quakeroats wrote:Bosque wrote:Really, it should always come down to whether you like the firm and if you can see yourself thriving there. (Influencing factors would be the culture, the people in the group you will be working with, the way the firm is structured [how the partners are compensated drives the way the firm is run], the location, the clients you will be working with, how soon you will get the experience you want, ect.) That, and the ratio between billables required and the amount you will get paid are pretty much the only things you should care about. The firm "prestige" rankings mean absolutely nothing.
I'd be the first to admit that the Vault rankings are not everything. However, they are a useful proxy for a schools ability to place its students well. They don't measure all the important metrics and even what the do measure, i.e., prestige, they do imperfectly. From what I've seen, Vault rankings are an easy way to distinguish between schools and to see if things have ameliorated (and by how much) since the bottom of the market.
Eh, I would disagree. It is more of a proxy for placement in New York. Duke does well, but that is because we place well in New York. Just because a school like, say, UC Berkeley doesn't place very many students into the V25 or V50, doesn't mean they are not doing a good job placing their students. They are just placing in a different market.
Keep in mind, the entire methodology for how the list is concocted is pretty much just a survey of practicing lawyers asking them what they think of these firms on a scale of 1 to 10. It has no direct connection to profits, hours, number of attorneys, client reputation, credentials of the law students they hire, credentials of the attornies working there, how long the firm has been around, or any of the other factors you might think should go into how "prestigious" a firm is.