We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Should I quit pursuing a job at a law firm since I am not going to be in the top 10 or 20 of my class anyway?
And if GPA is the only criterion why do they talk about so much about moots, publications, ADRs, etc.? Let's just all focus on one thing i.e., grades, and forget about holistic learning. Why should I slog my ass off for all these inconsequential things?
As a senior member of my team in a tier I practice, I have had my share of recommending candidates for hire. As someone coming from a bottom tier NLU who was academically mediocre I detested the system of hiring based on ranks. While my academic credentials were nothing to write home about, I did fairly well in moots and publications. Nothing ground-breaking though.
When I was in a position to change things, I pushed a lot of associates for hire who demonstrated hard work in internships irrespective of college attended, academics or rank. 6/8 times this has bitten me in the rear. All 5 times, the candidates did not perform close to what they did during the internship and lazed around like anything. The other 2 kids were top notch. This taught me the futility of trying to gauge the quality of a candidate through internships + interview. Its a hit or miss.
However, 4/5 candidates hired during the same time (campus placement) from top 4 NLUs were fantastic. All these candidates were academically high achievers. They may not have been the sharpest tool all the time, but they had tremendous work ethic. Their ability to put their head down and get the work done was fantastic. In a couple of years they are/were by far the best associates in the team.
Now, my policy is simple. I just ask HR to hire any kid which is from a top NLU and is a ranker or a topper from any other college. Of course, the kids are grilled for basic level competence in interviews. This does not mean that good kids are not available else where. Its just that the risk involved in hiring such kids is higher.
Good academics demonstrate the ability to do an undesirable activity consistently for a long time and achieve excellence. A skill highly sought after in law firms. Comparatively, its easier to keep focus in short term interesting activities like publications / moots. That's why it is preferred to hire academically sound kids.
I wasted too much time on this. Bye.