Anonymous User wrote:
Screw fit, imo. While CSM may be more of a sweatshop than DPW (e.g.), they're all NYC biglaw firms at the end of the day. I'm trying to maximize the number of interviews (with an eye towards those firms that are good in the practice area I want to enter). See above for my first attempt.
Just to chime in, I'm a CLS alum, and judging from the experiences of my friends / classmates, this is a big mistake. I know many people who are miserable because they took the attitude of "they're all sweatshops" and chose minor differences in practice strength over fit.
It's true that you will work more or less equally hard at most of the NY firms. But it makes a big difference to both your well-being and also your prospects for advancement if you genuinely like the people you are working with. I would also add two points, the first being that unless you've worked in particular industry / practice before, I've found the practice area preferences people have going into EIP often change by the end of the summer when people get a fuller view of different practice areas. Second, at least among the top NY firms, people tend to to overestimate differences in practice area strength.
For example, choosing S&C or Cravath over DPW or Cleary for M&A because the former are Band 1 and the latter are Band 2 even though you feel the latter are a better fit is dumb - I can assure you those minute differences have virtually no impact on options, whereas your happiness and how long you stick around will be influenced heavily by fit.
Just my two cents. I know this is just the bidding stage and you can make these distinctions when you choose between firms, but I know way too many people who regret making that type of choice (or, conversely, are happy they went with fit over minor differences in practice area strength).
scooped
