Question About Vault Rankings Forum

[smaug]

Just curious why Kellogg is voted by associates to be so low in the vault ranks when everybody knows they are ultra selective and preftigious. Also Susman, Keker, etc. Also MTO & W&C. Is it 100% associate votes? Do most associates really think Skadden >>>>>> W&C in "prestige"?

no people are just dumb, like the person above who thought that Cravath was better

i'm sure lots of transactional attorneys couldn't list off the top lit shops in the nation/they would have odd views about who is good

[Anonymous User]

Just curious why Kellogg is voted by associates to be so low in the vault ranks when everybody knows they are ultra selective and preftigious. Also Susman, Keker, etc. Also MTO & W&C. Is it 100% associate votes? Do most associates really think Skadden >>>>>> W&C in "prestige"?

no people are just dumb, like the person above who thought that Cravath was better

i'm sure lots of transactional attorneys couldn't list off the top lit shops in the nation/they would have odd views about who is good

It's just general proxy for NYC-based transnational prestige. Why do people not understand that? You probably don't need Vault to tell you that Davis Polk has a more established corporate practice than Bryan Cave or Reed Smith. Also, who cares? Just work wherever you want to work.

[run26.2]

Just curious why Kellogg is voted by associates to be so low in the vault ranks when everybody knows they are ultra selective and preftigious. Also Susman, Keker, etc. Also MTO & W&C. Is it 100% associate votes? Do most associates really think Skadden >>>>>> W&C in "prestige"?

I think Kellogg Huber was less well known until a few years ago, when its salary, bonus, and clerkship bonus info started to become more widely available. That seems to have caught the attention of a wider audience, and now others are starting to rank the firm.

[jbagelboy]

Just curious why Kellogg is voted by associates to be so low in the vault ranks when everybody knows they are ultra selective and preftigious. Also Susman, Keker, etc. Also MTO & W&C. Is it 100% associate votes? Do most associates really think Skadden >>>>>> W&C in "prestige"?

I think Kellogg Huber was less well known until a few years ago, when its salary, bonus, and clerkship bonus info started to become more widely available. That seems to have caught the attention of a wider audience, and now others are starting to rank the firm.

Don't presume a big rise from compensation or selectivity though. Vault is surprisingly sticky. Williams & Connolly has remained trading places with Jones Day and Sidley at the back of the V20 for years. The stupidity of this list has great staying power.

[run26.2]

Never said that it would. I have my doubts that KH will, owing to its size and that it continues to be less well known. But as an example, Boies Schiller went from a relative unknown to a V20 (or higher, not sure of its exact rank now). W&C is, as you point out, one of the prime examples of how the list appears not to reflect broader opinion in the industry. That said, it has been ranked as high as 8 within the last 6 years. (Not that that means anything.)

[iamgeorgebush]

Vault rankings are literally, LITERALLY, entirely based on surveys received from associates at these firms (and associates can't rank their own firm, I believe). So no, some random Reed Smith associate who knows fuck-all about Wachtell isn't really qualified to remark on its quality in literally any capacity (work-life balance, strength of practices, etc.).

18,000 associates responded to the Vault surveys, ranking these other 99 firms on scales of 1-10. Even if we assume that every single associate has lateraled twice and in their time has worked extensively with 10 other firms (all of these assumptions are incredibly generous, by the way), that gives them experience at 12 firms, and only from their perspective of being a junior/midlevel associate in a particular office, in a particular practice area. That is ~200K dubiously qualified opinions out of 1.78 Million total.



So do tell me how this is meaningfully relevant to anyone

On the other hand, from a statistical perspective, a bigger sample size is better. Even if many of these associates get it wrong, you might think there is some strength in numbers.

[Anonymous User]

IMO Vault is so rough as a proxy as to be totally useless. When you have people interested in NYC Corp with good but not great GPAs bidding Covington or Quinn over Milbank or FF or Cahill because the former two are V20, that's dangerous. I don't even think it's a particularly great guide to NYC Corporate shops - if that is what you are looking for Chambers is available with the same.e amount of effort.

And as someone who has filled out the Vault survey I can attest to how poorly designed it is. Maybe Chambers is just as useless but they are usually pretty good at mentioning top partners and important matters the firm handled that year.

[TLSModBot]

Vault rankings are literally, LITERALLY, entirely based on surveys received from associates at these firms (and associates can't rank their own firm, I believe). So no, some random Reed Smith associate who knows fuck-all about Wachtell isn't really qualified to remark on its quality in literally any capacity (work-life balance, strength of practices, etc.).

18,000 associates responded to the Vault surveys, ranking these other 99 firms on scales of 1-10. Even if we assume that every single associate has lateraled twice and in their time has worked extensively with 10 other firms (all of these assumptions are incredibly generous, by the way), that gives them experience at 12 firms, and only from their perspective of being a junior/midlevel associate in a particular office, in a particular practice area. That is ~200K dubiously qualified opinions out of 1.78 Million total.



So do tell me how this is meaningfully relevant to anyone

On the other hand, from a statistical perspective, a bigger sample size is better. Even if many of these associates get it wrong, you might think there is some strength in numbers.

That's not really how statistics work - larger sample size doesn't cure defects in the questionnaire or underlying population, nor does it change the purpose to which the results can meaningfully be used.

You are right in that the large sample size may imply an adequate representation of what it is measuring, but "what it is measuring" is precisely the question. No one is disputing that it adequately tracks what large numbers of uninformed midlevel associates think about the general reputation and quality of other BigLaw firms, they are questioning the usefulness to which those results can be applied to other things like firm health/quality, desirability to work there, or prestige of the firm among clients, partners, or literally anyone else who isn't a midlevel (and it is completely useless for these things AND there are better alternatives).

If you are a short-term prestige whore whose primary and overriding desire for BigLaw employment is to make other people similarly situated jealous, then I guess go to the higher Vault-ranked firm.