2015 Vault Rankings Forum

[anon919]

...yet NRF's Chief executive Peter Martyr believes they're headed in just the right direction: "I think any external observer would be impressed with what we've done..."

Fresh off the presses from today's legalweek
EDIT: Link - http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/ana ... lobal-firm

[rayiner]

How did Norton Rose Fulbright fall ~50 spots in the rankings?

Fulbright & Jaworski merged with Norton Rose, then plummeted. Some thing happened when Hogan & Hartson merged with Lovells. Dropped from 28 to 51. Apparently whoever does Vault thinks European firms are TTT.

[toothbrush]

is there a way to see a breakdown of, say, how Wachtell got a 8.982?

[potted plant]

is there a way to see a breakdown of, say, how Wachtell got a 8.982?

There's no breakdown. Approximately 17,000 current associates rank the firms on a scale of 1 - 10 based solely on how prestigious they think it is to work for that firm. 8.982 is just the averaged survey response for Wachtell.

[toothbrush]

is there a way to see a breakdown of, say, how Wachtell got a 8.982?

There's no breakdown. Approximately 17,000 current associates rank the firms on a scale of 1 - 10 based solely on how prestigious they think it is to work for that firm. 8.982 is just the averaged survey response for Wachtell.

the fuck. i thought it was only partially based on prestige. jesus christ, why do we put so much stock into vault.

[rpupkin]

is there a way to see a breakdown of, say, how Wachtell got a 8.982?

There's no breakdown. Approximately 17,000 current associates rank the firms on a scale of 1 - 10 based solely on how prestigious they think it is to work for that firm. 8.982 is just the averaged survey response for Wachtell.

the fuck. i thought it was only partially based on prestige. jesus christ, why do we put so much stock into vault.

We don't. That's why so many of us mock posters who write stuff like: "My goal is to work at a V25."

[Blindmelon]

Vault Rankings: How people justify working brutal hours in NY when they could live in a cheaper, more bearable market (but its V5!!!!!!!!).

[dixiecupdrinking]

How did Norton Rose Fulbright fall ~50 spots in the rankings?

It became very unprestigious

QED.

[dood]

Whoa. This is big. Time to swap Weil and Cleary on my bid list. And it's good to see Sidley fighting back. They've been hit hard in recent years, but we all know they deserve a place in the V15.

Also, look at Cooley jumping from 55 to 45. I dismissed Cooley as TTT, but I now see I was wrong to do so. I'm adding them to my bid list. At this rate, they'll be V20 in five years. Buy low and sell high, I always say.

I hope you are not really making employment decisions based on the Vault ranking.

Vault=prestige=exit options=winning. Ignore this formula at your peril.

you want to exit, which means you are losing

[rpupkin]

Vault Rankings: How people justify working brutal hours in NY when they could live in a cheaper, more bearable market (but its V5!!!!!!!!).

And Vault doesn't even correlate well to superficial prestige. I mean, Skadden is third? It would be like USNWR published a top three of Yale, Harvard, and Fordham.

[Blindmelon]

Whoa. This is big. Time to swap Weil and Cleary on my bid list. And it's good to see Sidley fighting back. They've been hit hard in recent years, but we all know they deserve a place in the V15.

Also, look at Cooley jumping from 55 to 45. I dismissed Cooley as TTT, but I now see I was wrong to do so. I'm adding them to my bid list. At this rate, they'll be V20 in five years. Buy low and sell high, I always say.

I hope you are not really making employment decisions based on the Vault ranking.

Vault=prestige=exit options=winning. Ignore this formula at your peril.

you want to exit, which means you are losing

99% sure he is being sarcastic.

[NJPitcher]

Vault Rankings: How people justify working brutal hours in NY when they could live in a cheaper, more bearable market (but its V5!!!!!!!!).

And Vault doesn't even correlate well to superficial prestige. I mean, Skadden is third? It would be like USNWR published a top three of Yale, Harvard, and Fordham.

But they mentioned Skadden on Suits that one time.

[WhirledWorld]

.

[rpupkin]

Vault Rankings: How people justify working brutal hours in NY when they could live in a cheaper, more bearable market (but its V5!!!!!!!!).

And Vault doesn't even correlate well to superficial prestige. I mean, Skadden is third? It would be like USNWR published a top three of Yale, Harvard, and Fordham.

Says the S&C associate.

But seriously, there's a reason Skadden tops all the league tables and Chambers rankings. The V10 actually gives a surprisingly accurate ranking of NYC corporate practices.

If firms were colleges, Wachtell and the lit boutiques would be Williams or MIT (super preftigious boutique), Cravath/S&C/Davis Polk/etc. would be the Ivies, Skadden would be like WUSTL if WUSTL were ranked ten spots higher (bigger, non-ivy).

Maybe a better comparison is finance shops. Wachtell would be Blackstone (super profitable, much leaner and more focused), Cravath would be Goldman or Morgan Stanley, and Skadden would be JP Morgan (gigantic and everywhere and does everything).

This is the kind of deep analysis I would expect from the poster who started a thread about the Vault rankings.

Sorry for the snark. I'm just upset because you figured out I am a SullCrom associate. I'm trying to act like I don't care, but our drop in prestige stings and I'm lashing out. These are dark days near Battery Park.

[jd20132013]

lol @ the sinking ship that is Williams and Connolly

[First Offense]

lol @ the sinking ship that is Williams and Connolly

Called it. Unsustainable business model.

[84651846190]

Vault Rankings: How people justify working brutal hours in NY when they could live in a cheaper, more bearable market (but its V5!!!!!!!!).

And Vault doesn't even correlate well to superficial prestige. I mean, Skadden is third? It would be like USNWR published a top three of Yale, Harvard, and Fordham.

Says the S&C associate.

But seriously, there's a reason Skadden tops all the league tables and Chambers rankings. The V10 actually gives a surprisingly accurate ranking of NYC corporate practices.

If firms were colleges, Wachtell and the lit boutiques would be Williams or MIT (super preftigious boutique), Cravath/S&C/Davis Polk/etc. would be the Ivies, Skadden would be like WUSTL if WUSTL were ranked ten spots higher (bigger, non-ivy).

Maybe a better comparison is finance shops. Wachtell would be Blackstone (super profitable, much leaner and more focused), Cravath would be Goldman or Morgan Stanley, and Skadden would be JP Morgan (gigantic and everywhere and does everything).

unforgivable Morgan Stanley trolling

[Blindmelon]

Sorry for the snark. I'm just upset because you figured out I am a SullCrom associate. I'm trying to act like I don't care, but our drop in prestige stings and I'm lashing out. These are dark days near Battery Park.

You are quickly becoming my favorite poster.

lol @ the sinking ship that is Williams and Connolly

Called it. Unsustainable business model.

How, in any legitimate way, is it a sinking ship?

[brazleton]

.

[hellojd]

I think all the skepticism/joking about Vault rankings is credited (especially given their dumb ranking methodology). But I think it's also important for people to remember that there is somewhat of a pecking order in practice areas regardless of Vault, and that perhaps for corporate law Vault very loosely tries to show what that pecking order is (although Chambers does a much better job). This isn't all that different from USNWR rankings of law schools, where the "t-14/t-6/HYS" would exist and generally be the hardest to get into and offer the best employment opportunities even if USNWR went away tomorrow.

Obviously, it's stupid to read too much into something like Skadden taking 3 over S&C, but is it that dumb to say that, all things equal, Skadden is viewed as more of a go-to for its sweet spot practice areas in its target markets (M&A in NYC, etc.) than someone much lower on the list (to pick a name at random, Alston & Bird)? Obviously, mileage varies and A&B may beat Skadden out for business in smaller target markets such as Atlanta, or maybe it is exceptionally strong in a couple of practice areas, but while we shouldn't put much stock in Vault (and I would put even less if I was in litigation, as places like W&C, Paul Weiss, etc. would be much higher on my list) I feel like we should also not go the opposite extreme and say v2 is the same all things equal as v100, it's just that it's not the "v" part that matters if that makes sense. I'm a 1L SA at a "v50" currently, and I would think that the complexity and sophistication of the deals that you probably work on at a v5 must be way higher than the stuff I've seen around the office.

Also, in regards to the Skadden hating ITT, you guys are ridiculous if you thing Skadden is viewed by actual corporations/CEOs as being less prestigious than, say, an S&C because their GPA requirement is lower (or because of their respective rankings on Vault). All of the places towards the top of this list are heavy-hitting firms with amazing client lists that excel in most of the practice areas they work on.

[Blindmelon]

I think all the skepticism/joking about Vault rankings is credited (especially given their dumb ranking methodology). But I think it's also important for people to remember that there is somewhat of a pecking order in practice areas regardless of Vault, and that perhaps for corporate law Vault very loosely tries to show what that pecking order is (although Chambers does a much better job). This isn't all that different from USNWR rankings of law schools, where the "t-14/t-6/HYS" would exist and generally be the hardest to get into and offer the best employment opportunities even if USNWR went away tomorrow.

Obviously, it's stupid to read too much into something like Skadden taking 3 over S&C, but is it that dumb to say that, all things equal, Skadden is viewed as more of a go-to for its sweet spot practice areas in its target markets (M&A in NYC, etc.) than someone much lower on the list (to pick a name at random, Alston & Bird)? Obviously, mileage varies and A&B may beat Skadden out for business in smaller target markets such as Atlanta, or maybe it is exceptionally strong in a couple of practice areas, but while we shouldn't put much stock in Vault (and I would put even less if I was in litigation, as places like W&C, Paul Weiss, etc. would be much higher on my list) I feel like we should also not go the opposite extreme and say v2 is the same all things equal as v100, it's just that it's not the "v" part that matters if that makes sense. I'm a 1L SA at a "v50" currently, and I would think that the complexity and sophistication of the deals that you probably work on at a v5 must be way higher than the stuff I've seen around the office.

Also, in regards to the Skadden hating ITT, you guys are ridiculous if you thing Skadden is viewed by actual corporations/CEOs as being less prestigious than, say, an S&C because their GPA requirement is lower (or because of their respective rankings on Vault). All of the places towards the top of this list are heavy-hitting firms with amazing client lists that excel in most of the practice areas they work on.

Maybe, but it pretends to be an overall prestige ranking. The reason why vault is terrible is because it pushes law students to make terrible decisions. A lot of students overlook great firms, and arguably much better firms, because they got an offer at a V10 or whatever. I know quite a few people who took "V20s" over a top firm in their desired practice area or location because of the prestige. So, you're going to a more prestigious firm for exit options to the place and firm you could have started working at to begin with.

[hellojd]

I think all the skepticism/joking about Vault rankings is credited (especially given their dumb ranking methodology). But I think it's also important for people to remember that there is somewhat of a pecking order in practice areas regardless of Vault, and that perhaps for corporate law Vault very loosely tries to show what that pecking order is (although Chambers does a much better job). This isn't all that different from USNWR rankings of law schools, where the "t-14/t-6/HYS" would exist and generally be the hardest to get into and offer the best employment opportunities even if USNWR went away tomorrow.

Obviously, it's stupid to read too much into something like Skadden taking 3 over S&C, but is it that dumb to say that, all things equal, Skadden is viewed as more of a go-to for its sweet spot practice areas in its target markets (M&A in NYC, etc.) than someone much lower on the list (to pick a name at random, Alston & Bird)? Obviously, mileage varies and A&B may beat Skadden out for business in smaller target markets such as Atlanta, or maybe it is exceptionally strong in a couple of practice areas, but while we shouldn't put much stock in Vault (and I would put even less if I was in litigation, as places like W&C, Paul Weiss, etc. would be much higher on my list) I feel like we should also not go the opposite extreme and say v2 is the same all things equal as v100, it's just that it's not the "v" part that matters if that makes sense. I'm a 1L SA at a "v50" currently, and I would think that the complexity and sophistication of the deals that you probably work on at a v5 must be way higher than the stuff I've seen around the office.

Also, in regards to the Skadden hating ITT, you guys are ridiculous if you thing Skadden is viewed by actual corporations/CEOs as being less prestigious than, say, an S&C because their GPA requirement is lower (or because of their respective rankings on Vault). All of the places towards the top of this list are heavy-hitting firms with amazing client lists that excel in most of the practice areas they work on.

Maybe, but it pretends to be an overall prestige ranking. The reason why vault is terrible is because it pushes law students to make terrible decisions. A lot of students overlook great firms, and arguably much better firms, because they got an offer at a V10 or whatever. I know quite a few people who took "V20s" over a top firm in their desired practice area or location because of the prestige. So, you're going to a more prestigious firm for exit options to the place and firm you could have started working at to begin with.

Oh, I completely agree. That's why the "all things equal" part is important, and a very dubious assumption. I'm personally very interested in the tech sector, and so some of my highest priority interviews will be at places outside the v10 (Wilson Sonsini, MoFo, etc.).

[rayiner]

Vault suffers from the same problem as USNWR, which is that the primary component of the ranking is an irrelevant measure. In the case of Vault, it's what a sample of surveyed associates thinks, and in the case of USNWR, it's what a sample of surveyed law professors think.

And what makes Vault even less useful is the fact that Chambers exists. Partners will twitter about New Chambers rankings when they come out. Not so for Vault.

[Mal Reynolds]

I'm glad we have vault so I know how selective firms are

Glad to know this. MTO is v30 so I think I'm gonna bid them instead of some of the NYC v20.

[alphasteve]

How did Norton Rose Fulbright fall ~50 spots in the rankings?

It became very unprestigious

Similarly, how hasn't Weil dropped 10-20 spots?