Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:28 pm

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?

User avatar
fats provolone
Posts: 7125
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby fats provolone » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:33 pm

smaug is a major backslapper

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby utahraptor » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:53 pm

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.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273553
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:19 pm

utahraptor wrote:
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.


There's a range of personalities at all firms. Some of the weirdest people from my year went to DPW. Callback has limited value. If you're lucky, you get a couple of partner interviewers who are like you and who like you. If you're the coolest bro, but the partner interviewers don't like you, you're still not getting an offer.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby utahraptor » Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote:There's a range of personalities at all firms. Some of the weirdest people from my year went to DPW. Callback has limited value. If you're lucky, you get a couple of partner interviewers who are like you and who like you. If you're the coolest bro, but the partner interviewers don't like you, you're still not getting an offer.

I totally agree with this. And, ironically, the trend at CLS has been that PW has gotten some of the nicest people and also some people who are less beloved by the student body.

The fact that other firms are bad at filtering doesn't change the fact that S&C is unique in not filtering at all.

User avatar
Lacepiece23
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Lacepiece23 » Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:35 pm

So it took two pages of argument to say what I originally said in three sentences.

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Desert Fox » Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:52 pm

I don't think Quinn does really ding for personality either.

User avatar
fats provolone
Posts: 7125
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby fats provolone » Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:53 pm

so why the cocktail party interviews

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby Desert Fox » Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:55 pm

fats provolone wrote:so why the cocktail party interviews


To promote their firm. And it has been incredibly successful from what I've heard.

Maybe they are more selective at the CB than before, but when I went through it was the same as Sulcrom. 90% got an offer on the spot.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5834
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Sullivan & Cromwell v. Paul Weiss

Postby 2014 » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:06 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
fats provolone wrote:so why the cocktail party interviews


To promote their firm. And it has been incredibly successful from what I've heard.

Maybe they are more selective at the CB than before, but when I went through it was the same as Sulcrom. 90% got an offer on the spot.

I know at least 3 who got a Quinnback but didn't turn that into a Quoffer, all of which did well later on at OCI. Can perhaps chalk that up to continued unexplainable UChi deviations though.

I agree w/ you about the Quocktail Party though, there was no interviewing happening - most people there including the attorneys were there for the food and at least a couple who didn't show up got called back anyway.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.