Law School and GPA: Not Indicative of Long Term Success
A new study commissioned by an undisclosed top 25 law firm suggests that neither a law school’s ranking nor a student’s GPA is a great predictor of an attorney’s long term success in Biglaw:
Law school rank and GPA were only moderately predictive of success, the study found. In general, one of the study’s authors, Ron Paquette, tells the ABA Journal, “The Harvard attorneys do not perform any better than those at the 30th-ranked law school.”
Of course, that makes sense. Given that many HLS students have based their entire sense of self-worth on going to Harvard, it’s obvious that graduates from WIlliam and Mary can’t hope to compete with … wait, what? I don’t under … ow. Worldview. Melting.
The study also identified attributes that were detrimental to success, and some were “counterintuitive,” the study summary says. Ron Paquette [one of the study’s authors] disclosed one of them—foreign language proficiency. He says the study recommended that the law firm should not give “extra credit” to those job-seekers who can speak another language.
Merde! Ce rapport est mauvais.
More productivity indicators after the jump.
Apparently, leadership qualities, participation in community activities, and even participation in college athletics are better indicators of law firm success. Social skills, it’s not just for M.B.A. candidates anymore.
The methodology used for this study is actually quite interesting:
On the basis of several “soft” and “hard” performance measures that were of particular relevance to our client, we investigated over 1300 timekeepers (past and present) to identify those who were “outperformers” and those who were “underperformers”. Against this statistically ample population of lawyers, we tested the relationship to performance of about 200 “attributes” — each of which can be ascertained objectively prior to the point of hire, either from the CV, the transcripts (graduate and undergraduate), or interviews.
Because this metric is proprietary, we can’t know all the attributes that score well, and which ones do not. However, the authors make clear that their study does not obviate the importance of grades:
“There’s no one in here who got bad grades,” he says. The study simply showed that those with top grades aren’t much more likely to succeed than those with simply good grades. “If someone got a 2.0, I still would not hire them,” he adds, because the low grades could indicate low motivation.
Is a 3.2 and a life just as good as a 3.7 and an interpersonal deformity? Maybe so.
But why are law firms the only ones commissioning this kind of work? Perhaps understanding these metrics might do a lot more for law students than simply messing around with the grading system.
School Rank and GPA Aren’t the Best Predictors of BigLaw Success [ABA Journal via TaxProf Blog]
Moneyball Indeed! [Kerma Partners]
(104) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Trig got a 3.9 at GULC. Needless to say Trig is unemployed.
first!
1 -- Are you saying Trig is a GULC summa? What does that say of the GULC cums?
Never thought I'd say this, but where in the 'h' 'e' double hockeysticks is Laurie Lin with the Legal Eagle Wedding Watch?
who would have thought a client service business needs people with social skills?
Trig Triggy Triggith
Not a huge surprise. Whiff a little on the LSAT? No Harvard for you. Can't figure out the best way to get an A during 1L? No law review for you. Yet these 2 metrics are huge in the legal profession's worldview and guide impressions for one's entire career. Twelve months of someone's life, a snapshot, and we're surprised that they end up not being long-term predictors of law firm success?
Elie,
Surely your worldview melted long before this study. You. work. here. And y'aintno Lat.
Where is Laurie Lin? Good query.
elie,
has anyone every told you that you're not funny or enjoyable to read at all? it's fairly obvious that you're just a very angry, bitter and sarcastic individual who tries pathetically to be humorous.
bring back lat, please...jesus christ.
Succeeding in biglaw does not require an extraordinary intellect? I thought you had to be a genius to copy-and-paste from singular to plural...
As a hardcore conservtive, I am a firm believer in Triggle-down economics.
11 wins the internets.
I graduated at the bottom of my class from Seton Hall University School of Law and now work at Heavenly Ham.
I have never been happier in my life.
This sounds about right. I went to a really highfalutin' law school and am now a really crappy lawyer.
3 must not get this entire post. Either that, or he/she didn't read it.
GPA doesn't matter when you're white and male.
It's a man's life in the modern law firm.
Are you kidding with the French?
If you had gotten the SAT score necessary to have gotten into Harvard through the front door, surely you would have known the meaning word "rapport" as it has been integrated into the English language. It doesn't mean rapper, and it doesn't mean report.
On the other hand, Wachtell and all those super-exclusive, uber-elite boutiques take only those with the best grades from the best schools (not to mention clerkships).
Maybe there's something to these metrics after all?
This sounds about right. I went to a really highfalutin' law school and am now a really crappy lawyer.
7 knows what's up.
I'd love to say that this study was commissioned by Captain Obvious.
Law firm work is difficult, time-consuming and challenging, but it isn't brain surgery. If you've got a B+ average or better at a Top Tier law school, you probably have the mental faculties to handle most any legal problem that comes to you. We're not engineers people, and we're certainly risk averse. There are some brilliant, creative lawyers out there -- and the rest of us just steal their work.
Further, most legal work is interesting, but not so nuanced that you have to reinvent the wheel. You may need to research, reason things out and work long hours, but that doesn't mean it takes the EIC of Harvard Law Review.
Also, the people in the top 10% at the top schools may have such heightened self-esteem about their intellectual accomplishments and career prospects that they are as likely or MORE likely to check out of the Biglaw rat race, because they have more options when the going gets tiring, boring and soul-sucking.
Law school prepares you to be an academic. It's not surprising that grades do not correlate to success in the professional context. That foreign language proficiency is a detriment, is not all that surprising either. Many of those with foreign language proficiency are high-minded "intellectuals" who could never lower themselves to the sheer drudgery of work at a big firm.
I echo 7.
Both happened to me. My LSAT, possibly a result of missing 5 minutes of test time, was 6 points below my average.
My 1L GPA, not law review material. 2L GPA -- top 10% of the class.
Me -- got a $160k job, but not v20.
Will I be a successful lawyer -- TBD
But truth be told, and maybe it is ignorance, I don't think I have much less of a shot that those graduating from "better" schools with higher GPAs.
Is it just me, or is this not surprising at all? The study looks at 1300 lawyers at 1 firm. How is it a surprise that factors other than School and GPA determine success.? Doesn't the firm select candidates whose GPA/School combo are "equal" in the first place? E.g. a firm will take someone with a 3.0 from Harvard, a 3.3 from Chicago, a 3.5 from UVA, and top 5% from a non-T14. The firm does this because they think these students are of equal ability. This study just proves that the Firm was pretty much right. When you start out with a group with similar academic credentials, what differentiates individuals within that group is going to be things other than their academic credentials. Nothing surprising there. Since the researchers won't release the characteristics that do correlate with success, the article is pretty useless.
i enjoy reading elie's posts. hopefully those who don't like him, get weeded out soon and this place will stink less. fingers crossed. (please leave, soon)
24:
Maybe?
Ask Kip.
"Many of those with foreign language proficiency are high-minded "intellectuals" who could never lower themselves to the sheer drudgery of work at a big firm."
It's more likely that folks with foreign language proficiency, by virtue of being from another country, benefited from their "diversity," getting admitted despite shortcomings in other departments.
I would like to know if the finding of this detriment stands when you control for LSAT and GPA.
- Russian Dude
Put a college athlete who knows how to work hard in an above average law school (25-50) with good grades and then pay him/her 160K per year, they will not whine about all the work they have to do. It's not a big deal to them because they've been doing their whole life.
29 ~ subtle frat stud???
30 - good catch
This is really a subtle race baiting post.
30,
Unintended. I guess ATL has gotten to me without me realizing it.
Sincerely,
29 (not a frat stud)
28 - I speak a foreign language because I lived in a foreign country, in my 20s, not because I'm a minority. I'm as white as any WASP but still speak Spanish. Given, I doubt that my language ability has helped my success in law at all. Just stating that speaking a foreign language does not make you a minority. Some people in this country really just like to be able to leave it and actually speak to people.
Agree with 29.
OTOH, my knowledge of Spanish will enable me to shout legal advice to our Hispanic production crew before being heroically tasered in the event of an ICE Raid. Do you have any idea how good that would make me look to my justice-loving CEO?
Good post, Elie--hope your proof-reading doesn't slip
29 - how many college athletes in above average law schools have good grades? just askin.
Speaking as a William & Mary 2L, this is good to hear.
Too bad our job prospects still suck.
This study was put together by an HR person. Who cares.
Those that get A's become law professors
Those that get B's become judges, and
Those that get C's become rich.
Eat it law review assholes.
"Apparently, leadership qualities, participation in community activities, and even participation in college athletics are better indicators of law firm success. Social skills, it's not just for M.B.A. candidates anymore."
Well, yes, these are the people who will make the rain. And that is much more important than actually practicing law at a high level if you want long term success at Biglaw.
9:
Spoken like someone who just found out they aren't quite as special as their mommy told them.
18 - you are nasty. And dumb. He wasn't using "rapport" in an English sentence. In French, it does mean "report."
18 - you are nasty. And dumb. He wasn't using "rapport" in an English sentence. In French, it does mean "report."
There is no way MysTTTal is bilingual. Hell, he's barely unilingual.
18 - I don't speak French, but Google translator, both French to English and back again, indicates that Elie is right.
Didn't Blackwell Sanders conduct this same study like ten years ago and reach the same finding? Now Blackwell Sanders’ sample size of truly elite law school grads is likely limited, but this is hardly the economy to be reinventing the wheel—especially when any BigLaw idiot can attest that top grades + top school =/= success.
How is this report determining success at the law firm?
The reference to timekeepers suggests that the amount of billable hours is at least one measure, but I would not consider that a reliable measure of law firm success. Advancement to partnership would likely be a better measure.
Doesn't that depend on how you define "success?" If you only measure how good of a research monkey you can be in BigLaw, I think it is no surprise that there is little difference between HYS and anyone else. But I think if you take a broader measure, i.e., how good are you in the "rarified" fields (e.g., appellate litigation or % of your opinions reversed if you are a judge), the results may be different.
Doesn't that depend on how you define "success?" If you only measure how good of a research monkey you can be in BigLaw, I think it is no surprise that there is little difference between HYS and anyone else. But I think if you take a broader measure, i.e., how good are you in the "rarified" fields (e.g., appellate litigation or % of your opinions reversed if you are a judge), the results may be different.
It's not entirely clear what is the "extra credit" referred to in the article (bigger pay?, faster promotions? less likely to get fired?). I agree that foreign language ability standing by itself isn't a predictor of long-term success in a law firm. I disagree, however, with the ideas that "many of those with foreign language proficiency are high-minded "intellectuals" who could never lower themselves to the sheer drudgery of work at a big firm" or that those with language proficiency are walking diversity/AA advertisements.
I'm white and WASPy like 28, but I studied a couple of foreign languages in public high school and rapidly picked them up (my "gift," I guess). I picked up a couple more in my 20s-30s. The other two areas in which I have excelled are math and engineering.
In my experience, having learned several languages as a non-native/non-"immersed" person, there are similarities between learning languages and learing the "language" of math and engineering (one engineering prof used to tell me how he thought it was a lot easier to teach people to write software code if they had foreign language ability). All require the ability to sort through the strange and unfamilar and to extract order out of that strangeness so that ideas can be communicated. How is this not a good foundation for legal reasoning?
I think all of the above helped me to become reasonably successful as a lawyer (and patent law can certainly be "sheer drudgery" a lot of the time). Then again, my brain is probably just mis-wired.
you need a baseline level of intelligence to be a good lawyer. beyond that, it doesn't really help you and may actually be a handicap. much more important that you can communicate, are pleasant to be around and willing to work hard. Personally, I like to see people who have had crappy jobs in their past (fast food, waitressing, lawn maintenance) because I think people who have done these things in life can put the bad aspects of being a lawyer into perspective. Much more difficult to judge the job fairly if you have gone through life constantly being assured that you are a genius and never had to do anything really unpleasant.
38 - a lot more than you'd expect. You don't see a high number of elite level athletes, like D1 top basketball program athletes or D1 football, but minor sports and minor schools or Div. 2 & Div. 3 athletes are somewhat common in the sense that you're probably going to find about 5-10 per school in the top 25-50 schools.
oh no! i hope firms still look at my grades or else i'll never be able to separate myself from the pack and get a 1L sa position!!!
*tries out for college athletic team*
-nervous T-10 1L
Not surprising. Those from HYS likely got the job because they went to HYS. The lone 'dozo grad at a top shop must have something else going for him. I bet the median Yalie kicks the ass of the median GULCer any day of the week.
38~
two sport (D1) college athlete currently sitting in the top 15% at a T20. Also fluent in two foreign languages, and I'm as WASPy as they come. Hello V5!
~not 29, but maybe a frat stud
57 - Cross country and running a long distance Track and Field event doesn't make you two sports. It barely makes you a one sport athlete. You are a runner. Nothing more, nothing less.
25 (Subtle non top 14 troll)
"a 3.0 from Harvard, a 3.3 from Chicago, a 3.5 from UVA, and top 5% from a non-T14" does not mean "equal ability." Sorry.
-TTT 2L with v20, v50 offers. cause i play the sports good in kollege
Shocking. People who have demonstrated the baseline intelligence to get biglaw in the first place don't achieve success correlating to GPA.
In other news, the head of the math department at your local high school may not be the teacher with the highest college grade in linear algebra.
Wait...if I'm good at lacrosse, then I'll be a good lawyer?
I knew it.
38-
D1 college athlete here. Went to T3 law school, finished somewhere in top 1/3 of class. It's absolutely true that the 30+ hours I trained every week during college have made firm hours seem like no big deal in comparison.
25 seems right. the law firm already hired these people correcting for school/rank/gpa. take a look at the 50% mark at HYS and a tier 2 and it'll be drastically different.
63, what school and what sport?
25 seems right. the law firm already hired these people correcting for school/rank/gpa. take a look at the 50% mark at HYS and a tier 2 and it'll be drastically different.
D3 college athlete here. Went to T3 school, finished somewhere in the bottom 2/3. It's absolutely true that the 30+ hours I trained every week during college have made firm...wait.....holy shit....everything about me is TTT. No, seriously. What the fuck am I doing wrong? I never realized what a piece of shit I was until I actually typed it on a monitor.
No surprise here. I'm at a T20, middle of the class. I party, bang my girlfriend all day instead of going to class, and will be with a V25 this summer.
LMAO @ 10! That was great...
um, duh. ridiculous that Dechert paid someone for this precious tidbit of info.
44: Completely agree with you re: 18, but must note that while use of "rapport" not necessarily incorrect, "examen" or "étude" may be more appropriate in this context.
- BigLaw who speaks 3 languages, both for business and pleasure
(so 23, kiss my ass and 28, learn to read b/c language skill was noted re: law firm hiring, not law school admission)
34: I'll drink to that
This study doesn't mean firms are doing it wrong: you're not being hired because they think you will make partner in 6 years, you're being hired because you seem likely to be very intelligent and willing to work extremely hard for at least 2-3 years. That is more than enough reason for firms to use current selection criteria.
The question, Who shall I make my next partner, is one you ask when people distinguish themselves over the next few years.
I went to T20 school and we had 4 known D-I athletes from legitimate sports: 1 starting point guard, 1 starting second baseman, 1 starting pitcher, and 1 backup QB. Outside of that, the athletic ability was severely lacking. Sure, there were rowers, runners, soccer players, etc., but most at the D-3 level. And who counts those as sports?
Important traits like maverickness and reformerness don't show up on transcripts and LSAT scores. Firms need to focus more on these.
The foreign language thing doesn't surprise me. I worked with two associates, one spoke fluent Japanese, the other fluent Mandarin. They weren't very motivated. I'm probably going to get flamed by all of the language nerds out there, but here it goes. I think their lack of motivation was related to their language skills. They were very proud of their language skills. They kind of had chips on their shoulders about it, like they expected to be whisked off to Tokyo or Hong Kong to personally handle high level international negotiations on a moment's notice. I think people who become fluent in a foreign language are motivated by an inner need for the exotic and for adventure. Law firm life is kind of a drag to them, and it shows in their performance. Just my speculative theory to explain the data (which I haven't even seen).
ATL is falling off a cliff...MysTTTaL
16, I sure hope you're right!
--White man
52: you are a huge tool.
Without defining the measure of "success" for this purpose (which in any case is not necessarily, and in fact not even likely, the same measure the subjects themselves would use), this is utterly meaningless. What, not enough layoffs today to fill the post bucket?
76, I'm not so sure I buy your story, but I'd agree with you that foreign-language proficiency doesn't add much to whether someone will be successful. Being able to speak another language doesn't make one a harder worker, or smarter, or a team player, etc. On the other hand, if your firm does a lot of transactional work with foreign clients, or if you're a criminal-defense attorney in Miami, then it helps to speak a foreign language.
This makes sense. At Kirkland, the most overrated lawyers in the firm are Harvard grads who clerked on the Supreme Court. Some are decent, but in general they are nothing special and not worth the trouble. If I started a law firm, I'd keep away from these people like the plague.
gosh-greads based on 1 4hr test in each class not indicative of much?
who knew?
Conversation I had as an undergrad
Friend: Where are you going to law school?
Me: [lower ranked T1 school]
Friend: uh, why would you go there? You should retake the LSATs.
Me: Well, I like the city and after talking to a few law profs and lawyers and [former Dean of T14 law school] about where I got in, I decided that it was probably the best school
Friend: But if you don't get in to a T14 school you won't get anywhere as a lawyer. I heard that your law school determines the rest of your career. You're throwing your life away. That's why I'm going to do TFA, T14s love TFA.
Me: What is T14?
ohhhh. I sullied the inside of my pants with a bit of milky man spatter when I read the HLS bashing.
All the guys I know currently attending HLS were unimaginable pedants in college. Entirely self-involved and unoriginal. Cranked out some steep LSAT scores and had their whole unfounded self-satisfaction validated a bit more.
It is difficult for me to believe that the subject matter of schools can vary much, but someone who chooses to attend a school that has inflated rankings, such as Alabama, probably has very poor judgment.
76, your comment would be more relevant if you noted where the fluent Japanese and Chinese persons were schooled - meaning, non-US prior to uni and/or law school? I say this only because Asian education models are very different from US model (more emphasis on rote memorization vs. development of critical thinking skills).
83, come now, it's based on your prep school, how easy your undergraduate major was, and that 4-hour test.
Ladhe, the guy who returned 866% on his hedge fund and then quit to smoke dope summerized this well. He had a very TTT resume, but fleeched half of Harvard Business School - and insulted them for it.
There is "top talent" but there is absolutely no reason to believe that people from certain schools are *inherently* said top talent, and the amount of alleged "top talent" on, say, Wall Street (in both finance and law) is probably 7x the number of people who really are exceptional.
Addendum to 88:
You would think it would be obvious that the Cravath model - hire the best people, give them the best training, pay them the most, work for the best - does not work when you have a discreet number of people that really are "the best," but an essentially unlimited number of firms relative to the law school grad pool who will have "acceptable" resumes.
The best people in any field are genetic freaks. You can spend millions of dollars on an average swimmer and you will never turn them into Michael Phelps. You can give someone 12 years of education and training but they won't be able to compete with an intuitor who probably has Aspie miswiring in his brain and is using right-brain processing power on something your trainee has to do the math on.
You can train most people of decent intelligence to be competent in any given area, but you simply cannot replicate true freak talent. We don't really dispute this as a society when it comes to physical capabilities - "discovered" models, star athletes - so why on Earth do we do it with intellectual capability?
89 - Because there is some myth that if you work hard enough you can achieve anything. Hah.
89, you're mostly right. And this study makes perfect sense in the long run; excluding genetic freaks, any advantage one had by going to a "better" school would get nullified by general experience on the part of everyone else. It make take 5 years, 10, or even longer, but when you're litigating similar issues over and over, most people get the hang of it and reach a similar upper bound.
The thing is, though, those initial years aren't trivial. Considering associate compensation vs. ostensible productivity, a lot of money is wasted "training" someone in that time to get the hang of something that others (not-TTT) _might_ have picked up much more quickly.
This study, then, doesn't really discredit the value of attending a top school, either from the student's or the firm's perspective--in fact, I don't think it says much of anything. In general, a non-TTT graduates can produce a quality of work out of law school what would take a TTT several years of experience to achieve. The fact that most associates only stay in biglaw for a couple of years actually makes this an important point and discredits the survey to an extent. Though for sure these associates continue to practice law elsewhere, it's probably not going to be the kind of place relevant to this survey. But sticking to those who stay at the firms relevant to this survey, if skill/quality of work/etc evens out in the long run, as it should, that's fine, but you've still gotten more work, money, and general value out of the non-TTT in the long run by not losing those initial years.
71 - I think you are misusing "etude" as a translation for study. I think "etude" means to study something in school
J'etude la francais dan l'ecole (or something like that - it's been 10 years since HS french)
71 -
I have no idea why I corrected your French. I have been reading these comments too long. Sorry
92
The crazy thing is that this is news. Firms haven't done this level of analysis? For example, Skadden has been hiring 100+ summers a year, for year after year, without any guidance except anecdotal opinion about what to look for? That is crazy. The firm should be able to take any resume, put it into their model and it should spit out the estimated number of billables they will get out of the associate before they pack it in. Once they can do that, they can make an informed decision about who to hire. Of course billables isn't everything, so the firm will of course hire people who don't project to bill the most. For example, ex Sup Court clerks might leave to go teach law school because it is a better job than anything Biglaw has to offer. So they might not project to have the highest average career billables, but having those people back at schools might be good for your recruiting. Or maybe the prestige is worth it for your firm even if you only get two or three years out of it.
Every firm should be doing these studies themselves. Probably they can't admit the results though. For example, what happens if the studies show that women leave the firm sooner than men so that women project as less profitable hires than men. That isn't the type of data you want to leave lying around to get misinterpreted.
63: I guess your sport wasn't wrestling -- now that's a 24/7 enterprise.
The reason BigLaw looks for people who are top 5/10/20% of their class and/or on Law Review is not because they want the smartest people. It's because they want workaholics who can put up with verbal abuse and pompous, douchebag partners.
They look for credentials they can put on their website. Prestigous school is good or latin honors/law review from less prestigous school is good.
I was a starting football player for Ohio State and am now a 2L at a T5 school. Oh, and I speak French and Spanish fluently. Eat it.
I've seen attorneys from GW and GULC outperform HYSers in biglaw a lot, which has always indicated to me that the skills to be "successful" in biglaw (judgment, responsiveness, social skills/rainmaking potential, ability to do tedious or low-level work, willingness to travel and give up holidays with no notice, ability to stay awake and work past 2am, etc.) often are not related to the skills you need to perform well on the LSAT or IRAC.
96: Bingo.
96: also because being on law review shows you have the necessary skills to deal with tedious work like document review, make binders, cite-check briefs, etc. all the stuff that I did as a junior at a V20 firm.
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/10/dechert_layoff_exaggeration_but_caution.php
Anyone know what the five factors predictive of success are? 42 told us the only one the author would give up: involvement in college athletics. I hope the others are interpersonal comminication skills, relaxed, calm manner, a sense of humor, group-oriented thinking, open mindedness., confidence without arrogance....
Anyone know what the five factors predictive of success are? 42 told us the only one the author would give up: involvement in college athletics. I hope the others are interpersonal comminication skills, relaxed, calm manner, a sense of humor, group-oriented thinking, open mindedness., confidence without arrogance....