S&C experiences? Forum

[wons]

S&C does not screen for personality. It is known.

Known by who, and how? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Anonymous User]

I think the "we don't screen for personality" meme is a huge overstatement -- or at least at my CCN school where they hire down to median.

S&C made nearly 100% of their offers to Stone folks at CLS last year. Just based on anecdotal data, I would put their GPA cutoff around 3.6 or maybe a little lower. Not saying they didn't hire down to median at one of CCN, but I bet it's pretty rare.

People keep mentioning CLS to refute this, but at UChi there are at least six people around (or below) median at S&C in the last two years.

+1. Anon is likely from UChicago. Every non-Watchtell V10 offered down to median during 2013 OCI.

this is probably more a product of firms' inability to navigate Chicago's grade structure, and the fact that there are so few total students makes it seem statistically significant

[Old Gregg]

this is probably more a product of firms' inability to navigate Chicago's grade structure

You can bet your weight in gold that S&C knows how to navigate Chicago's grade system.

[gchatbrah]

this is probably more a product of firms' inability to navigate Chicago's grade structure

You can bet your weight in gold that S&C knows how to navigate Chicago's grade system.

Fact. STB's chairman is a Chicago alum. Deb had a very active Chicago partnership that ran OCI for us. I think S&C has a younger Chicago partner on their hiring committee. It's mostly because we don't look at NYC as a primary market. 20-25% go there on a good year. Precisely why I took it over NYU/Columbia -- numbers game is on your side.

[Anonymous User]

I recently summered at S&C and really enjoyed it. While the firm may not have a definitive personality, none of the people I met could be classified as "socially retarded" (with the possible exception of one person, who was somewhat socially awkward). The atmosphere is generally subdued and more on the nerdy side of the spectrum (as companied with say Latham), but that was fine with me because it suited my personality. But some of the partners and associates I got to know were some of the most charming and charismatic people I have ever met. Regarding hours, it depends on practice group and which partner you are working for, but is in line with what one would expect from a top firm. I talked with people who consistently billed about 1,900 hours a year, and others who billed 2,700 to 3,000+ a year; it seemed to depend on whether that particular person was really gunning for partner (or just really liked the work and was a workaholic), or whether they were moderately enthused about the job and were just trying to skate by until they could leave to go in house.

[Tiago Splitter]

Wait a second here. Based on my experience working here as a transactional associate, there is a substantive difference between S&C/Cravath and the other firms, and that's the generalist focus. At S&C, they will purposefully periodically assign you stuff you've never done before to keep you from focusing too much in a single area. They purposefully rotate juniors in and out of long-term projects that involve a lot of drudgery in order to spread the "wealth" fairly.

Perhaps you want to specialize early and often, but if you want to generalize (and I did) and you think it helps, long term, in giving you more valuable skills that you can monetize at S&C or elsewhere (and I do), then that's a difference. I think Cravath provides the same benefit to its associates in its Cravathy way. I don't think other firms do it.

What's the difference between the rotations at Cravath and the rotations at DPW/STB? At either place you'll have rotated through a few corporate groups in a few years and there's a good chance you won't be around for long after that.

[Anonymous User]

Wait a second here. Based on my experience working here as a transactional associate, there is a substantive difference between S&C/Cravath and the other firms, and that's the generalist focus. At S&C, they will purposefully periodically assign you stuff you've never done before to keep you from focusing too much in a single area. They purposefully rotate juniors in and out of long-term projects that involve a lot of drudgery in order to spread the "wealth" fairly.

Perhaps you want to specialize early and often, but if you want to generalize (and I did) and you think it helps, long term, in giving you more valuable skills that you can monetize at S&C or elsewhere (and I do), then that's a difference. I think Cravath provides the same benefit to its associates in its Cravathy way. I don't think other firms do it.

What's the difference between the rotations at Cravath and the rotations at DPW/STB? At either place you'll have rotated through a few corporate groups in a few years and there's a good chance you won't be around for long after that.

There is no difference in work. A more tangible difference between the firms might be the existence of people who are gullible enough to fall for this recruiting sales pitch. I guess there might be more of them at S&C.

[SLS_AMG]

Wait a second here. Based on my experience working here as a transactional associate, there is a substantive difference between S&C/Cravath and the other firms, and that's the generalist focus. At S&C, they will purposefully periodically assign you stuff you've never done before to keep you from focusing too much in a single area. They purposefully rotate juniors in and out of long-term projects that involve a lot of drudgery in order to spread the "wealth" fairly.

Perhaps you want to specialize early and often, but if you want to generalize (and I did) and you think it helps, long term, in giving you more valuable skills that you can monetize at S&C or elsewhere (and I do), then that's a difference. I think Cravath provides the same benefit to its associates in its Cravathy way. I don't think other firms do it.

We're talking past each other. OP made it sound like first years at S&C are drafting merger agreements. Not happening.

No doubt (though to be fair, they are doing the first draft of the issues list when a new draft comes in, which is not bad first year work at all).

If you go anywhere and expect to be "running deals" (whatever that means) from day one you're going to be sorely disappointed. But I do think the quality of transactional training/work is a bit higher at S&C and Cravath relative to DPW or STB. I don't know enough about transactional life at Cleary to compare to them.

LOL ok Vault slave. I also hear that the quality of training at Skadden is now higher than at S&C, though it fluctuates from year to year based on the perceptions of associates who work at neither firm. HTH.

[2014]

I really love the few anon's who are sipping the generalist koolaid. Please come back and post when you are a 5th year and don't really know how to do 90% of the shit that your peers at the rest of the V10 and beyond do. I'm sure other firms and clients will be EXTREMELY interested in the 1st year level skills you have in 5 secondary practice areas. There is a ton of pressure to specialize from clients and lateral opportunities across all big firms. Cravath can handle it because on a team by team basis they are specialized. The "junior associate" function is just filled by someone between year 1 and 4.5 instead of years 1-2.5. S&C's schtick is unsustainable ITE, but it's probably a recruiting bait and switch anyway.

[Old Gregg]

Don't know where I fall on this because I've never experienced a generalist program. But M&A for midlevels isn't difficult to master. If being a generalist means that you know the midlevel M&A stuff and a smidgen of employee benefits, tax, intellectual property, etc., I can't see why that wouldn't be beneficial.

[wons]

I really love the few anon's who are sipping the generalist koolaid. Please come back and post when you are a 5th year and don't really know how to do 90% of the shit that your peers at the rest of the V10 and beyond do. I'm sure other firms and clients will be EXTREMELY interested in the 1st year level skills you have in 5 secondary practice areas. There is a ton of pressure to specialize from clients and lateral opportunities across all big firms. Cravath can handle it because on a team by team basis they are specialized. The "junior associate" function is just filled by someone between year 1 and 4.5 instead of years 1-2.5. S&C's schtick is unsustainable ITE, but it's probably a recruiting bait and switch anyway.

I'm the S&C associate posting in this thread, and while I appreciate your sentiment, I'm a fifth year, and the value of being a generalist is even more obvious to me now than it was back in 2010. Ymmv, of course, but it's been hugely important for my training and career. I feel much safer knowing that I can handle whatever the market throws at me.

[2014]

Don't know where I fall on this because I've never experienced a generalist program. But M&A for midlevels isn't difficult to master. If being a generalist means that you know the midlevel M&A stuff and a smidgen of employee benefits, tax, intellectual property, etc., I can't see why that wouldn't be beneficial.

I mean I 100% agree with this, I also think that all of the other rotation firms end up in the same place without the weird hive mind thing to go with. Like Simpson does 3-4 ~6 month rotations and then specializes, which seems to be the same place that S&C would say their associates end up, knowing a little bit of several things and ultimately settling on one. I don't get why it's such a benefit to preserve or claim to preserve the ability to wander about between groups throughout your career. At a certain point you would think someone will demand you to know more (or expect you to work extra to justify the dabbling in other junior level type work).

Your point about the gap between junior and midlevel work being narrower than one might think is well taken though. You would know better than I.

[wons]

Don't know where I fall on this because I've never experienced a generalist program. But M&A for midlevels isn't difficult to master. If being a generalist means that you know the midlevel M&A stuff and a smidgen of employee benefits, tax, intellectual property, etc., I can't see why that wouldn't be beneficial.

I mean I 100% agree with this, I also think that all of the other rotation firms end up in the same place without the weird hive mind thing to go with. Like Simpson does 3-4 ~6 month rotations and then specializes, which seems to be the same place that S&C would say their associates end up, knowing a little bit of several things and ultimately settling on one. I don't get why it's such a benefit to preserve or claim to preserve the ability to wander about between groups throughout your career. At a certain point you would think someone will demand you to know more (or expect you to work extra to justify the dabbling in other junior level type work).

Your point about the gap between junior and midlevel work being narrower than one might think is well taken though. You would know better than I.

You've inadvertantly hit upon the key difference - S&C continues giving diverse assignments to you past year two. Most folks end up with a focus (which happens fairly organically) within one of the big groups. But the groups are so sprawling in practice scope that you will get assignments that are totally different from that focus all the time - I'd say most folks are working about 50% in their wheelhouse and then 50% with new partners in new areas. (I understand that once you are VERY senior you focus more, but I don't think anyone is picking firms based on the seventh year experience.)

As I understand it, what I just described is very different than Simpson or DPW or Cleary, where once you're in a group, you work almost entirely within that group, and the groups are fairly narrowly circumscribed, such that the universe where your assignments might be drawn from - both in "type" and which partner you will be working under - is fairly limited.

[Anonymous User]

You've inadvertantly hit upon the key difference - S&C continues giving diverse assignments to you past year two. Most folks end up with a focus (which happens fairly organically) within one of the big groups. But the groups are so sprawling in practice scope that you will get assignments that are totally different from that focus all the time - I'd say most folks are working about 50% in their wheelhouse and then 50% with new partners in new areas. (I understand that once you are VERY senior you focus more, but I don't think anyone is picking firms based on the seventh year experience.)

As I understand it, what I just described is very different than Simpson or DPW or Cleary, where once you're in a group, you work almost entirely within that group, and the groups are fairly narrowly circumscribed, such that the universe where your assignments might be drawn from - both in "type" and which partner you will be working under - is fairly limited.

I am fairly certain the bolded is not true. The groups encompass broad categories, and there are no artificial limitations on which partner you work for. I think that's just more S&C propaganda.

No one will care whether you worked at DPW/STB/Cleary vs. SullCrom, and your lawyering ability will be the same quality when you leave both places in 3-5 years. Maybe on the margins SullCrom associates will have a slightly more diverse experience, and DPW associates will have a slightly more robust M&A experience. Any argument that one is "better" or "worse" is dumb.

The most tangible difference identified in this thread is that SullCrom associates are gullible and their firm's sales pitch involves unnecessarily spreading lies about the way other firms operate. Sounds like an inferiority complex to me.

[wons]

You've inadvertantly hit upon the key difference - S&C continues giving diverse assignments to you past year two. Most folks end up with a focus (which happens fairly organically) within one of the big groups. But the groups are so sprawling in practice scope that you will get assignments that are totally different from that focus all the time - I'd say most folks are working about 50% in their wheelhouse and then 50% with new partners in new areas. (I understand that once you are VERY senior you focus more, but I don't think anyone is picking firms based on the seventh year experience.)

As I understand it, what I just described is very different than Simpson or DPW or Cleary, where once you're in a group, you work almost entirely within that group, and the groups are fairly narrowly circumscribed, such that the universe where your assignments might be drawn from - both in "type" and which partner you will be working under - is fairly limited.

I am fairly certain the bolded is not true. The groups encompass broad categories, and there are no artificial limitations on which partner you work for. I think that's just more S&C propaganda.

No one will care whether you worked at DPW/STB/Cleary vs. SullCrom, and your lawyering ability will be the same quality when you leave both places in 3-5 years. Maybe on the margins SullCrom associates will have a slightly more diverse experience, and DPW associates will have a slightly more robust M&A experience. Any argument that one is "better" or "worse" is dumb.

The most tangible difference identified in this thread is that SullCrom associates are gullible and their firm's sales pitch involves unnecessarily spreading lies about the way other firms operate. Sounds like an inferiority complex to me.

There are no "artifical limitations"; what I mean, rather, is that the scope of the practice areas within each group are relatively narrow. It's also not an S&C thing, it's more of a S&C and Cravath thing, because Cravath has the same approach to pushing you into unfamiliar areas as a midlevel and senior associate no?

As for the gratuitous nastiness of your post, I'll leave for the reader conclusions they might want to draw about whether you can find jerks at every firm.

[Anonymous User]

You've inadvertantly hit upon the key difference - S&C continues giving diverse assignments to you past year two. Most folks end up with a focus (which happens fairly organically) within one of the big groups. But the groups are so sprawling in practice scope that you will get assignments that are totally different from that focus all the time - I'd say most folks are working about 50% in their wheelhouse and then 50% with new partners in new areas. (I understand that once you are VERY senior you focus more, but I don't think anyone is picking firms based on the seventh year experience.)

As I understand it, what I just described is very different than Simpson or DPW or Cleary, where once you're in a group, you work almost entirely within that group, and the groups are fairly narrowly circumscribed, such that the universe where your assignments might be drawn from - both in "type" and which partner you will be working under - is fairly limited.

I am fairly certain the bolded is not true. The groups encompass broad categories, and there are no artificial limitations on which partner you work for. I think that's just more S&C propaganda.

No one will care whether you worked at DPW/STB/Cleary vs. SullCrom, and your lawyering ability will be the same quality when you leave both places in 3-5 years. Maybe on the margins SullCrom associates will have a slightly more diverse experience, and DPW associates will have a slightly more robust M&A experience. Any argument that one is "better" or "worse" is dumb.

The most tangible difference identified in this thread is that SullCrom associates are gullible and their firm's sales pitch involves unnecessarily spreading lies about the way other firms operate. Sounds like an inferiority complex to me.

There are no "artifical limitations"; what I mean, rather, is that the scope of the practice areas within each group are relatively narrow. It's also not an S&C thing, it's more of a S&C and Cravath thing, because Cravath has the same approach to pushing you into unfamiliar areas as a midlevel and senior associate no?

As for the gratuitous nastiness of your post, I'll leave for the reader conclusions they might want to draw about whether you can find jerks at every firm.

Right, because categories like "M&A" and "Capital Markets" are very restrictive. Good point. Keep on preaching the recruiting pitch though.

I don't know why I am still taking you seriously after your Vault rankings shtick. You have already been thoroughly discredited. I am done here.

[wons]

Right, because categories like "M&A" and "Capital Markets" are very restrictive. Good point. Keep on preaching the recruiting pitch though.

I don't know why I am still taking you seriously after your Vault rankings shtick. You have already been thoroughly discredited. I am done here.

Jesus, there are still kids playing like its autoadmit.

As fun as it is to exchange insults, I think I shall be leaving the thread now. If anyone has any questions re S&C feel free to PM me.

[deng]

.

[2014]

So prestige is obviously treated very critically on TLS. Overall this site gives me the feeling that S&C is an awful place.

Is there any good reason at all to choose S&C over other v20 New York firms, "prestige" aside?

Sure if you want to do some practice area that S&C is better at than other NY V20s (which is a ton of them if by V20 you mean V7-20)

[wons]

So prestige is obviously treated very critically on TLS. Overall this site gives me the feeling that S&C is an awful place.

Is there any good reason at all to choose S&C over other v20 New York firms, "prestige" aside?

And the people saying its a terrible place don't work at S&C. Hell, most of them are still in law school. Their arguments are very compelling.

[Old Gregg]

So prestige is obviously treated very critically on TLS. Overall this site gives me the feeling that S&C is an awful place.

Is there any good reason at all to choose S&C over other v20 New York firms, "prestige" aside?

And the people saying its a terrible place don't work at S&C. Hell, most of them are still in law school. Their arguments are very compelling.

And you work at S&C...

But don't even try to pretend that S&C isn't a terrible place to work. And this isn't an attack on S&C. I don't think the rest of its peer firms are appreciably different. WLRK is probably better because at least you get paid (a lot) more per hour when you bill more than 2500 hours.

[Anonymous User]

So prestige is obviously treated very critically on TLS. Overall this site gives me the feeling that S&C is an awful place.

Is there any good reason at all to choose S&C over other v20 New York firms, "prestige" aside?

S&C is definitely a better place to do NYC corporate than, say, Sidley, at least by quality of work. But there is essentially no reason to choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden that have comparable work quality and are much better places to work. (Nothing against Sidley--it's a great firm, just more litigation heavy and also not very NYC-centric.)

Of course S&C doesn't screen for personality. There's no way to screen for personality when you give offers to 95% of the people you call back. Claiming otherwise is simply foolish. The reality, though, is that some people with good personalities are also obsessed with prestige/blinded by Vault/easily snookered by recruiting blather/generally ill-informed and choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden anyway. So S&C isn't all social incompetents. On the other hand, a lot of people with great grades and poor interpersonal skills end up with their only offer at a highly regarded NYC corporate firm being S&C and go there. And more informed people avoid it like the plague if they have any choice in the matter.

[Anonymous User]

So prestige is obviously treated very critically on TLS. Overall this site gives me the feeling that S&C is an awful place.

Is there any good reason at all to choose S&C over other v20 New York firms, "prestige" aside?

And the people saying its a terrible place don't work at S&C. Hell, most of them are still in law school. Their arguments are very compelling.

And you work at S&C...

But don't even try to pretend that S&C isn't a terrible place to work. And this isn't an attack on S&C. I don't think the rest of its peer firms are appreciably different. WLRK is probably better because at least you get paid (a lot) more per hour when you bill more than 2500 hours.

I don't work there and haven't commented in this thread so far. But I'll say that my friends who are current associates seem to have it tougher than those at other top firms (maybe not Cravath). A close friend of mine there isn't the complaining type, so I'm guessing that his/her stories are for real/without exaggeration.

[Anonymous User]

So prestige is obviously treated very critically on TLS. Overall this site gives me the feeling that S&C is an awful place.

Is there any good reason at all to choose S&C over other v20 New York firms, "prestige" aside?

S&C is definitely a better place to do NYC corporate than, say, Sidley, at least by quality of work. But there is essentially no reason to choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden that have comparable work quality and are much better places to work. (Nothing against Sidley--it's a great firm, just more litigation heavy and also not very NYC-centric.)

Of course S&C doesn't screen for personality. There's no way to screen for personality when you give offers to 95% of the people you call back. Claiming otherwise is simply foolish. The reality, though, is that some people with good personalities are also obsessed with prestige/blinded by Vault/easily snookered by recruiting blather/generally ill-informed and choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden anyway. So S&C isn't all social incompetents. On the other hand, a lot of people with great grades and poor interpersonal skills end up with their only offer at a highly regarded NYC corporate firm being S&C and go there. And more informed people avoid it like the plague if they have any choice in the matter.

Bingo. I've seen this happen.

[Anonymous User]

So prestige is obviously treated very critically on TLS. Overall this site gives me the feeling that S&C is an awful place.

Is there any good reason at all to choose S&C over other v20 New York firms, "prestige" aside?

S&C is definitely a better place to do NYC corporate than, say, Sidley, at least by quality of work. But there is essentially no reason to choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden that have comparable work quality and are much better places to work. (Nothing against Sidley--it's a great firm, just more litigation heavy and also not very NYC-centric.)

Of course S&C doesn't screen for personality. There's no way to screen for personality when you give offers to 95% of the people you call back. Claiming otherwise is simply foolish. The reality, though, is that some people with good personalities are also obsessed with prestige/blinded by Vault/easily snookered by recruiting blather/generally ill-informed and choose S&C over STB/DPW/Cleary/Skadden anyway. So S&C isn't all social incompetents. On the other hand, a lot of people with great grades and poor interpersonal skills end up with their only offer at a highly regarded NYC corporate firm being S&C and go there. And more informed people avoid it like the plague if they have any choice in the matter.

Just out of curiosity, assume, arguendo that you're right (you're not, of course) that S&C doesn't take fit into account. Lets say all these dangerously antisocial beasts show up to work. And let say, like others assert, at S&C, you work endless hours with your peers.

How, pray tell, do these antisocial aspergers cases survive in an intense, 24/7 team project environment?

The answer, of course, is that they don't last. Necessarily, if you don't play well with others, you will not last anywhere, and that includes S&C.