Seeking advice on Biglaw from lawyers: I'm below median at a T-30 school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't want to make you feel discouraged, but I am on the Legal Honors hiring committee for a federal agency (and not one of the popular ones like DOJ or State). It has been years since we hired anyone with below median grades. We get such a high quality applicant pool that we are able to hire new attorneys from top schools with top grades, law review/moot court and usually some kind of relevant work experience. I don't think you're going to have the luxury of being picky in this legal market.

I am on a similar committee, and we have a top 20 percent cutoff, no exceptions.

A lot of top schools don't rank, so your post is BS. Federal agencies are full of mediocre lawyers and affirmative action hires.

If the school doesn't rank, we require an LSAT of 167. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but those are the rules. We still have have hundreds of qualifying applications per opening, so I guess it is as good a way to make the first cut as any other. I just wish we had wiggle room for otherwise exceptional candidates (like top quarter from Harvard), but we don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't want to make you feel discouraged, but I am on the Legal Honors hiring committee for a federal agency (and not one of the popular ones like DOJ or State). It has been years since we hired anyone with below median grades. We get such a high quality applicant pool that we are able to hire new attorneys from top schools with top grades, law review/moot court and usually some kind of relevant work experience. I don't think you're going to have the luxury of being picky in this legal market.

I am on a similar committee, and we have a top 20 percent cutoff, no exceptions.

A lot of top schools don't rank, so your post is BS. Federal agencies are full of mediocre lawyers and affirmative action hires.

If the school doesn't rank, we require an LSAT of 167. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but those are the rules. We still have have hundreds of qualifying applications per opening, so I guess it is as good a way to make the first cut as any other. I just wish we had wiggle room for otherwise exceptional candidates (like top quarter from Harvard), but we don't.

What? I've applied for a ton of federal attorney positions, both honors and lateral, and have never been asked my LSAT score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't want to make you feel discouraged, but I am on the Legal Honors hiring committee for a federal agency (and not one of the popular ones like DOJ or State). It has been years since we hired anyone with below median grades. We get such a high quality applicant pool that we are able to hire new attorneys from top schools with top grades, law review/moot court and usually some kind of relevant work experience. I don't think you're going to have the luxury of being picky in this legal market.

I am on a similar committee, and we have a top 20 percent cutoff, no exceptions.

A lot of top schools don't rank, so your post is BS. Federal agencies are full of mediocre lawyers and affirmative action hires.

If the school doesn't rank, we require an LSAT of 167. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but those are the rules. We still have have hundreds of qualifying applications per opening, so I guess it is as good a way to make the first cut as any other. I just wish we had wiggle room for otherwise exceptional candidates (like top quarter from Harvard), but we don't.

What? I've applied for a ton of federal attorney positions, both honors and lateral, and have never been asked my LSAT score.

There seems to be one fed attorney here who consistently tries to make getting a job with some nondescript agency sound like the equivalent of scoring a Supreme Court clerkship. It's rather amusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't want to make you feel discouraged, but I am on the Legal Honors hiring committee for a federal agency (and not one of the popular ones like DOJ or State). It has been years since we hired anyone with below median grades. We get such a high quality applicant pool that we are able to hire new attorneys from top schools with top grades, law review/moot court and usually some kind of relevant work experience. I don't think you're going to have the luxury of being picky in this legal market.

I am on a similar committee, and we have a top 20 percent cutoff, no exceptions.

A lot of top schools don't rank, so your post is BS. Federal agencies are full of mediocre lawyers and affirmative action hires.

If the school doesn't rank, we require an LSAT of 167. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but those are the rules. We still have have hundreds of qualifying applications per opening, so I guess it is as good a way to make the first cut as any other. I just wish we had wiggle room for otherwise exceptional candidates (like top quarter from Harvard), but we don't.

What? I've applied for a ton of federal attorney positions, both honors and lateral, and have never been asked my LSAT score.

I don't make the rules, I just have to live by them. It is rare that we get to this point because we don't ask for LSAT scores until after an interview if you aren't ranked. I think it doesn't make very much sense, but I guess it is the best thing they could figure out for a similar figure. If you are Order of the Couf or get some award for top 15% or something similar, we also don't need to see rank. But we definitely have the requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't want to make you feel discouraged, but I am on the Legal Honors hiring committee for a federal agency (and not one of the popular ones like DOJ or State). It has been years since we hired anyone with below median grades. We get such a high quality applicant pool that we are able to hire new attorneys from top schools with top grades, law review/moot court and usually some kind of relevant work experience. I don't think you're going to have the luxury of being picky in this legal market.

I am on a similar committee, and we have a top 20 percent cutoff, no exceptions.

A lot of top schools don't rank, so your post is BS. Federal agencies are full of mediocre lawyers and affirmative action hires.

If the school doesn't rank, we require an LSAT of 167. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but those are the rules. We still have have hundreds of qualifying applications per opening, so I guess it is as good a way to make the first cut as any other. I just wish we had wiggle room for otherwise exceptional candidates (like top quarter from Harvard), but we don't.

What? I've applied for a ton of federal attorney positions, both honors and lateral, and have never been asked my LSAT score.

There seems to be one fed attorney here who consistently tries to make getting a job with some nondescript agency sound like the equivalent of scoring a Supreme Court clerkship. It's rather amusing.

I am not that poster, but the last year before I left government to return to private practice we got 4000 resumes for our five entry level spots. . . I would not say the five people who got initial offers all had scoutus clerkships (though I think two did) but the odds of a particular applicant getting the job were indeed quite small.