2L Recruit and Grades

[FellowTraveler]

I was hoping someone could help calibrate my bullshit detector.

All of 1L we're bombarded with how important grades are, then the 2L recruit arrives and every firm trips over themselves to say that they have a holistic process and grades are only a small part of that.

So, where does the truth lay?

Obviously, if firms were only hiring A students, there'd be no one to proofread that latest M&A agreement. But where's the range?

• What kind of advantage does a straight-A student have over other applicants?
• Is it more of a "are you tall enough for this ride" deal, where anyone with a certain minimum gets considered?
• Is the attitude towards grades similar across Big law/corporate vs. the litigation boutiques that participate in OCIs?

I appreciate any insight!

Edited July 21, 2022 by FellowTraveler

[AHappyLawyer]

What kind of advantage does a straight-A student have over other applicants?

A huge advantage. When we're sorting through the OCI pile, I'll definitely notice if you have an A average. The advantage is less pronounced by the interview stage. By "holistic" they don't mean boring. Everyone needs an "edge" to stand out amongst the 1000+ applications. Having an A average is the most straight forward way of doing that, but we can't all guarantee A's.  Short of that, think about what your "hook" is to stand out from the rest of the B and B+ crowd. For me personally, yes law review and journals and all that crap are fine, but these are "blending in" exercises. I always ask students what are your "stand out" characteristics? Extensive work experience usually stands out. Cool experiences and resilience stories stand out too (you're a clown at bday parties, you paved 500 driveways over a hot summer, you were a server at the busiest restaurant in Toronto etc).

Is it more of a "are you tall enough for this ride" deal, where anyone with a certain minimum gets considered?

I'd say so. a B+ average tells me you work hard enough, study hard enough, are resilient enough or are savvy enough to wrangle the curve and do reasonably well. That's all I need. A B student can of course prove those attributes in other ways. 

Is the attitude towards grades similar across Big law/corporate vs. the litigation boutiques that participate in OCIs?

I'll let someone else from litigation boutiques speak to this, but since law school tests (more or less) appellate litigation skills, I'd reckon the grade threshold is just as high or higher than Big law (certainly for the top boutiques, since I feel like someone at Lenczner always ends up clerking at ONCA/SCC, whatever.)

[Damages]

The higher your grade is, the higher chance you would get selected for the interview. But the grade is not be all, end all to get that interview. The grade only gets you to the interview stage. After that, it would depend on your performance at the interviews (i.e., convincing the hiring manager that you are the perfect person to proofread that latest M&A agreement).

 

[FellowTraveler]

24 minutes ago, AHappyLawyer said:

What kind of advantage does a straight-A student have over other applicants?

A huge advantage. When we're sorting through the OCI pile, I'll definitely notice if you have an A average. The advantage is less pronounced by the interview stage. By "holistic" they don't mean boring. Everyone needs an "edge" to stand out amongst the 1000+ applications. Having an A average is the most straight forward way of doing that, but we can't all guarantee A's.  Short of that, think about what your "hook" is to stand out from the rest of the B and B+ crowd. For me personally, yes law review and journals and all that crap are fine, but these are "blending in" exercises. I always ask students what are your "stand out" characteristics? Extensive work experience usually stands out. Cool experiences and resilience stories stand out too (you're a clown at bday parties, you paved 500 driveways over a hot summer, you were a server at the busiest restaurant in Toronto etc).

Is it more of a "are you tall enough for this ride" deal, where anyone with a certain minimum gets considered?

I'd say so. a B+ average tells me you work hard enough, study hard enough, are resilient enough or are savvy enough to wrangle the curve and do reasonably well. That's all I need. A B student can of course prove those attributes in other ways. 

Is the attitude towards grades similar across Big law/corporate vs. the litigation boutiques that participate in OCIs?

I'll let someone else from litigation boutiques speak to this, but since law school tests (more or less) appellate litigation skills, I'd reckon the grade threshold is just as high or higher than Big law (certainly for the top boutiques, since I feel like someone at Lenczner always ends up clerking at ONCA/SCC, whatever.)

This is helpful, thanks!

As a follow-up: in your opinion, if grades are already my "standout" should I double down on my cover letter or conservatively "blend in"? I ask because my instinct is to do the former but I've been advised by some (CDO) to do the latter.

Essentially, my 1L was derailed by a major medical crisis. I have to speak to it one way or the other (I have a few missing grades for exams I deferred), but the CDO advised I leave that for an addendum to my transcript. Whereas I see it as an ideal cover letter opportunity to emphasize the time management/prioritization/resiliency/etc that allowed me to succeed despite it.

 

[AHappyLawyer]

I think that's two slightly different questions.

First - yes you should try to stand out no matter what. You don't have to write some crazy, over the top cover letter or resume, but you can frame it around your main unique selling points. 

Second, if you need an addendum explaining something on your transcript, that's fine. Keep it factual, not too long and straight to the point. Don't let it overwhelm the rest of the application but just point it out since it's relevant. 

Best of luck.

[CheeseToast]

On 7/21/2022 at 2:52 PM, AHappyLawyer said:

law school tests (more or less) appellate litigation skills

Still a student but I’m fairly skeptical that 1L exams in any way mirror a real life litigation practice, appellate or not. 

[Rashabon]

58 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

Still a student but I’m fairly skeptical that 1L exams in any way mirror a real life litigation practice, appellate or not. 

That is not at all what they said.

[Jaggers]

I'm sure people are looking for a formula, but there isn't one. Grades are really important, and a resume can get you past that, though a lot of law students' resumes look very similar. I'm not sure there's a whole lot more to say.

[CheeseToast]

46 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

That is not at all what they said.

And how exactly would you interpret that comment? 

[Rashabon]

14 hours ago, CheeseToast said:

And how exactly would you interpret that comment? 

That law school in general tests the skillset of appellate litigation. Namely, reading cases, writing memos and factums, arguing like you would in court, etc. Their post did not limit themselves to 1L exams, nor did it prefer to "practice". Just the skill set. Seemed pretty straightforward to me.

[CheeseToast]

3 hours ago, Rashabon said:

That law school in general tests the skillset of appellate litigation. Namely, reading cases, writing memos and factums, arguing like you would in court, etc. Their post did not limit themselves to 1L exams, nor did it prefer to "practice". Just the skill set. Seemed pretty straightforward to me.

My guy, this entire thread is about succeeding at 2L OCIs. At almost all law schools (as far as I’m aware) around 80% of 1L grades are the product of a series of three hour tests. Given that this post concerns the 2L recruit 1L grades are obviously the only grades at issue - not “law school in general.”
These three hour 1L tests (the only grades that are at issue if you’ll recall) do not, contrary to your belief, test one’s ability to read cases, write memos and factums, or argue like you would in court. What they do is test your ability to issue spot, regurgitate ratios, and reach a reasonable conclusion under a tight time crunch. This being the opposite of litigation where you have eons to research and argue. 
Very weird point to argue in the context of a 2L recruit thread.

 

[Ryn]

I would argue that "appellate litigation skills" are precisely what you need to have to succeed in 1L exams. So basically all of what Rashabon was talking about.

What aspects of 1L test taking do not generally contain these elements?

[Rashabon]

1 hour ago, CheeseToast said:

My guy, this entire thread is about succeeding at 2L OCIs. At almost all law schools (as far as I’m aware) around 80% of 1L grades are the product of a series of three hour tests. Given that this post concerns the 2L recruit 1L grades are obviously the only grades at issue - not “law school in general.”
These three hour 1L tests (the only grades that are at issue if you’ll recall) do not, contrary to your belief, test one’s ability to read cases, write memos and factums, or argue like you would in court. What they do is test your ability to issue spot, regurgitate ratios, and reach a reasonable conclusion under a tight time crunch. This being the opposite of litigation where you have eons to research and argue. 
Very weird point to argue in the context of a 2L recruit thread.

 

Ok. You win. I don't have any patience to argue with someone who is routinely wrong and stupid on this forum. All the practicing lawyers are morons and you are the expert.

[CheeseToast]

1 hour ago, Ryn said:

What aspects of 1L test taking do not generally contain these elements?

I don’t recall drafting facta, conducting research, or making oral arguments through the course of my exams - do you? 

1 hour ago, Rashabon said:

Ok. You win. I don't have any patience to argue with someone who is routinely wrong and stupid on this forum. All the practicing lawyers are morons and you are the expert.

You can admit to being wrong every once in awhile instead of being a ragey internet manchild you know. I hope your little following on here brings you peace big guy.

1 hour ago, Ryn said:

 

I would argue that "appellate litigation skills" are precisely what you need to have to succeed in 1L exams.

 

Ah yes, the coveted skill of memorizing CANs and then grinding through as many practice tests as you can get your hands on. Truly what it takes to be an outstanding litigator! Sounds like a few of you are still riding the high of doing well in law school. 

[Ryn]

26 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

I don’t recall drafting facta, conducting research, or making oral arguments through the course of my exams - do you? 

Drafting facta is effectively your exam. Legal research is the case law you learn in the course. Oral arguments are similarly the ones you make in your exam. Surely you can see it’s analogous to a fair extent. 

26 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

Ah yes, the coveted skill of memorizing CANs and then grinding through as many practice tests as you can get your hands on. Truly what it takes to be an outstanding litigator! Sounds like a few of you are still riding the high of doing well in law school.

I’m not sure why you’re adopting this tone when I’ve been nothing but respectful to you. 

Surely there’s more to doing well in a law school exam than just memorizing the CAN. Many of those skills translate to litigation. I’m not suggesting they’re 1:1, but your argument that there’s nothing there at all is, like, flatly wrong.

Now, if your profs gave you good marks if you regurgitated what you had in your CAN, then that’s the fault of your class and professor. Law school exams should test for quite a bit more than that, and you’ll exercise litigation skills like issue spotting, selecting relevant cases, presenting concisely the applicable points, formulating an argument, and using the evidence to convince the reader that your position is correct. If you didn’t do that in your exams, then it was poor form on your profs. 

[123]

7 minutes ago, Ryn said:

Drafting facta is effectively your exam. Legal research is the case law you learn in the course. Oral arguments are similarly the ones you make in your exam. Surely you can see it’s analogous to a fair extent. 
 

Drafting facta are probably more like take-homes than sit-down, three hour exams. But other than that, yes. I agree overall. 

[CheeseToast]

1 hour ago, Ryn said:

Surely you can see it’s analogous to a fair extent. 

I can see the similarity but no, I wouldn’t agree that they’re analogous to a fair extent. To some extent, sure, but law school exams reward those who figure out law school exams, not those who possess the skillset necessary to do appellate litigation. Frankly, I find it insane that posters on here think that’s true when most every litigator I’ve spoken to re law school grades (including those that have argued some of the very cases we read in law school) has stated that law school grades matter little, if at all in practice. Among law school grades your facta, oral argument(s), and written work -based classes have all been cited by practitioners as good indicators of success in lit whereas most think exams have little application. Different folks have different opinions on the matter I suppose but for someone to come in here guns ablazing and suggest I’m categorically wrong for making the above statement makes me question what planet they live on. 

1 hour ago, Ryn said:

I’m not sure why you’re adopting this tone when I’ve been nothing but respectful to you. 

Surely there’s more to doing well in a law school exam than just memorizing the CAN. Many of those skills translate to litigation. I’m not suggesting they’re 1:1, but your argument that there’s nothing there at all is, like, flatly wrong.

Apologies, my tone is a reflection of the other poster’s attitude, which is unsurprisingly poor, as always. I think law school exams come down to an ability to work hard for an abstract reward which may or may not materialize combined with a bit of appellate litigation-esque skill and computer savvy thrown in. I would not, and did not say there is no relation to appellate litigation. My tone may have been overly flippant but I genuinely don’t think that the grades one receives on their law school exams are a good indication of how one will fare in practice. Plenty of extremely successful litigators exist as proof of that.
 

 

1 hour ago, realpseudonym said:

Drafting facta are probably more like take-homes than sit-down, three hour exams. But other than that, yes. I agree overall. 

What would you say then if one excelled in take-home exams, facta drafting, and mooting but fared poorly on exams? Would they lack the appellate litigation skills possessed by their colleagues who did well on exams (perhaps while not doing well on take-homes, facta, and mooting)? 

Edited July 26, 2022 by CheeseToast

[Ryn]

52 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

Frankly, I find it insane that posters on here think that’s true when most every litigator I’ve spoken to re law school grades (including those that have argued some of the very cases we read in law school) has stated that law school grades matter little, if at all in practice. Among law school grades your facta, oral argument(s), and written work -based classes have all been cited by practitioners as good indicators of success in lit whereas most think exams have little application.

So, I think this is the crux of your point. But I also think that maybe you've slightly misinterpreted what these litigators were saying.

It may be that law school grades are not reflective of your ability to succeed at a litigation firm. For the moment, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that, but let's assume for the purposes of this post that it's true.

In the OCI recruit, which is something you go through right after 1L, those first year law school grades are all you have. While it may be that they aren't reflective of your litigation ability, they are reflective of how well you did in law school, and that is what these firms will use to decide whether or not to hire you. Not moots, not community legal aid. Grades. The other stuff helps, too, but grades are still the absolute number one barometer of getting an OCI job, because that's all anyone has to show at the OCI stage that is really comparable to everyone else.

All those extras: drafting facta, making oral arguments, and so on, are stuff you will learn in upper years, or stuff you can learn on the job. No doubt they are important, and your ability to demonstrate competence in them after finishing articling (i.e., for hireback) will definitely have an impact on your future at a firm. But right out of 1L, except as extra-curriculars, no one has them. And the extra-curriculars are such a grab-bag of quality and quantity, that I can't see any of them being very useful to firms over grades. Maybe a notable provincial or national 1L moot you won, or something — but what percentage of OCI applicants can show that kind of achievement?

I've interviewed OCI candidates and was in the room for hiring decisions at a Bay Street firm. Rashabon has similarly. We are simply relaying the facts as we have it. It may be that the other firms don't do it this way, but to our own experience, and what we know from our lawyer colleagues at other firms who are part of the hiring process, it still appears to be the case that grades are what matter most*.

*(Now, I'm not a litigator. Maybe a litigation boutique weights things differently. I suspect they may not be all that different from the full-service firms, but granted I don't know for certain.)

[SlytherinLLP]

9 hours ago, CheeseToast said:

To some extent, sure, but law school exams reward those who figure out law school exams, not those who possess the skillset necessary to do appellate litigation.

In my experience students who did well on law school exams also possessed strong advocacy skills, even those that had no interest in litigation. I think perhaps you are being a tad too cynical about grades. Doing well on an exam demonstrates superior understanding of the law and quality legal analysis. Beating out 90% of individuals in a highly intelligent cohort is no small feat - which is why employers seek out those individuals. This is not to suggest there is a direct line from high grades and a successful legal career.

9 hours ago, CheeseToast said:

Frankly, I find it insane that posters on here think that’s true when most every litigator I’ve spoken to re law school grades (including those that have argued some of the very cases we read in law school) has stated that law school grades matter little, if at all in practice.

One thing to consider is that a lawyer in their 10th year of practice (or much earlier as well) would indeed make this claim, given that in the decade long experience of actually practicing law, what they learned in law school pales in comparison. However at the early stages in your career, as others have stated, grades are really important and one of the few metrics by which employers can objectively assess candidates. As an aside, I would wager that, on average, a Dean's list student will produce better work products than a student with B grades. I also have no doubt that over time the difference becomes less and less.

Edited July 26, 2022 by SlytherinLLP

[CheeseToast]

18 hours ago, Ryn said:

So, I think this is the crux of your point.

Unfortunately you’ve actually missed it. My point is the law school exam environment (characterized by three hour tests) is not remotely reflective of the environment litigation takes place in and, given this, it is strange to consider it as reflective of one’s ability in that domain. It rewards excellent test takers, not those that possess the skills to be excellent litigators. I’ll direct you to try and square the same situation of the hypothetical student I posed to realpseudonym. 

18 hours ago, Ryn said:

In the OCI recruit, which is something you go through right after 1L, those first year law school grades are all you have.

I’m acutely aware of this as I am currently summering at a big firm in a major city. I don’t disagree with the rest of what you say re the OCI process and the importance of grades and have never said otherwise. However, many mid size and smaller firms do not care as much about grades, if at all.

10 hours ago, SlytherinLLP said:

Doing well on an exam demonstrates superior understanding of the law and quality legal analysis.

I would agree with you up until this point. I think doing well on an exam demonstrates an ability to succeed in an exam environment (among those other abilities I laid out above). That is, an environment entirely unlike any you will face again in your legal career and thus I think it is a poor barometer for determining whether one possesses litigation skills or not. This, even if the litigation process bears similarity to law school exams.

Your last point doesn’t really address my argument and I would essentially agree with it. 

[Rashabon]

4 hours ago, CheeseToast said:

I’m acutely aware of this as I am currently summering at a big firm in a major city. I don’t disagree with the rest of what you say re the OCI process and the importance of grades and have never said otherwise. However, many mid size and smaller firms do not care as much about grades, if at all.

In the same way that I don't care about dating Ana de Armas.

[CheeseToast]

18 hours ago, Rashabon said:

In the same way that I don't care about dating Ana de Armas.

In that they may be noticed? Sure, I guess.

[Rashabon]

Whatever floats your boat dude. Everyone else understood my meaning.

[bebebebebe]

It is too late to change your grades. Attitude towards grades varies greatly from firm to firm, and hell even interviewer to interviewer in some firms. I wouldn't say attitude towards grades is uniform across "type" of firm either (corporate vs litigation). 

The answers to your questions won't really help you.

Edited July 28, 2022 by bebebebebe

[capitalttruth]

On 7/25/2022 at 11:27 PM, realpseudonym said:

Drafting facta are probably more like take-homes than sit-down, three hour exams. But other than that, yes. I agree overall. 

Given this analogy, I really think all law school exams should be take-home exams or essays. I think the standard timed exam over one day is a bit antiquated. But that's neither here nor there (or is it?)