...

As many have said on this board before, getting into a top school (i assume you want a top school, especially if you plan to practice in new york; if not, then i think grades matter a great deal less, probably declining in importance with the declining prestiege and comtetitiveness of the llm program to which you intend to apply), then your class rank is probably the most imprtant factor, more so than just raw grades.
so, bottom line: where does your B average place you in your class? Again, i think they'll look year by year too, meaning what was your rank in 1st year, second year, third year?
If you're in the top 10%, you have a fighting chance at the very best schools. If not, then you'll have atougher time indeed.

I don't know much about anything, but I can tell you about me.

I have average grades (probably 60th percentile of only a 20-25th ranked US law school) and got into NYU's part-time LLM program. I don't think the LLM programs are anywhere near as hard to get into as the same school's JD programs. I think it's also a lot easier to get in as a part-time student for those few schools who offer part-time programs. I think an average student at a good law school with some (not necessarily a lot but some) other stuff to show for themselves can get into NYU or Columbia (not pt program at Columbia). As for your specific question, I have no idea, good luck.

I agree that the reputation of the school you are coming from is a factor: top 15 percent from jd harvard is clearly better on a resume than top 3 from a crappy school. However, i disagree that an average student at a good law school could get into a top llm at places like columbia.

i disagree that an average student at a good law school could get into a top llm at places like columbia.

Trollsoft I fully disagree with and detest the insinuation that getting into an LLM program is not nearly as difficult as getting into a JD program. While I do not have the benefit of statistics to back me up, LLMs are super-competitive, especially in tier 1 schools as each applicant is competing against other super-achievers from all over the world and not just one country, no matter how big it may be. Recall that LLM is considered prestigious in many countries especially for academicians and lawyers who want to specialize, head research think-tanks and the like. Getting into NYU is really competitive and we all know very well qualified lawyers who did not get in. So if you really are from an 'average' school with 'average' grades, I doubt very much if you really got into NYU. I think you are just trolling and trying to perpetuate the jd superiority myth.

I think it is impossible to compare jd to llm criteria. The ussgestion that llm is easier to get into because of less demand and more supply is just foolishness. Other than the personal statement, they don't really have much in common.
getting into the jd at harvard requires incredible score on the lsat, terrific undergrad grades, and preferably 'save the world' type volunteering.
getting into the harvard llm requires high class standing in the LLB/JD. period. Lsat is not relevant, either is volunteering.

"Trollsoft I fully disagree with and detest the insinuation that getting into an LLM program is not nearly as difficult as getting into a JD program."

Try not to take it so personally. Also, try to remain civil: there's no reason to call me a liar. Fact is I am ecstatic to know that people consider my perceptions wrong, as it increases the value of my LLM investment.

First of all, if I have not clearly admitted that I know very little already, let me do that now; I know very little about LLMs and the process. Second, perhaps repeating the word "much" in my post was too much, and I am guilty of exaggeration. However, it is my perception, and just my ignorant perception, that criteria is at the least, somewhat less. My own single data point suggests this, as I did get into NYU's LLM, and will be attending, could never have gotten into NYU's JD, and didn't do anything remotely spectacular during law school. Additionally, my statement, though admittedly a summary, and now admittedly perhaps inadvertently exaggerated, is indeed based on a statement made by the head of a top 20-25 (usnews) law schools graduate program.
Secondly, I didn't say average for school, I said good, specifically 20-25; but my grades were 60-65th percentile (they don't give us ranks, but I missed honors which is generally top 1/3 by several tenths of a gpa point, and am quite good at statistics and confident in my approximation of my percentile).
Finally, keep in mind that I'm sure the part-time program is easier to get into than the fulltime program.

Now, in the face of such passionate (even offensive as I'm called a liar and told I'm here to waste people's times by perpetuating a myth I didn't know existed), I stand, perhaps, corrected, and think that maybe I just got lucky (it wouldn't be the first prestigious thing I've fallen into by sheer luck).

"The ussgestion that llm is easier to get into because of less demand and more supply is just foolishness."
See my hard data above. Summarized quote by person who knows more about it than any of us, and the fact that I am in NYU LLM but could never have gotten into the JD program, and have none of the things you listed (i.e. an lsat that got me rejected from harvard, BC, Georgetown, and others, 60th percentile grades in JD, and not a hint of 'save the world' attitude; in fact my personal statement was 256 words and amounted to not more than "I want to take some more classes").

I can see that at least by popular opinion I am the exception very far from the rule, and my statements of my personal situation do nothing more than offend others, so I will leave this discussion alone out of respect for those who apparently are far more qualified but less lucky. I wanted only to provide my one data point, only slightly informed perception, and state that I am not lying. I wish you all great luck and success.

I'm fully behind you Troll. I think you've taken an unnecessary drubbing from ED and totallygrad, for merely sharing your experiences of having failed to attain a place for NYU's JD, whereas with 'not so great' credentials, you managed to get into NYU's LLM.

I think internationally, an LLM from a top tier American University is quite a respected and highly regarded degree (even for non-academics), whereas in the States, it really is mostly about your JD, hence for international students (like ED), it cannot be fathomable that it could come down to mere business-less demand, more places.

Look, I don't know how accurate that theory is, but I know that it is not so far-fetched as to warrant redicule and as Troll said, 'offensive' commentary. I, for one, am willing to listen to it-if nothing else it makes me feel better about my chances of getting admitted to a decent LLM Program.

i still think that your situation was unusual. average grades from an average school, without something else extraordinary on your cv, will rarely get you into a top LLM. I think your situation might be somewhat different in that you've got in via the part time degree, which i'll bet has lower standards, or at least different critria.
also, NYU is the quintessential factory llm-i think it takes more than 400 students a year, right?
I doubt that your average grades from an average school would get you intop smaller, top tier llm's, like columbuia, harvard, yale, etc... TYour supply and demand theory might hold true in the context of such a massive LLM program, especialy is they allocate a few spots just for part timers.
But i think it is without merit for smaller programs, as these all get MANY times more applicants than they can accept.

err I think we might have the missed the point of this post already. Anyway to the question of the original poster - I don't think its impossible to get into a top LLM program with a B average. As equity's darling said, class ranking matters more. But even then, its not the end-all, be-all factor for admission.

I was not in the top 10% in a top law school in my country in terms of ranking, and I got to HLS so I'm pretty sure that they didn't just consider grades. Work on the other aspects of your application as well - work experience or clerkship, writing and teaching experience, maybe some volunteer activities.

to the others: I think there is no comparison between JD and LLM as they are meant for different types of people. The general rule of thumb remains to be - if you want to practice full time in the US, getting a JD is the feasible option. But that doesn't mean LLMs cannot practice, as most of them do in fact, its just that different variables are at play.

What was your ranking, ricey? Even if you were from an average law school, I'm sure that your grades were better than average. Just because you were not in the top 10% doesn't mean that yiou fall within the above statement by trollsoft that average grades will get you into a top school's llm.

This is all just speculation. Initially ED was of the view that what was of primary importance was your class rank, saying that it mattered less what your actual grades were. But now, after ricey says that he was not in the magical top 10% and still got into Harvard, she somersaults and says to ricey: "I'm sure your grades were better than average".

In the end, to answer the original poster, as it has been said several times on this board in various forms, law schools look at a variety of factors, average grades, but in a top tier school; great grades, no work experience; developing country v developed country, etc etc. My advice in this regard would be that your grades are your grades, there's very little that you can do about them ex post facto, the only thing is to show yourself in as positive a light as possible in your application: good references, great personal statement and so on, and then you have $70 to lose, weighed against achieving your dream. Go nike about it man/woman.

suffice it to say that I'm in the mere top 20%. I don't think you really need top top grades - as I have said, there are many other factors. I'm not saying that grades doesn't matter - I'm sure the schools have a certain cut-off point for a decent GPA, my point is simply that you don't need to be perfect in a sense, because they look at an application in a holistic manner.

I also think you do not need out-of-the-world grades to get into top schools such as NYU. I personally know people who got into NYU for example and their grades were far than fantastic.
For instance, one of my friends will be going to NYU this year and she never had any distinctions or any honors at all while at law school, she was not even in the top 50% of the class in her home country. Clearly an average student with average grades in her home country. Yet here she is with her admission letter to NYU. Then again, maybe it's because she made her personal statement overly dramatic with lots of exagerations and made her look quite pitiful.
Another guy I know went to Columbia despite having really average grades, but he got a letter of recommendation from a Columbia professor... Result : admitted.
These two examples (and I know even more similar examples) show that it is not just the grades that count, there are LOTS of other factors which count and which can be the decisive factor in the law school officials admitting you.
Trollsoft is also another living example that it is possible to get into top schools without stunning grades.

Getting into a top LLM is not as difficult as getting into a JD. LLM do not have to take the LSAT, we only take the TOEFL. Surely you are not claiming the TOEFL is as difficult as the LSAT ?
Of course an LLM is prestigious in your home country, that's why we ALL do an LLM, right ? But if you think that an LLM is as highly regarded in the US as a JD, you are mistaken. Just look at how law firms perceive LLM and how little LLMs actually manage to get a job in the US. This should have shown you that there is a distinction in perception. Even students at top law schools do not all necessarily get jobs in the US. I know some people at very top law schools (such as Harvard but not limited to) who did not get a job in the US, despite wanting to stay, and will return to their home country.

Well

Well, just to complete the picture: I was in the top-three percent of my two previous universities but still I got into Stanford. I think that my range of extra-curricular activities may have made up for my failure to be in the top-one percent. So, indeed, I believe that it is not only grades that count.

This is all just speculation. Initially ED was of the view that what was of primary importance was your class rank, saying that it mattered less what your actual grades were. But now, after ricey says that he was not in the magical top 10% and still got into Harvard, she somersaults and says to ricey: "I'm sure your grades were better than average".

Lit, there is nothing inconsistent about the above statement. Class rank matters, hence the reference to "better than average". To be inconsisten, would be to say rank matters and then to say rank doesn't matter, raw grades do. But the very reference to "better than average" imports a point of compaison, i.e. his grades compared to others in the class. This is precisely the logic of ranking...

Ah, but you have changed your story:
1. You went from If you're in the top 10%, you have a fighting chance at the very best schools. If not, then you'll have atougher time indeed.
To wanting to justify riceys admission as being sufficient that though theyre not in the top 10% theyre probably at least better than my 60th percentile.

2. However, i disagree that an average student at a good law school could get into a top llm at places like columbia. Youve gone from could not get in to rarely get in.

3. The ussgestion that llm is easier to get into because of less demand and more supply is just foolishness. Youve gone from saying its foolish to believe criteria may be lower because of large supply to admitting that criteria is lower due to the higher supply of NYU: NYU is the quintessential factory llm-i think it takes more than 400 students a year, right?

Bottom-line: LLMs are hard to get in, but not nearly as hard as you'd like to believe. Mid-ranged applicants can and do get it, but it's the exception, not the rule.

So, what have we learned in this post:
1. Even if its difficult to compare the entrance criteria of JD and LLM programs, its clearly objectively easier (to at least some degree) in the LLM program.
2. Its even easier for larger LLM programs (confirming the validity of the supply/demand theory that was initially resisted).
3. Its even easier for part-time LLM programs.
4. LLMs are very prestigious in foreign countries but much less so in the United States, especially if you want to practice law instead of consult/teach/etc. (somewhat imported from other threads).
5. You dont have to be in the top 10% of your class, but obviously the higher your rank the better your chances.

1. I have no interest in justifying Ricey's admission. I still stand by the statement that, as far as academics are concerned, it's rank, not raw grades, that matter. If you're in the top 10, then you have a very good chance; if not, you have a much tougher time indeed. These statements are true. But of course the other variables on a cv matter too: law journal, clerkships, internships, perhaps an MA, or a gold medal in your BA, articles published, saving orphans in Africa etc... I was speaking about just the grades, i.e. in the context of applicants that rely primarily on grades without these other attributes on their cv. The more of these other benifits one has, obviously the more relaxed the grade requiremnts will be, and vice versa.
2. whatever the difference between 'rarely' and 'could not', I don't know, it's a message board and I write these things in about twelve seconds. Bottom line: a student with average grades from an average school is NOT going to get into a top LLM, as a general rule, without something else exceptional on their CV. period. Parse the words all you want; this is what I meant. Now, maybe NYU's part time program is somewhat of an exception in that it's a factory with 400 plus places. So confince my statment to othet, smaller top schools, as i did subsequnetly.
3. the supply demand theory was in comparison between LLm and JD. your point was that their are more places on the LLm and less competition so its easier to get in. well, i disageree. the top llm's are VERY competative already, with all applicants highly qualified. The demand for spots way exceeds the supply of spaces. There is no need for a harvard, or a yale-with 30 spots- to lower standards; all candidates are exceptional. Now, does NYU's gigantic programme constitute an exception? Maybe. They want to attract top candidates, and have an anomalous number of spots to fill. they might have to lower thweir criteria. After all, I'm sure many of the NYU candidates have already been rejected by yale, har, columbia...