Latham v. Cravath Forum

[Anonymous User]

Latham no-offered summer associates during the recession. If you're worried about long run job security, Cravath is a better bet.

[Anonymous User]

Okay, NY associate chiming in because I can’t believe this thread is still active. Cravath is more prestigious, and I don’t think there’s a serious argument to the contrary, but the difference isn’t as stark as many on this thread think it is. Here is my personal sense of the “prestige pecking order” in NY corporate:

Wachtell>>Cravath/s&c>DPW/STB/Cleary>Skadden>Latham, Weil, Kirkland, Etc.

You will do sophisticated transactions of various sizes at all of these firms, and they will all be great places to launch a career. Personally, I think the difference in prestige is more stark between Wachtell and Cravath than it is between Cravath and Latham. If this was another “Wachtell v Cravath” thread i would be arguing heavily in favor of Wachtell. In this instance, I believe it is rational to choose Latham over cravath. Cravaths rotation system would be endlessly frustrating for me, and anyone who is arguing that PE is “worse” than public is off base in my opinion. Yes PE clients are demanding, but Public mega deals are frustrating because you often get stuck working on a tiny piece of the deal, plus the process is drawn out longer. International deals are Hell though.

Honest question: why does everyone like Cleary so much?

OP here: I actually really liked the people at Cleary and they were very hard to turn down for that reason alone. That being said, I’m surprised this person views them as being that prestigious because people I spoke to from STB/DPW viewed Cleary being a step below Latham for corporate work and all those others listed as peers (never compared them to Weil though). Ultimately I thought they were pretty equal though as far as prestige based on the people in the class considering each firm

[Anonymous User]

Okay, NY associate chiming in because I can’t believe this thread is still active. Cravath is more prestigious, and I don’t think there’s a serious argument to the contrary, but the difference isn’t as stark as many on this thread think it is. Here is my personal sense of the “prestige pecking order” in NY corporate:

Wachtell>>Cravath/s&c>DPW/STB/Cleary>Skadden>Latham, Weil, Kirkland, Etc.

You will do sophisticated transactions of various sizes at all of these firms, and they will all be great places to launch a career. Personally, I think the difference in prestige is more stark between Wachtell and Cravath than it is between Cravath and Latham. If this was another “Wachtell v Cravath” thread i would be arguing heavily in favor of Wachtell. In this instance, I believe it is rational to choose Latham over cravath. Cravaths rotation system would be endlessly frustrating for me, and anyone who is arguing that PE is “worse” than public is off base in my opinion. Yes PE clients are demanding, but Public mega deals are frustrating because you often get stuck working on a tiny piece of the deal, plus the process is drawn out longer. International deals are Hell though.

Honest question: why does everyone like Cleary so much?

At my school, Cleary has a strong reputation for being a "nice" firm as far as Biglaw goes, so it tends to attract friendly people in turn. It's not the most prestigious in terms of grade sensitivity; it's known to take people around median quite frequently. But because it has such a positive reputation, it does pretty well with people who have higher grades/more highly ranked offers, and it has one of the highest yield rates for NY Biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

Okay, NY associate chiming in because I can’t believe this thread is still active. Cravath is more prestigious, and I don’t think there’s a serious argument to the contrary, but the difference isn’t as stark as many on this thread think it is. Here is my personal sense of the “prestige pecking order” in NY corporate:

Wachtell>>Cravath/s&c>DPW/STB/Cleary>Skadden>Latham, Weil, Kirkland, Etc.

You will do sophisticated transactions of various sizes at all of these firms, and they will all be great places to launch a career. Personally, I think the difference in prestige is more stark between Wachtell and Cravath than it is between Cravath and Latham. If this was another “Wachtell v Cravath” thread i would be arguing heavily in favor of Wachtell. In this instance, I believe it is rational to choose Latham over cravath. Cravaths rotation system would be endlessly frustrating for me, and anyone who is arguing that PE is “worse” than public is off base in my opinion. Yes PE clients are demanding, but Public mega deals are frustrating because you often get stuck working on a tiny piece of the deal, plus the process is drawn out longer. International deals are Hell though.

Honest question: why does everyone like Cleary so much?

OP here: I actually really liked the people at Cleary and they were very hard to turn down for that reason alone. That being said, I’m surprised this person views them as being that prestigious because people I spoke to from STB/DPW viewed Cleary being a step below Latham for corporate work and all those others listed as peers (never compared them to Weil though). Ultimately I thought they were pretty equal though as far as prestige based on the people in the class considering each firm

Another NY associate chiming in. Cleary may now be a step below STB/DPW for areas like M&A but it has always been considered more prestigious than Latham.

It's hard for readers of the thread to take you seriously because it is rare for students to compare firms based primarily on their impressions of the people they met at the firms.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a lot of Cornell grads are at the elite firms. Cornell is a relatively tiny law school, so there won’t be as many as NYU/Columbia.

Why do people insist upon making up lies for no reason? Cornell is roughly half the size of NYU and CLS.

Cleary Gottlieb NYC:
Cornell: 9 Associates, 1 Partner
Berkeley: 8 Associates, 0 Partners
Virginia: 5 Associates, 0 Partners
NYU: 54 Associates, 24 Partners
Columbia: 57 Associates, 15 Partners

Davis Polk NYC:
Cornell: 15 Associates, 1 Partner
Berkeley: 5 Associates, 1 Partner
Virginia: 11 Associates, 4 Partners
NYU: 59 Associates, 17 Partners
Columbia: 78 Associates, 18 Partners

It would be extremely inadvisable to got Cornell over CLS or NYU if you are targeting an elite Manhattan law firm. Cornell is not a peer school in any way shape or form. The incremental 3-6 LSAT points it would take to get into a more prestigious Manhattan law school are well worth it if you want to have a career in elite biglaw. Associates, partners and clients at top law firms genuinely wonder why they should hire you when you were not able to do well on the one exam that, until recently, every single person had to take in order to get into get into law school.

[Anonymous User]

Okay, NY associate chiming in because I can’t believe this thread is still active. Cravath is more prestigious, and I don’t think there’s a serious argument to the contrary, but the difference isn’t as stark as many on this thread think it is. Here is my personal sense of the “prestige pecking order” in NY corporate:

Wachtell>>Cravath/s&c>DPW/STB/Cleary>Skadden>Latham, Weil, Kirkland, Etc.

You will do sophisticated transactions of various sizes at all of these firms, and they will all be great places to launch a career. Personally, I think the difference in prestige is more stark between Wachtell and Cravath than it is between Cravath and Latham. If this was another “Wachtell v Cravath” thread i would be arguing heavily in favor of Wachtell. In this instance, I believe it is rational to choose Latham over cravath. Cravaths rotation system would be endlessly frustrating for me, and anyone who is arguing that PE is “worse” than public is off base in my opinion. Yes PE clients are demanding, but Public mega deals are frustrating because you often get stuck working on a tiny piece of the deal, plus the process is drawn out longer. International deals are Hell though.

Honest question: why does everyone like Cleary so much?

OP here: I actually really liked the people at Cleary and they were very hard to turn down for that reason alone. That being said, I’m surprised this person views them as being that prestigious because people I spoke to from STB/DPW viewed Cleary being a step below Latham for corporate work and all those others listed as peers (never compared them to Weil though). Ultimately I thought they were pretty equal though as far as prestige based on the people in the class considering each firm

Another NY associate chiming in. Cleary may now be a step below STB/DPW for areas like M&A but it has always been considered more prestigious than Latham.

It's hard for readers of the thread to take you seriously because it is rare for students to compare firms based primarily on their impressions of the people they met at the firms.

Previous NY associate here. And just for the sake of knowing my perspective - i work at one of DPW/STB. Cleary is part of the group of firms that has traditionally been considered the elite group in NYC. For a while the most elite corporate work in NY went to the following firms: Wachtell, cravath, s&c, Skadden, DPW, STB, and Cleary. To an extent this is still true, but firms from outside New York have made inroads and reduced the apparent disparity between them. The sheen of the NY firms has not completely washed off though.

One thing my initial post did not get across as clearly as I would have liked was that the difference between all these firms in terms of prestige isn’t all that great (with the exception of Wachtell). When deciding between my offers as a law student, I did not consider the prestige of the firms I listed relative to one another as a significant factor - it’s splitting hairs.

[Anonymous User]

Okay, NY associate chiming in because I can’t believe this thread is still active. Cravath is more prestigious, and I don’t think there’s a serious argument to the contrary, but the difference isn’t as stark as many on this thread think it is. Here is my personal sense of the “prestige pecking order” in NY corporate:

Wachtell>>Cravath/s&c>DPW/STB/Cleary>Skadden>Latham, Weil, Kirkland, Etc.

You will do sophisticated transactions of various sizes at all of these firms, and they will all be great places to launch a career. Personally, I think the difference in prestige is more stark between Wachtell and Cravath than it is between Cravath and Latham. If this was another “Wachtell v Cravath” thread i would be arguing heavily in favor of Wachtell. In this instance, I believe it is rational to choose Latham over cravath. Cravaths rotation system would be endlessly frustrating for me, and anyone who is arguing that PE is “worse” than public is off base in my opinion. Yes PE clients are demanding, but Public mega deals are frustrating because you often get stuck working on a tiny piece of the deal, plus the process is drawn out longer. International deals are Hell though.

Honest question: why does everyone like Cleary so much?

OP here: I actually really liked the people at Cleary and they were very hard to turn down for that reason alone. That being said, I’m surprised this person views them as being that prestigious because people I spoke to from STB/DPW viewed Cleary being a step below Latham for corporate work and all those others listed as peers (never compared them to Weil though). Ultimately I thought they were pretty equal though as far as prestige based on the people in the class considering each firm

Another NY associate chiming in. Cleary may now be a step below STB/DPW for areas like M&A but it has always been considered more prestigious than Latham.

It's hard for readers of the thread to take you seriously because it is rare for students to compare firms based primarily on their impressions of the people they met at the firms.

Previous NY associate here. And just for the sake of knowing my perspective - i work at one of DPW/STB. Cleary is part of the group of firms that has traditionally been considered the elite group in NYC. For a while the most elite corporate work in NY went to the following firms: Wachtell, cravath, s&c, Skadden, DPW, STB, and Cleary. To an extent this is still true, but firms from outside New York have made inroads and reduced the apparent disparity between them. The sheen of the NY firms has not completely washed off though.

One thing my initial post did not get across as clearly as I would have liked was that the difference between all these firms in terms of prestige isn’t all that great (with the exception of Wachtell). When deciding between my offers as a law student, I did not consider the prestige of the firms I listed relative to one another as a significant factor - it’s splitting hairs.

[lavarman84]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a lot of Cornell grads are at the elite firms. Cornell is a relatively tiny law school, so there won’t be as many as NYU/Columbia.

Why do people insist upon making up lies for no reason? Cornell is roughly half the size of NYU and CLS.

Cleary Gottlieb NYC:
Cornell: 9 Associates, 1 Partner
Berkeley: 8 Associates, 0 Partners
Virginia: 5 Associates, 0 Partners
NYU: 54 Associates, 24 Partners
Columbia: 57 Associates, 15 Partners

Davis Polk NYC:
Cornell: 15 Associates, 1 Partner
Berkeley: 5 Associates, 1 Partner
Virginia: 11 Associates, 4 Partners
NYU: 59 Associates, 17 Partners
Columbia: 78 Associates, 18 Partners

It would be extremely inadvisable to got Cornell over CLS or NYU if you are targeting an elite Manhattan law firm. Cornell is not a peer school in any way shape or form. The incremental 3-6 LSAT points it would take to get into a more prestigious Manhattan law school are well worth it if you want to have a career in elite biglaw. Associates, partners and clients at top law firms genuinely wonder why they should hire you when you were not able to do well on the one exam that, until recently, every single person had to take in order to get into get into law school.

You gotta stop with the satire, man. It's too on the nose. My sides are hurting.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a lot of Cornell grads are at the elite firms. Cornell is a relatively tiny law school, so there won’t be as many as NYU/Columbia.

Why do people insist upon making up lies for no reason? Cornell is roughly half the size of NYU and CLS.

Cleary Gottlieb NYC:
Cornell: 9 Associates, 1 Partner
Berkeley: 8 Associates, 0 Partners
Virginia: 5 Associates, 0 Partners
NYU: 54 Associates, 24 Partners
Columbia: 57 Associates, 15 Partners

Davis Polk NYC:
Cornell: 15 Associates, 1 Partner
Berkeley: 5 Associates, 1 Partner
Virginia: 11 Associates, 4 Partners
NYU: 59 Associates, 17 Partners
Columbia: 78 Associates, 18 Partners

It would be extremely inadvisable to got Cornell over CLS or NYU if you are targeting an elite Manhattan law firm. Cornell is not a peer school in any way shape or form. The incremental 3-6 LSAT points it would take to get into a more prestigious Manhattan law school are well worth it if you want to have a career in elite biglaw. Associates, partners and clients at top law firms genuinely wonder why they should hire you when you were not able to do well on the one exam that, until recently, every single person had to take in order to get into get into law school.

Spoken like a true NYU grad incapable of obtaining an elite outcome. Sounds like it tears you up that those Cornell kids will have more successful careers than you.

For the record, I (and any hiring partner, for that matter) would take a top Cornell student over a mediocre NYU student any day of the week. There's nothing "prestigious" about maxing out your potential on an entrance exam that predicts law school success and then underperforming in law school itself.

[QContinuum]

It would be extremely inadvisable to got Cornell over CLS or NYU if you are targeting an elite Manhattan law firm. Cornell is not a peer school in any way shape or form. The incremental 3-6 LSAT points it would take to get into a more prestigious Manhattan law school are well worth it if you want to have a career in elite biglaw. Associates, partners and clients at top law firms genuinely wonder why they should hire you when you were not able to do well on the one exam that, until recently, every single person had to take in order to get into get into law school.

Spoken like a true NYU grad incapable of obtaining an elite outcome. Sounds like it tears you up that those Cornell kids will have more successful careers than you.

For the record, I (and any hiring partner, for that matter) would take a top Cornell student over a mediocre NYU student any day of the week. There's nothing "prestigious" about maxing out your potential on an entrance exam that predicts law school success and then underperforming in law school itself.

Not sure how a "Latham v. Cravath" thread has devolved into "Cornell v. NYU," but I'll bite. The previous anon's bottom line is correct: It would indeed be generally inadvisable to choose Cornell, at the "bottom" of the T13, over an upper T13. Sure, a top Cornell student will have great opportunities and will likely outperform a below-median T6 student, but that comparison isn't realistic, because it's impossible to predict law school grades ex ante. The better comparison is a median Cornell student v. a median T6 student, and there I'm convinced a median T6 student will obtain materially better outcomes than a median Cornell student.

That said, ofc it's ridiculous to assert that anyone at whatever firm would "genuinely wonder why they should hire" Cornell students. The top firms are routinely willing to hire the top 1/2 students at TT schools - ridiculous to imagine they'd turn up their noses at a T13 student.

[v5junior]

The law school composition thing really misses the point--just a small factor of law firm prestige. Even if you are just looking at associate prestige, you're forgetting about clerkships, law school GPA (to the extent that's a proxy for smarter/more hard working/more capable associates), undergrad, prior work history, etc. And then what about other factors--work experience of partners, transactions/cases the firm works on, history of the law firm, etc.?

Even Vault is a better indicator of law firm prestige than this law school pedigree measure (at least it's actually asking people directly about prestige). Of course, the right measure is all in the eye of the beholder a bit--if you care about layperson prestige, prestige among more sophisticated people in the industry (i.e., not overwhelmingly uninformed junior associates) or prestige in a particular practice area or geographic region, then Vault becomes increasingly useless.