Anonymous User wrote:
utahraptor wrote:this is some really dumb kool-aid drinking
Well, I've only worked here for a few years, so I don't know what it's like to work in every nook and cranny of the firm. How many years have you worked at your firm? Do you think you have a sense of how its culture works?
I'm not at a firm, but this is actually something where that doesn't matter, unlike most things in the legal employment area.
This isn't a question of whether S&C is a good firm (it obviously is) or what it is like to work there—it's a question about their recruitment process, which is something that many many people have gone through.
It's fine to give your spiel about why S&C doesn't care about personality at the callback stage, but it doesn't really pan out. If you're going to be making huge cuts based on personality, you're going to do it at the callback stage. It's the way that every other firm selects for personality. Even Quinn, Kirkland, and Skadden
(and insert other notorious sweatshop filled with oddballs here) give dings for personality at the callback stage. It's the way that every firm other than S&C operates.
That's fine. S&C cares a lot about grades. Obviously the system they have in place works for them.
But, you have to understand why people laugh at the idea that you can frontload social screening in the first 20 minute interview, and that your initial interview is so effective at what you want that you have no need for further filtering. That seems a lot like not filtering at all. It also raises questions as to why firms that are very fit selective (and I hope we'd agree that S&C isn't one of them) can't follow a similar model. Are DPW interviewers just less skilled at finding what they want in a 20 minute conversation?
This isn't meant as a total slam on S&C. Again, it's obviously a great firm. It's just also a firm that doesn't really select based on personality. Let's not pretend that it does.
Finally to more specific things:
911 crisis actor wrote:I do think that S&C's obvious efforts to keep doors open to top candidates from lower-ranked schools and/or nontraditional backgrounds is closely related to this. If you're assessing candidates based on how much you'd want to go have drinks with them on Friday night, then you're going to ding people from backgrounds that differ from yours.
This is dumb. If you can point to S&C being obviously more diverse than fratty firms it would maybe
be meaningful, but lots of firms hire top candidates from lower-ranked schools and with different backgrounds. Skadden does. Weil seems to. I don't think it's something to trumpet about S&C.
Sorry that I tarnished the prestige of your shoulder bag by suggesting that your inane post was filled with kool-aid drinking. But, that's what your post was. Promotion. A pitch. Unfortunately for you, it's a pitch that doesn't really line up with the interview information available to students at top schools.