Munger Tolles or Gibson Dunn Forum

[thesealocust]

The non-DC/LA offices of Gibson Dunn are not nearly as selective as MTO or other ultra-selective firms (which probably explains why the law review kids on TLS don't give it any love), but it seems like a pretty stable, well-run place (no layoffs, deferrals, or salary freezes due to ITE). And then there's this:

http://www.jdjournal.com/2011/02/28/gib ... s-in-2010/

GDC is an absolutely incredible firm. Like any firm, you could point out flaws (historically they don't make offers to all of their summers, for example), but it's obviously well managed, profitable, and from everything I've heard has a great reputation.

There are more reasons than I could count why somebody would rationally go to GDC - even in NYC or CA - over Munger. But if you're asking on a message board and providing no context about your goals, interests, background, or desires - then Munger is more elitier. Basically you get more prestige points per year (whether those prestige points are redeemable for fabulous cash prizes or not is another matter).

If somebody came to this website and said "Should I go to Wachtell or S&C?" then a chorus would say Wachtell, and they would be right. If the person who asked happened to want to do securities work, however, the chorus would be dead wrong.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

The non-DC/LA offices of Gibson Dunn are not nearly as selective as MTO or other ultra-selective firms (which probably explains why the law review kids on TLS don't give it any love), but it seems like a pretty stable, well-run place (no layoffs, deferrals, or salary freezes due to ITE). And then there's this:

http://www.jdjournal.com/2011/02/28/gib ... s-in-2010/

GDC is an absolutely incredible firm. Like any firm, you could point out flaws (historically they don't make offers to all of their summers, for example), but it's obviously well managed, profitable, and from everything I've heard has a great reputation.

There are more reasons than I could count why somebody would rationally go to GDC - even in NYC or CA - over Munger. But if you're asking on a message board and providing no context about your goals, interests, background, or desires - then Munger is more elitier. Basically you get more prestige points per year (whether those prestige points are redeemable for fabulous cash prizes or not is another matter).

If somebody came to this website and said "Should I go to Wachtell or S&C?" then a chorus would say Wachtell, and they would be right. If the person who asked happened to want to do securities work, however, the chorus would be dead wrong.

I agree with your assessment of the current holistic prestige levels of both firms. But I think PPP, Revenue, number of SAs hired, number of deferrals, layoffs, etc. can provide a hint as to whether a given firm's prestige is likely to improve or worsen in the near future. This is true for several reasons. For one, attorneys at other firms know which firms are doing well and which are struggling and this can affect perceptions of prestige. Likewise, Vault rankings tend to improve and are more or less directly correlated with PPP/Revenue/layoffs. The perceived improvement in prestige is amplified by the fact that GDC has more of a national reputation than MTO. And you can't forget the obvious: law students who get worried if the economy falls on hard times again (see e.g. the DOW performance today) are going to use layoff counts during 2008-2009 as tiebreakers for which firms to choose, leaving GDC with slightly more prestigious/capable SAs.

Granted, if OP wants to practice in California, MTO wins. But if you're thinking about keeping your options open about working elsewhere, a firm like GDC leaves almost every door open that MTO would leave open if not many more.