 1%, so it seemed like they were just inflating their credentials in a dishonest way. Just my 2 cents, but If your transcript says cum laude is top 33%, then using that for OSCAR doesn't seem dishonest.

Probably a totally stupid question but is there an issue with rounding if it's legit rounding? Like say you're 5/400...is it a problem to say that's top 1%? I can see why 6 is a problem because it should technically be rounded up to 2% if you're rounding (insert law student math joke here). Figured it would be weird to add decimals to the ranking.

I always had the impression that you shouldn't ever round up - after all, if you're at 1.25%, you're not in the top 1%. I know in math it works that way, but I've always been told not to do that in employment/resumes. That said, 1) I could be wrong, and 2) you can just say 5/400 and avoid the whole issue. People reading your resume can do the math.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I always had the impression that you shouldn't ever round up - after all, if you're at 1.25%, you're not in the top 1%. I know in math it works that way, but I've always been told not to do that in employment/resumes. That said, 1) I could be wrong, and 2) you can just say 5/400 and avoid the whole issue. People reading your resume can do the math.

Fair enough. Technically true on that point. I figured it would be weird to say top 1.25% but I can just leave it off altogether. I think most lawyers can do math.

Hopefully, it won't matter. My rank will change again before I am applying for clerkships again. But definitely worth asking if it comes up again in the future.

lawman84 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I always had the impression that you shouldn't ever round up - after all, if you're at 1.25%, you're not in the top 1%. I know in math it works that way, but I've always been told not to do that in employment/resumes. That said, 1) I could be wrong, and 2) you can just say 5/400 and avoid the whole issue. People reading your resume can do the math.

Fair enough. Technically true on that point. I figured it would be weird to say top 1.25% but I can just leave it off altogether. I think most lawyers can do math.

Hopefully, it won't matter. My rank will change again before I am applying for clerkships again. But definitely worth asking if it comes up again in the future.

For what it's worth, although I agree with Emma about the cum laude/top-33% thing, I don't share her views about the top 1%-6/400 thing. I don't think anyone in my chambers (including my judge) would notice or care. But there are obviously folks who do care, and that's reason enough to play it safe.

When you know your exact class rank, and when you're one of the top 10 students in your class, I'd just let your rank ("X of XXX") speak for itself; there's no need to provide a percentage.

Thanks for the advice! I am just hoping to keep my rank up right now. Got a D. Ct. clerkship so I'm hoping that + a high rank will make up for me being at a T1 school with COA judges.