UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

(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: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 18, 2015 10:09 pm

Here ya go:

V5: 10.8%
V5-10: 13.1% (23.9% total V10)
V10-15: 6.6% (30.5% total V15)
V15-20: 8.5% (39.0% total V20)
V20-25: 5.2% (44.1% total V25)
V25-50: 14.6% (58.7% total V50)
V50-75: 12.2% (70.9% total V75)
V75-100: 3.8% (74.6% total V100)

85.4% total at firms.

Class size: 213. People who are splitting summers were counted only once.

Past years, sourced from past posts:

Class of 2015:

12.9% in the V5
13.9% in the V6-10 (26.8% in V10)
15.8% in the V11-20 (42.6% in V20)
9.4% in V21-30 (52% in V30)
10.9% in V31-50 (62.9% in V50)
21.8% in Market Paying non-V50 firms*/** (84.7% in big law firms)

Class of 2014:

15.3% in the V5
12% in the V5-10 range (so 27.3% total in the V10)
12.5% in the V11-20 (so 39.9% total in the V20)
11.6% in the V21-30 range (so 51.4% total in the V30)
8.3% in the V31-50 range (so 59.7% total in the V50)
13.4% in the V51-100 range (so 73.1% total in the V100)
5.1% at mid-size Chicago firms that are not Vault ranked
Another ~5% are at elite or top of the market firms that are not Vault rank.



Class of 2013:

9.4% in the V5
12.1% in the V5-10 range (so 21.4% total in the V10)
16.2% in the V11-15 range (so 33.5% total in the V15)
4.5% in the V16-20 range (so 37.9% total in the V20)
8.5% in the V21-30 range (so 46.4% total in the V30)
10.3% in the V31-50 range (so 56.7% total in the V50)
12.1% in the V51-100 range (so 68.8% total in the V100)
8.5% at firms not in Vault, but in the NLJ250 (so 77.2% total in the V100/NLJ250)


Class of 2012:

7.1% in the V5
8.6% in the V5-10 range (so 15.7% total in the V10)
16.2% in the V11-20 range (so 31.9% total in the V20)
6.2% in the V21-30 range (so 38.1% total in the V30)
13.8% in the V31-50 range (so 51.9% total in the V50)
11.4% in the V51-100 range (so 63.3% total in the V100)
5.7% at firms not in Vault, but in the NLJ250 (so 69% total in the V100/NLJ250)

User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby skers » Thu Jun 18, 2015 11:21 pm

Only 23% v10? Thanks for bringing us down c/o 2016.

WheninLaw
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby WheninLaw » Fri Jun 19, 2015 9:58 am

skers wrote:Only 23% v10? Thanks for bringing us down c/o 2016.


So true. But seriously, many of the top students did boutiques.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:37 am

True. Just glancing at the list, I think one K&E scholar is working at a V5 and two are at a V10. The rest are working elsewhere.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:34 am

I don't see that many at boutiques actually.

WheninLaw
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby WheninLaw » Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:57 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I don't see that many at boutiques actually.


True, some are splitting with a boutique (2 at Susman, 2 at Kellog, etc.), but a few are - one in particular is at a ~80 person firm.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby 2014 » Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:20 pm

Crushin it as always

User avatar
Mad Hatter
Posts: 654
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:38 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby Mad Hatter » Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:27 pm

I just want to add that many students starting at V5s and V10s this fall graduated without any honors. For the class of 2015, this basically means outside the top 40%. Obviously, grades change during 2L and 3L (curve is higher/people care less), but it's not like you need to be well above median to snag those jobs, especially in NY.

That having been said, BID FUCKING SMART.

sandwhich
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:02 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby sandwhich » Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:57 pm

Please let me know if I'm on the right track.

My plans are to bid Chi, NYC, Houston, and Los Angeles. (I have particular reasons for targeting those cities) Is it true that I don't need to bid high for Chicago firms because everyone gets to interview with them anyway? Is there going to be much competition for the Houston/LA firms for interview spots?

User avatar
Mad Hatter
Posts: 654
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:38 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby Mad Hatter » Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:00 pm

sandwhich wrote:Please let me know if I'm on the right track.

My plans are to bid Chi, NYC, Houston, and Los Angeles. (I have particular reasons for targeting those cities) Is it true that I don't need to bid high for Chicago firms because everyone gets to interview with them anyway? Is there going to be much competition for the Houston/LA firms for interview spots?

I didn't mean to make this a bidding thread (is there an OCI 2015 thread yet? there should be). As for the Chicago thing, the answer is no. K&E, Sidley, Jenner, and Skadden always go very quickly (think top 6-8). No clue as to Houston/LA. But seriously, take that stuff to the OCI thread where more people will be able to help and benefit from OCI questions.

sandwhich
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:02 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby sandwhich » Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:02 pm

Yeah sorry, there isn't one yet. I don't want to hijack the thread. I'll re-ask it there when one is made.

WheninLaw
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby WheninLaw » Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:08 pm

sandwhich wrote:Please let me know if I'm on the right track.

My plans are to bid Chi, NYC, Houston, and Los Angeles. (I have particular reasons for targeting those cities) Is it true that I don't need to bid high for Chicago firms because everyone gets to interview with them anyway? Is there going to be much competition for the Houston/LA firms for interview spots?


Yeah, move this to the other thread. But no, Chicago firms need to go first. Many LA firms don't fill.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:20 am

WheninLaw wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I don't see that many at boutiques actually.
True, some are splitting with a boutique (2 at Susman, 2 at Kellog, etc.), but a few are - one in particular is at a ~80 person firm.
I know a lot of people who turned down V5 offers to go to "less prestigious" Vault firms that are outside of the V10. I also know for a fact that firms like Skadden and SullCrom were dipping below median in our class (of 2016), and even then people were still rejecting them to go elsewhere. Our class had a real aversion to New York, which caused them to gladly accept offers at places like K&E, Sidley, and Jenner (just to name a few for those who stayed in Chicago) over NY preftige. It would be nice if we knew the actual offer rates (like Columbia) instead of just the mere results of our OCI.

WheninLaw
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby WheninLaw » Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:26 am

Anonymous User wrote:I know a lot of people who turned down V5 offers to go to "less prestigious" Vault firms that are outside of the V10. I also know for a fact that firms like Skadden and SullCrom were dipping below median in our class (of 2016), and even then people were still rejecting them to go elsewhere. Our class had a real aversion to New York, which caused them to gladly accept offers at places like K&E, Sidley, and Jenner (just to name a few for those who stayed in Chicago) over NY preftige. It would be nice if we knew the actual offer rates (like Columbia) instead of just the mere results of our OCI.


Need the data to prove it, but pretty sure this is incorrect - c/o 2016 went heavy NY. The class as a whole seemed pretty risk-adverse. I think Kirkland Chi went from 17 summers to 10?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 20, 2015 9:22 am

WheninLaw wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I know a lot of people who turned down V5 offers to go to "less prestigious" Vault firms that are outside of the V10. I also know for a fact that firms like Skadden and SullCrom were dipping below median in our class (of 2016), and even then people were still rejecting them to go elsewhere. Our class had a real aversion to New York, which caused them to gladly accept offers at places like K&E, Sidley, and Jenner (just to name a few for those who stayed in Chicago) over NY preftige. It would be nice if we knew the actual offer rates (like Columbia) instead of just the mere results of our OCI.


Need the data to prove it, but pretty sure this is incorrect - c/o 2016 went heavy NY. The class as a whole seemed pretty risk-adverse. I think Kirkland Chi went from 17 summers to 10?

25.1% of the class that is working at a firm is in NY. By contrast, 40.3% are in Chicago. 13.1% in D.C., 15.5% in California. Typically, according to LST 18.6% of the class goes to NY, so it seems pretty average.

It definitely went both ways. I know a person with offers in California and Chicago who opted for NY anyway, and someone who wanted NY but ended up with offers only in Chicago. But there are many more with NY offers who stayed in Chicago.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby 2014 » Sat Jun 20, 2015 11:31 am

I forget what our class' NY proportion was but it was awfully close to that. We were just more heavily concentrated at the top of the Vault chain for whatever reason. Who knows whether for c/o 2016 you guys self selected to lower Vault firms or the higher ones hired less.

User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby skers » Sat Jun 20, 2015 1:14 pm

2014 wrote:I forget what our class' NY proportion was but it was awfully close to that. We were just more heavily concentrated at the top of the Vault chain for whatever reason. Who knows whether for c/o 2016 you guys self selected to lower Vault firms or the higher ones hired less.


yeah, idk if c/o 2016 is any more averse to NY than any other class. There's always a lot more demand and slots for UofC kids at the top NY firms than people who accept.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:58 pm

WheninLaw wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I know a lot of people who turned down V5 offers to go to "less prestigious" Vault firms that are outside of the V10. I also know for a fact that firms like Skadden and SullCrom were dipping below median in our class (of 2016), and even then people were still rejecting them to go elsewhere. Our class had a real aversion to New York, which caused them to gladly accept offers at places like K&E, Sidley, and Jenner (just to name a few for those who stayed in Chicago) over NY preftige. It would be nice if we knew the actual offer rates (like Columbia) instead of just the mere results of our OCI.
Need the data to prove it, but pretty sure this is incorrect - c/o 2016 went heavy NY. The class as a whole seemed pretty risk-adverse. I think Kirkland Chi went from 17 summers to 10?
Sorry, you're right, I phrased that poorly. Our class had a real aversion to New York in the sense that a majority of UChicago students always try to avoid New York, but compared to past years our class bid on NY more heavily - and accepted more NY offers - than previous years.

Anyway, my point was that many of us had offers at V5 firms and we turned down those offers so that we could go to places that we felt better matched our personalities / career goals / geographic preferences. A few of us even turned down V5s to go to lower-ranked Vault firms in New York. This is all obviously anecdotal data, but unless my friends and classmates were lying about where they got offers, the the numbers in the OP are an inaccurate representation of UChicago's actual placement power in terms of the top Vault firms.

User avatar
beepboopbeep
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby beepboopbeep » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:18 pm

WheninLaw wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I don't see that many at boutiques actually.


True, some are splitting with a boutique (2 at Susman, 2 at Kellog, etc.), but a few are - one in particular is at a ~80 person firm.


Just to be that guy, here's where all the K&E from 2016 are at, Vault-wise:

V5: 0
V6-10: 2
V11-20: 3
V21-50: 3
V51-100: 1
other: 1

Lots of split summers, lots of DC (>50%), lots of the selective boutiques. Don't wanna give out more granular info in fear of outing folks. The "other" didn't do OCI. I'm missing one or two just forgetting who all had it.

Anonymous User wrote:Anyway, my point was that many of us had offers at V5 firms and we turned down those offers so that we could go to places that we felt better matched our personalities / career goals / geographic preferences. A few of us even turned down V5s to go to lower-ranked Vault firms in New York. This is all obviously anecdotal data, but unless my friends and classmates were lying about where they got offers, the the numbers in the OP are an inaccurate representation of UChicago's actual placement power in terms of the top Vault firms.


Yea, basically this, for anyone who's worrying. Definitely among the K&E I don't think people were strongly considering the high vault firms--from those I talked to it was mostly about fit. Seemed to also hold true across the spectrum of grades, though obviously outside of K&E/LR it's not easy to know where people are at, unless they tell you.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:40 pm

Just FYI (useful here and in other threads) - everyone lies about where they got offers, even to their closest friends. Two people swore to me they had offers I later learned they didn't have.
This is not to say that folks never pick firms against Vault - because of course they do. But generally, folks DO pick firms that you'd expect them to pick - i.e your corporate friends following vault and litigation friends following a different but equally well known, if unwritten, pecking order. If someone is talking about how they passed up Cravath for Millbank because of fit and Milbank's amazing projects practice, generally, that person is lying.

Seriously I have friends who have kept up this lie for 4 years. No one cares anymore - as if they ever cared in the first place - and STILL they talk about offers they never received.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:44 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Just FYI (useful here and in other threads) - everyone lies about where they got offers, even to their closest friends. Two people swore to me they had offers I later learned they didn't have.
This is not to say that folks never pick firms against Vault - because of course they do. But generally, folks DO pick firms that you'd expect them to pick - i.e your corporate friends following vault and litigation friends following a different but equally well known, if unwritten, pecking order. If someone is talking about how they passed up Cravath for Millbank because of fit and Milbank's amazing projects practice, generally, that person is lying.

Seriously I have friends who have kept up this lie for 4 years. No one cares anymore - as if they ever cared in the first place - and STILL they talk about offers they never received.


I think these things are more like taking Paul Weiss over S&C for litigation, or taking Simpson over Cravath for Private Equity. I did one of these, but it wasn't 100% for culture. Most of the time, when people are taking a "lower ranked" vault firm instead, it's because of a specific practice area interest where the lower ranked firm is stronger. I agree that taking another firm for culture is unlikely, though. No one takes Milbank over Cravath for culture. Most culture-driven decisions are made within the same chambers band and aren't that extreme. The only other reason I can think of someone doing this is for location - for example: if you want Chicago it's not crazy to take K&E over DPW (in fact, it's probably smart, depending on practice area interest).

PPL
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:45 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby PPL » Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:12 pm

why are the stats here so different from 'go-to' rankings? am i missing something? :oops:

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby 2014 » Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:19 pm

PPL wrote:why are the stats here so different from 'go-to' rankings? am i missing something? :oops:

Those are post grad - some of these ~85% will get no-offered, not accept their offers, accept their offers but decide to go to a different geographic area and not lock something down, or clerk.

WheninLaw
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby WheninLaw » Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Just FYI (useful here and in other threads) - everyone lies about where they got offers, even to their closest friends. Two people swore to me they had offers I later learned they didn't have.
This is not to say that folks never pick firms against Vault - because of course they do. But generally, folks DO pick firms that you'd expect them to pick - i.e your corporate friends following vault and litigation friends following a different but equally well known, if unwritten, pecking order. If someone is talking about how they passed up Cravath for Millbank because of fit and Milbank's amazing projects practice, generally, that person is lying.

Seriously I have friends who have kept up this lie for 4 years. No one cares anymore - as if they ever cared in the first place - and STILL they talk about offers they never received.


I think these things are more like taking Paul Weiss over S&C for litigation, or taking Simpson over Cravath for Private Equity. I did one of these, but it wasn't 100% for culture. Most of the time, when people are taking a "lower ranked" vault firm instead, it's because of a specific practice area interest where the lower ranked firm is stronger. I agree that taking another firm for culture is unlikely, though. No one takes Milbank over Cravath for culture. Most culture-driven decisions are made within the same chambers band and aren't that extreme. The only other reason I can think of someone doing this is for location - for example: if you want Chicago it's not crazy to take K&E over DPW (in fact, it's probably smart, depending on practice area interest).


I definitely agree, although culture/prestige can play a 100% part. For instance, I strongly considered Munger, not only because they are an "elite boutique," but because they have a pretty lax culture that includes low hourly requirements. I think the same goes for W&C, etc. (admittedly amazing at regulatory work).

User avatar
beepboopbeep
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: UChicago 2L Firm Stats, C/O 2016

Postby beepboopbeep » Mon Jun 22, 2015 10:56 pm

WheninLaw wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Just FYI (useful here and in other threads) - everyone lies about where they got offers, even to their closest friends. Two people swore to me they had offers I later learned they didn't have.
This is not to say that folks never pick firms against Vault - because of course they do. But generally, folks DO pick firms that you'd expect them to pick - i.e your corporate friends following vault and litigation friends following a different but equally well known, if unwritten, pecking order. If someone is talking about how they passed up Cravath for Millbank because of fit and Milbank's amazing projects practice, generally, that person is lying.

Seriously I have friends who have kept up this lie for 4 years. No one cares anymore - as if they ever cared in the first place - and STILL they talk about offers they never received.


I think these things are more like taking Paul Weiss over S&C for litigation, or taking Simpson over Cravath for Private Equity. I did one of these, but it wasn't 100% for culture. Most of the time, when people are taking a "lower ranked" vault firm instead, it's because of a specific practice area interest where the lower ranked firm is stronger. I agree that taking another firm for culture is unlikely, though. No one takes Milbank over Cravath for culture. Most culture-driven decisions are made within the same chambers band and aren't that extreme. The only other reason I can think of someone doing this is for location - for example: if you want Chicago it's not crazy to take K&E over DPW (in fact, it's probably smart, depending on practice area interest).


I definitely agree, although culture/prestige can play a 100% part. For instance, I strongly considered Munger, not only because they are an "elite boutique," but because they have a pretty lax culture that includes low hourly requirements. I think the same goes for W&C, etc. (admittedly amazing at regulatory work).


Same understanding of MTO, but have heard the opposite w/r/t W&C--though tbh if you're getting W&C, I'd suspect work is more of a way of life than a negative.

But I also think this fits anon's description of an unwritten pecking order for lit, and probably regulatory, too. Those are top-tier places for non-corporate; I don't think it's necessarily unexpected that someone lit-inclined or reg-inclined would pick an MTO over a Quinn or a W&C over a Covington or something, despite Vault.

edit: sorry, missed the /prestige. Think we're on the same page.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.