KIRKLAND SHATTERS the Above the Law Rankings; we rank things Forum

[20141023]

.

[moonman157]

ATL rankings for firms are just as stupid as Vault, just as ATL rankings of law schools are just as stupid as USNews. I get that this profession is obsessed with finding places that you're more prestigious than, but can't we let this form of measurement go for at least a little bit?

[wildcatatpenn]

I think some of this data would actually be incredibly helpful if it were parsed out.. I would LOVE to see the %age of home-grown equity partners. But % women is obviously arbitrary and retarded.

Regardless of the issues, I like the metrics here a lot better than the Vault survey, even if it does produce some really weird results. K&L gates at #26? lol.. Cadwalader and Norton Rose are also drastically low. I have no idea how V&E could be so far ahead of both BB and Norton... I really can't put my finger on where exactly in the metric some of these firms are getting hurt so bad.... % women?

I'd also love to see the standard deviation...

[911 crisis actor]

But % women is obviously arbitrary and retarded.

Tell us more

[patogordo]

% women partners is fine but it should be a negative right

[wildcatatpenn]

But % women is obviously arbitrary and retarded.

Tell us more

I have no clue whether it is a positive or negative. Would I rather work somewhere that is less meritocratic and pushes more women to the top? Probably not if male, probably if female. At the same time, which are the less meritocratic ones -- the ones with more female partners, or the ones devoid of females? who the fuk knows! So what exactly is this metric telling you????

Would I want to work somewhere with more humane hours where women feel it is more possible to work and rear a child? Yes probably. But then hours/QoL survey would be a more direct measurement.

Also, certain industries like IP are absolutely devoid of women, particularly if the office is not big on life sciences. Not the office's fault.

[sideroxylon]

But % women is obviously arbitrary and retarded.

Tell us more

I have no clue whether it is a positive or negative. Would I rather work somewhere that is less meritocratic and pushes more women to the top? Probably not if male, probably if female. At the same time, which are the less meritocratic ones -- the ones with more female partners, or the ones devoid of females? who the fuk knows! So what exactly is this metric telling you????

Would I want to work somewhere with more humane hours where women feel it is more possible to work and rear a child? Yes probably. But then hours/QoL survey would be a more direct measurement.

Also, certain industries like IP are absolutely devoid of women, particularly if the office is not big on life sciences. Not the office's fault.

I think the assumption is that it's probably a more legitimate meritocracy if there are more women who are partners, or at least they're trying to correct for parts of the system that aren't meritocratic.

[Old Gregg]

no attention drawn to the fact that kirkland has non-equity partners, which would easily be skewing the rankings.

[wildcatatpenn]

I think the assumption is that it's probably a more legitimate meritocracy if there are more women who are partners, or at least they're trying to correct for parts of the system that aren't meritocratic.

"Correcting for parts of the system that aren't meritocratic" sounds like pretty much the opposite of meritocratic to me

but I guess that's pretty much the AA debate so meh, not trying to argue it

[patogordo]

...

[FSK]

This thread is some serious shitposting.

[sideroxylon]

This thread is some serious shitposting.

ty i'm very proud of it

[FSK]

no attention drawn to the fact that kirkland has non-equity partners, which would easily be skewing the rankings.

Kirkland SHATTERS the shitbooming too.

[911 crisis actor]

But % women is obviously arbitrary and retarded.

Tell us more

I have no clue whether it is a positive or negative. Would I rather work somewhere that is less meritocratic and pushes more women to the top? Probably not if male, probably if female. At the same time, which are the less meritocratic ones -- the ones with more female partners, or the ones devoid of females? who the fuk knows! So what exactly is this metric telling you????

Would I want to work somewhere with more humane hours where women feel it is more possible to work and rear a child? Yes probably. But then hours/QoL survey would be a more direct measurement.

Also, certain industries like IP are absolutely devoid of women, particularly if the office is not big on life sciences. Not the office's fault.

I feel sorry for whatever firm you end up at

New part of the metric: -5% if wildcatatpenn works there

[jbagelboy]

no attention drawn to the fact that kirkland has non-equity partners, which would easily be skewing the rankings.

well I noted this on my post from the first page, did you see?

how is this result different from vault tho. seems essentially the same. the V10 are still V10, the V20 are still V20 (w/ munger thrown in). so what if a few of the same firms traded places a few spots. doesn't seem like anyone can break away from vault

honestly lol @ ATL for pulling all these machinations and developing the same list. kind of sad since it perpetuates the unfortunate notion that prestige can proxy for anything

Paul Weiss, Gibson, Skadden and Weil are all decently removed from their Vault rankings

I guess it's also just a question of how much you expect it to change. I'm sure they could find metrics to put W&C on top or not have Susman somehow down at 87, but I'm not exactly sure how you do that.

I wouldn't consider 3 places (or even 7) "decently removed," since vault floats year to year and its all a wash within those 15-20 firms. Also having a non-equity, light track partner class counting as "home grown" partners probably skews kirkland's results pretty heavily, but I doubt anyone cared to distinguish for that metric.

[911 crisis actor]

Kirkland non-equity partners leaving the firm in droves

[Old Gregg]

well I noted this on my post from the first page, did you see?

Nope.

And it's not that ATL doesn't care to distinguish them, it's just that it's very hard to. Outside of very obvious cases of a 6th year law graduate being a partner and a 15th year attorney on the compensation committee, very difficult to tell the shit in the mushy middle.

[Anonymous User]

if we are going to play this game I would separate corporate and lit and make two lists

[sideroxylon]

if we are going to play this game I would separate corporate and lit and make two lists

pls make your own rankings and post them ITT, anon

[KaNa1986]

Anyone have access to the reputation survey? SullCrom and Cravath must have blew firms like Davis Polk, Simpson, Cleary, and Debevoise out of the water on the reputation survey to be ranked that high on the overall list.

[jbagelboy]

Anyone have access to the reputation survey? SullCrom and Cravath must have blew firms like Davis Polk, Simpson, Cleary, and Debevoise out of the water on the reputation survey to be ranked that high on the overall list.

How do you figure? They aren't more well regarded than DPW or Simpson in the city.

If anything I think homegrown partners % would boost firms like Cravath and S&C that pull more exclusively from their own ranks.

[FSK]

BUT WAIT: THERE'S MORE

http://abovethelaw.com/2014/10/atl-law- ... -category/

Accidental anon: flawschoolkid

[patogordo]

people would rather work at k&l gates than wachtell. bmore was right.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

BUT WAIT: THERE'S MORE

http://abovethelaw.com/2014/10/atl-law- ... -category/

Accidental anon: flawschoolkid

LOL at Quinn making the top five for "compensation satisfaction" . Below Cravath unless you bill 2100, after which you get somewhere between $10 and $15 an hour. With a fucking $4.4 million PPP. Christ. Was the sample size Kathleen Sullivan and Peter Calamari?

The equity/non-equity divide is evident when you call GT a good place to have a shot at "partner" when in reality there's close to zero chance of equity.

And as for rewarding firms for a giant increase in headcount, I'm sure every associate is chomping at the bit to work at the next Brobeck or Dewey.

[B.B. Homemaker]

And as for rewarding firms for a giant increase in headcount, I'm sure every associate is chomping at the bit to work at the next Brobeck or Dewey.

Is it still an "exit option" if it's not optional?