largest 2012 SA classes Forum

[Anonymous User]

DC is probably the most robust market, even if NYC has the largest SA classes.

Strange definition of "robust."

I'm with Renzo & VAmedic here. My DC firm has >30 SAs and it is so busy that the junior associates are thanking us for taking stuff off their plates (instead of being ticked about losing hours to us).

Yes, it's only one firm-- but I don't imagine we're unique.

Edit to add credit to VAmedic.

What firm, may I ask?

[pasteurizedmilk]

Weil only has 36? Wow. In decline.

[Aston2412]

Weil only has 36? Wow. In decline.

Or trying to keep from having to fire their regular associates?

[seriouslyinformative]

Or trying to keep from having to fire their regular associates?

No. First-year associates are not interchangeable with second-year associates, and so on up the seniority ladder. The summer class size is based purely on the firm's outlook as to the volume of work for first-year associates they'll encounter when that summer class starts.

Worth noting that the class of 2011 won't be starting until January 2012. Even worse: they don't get a stipend and they do get the same salary advance other NY firms are giving.

[Vronsky]

http://www.nalpdirectory.com/dledir_search_quick.asp

This says Paul Hasting NY office had 83 2L SAs in 2010 and expected 71 2L SAs in 2011.
Weil Gotshal NYC office had 36 in 2010 and expects 70 in 2011.
OMM should be 11. There may be other mistakes, I just quickly scribbled these down.

Does class size correspond to selectivity?

You're looking at the multi-office forms for both firms (if you look towards the top, it says "multi-office? Y". If you look at the individual forms for NYC, you'll see much smaller classes.

Ah, I see the problem. At first, I was searching each firm individually on NALP. It's tricky though because there some searches yield two results for: "Paul Hastings, NY" for example. 1 is the main entry for the entire firm, 1 is the NYC office. After I got tired of searching each one, I did a bigger search for all Firms that interview at CLS that pay market, and hand selected a few of the larger numbers. Therefore several of these are mixed and matched; some are the NYC office while others are the entire firm. oops.

[Vronsky]

Does class size correspond to selectivity?

That's a complicated question. The easiest and best answer is just 'No.' The largest firms are also often some of the most selective, but they're so big that it's not like they can demand top 5% grades from HYS. Some firms with small classes are absurdly selective, others routinely hire median T14 students.

So is there any wisdom in bidding on, say, DPW, Simpson, Cleary, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, and Latham for all NYC offices? I'm assuming due to Vault ranking that these are at least relatively selective, but does one stand a good chance of 'lucking into' a relatively selective and prestigious SA by targeting big classes rather than aiming lower on the V rankings to less selective but smaller SA classes?

[seriouslyinformative]

I think someone around the top third of their class at a top 10 school should be bidding on some of the V10s. But, if you're closer to median, while one or two of those firms might be OK to try out, you should be focusing on lower ranked stuff. And if you're in the bottom half, don't even bother.

Keep in mind that "large summer classes" aren't synonymous with "prestigious NY firms" (of which Latham certainly isn't one). Plenty of less prestigious NY firms have decently sized summer classes: Places like Dewey, Hughes Hubbard, Milbank, etc. come to mind.

[seriouslyinformative]

Completely wrong. I know several people working at DC firms that say that their firm (1) is incredibly busy and (2) is in need of more associates pronto to take up the slack.

As an absolute statement about DC firms? You're right. But I was posting about things generally. There are a few DC firms that are doing excellently right now, but they're the exception to the rule. 2011's financials confirm this.

See, for instance: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/ ... llion.html

A second year straight drop for PPP and RPL. Revenue was also flat. To me, that doesn't scream "robust."

[vamedic03]

Completely wrong. I know several people working at DC firms that say that their firm (1) is incredibly busy and (2) is in need of more associates pronto to take up the slack.

As an absolute statement about DC firms? You're right. But I was posting about things generally. There are a few DC firms that are doing excellently right now, but they're the exception to the rule. 2011's financials confirm this.

See, for instance: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/ ... llion.html

A second year straight drop for PPP and RPL. Revenue was also flat. To me, that doesn't scream "robust."

Or it means that DC firms didn't lay off half their associates, defer new associations and dramatically reduce summer classes like NYC firms.

Firms doing regulatory work aren't going to have the giant swings associated with deal work.

[seriouslyinformative]

Or it means that DC firms didn't lay off half their associates, defer new associations and dramatically reduce summer classes like NYC firms.

None of the NYC firms that are actually doing well (increased revenue, increased PPP, stable/increasing RPL) laid off "half their associates," deferred new associates, or dramatically reduced their summer class sizes. Moreover, do not for a second act like the top DC firms didn't stealth their associates, or that they didn't freeze salaries and defer associates... or that they didn't dramatically reduce summer class sizes.


And the thing is that the number of NYC firms/offices actually doing well far outnumbers the number of DC firms/offices actually doing well. For the former, I run out of fingers to count on. For the latter, I don't get beyond my first hand. DC isn't robust. Less prone to upswings and downswings, I can grant. But robust it is not.

Firms doing regulatory work aren't going to have the giant swings associated with deal work.

So what? Regulatory lawyers go out at lower rates than deal lawyers. But when you try to match NYC compensation for associates, you get the same overhead for lower revenue.

And don't act like DC firms are, on the whole, not as leveraged. hogan lovells, WilmerHale, Akin Gump, etc. all have cost-draining offices around the world and an absurd number of associates. Such comes with the territory of trying to be a global/national powerhouse.

[Aston2412]

And the thing is that the number of NYC firms/offices actually doing well far outnumbers the number of DC firms/offices actually doing well. For the former, I run out of fingers to count on. For the latter, I don't get beyond my first hand. DC isn't robust. Less prone to upswings and downswings, I can grant. But robust it is not.

You're both arguing semantics.

ro·bust

adjective /rōˈbəst/  /ˈrōˌbəst/ 
robuster, comparative; robustest, superlative

(of a person, animal, or plant) Strong and healthy; vigorous
- the Caplans are a robust, healthy lot

(of an object) Sturdy in construction
- a robust metal cabinet

(of a process or system, esp. an economic one) Able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions
- California's robust property market



The first one describes NY. The next two describe DC. Discuss.

[seriouslyinformative]

And the thing is that the number of NYC firms/offices actually doing well far outnumbers the number of DC firms/offices actually doing well. For the former, I run out of fingers to count on. For the latter, I don't get beyond my first hand. DC isn't robust. Less prone to upswings and downswings, I can grant. But robust it is not.

You're both arguing semantics.

ro·bust

adjective /rōˈbəst/  /ˈrōˌbəst/ 
robuster, comparative; robustest, superlative

(of a person, animal, or plant) Strong and healthy; vigorous
- the Caplans are a robust, healthy lot

(of an object) Sturdy in construction
- a robust metal cabinet

(of a process or system, esp. an economic one) Able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions
- California's robust property market



The first one describes NY. The next two describe DC. Discuss.

(a) This doesn't need to be anonymous.

(b) The first one applies to NY. Second one applies to DC. Third one doesn't apply to DC.

[Vronsky]

Now that we're done arguing the semantics of "robust," can anyone provide further insight on the impact of SA class size? What are the advantages and disadvantages of aiming for a large class size? Any danger that one might "fall through the cracks" because of lack of individual attention? Do these SA classes tend to be more social?

[Aston2412]

Now that we're done arguing the semantics of "robust," can anyone provide further insight on the impact of SA class size? What are the advantages and disadvantages of aiming for a large class size? Any danger that one might "fall through the cracks" because of lack of individual attention? Do these SA classes tend to be more social?

I would say the advantages (ie better odds at placing, assuming you have the appropriate stats) vastly outweigh the disadvantages (realistically you're not going to be overlooked unless you allow it to happen). The important thing to remember is that when you're targeting large classes you'll want to check and see what the firm's offer rate to SAs is. If it's got 50 SAs and 49 or 50 got offers last year, that's a good thing. On the other hand if it has 75 SAs and only 60 got offers, well then you have to decide if you'd rather take the boost to getting in the door or take the boost to getting an offer once you're in there.

[Vronsky]

Expected class sizes for summer 2011 NYC offices, according to NALP. second attempt. accuracy? any big classes missing?


Firm SAs
Cleary Gottlieb 93
Davis Polk 87
Sullivan Cromwell ?
Paul Weiss 80
Simpson Thacher 79
Debevoise Plimpton 56
Latham Watkins 47
Cravath 45
Skadden Arps 39
Milbank Tweed 38
Shearman Sterling 37
Cahill Gordon 37
Ropes Gray 36
White Case 35
Fried Frank 33
Schulte Roth 31
Cadwalader 29
Sidley Austin 26
Allen Overy 26
Linklaters 24
Paul Hastings 23
Kasowitz Benson 21
Jones Day 21
Dewey LeB 21
Brown Rudnick 21
Proskauer 20

[Helmholtz]

Expected class sizes for summer 2011 NYC offices, according to NALP. second attempt. accuracy? any big classes missing?


Firm SAs
Cleary Gottlieb 93
Davis Polk 87
Sullivan Cromwell ?
Paul Weiss 80
Simpson Thacher 79
Debevoise Plimpton 56
Latham Watkins 47
Cravath 45
Skadden Arps 39
Milbank Tweed 38
Shearman Sterling 37
Cahill Gordon 37
Ropes Gray 36
White Case 35
Fried Frank 33
Schulte Roth 31
Cadwalader 29
Sidley Austin 26
Allen Overy 26
Linklaters 24
Paul Hastings 23
Kasowitz Benson 21
Jones Day 21
Dewey LeB 21
Brown Rudnick 21
Proskauer 20

Gibson Dunn - 32
Kirkland - 37
Weil - 70
Paul Hastings - 71 (you have it listed as 23?)
Dechert - 20
Stroock - 21

[keg411]

FYI, while the 2011 numbers are nice, some firms are posting expected 2012 SA class sizes on Simplicity (at least on the one for our school).

[Sup Kid]

Expected class sizes for summer 2011 NYC offices, according to NALP. second attempt. accuracy? any big classes missing?


Firm SAs
Cleary Gottlieb 93
Davis Polk 87
Sullivan Cromwell ?
Paul Weiss 80
Simpson Thacher 79
Debevoise Plimpton 56
Latham Watkins 47
Cravath 45
Skadden Arps 39
Milbank Tweed 38
Shearman Sterling 37
Cahill Gordon 37
Ropes Gray 36
White Case 35
Fried Frank 33
Schulte Roth 31
Cadwalader 29
Sidley Austin 26
Allen Overy 26
Linklaters 24
Paul Hastings 23
Kasowitz Benson 21
Jones Day 21
Dewey LeB 21
Brown Rudnick 21
Proskauer 20

Gibson Dunn - 32
Kirkland - 37
Weil - 70
Paul Hastings - 71 (you have it listed as 23?)
Dechert - 20
Stroock - 21

Let's not do this AGAIN (see page 1 of this thread):

PH's number should be 23, Weil's should be 36. You're looking at the multi-office forms for both firms (if you look towards the top, it says "multi-office? Y". If you look at the individual forms for NYC, you'll see much smaller classes.

[Anonymous User]

Expected class sizes for summer 2011 NYC offices, according to NALP. second attempt. accuracy? any big classes missing?


Firm SAs
Cleary Gottlieb 93
Davis Polk 87
Sullivan Cromwell ?
Paul Weiss 80
Simpson Thacher 79
Debevoise Plimpton 56
Latham Watkins 47
Cravath 45
Skadden Arps 39
Milbank Tweed 38
Shearman Sterling 37
Cahill Gordon 37
Ropes Gray 36
White Case 35
Fried Frank 33
Schulte Roth 31
Cadwalader 29
Sidley Austin 26
Allen Overy 26
Linklaters 24
Paul Hastings 23
Kasowitz Benson 21
Jones Day 21
Dewey LeB 21
Brown Rudnick 21
Proskauer 20

Gibson Dunn - 32
Kirkland - 37
Weil - 70
Paul Hastings - 71 (you have it listed as 23?)
Dechert - 20
Stroock - 21

Let's not do this AGAIN (see page 1 of this thread):

PH's number should be 23, Weil's should be 36. You're looking at the multi-office forms for both firms (if you look towards the top, it says "multi-office? Y". If you look at the individual forms for NYC, you'll see much smaller classes.

Agreed.

These numbers are TOTALLY AND UTTERLY wrong. Class sizes are smaller, all around, some MUCH, MUCH smaller.

[Sup Kid]

Agreed.

These numbers are TOTALLY AND UTTERLY wrong. Class sizes are smaller, all around, some MUCH, MUCH smaller.

I was only saying PH's and Weil's were wrong -- the other ones seem accurate, at least according to NALP.

[Anonymous User]

Agreed.

These numbers are TOTALLY AND UTTERLY wrong. Class sizes are smaller, all around, some MUCH, MUCH smaller.

I was only saying PH's and Weil's were wrong -- the other ones seem accurate, at least according to NALP.

These are the estimations for the current summer classes, right? I'm summering at one of these non-PH and non-Weil firms, and my friends at a couple others, and the numbers are wrong all around. Maybe firms overestimated how much they would actually hire or nalp has inaccurate data. According to this data, for example, a certain firm should have 20+ summers. In reality, it has less than 10. Some of these numbers should be halved, or multiplied by 0.6-0.7.

I'm not trying to scare you - I just hope nobody is seriously thinking of constructing a bidding list based on these estimates.

[Helmholtz]

Let's not do this AGAIN (see page 1 of this thread):

PH's number should be 23, Weil's should be 36. You're looking at the multi-office forms for both firms (if you look towards the top, it says "multi-office? Y". If you look at the individual forms for NYC, you'll see much smaller classes.

My bad.

[Sup Kid]

Agreed.

These numbers are TOTALLY AND UTTERLY wrong. Class sizes are smaller, all around, some MUCH, MUCH smaller.

I was only saying PH's and Weil's were wrong -- the other ones seem accurate, at least according to NALP.

These are the estimations for the current summer classes, right? I'm summering at one of these non-PH and non-Weil firms, and my friends at a couple others, and the numbers are wrong all around. Maybe firms overestimated how much they would actually hire or nalp has inaccurate data. According to this data, for example, a certain firm should have 20+ summers. In reality, it has less than 10. Some of these numbers should be halved, or multiplied by 0.6-0.7.

I'm not trying to scare you - I just hope nobody is seriously thinking of constructing a bidding list based on these estimates.

Well, I'm already through the OCI process, and I realize they are just estimates. However, just because some firms have smaller classes than listed on NALP doesn't mean the list is pointless. It shows generally, in relation to other firms, how big class sizes are. For example, DPW has more summers than Jones Day. You and I may have generally known that, but I'm guessing there's a lot of 1Ls who didn't, in which case a list like this is helpful. Sure, you don't use it as the primary way to determine who to bid, but it nevertheless is a useful tool.

[Anonymous User]

Agreed.

These numbers are TOTALLY AND UTTERLY wrong. Class sizes are smaller, all around, some MUCH, MUCH smaller.

I was only saying PH's and Weil's were wrong -- the other ones seem accurate, at least according to NALP.

These are the estimations for the current summer classes, right? I'm summering at one of these non-PH and non-Weil firms, and my friends at a couple others, and the numbers are wrong all around. Maybe firms overestimated how much they would actually hire or nalp has inaccurate data. According to this data, for example, a certain firm should have 20+ summers. In reality, it has less than 10. Some of these numbers should be halved, or multiplied by 0.6-0.7.

I'm not trying to scare you - I just hope nobody is seriously thinking of constructing a bidding list based on these estimates.

Well, I'm already through the OCI process, and I realize they are just estimates. However, just because some firms have smaller classes than listed on NALP doesn't mean the list is pointless. It shows generally, in relation to other firms, how big class sizes are. For example, DPW has more summers than Jones Day. You and I may have generally known that, but I'm guessing there's a lot of 1Ls who didn't, in which case a list like this is helpful. Sure, you don't use it as the primary way to determine who to bid, but it nevertheless is a useful tool.

I guess it is somewhat useful. However, I don't think class size is helpful in determining where to bid in New York. The firms with the largest summer class sizes are usually the most selective firms. The less selective firms usually have similar class sizes, so class size wouldn't be a differentiating factor among those. Even though DPW has more summers than Jones Day, if I were say, top 35% at a T-14, I'd feel much more comfortable bidding on Jones than DPW.

[Vronsky]

Agreed.

These numbers are TOTALLY AND UTTERLY wrong. Class sizes are smaller, all around, some MUCH, MUCH smaller.

I was only saying PH's and Weil's were wrong -- the other ones seem accurate, at least according to NALP.

These are the estimations for the current summer classes, right? I'm summering at one of these non-PH and non-Weil firms, and my friends at a couple others, and the numbers are wrong all around. Maybe firms overestimated how much they would actually hire or nalp has inaccurate data. According to this data, for example, a certain firm should have 20+ summers. In reality, it has less than 10. Some of these numbers should be halved, or multiplied by 0.6-0.7.

I'm not trying to scare you - I just hope nobody is seriously thinking of constructing a bidding list based on these estimates.

(1) PH was correctly listed at 23 and Weil was intentionally left off. If any others are wrong, how about an Anonymous correction for any numbers that are significantly off?

(2) Is there a better source than NALP? Someone else mentioned Sympliciy above, but I'm not sure where to find the data on Symplicity. Any help?

(3) the numbers were sorted from largest to smallest class sizes, not in order of a potential bid list. HOWEVER, I would like to aim for a class of larger than 10 people. Therefore I figured this would be somewhat constructive...

(4) If class size isn't a good indicator of selectivity, how to estimate selectivity? SAs:Offers doesn't seem to offer that much, because most firms have close to 100% offer rates (with a few around 75-80%).

(5) I think I have the grades to aim for most firms that are DPW and down on the Vault rankings, but I'm not exactly sure. The process of transferring complicates the already complex OCI process. My TT has provided very little information to help with OCI so far. I finished in the top 1% of a NYC area T2 (think SHU/Hofstra/StJohns/Rutgers.

Any advice? Anyone?