NY GOES TO 180k! IT HAPPENED!!!! (CovingTTTon does a 180! Holder wept.) Forum

[TLSModBot]

Cap- If you could post a photoshopped image of Brogan's face on the Pillsbury Doughboy's body I think we could go ahead and lock this thread after that

TYIA

[Single-Malt-Liquor]

[BigZuck]

Amazing

Moderators please lock thank you!

[Single-Malt-Liquor]

Amazing

Moderators please lock thank you!

Agreed, besides. It's time to start the NY TO 195 thread.

[Anonymous User]

GDC stuck to the old 160k scale for summer stipends, in offices where they paid stipends (all but NY, I think?).

Incoming 1st years got 13,333, equal to 1 month's pay under the old scale. The checks were mailed late this week, and they were promised "upon graduation," so it was never entirely clear if the matched salary starting July 1 would be reflected on the stipend. Turns out it wasn't. Still a great deal, considering so many firms give an advance instead of a stipend, and none of this money ever has to be repaid or offset against future salary.

Speaking of, why isn't that a bigger discussion point?

If a firm paid first year associates 195k instead of 180, it would be literally the first thing mentioned in any discussion comparing firms. That is effectively what is happening here, but it is never talked about at all. It's very strange. How can V10 firms keep giving advances instead of bonuses and not get publicly shamed?

[atlroom]

Any more updates on Atlanta market?

[LaLiLuLeLo]

GDC stuck to the old 160k scale for summer stipends, in offices where they paid stipends (all but NY, I think?).

Incoming 1st years got 13,333, equal to 1 month's pay under the old scale. The checks were mailed late this week, and they were promised "upon graduation," so it was never entirely clear if the matched salary starting July 1 would be reflected on the stipend. Turns out it wasn't. Still a great deal, considering so many firms give an advance instead of a stipend, and none of this money ever has to be repaid or offset against future salary.

Speaking of, why isn't that a bigger discussion point?

If a firm paid first year associates 195k instead of 180, it would be literally the first thing mentioned in any discussion comparing firms. That is effectively what is happening here, but it is never talked about at all. It's very strange. How can V10 firms keep giving advances instead of bonuses and not get publicly shamed?

Guess it depends on the reimbursement policy. One of my buddies is at a stipend-only firm but they don't reimburse for bar expenses. So, with the after tax stipend, he had to pay for bar registration, the test, laptop fee, bar prep class, hotel, MPRE, and probably other things I'm forgetting. On top of that, rent for the gap between graduation and starting work. In absolute terms it may be the better deal but as of right now he's in a worse place financially than me. My firm reimburses everything and gives us an advance.

[Anonymous User]

GDC stuck to the old 160k scale for summer stipends, in offices where they paid stipends (all but NY, I think?).

Incoming 1st years got 13,333, equal to 1 month's pay under the old scale. The checks were mailed late this week, and they were promised "upon graduation," so it was never entirely clear if the matched salary starting July 1 would be reflected on the stipend. Turns out it wasn't. Still a great deal, considering so many firms give an advance instead of a stipend, and none of this money ever has to be repaid or offset against future salary.

Speaking of, why isn't that a bigger discussion point?

If a firm paid first year associates 195k instead of 180, it would be literally the first thing mentioned in any discussion comparing firms. That is effectively what is happening here, but it is never talked about at all. It's very strange. How can V10 firms keep giving advances instead of bonuses and not get publicly shamed?

Guess it depends on the reimbursement policy. One of my buddies is at a stipend-only firm but they don't reimburse for bar expenses. So, with the after tax stipend, he had to pay for bar registration, the test, laptop fee, bar prep class, hotel, MPRE, and probably other things I'm forgetting. On top of that, rent for the gap between graduation and starting work. In absolute terms it may be the better deal but as of right now he's in a worse place financially than me. My firm reimburses everything and gives us an advance.

same anon as above

Interesting.

GDC does 13,333 stipend and reimburses barbri, moving expenses, bar hotel, MPRE, etc.

It still feels like this should all be known information and part of the equation. I didn't even think about any of this before I made a decision, because I sort of assumed that in a world where every firm paid exactly the same salary and bonus, these things would be pretty uniform, but they aren't at all. I feel lucky that I wound up picking a firm that does a stipend + expenses, but I wish I had known more, and I still wish I could know more about relative costs of health insurance premiums, quality of 401k, etc.

edit: GDC doesn't reimburse rent from graduation-start, which would close the gap pretty significantly, though not all the way. Point still stands, though, that this sort of thing should be known in advance, and it's weird that it isn't really discussed at all.

[Anonymous User]

GDC stuck to the old 160k scale for summer stipends, in offices where they paid stipends (all but NY, I think?).

Incoming 1st years got 13,333, equal to 1 month's pay under the old scale. The checks were mailed late this week, and they were promised "upon graduation," so it was never entirely clear if the matched salary starting July 1 would be reflected on the stipend. Turns out it wasn't. Still a great deal, considering so many firms give an advance instead of a stipend, and none of this money ever has to be repaid or offset against future salary.

Speaking of, why isn't that a bigger discussion point?

If a firm paid first year associates 195k instead of 180, it would be literally the first thing mentioned in any discussion comparing firms. That is effectively what is happening here, but it is never talked about at all. It's very strange. How can V10 firms keep giving advances instead of bonuses and not get publicly shamed?

Uh...that's still a pretty a pretty solid deal. My firm only gave a $7,500 advance (plus bar expenses).

[Anonymous User]

GDC stuck to the old 160k scale for summer stipends, in offices where they paid stipends (all but NY, I think?).

Incoming 1st years got 13,333, equal to 1 month's pay under the old scale. The checks were mailed late this week, and they were promised "upon graduation," so it was never entirely clear if the matched salary starting July 1 would be reflected on the stipend. Turns out it wasn't. Still a great deal, considering so many firms give an advance instead of a stipend, and none of this money ever has to be repaid or offset against future salary.

Speaking of, why isn't that a bigger discussion point?

If a firm paid first year associates 195k instead of 180, it would be literally the first thing mentioned in any discussion comparing firms. That is effectively what is happening here, but it is never talked about at all. It's very strange. How can V10 firms keep giving advances instead of bonuses and not get publicly shamed?

Uh...that's still a pretty a pretty solid deal. My firm only gave a $7,500 advance (plus bar expenses).

Still a great deal, considering so many firms give an advance instead of a stipend, and none of this money ever has to be repaid or offset against future salary.

. . .

How can V10 firms keep giving advances instead of bonuses and not get publicly shamed

[philepistemer]

Many advance firms give a stub year bonus, whereas stipend firms tend not to.

[Anonymous User]

Many advance firms give a stub year bonus, whereas stipend firms tend not to.

Do any give stub year bonuses that are better than prorated first year bonuses? Not trying to make a point here, this is an honest question, which I guess reinforces the earlier point of wondering why this sort of thing isn't front and center during recruiting, at least on sites like this that care so much about relative compensation.

If they don't give better than prorated stub bonuses, it seems pretty obvious that the stipend firms that also reimburse expenses are a better option. A prorated stub year bonus is around 4k. That doesn't come anywhere close to a 13k stipend.

Are there firms that give a full first year bonus to incoming associates in their first year?

[spyke123]

GDC stuck to the old 160k scale for summer stipends, in offices where they paid stipends (all but NY, I think?).

Incoming 1st years got 13,333, equal to 1 month's pay under the old scale. The checks were mailed late this week, and they were promised "upon graduation," so it was never entirely clear if the matched salary starting July 1 would be reflected on the stipend. Turns out it wasn't. Still a great deal, considering so many firms give an advance instead of a stipend, and none of this money ever has to be repaid or offset against future salary.

Speaking of, why isn't that a bigger discussion point?

If a firm paid first year associates 195k instead of 180, it would be literally the first thing mentioned in any discussion comparing firms. That is effectively what is happening here, but it is never talked about at all. It's very strange. How can V10 firms keep giving advances instead of bonuses and not get publicly shamed?

Guess it depends on the reimbursement policy. One of my buddies is at a stipend-only firm but they don't reimburse for bar expenses. So, with the after tax stipend, he had to pay for bar registration, the test, laptop fee, bar prep class, hotel, MPRE, and probably other things I'm forgetting. On top of that, rent for the gap between graduation and starting work. In absolute terms it may be the better deal but as of right now he's in a worse place financially than me. My firm reimburses everything and gives us an advance.

there are firms that cover rent between graduation and start date?...

[Anonymous User]

Per JD's website, non major market first-year salaries are as follows:

Cleveland/Columbus/Detroit/Miami/Minneapolis/Pittsburgh - 160

Atlanta - 180!!

Haha omg. Okay that's really exciting for me, I'm in one of those smaller offices in cities that don't really get bonuses anyway. 160k in those cities is a huge amount.

Just as an FYI, the progression salary jump is much smaller in the 160 (formerly 145) offices. For the class of 2012 it was roughly: 145/155/165/185 (post Cravath bump) + no bonus and some variation at each level. So yes, a 4th year is making 15-30k more then a 1st year in these offices (while billing 2200+). The funniest part about the balckbox is how laterals can make significantly more then homegrown talent by locking in a high starting salary. Love the culture in most offices, hate the salary bs.

[Anonymous User]

Per JD's website, non major market first-year salaries are as follows:

Cleveland/Columbus/Detroit/Miami/Minneapolis/Pittsburgh - 160

Atlanta - 180!!

Haha omg. Okay that's really exciting for me, I'm in one of those smaller offices in cities that don't really get bonuses anyway. 160k in those cities is a huge amount.

Just as an FYI, the progression salary jump is much smaller in the 160 (formerly 145) offices. For the class of 2012 it was roughly: 145/155/165/185 (post Cravath bump) + no bonus and some variation at each level. So yes, a 4th year is making 15-30k more then a 1st year in these offices (while billing 2200+). The funniest part about the balckbox is how laterals can make significantly more then homegrown talent by locking in a high starting salary. Love the culture in most offices, hate the salary bs.

Don't you mean pre-Cravath bump? I figured the salary increases in those smaller cities were smaller, though that is interesting about laterals.

[smaug]

Many advance firms give a stub year bonus, whereas stipend firms tend not to.

Do any give stub year bonuses that are better than prorated first year bonuses? Not trying to make a point here, this is an honest question, which I guess reinforces the earlier point of wondering why this sort of thing isn't front and center during recruiting, at least on sites like this that care so much about relative compensation.

If they don't give better than prorated stub bonuses, it seems pretty obvious that the stipend firms that also reimburse expenses are a better option. A prorated stub year bonus is around 4k. That doesn't come anywhere close to a 13k stipend.

Are there firms that give a full first year bonus to incoming associates in their first year?

You're on the mark with this but I think you're overstating things a bit. GDC is unusual in the size of its bar stipend. My understanding is that once upon a time the west coast firms generally gave stipends and the east coast firms gave advances and bonuses. To my knowledge GDC and Latham still give proper stipends but I think many other firms have moved over to the "east coast" model of an advance + end of year bonus. I think that GDC stands out in that the 13k is on top of your bar expenses, while some (many?) of the others who do the actual stipend have you pay for the bar course from it. In the end you're looking at a paycheck or two (max) difference.

But, if you're considering those things you should probably also consider start date: if firm A lets you start in August and firm B has you wait until October, that's going to be a similar—or often larger—gap in first year comp. Less applicable to GDC because I expect they start folks early, but something to consider.

Folks should also look into how cellphone phone plans are covered, what health insurance looks like (there are some massive gaps on this one), and whether there are other benefits (e.g. 401k stuff, tech stipends, gym memberships, &c.)

In the end, I would say that even 10k isn't enough to warrant in choosing between firms. It's a month. If you think you could/would enjoy your experience at a firm enough that you could stand working there an extra month over the other option, there's not a real difference.

[Anonymous User]

Per JD's website, non major market first-year salaries are as follows:

Cleveland/Columbus/Detroit/Miami/Minneapolis/Pittsburgh - 160

Atlanta - 180!!

Haha omg. Okay that's really exciting for me, I'm in one of those smaller offices in cities that don't really get bonuses anyway. 160k in those cities is a huge amount.

Just as an FYI, the progression salary jump is much smaller in the 160 (formerly 145) offices. For the class of 2012 it was roughly: 145/155/165/185 (post Cravath bump) + no bonus and some variation at each level. So yes, a 4th year is making 15-30k more then a 1st year in these offices (while billing 2200+). The funniest part about the balckbox is how laterals can make significantly more then homegrown talent by locking in a high starting salary. Love the culture in most offices, hate the salary bs.

Don't you mean pre-Cravath bump? I figured the salary increases in those smaller cities were smaller, though that is interesting about laterals.

The 145/155/165 are pre-Cravath bump and the 185 is post Cravath. I will just guess the Cravath bump made them increase what would have been 175 to 185 for a secondary market fourth year. In comparison, a NYC/CHI/LA 4th year could make 245 (235 for 6 months and 255 for 6 months) plus a bonus of 65...all in 310 vs. 185 during the same July 1 to June 30 period. COL in these cities is also MUCH lower though.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

GDC stuck to the old 160k scale for summer stipends, in offices where they paid stipends (all but NY, I think?).

Incoming 1st years got 13,333, equal to 1 month's pay under the old scale. The checks were mailed late this week, and they were promised "upon graduation," so it was never entirely clear if the matched salary starting July 1 would be reflected on the stipend. Turns out it wasn't. Still a great deal, considering so many firms give an advance instead of a stipend, and none of this money ever has to be repaid or offset against future salary.

Speaking of, why isn't that a bigger discussion point?

If a firm paid first year associates 195k instead of 180, it would be literally the first thing mentioned in any discussion comparing firms. That is effectively what is happening here, but it is never talked about at all. It's very strange. How can V10 firms keep giving advances instead of bonuses and not get publicly shamed?

Guess it depends on the reimbursement policy. One of my buddies is at a stipend-only firm but they don't reimburse for bar expenses. So, with the after tax stipend, he had to pay for bar registration, the test, laptop fee, bar prep class, hotel, MPRE, and probably other things I'm forgetting. On top of that, rent for the gap between graduation and starting work. In absolute terms it may be the better deal but as of right now he's in a worse place financially than me. My firm reimburses everything and gives us an advance.

there are firms that cover rent between graduation and start date?...

No, I mean his stipend has to cover everything, from bar expenses to rent/living. It's actually not a lot of money if you're in places like SF/LA/NY especially since start dates are towards the end of October. On the other hand, my advance is pretty much solely for living because everything gets reimbursed or direct billed. Not to mention a bar trip, another thing the stipend has to cover. The real problem is the stipend is taxed whereas an advance is not.

[Anonymous User]

Per JD's website, non major market first-year salaries are as follows:

Cleveland/Columbus/Detroit/Miami/Minneapolis/Pittsburgh - 160

Atlanta - 180!!

Haha omg. Okay that's really exciting for me, I'm in one of those smaller offices in cities that don't really get bonuses anyway. 160k in those cities is a huge amount.

Just as an FYI, the progression salary jump is much smaller in the 160 (formerly 145) offices. For the class of 2012 it was roughly: 145/155/165/185 (post Cravath bump) + no bonus and some variation at each level. So yes, a 4th year is making 15-30k more then a 1st year in these offices (while billing 2200+). The funniest part about the balckbox is how laterals can make significantly more then homegrown talent by locking in a high starting salary. Love the culture in most offices, hate the salary bs.

Don't you mean pre-Cravath bump? I figured the salary increases in those smaller cities were smaller, though that is interesting about laterals.

The 145/155/165 are pre-Cravath bump and the 185 is post Cravath. I will just guess the Cravath bump made them increase what would have been 175 to 185 for a secondary market fourth year. In comparison, a NYC/CHI/LA 4th year could make 245 (235 for 6 months and 255 for 6 months) plus a bonus of 65...all in 310 vs. 185 during the same July 1 to June 30 period. COL in these cities is also MUCH lower though.

Yeah I mean those cities are dirt cheap but that is just an enormous difference in salaries

[spyke123]

GDC stuck to the old 160k scale for summer stipends, in offices where they paid stipends (all but NY, I think?).

Incoming 1st years got 13,333, equal to 1 month's pay under the old scale. The checks were mailed late this week, and they were promised "upon graduation," so it was never entirely clear if the matched salary starting July 1 would be reflected on the stipend. Turns out it wasn't. Still a great deal, considering so many firms give an advance instead of a stipend, and none of this money ever has to be repaid or offset against future salary.

Speaking of, why isn't that a bigger discussion point?

If a firm paid first year associates 195k instead of 180, it would be literally the first thing mentioned in any discussion comparing firms. That is effectively what is happening here, but it is never talked about at all. It's very strange. How can V10 firms keep giving advances instead of bonuses and not get publicly shamed?

Guess it depends on the reimbursement policy. One of my buddies is at a stipend-only firm but they don't reimburse for bar expenses. So, with the after tax stipend, he had to pay for bar registration, the test, laptop fee, bar prep class, hotel, MPRE, and probably other things I'm forgetting. On top of that, rent for the gap between graduation and starting work. In absolute terms it may be the better deal but as of right now he's in a worse place financially than me. My firm reimburses everything and gives us an advance.

there are firms that cover rent between graduation and start date?...

No, I mean his stipend has to cover everything, from bar expenses to rent/living. It's actually not a lot of money if you're in places like SF/LA/NY especially since start dates are towards the end of October. On the other hand, my advance is pretty much solely for living because everything gets reimbursed or direct billed. Not to mention a bar trip, another thing the stipend has to cover. The real problem is the stipend is taxed whereas an advance is not.

i don't want to nitpick here but isnt an advance also taxed? either way i definitely see how getting an advance (+ direct billing of expenses) might be better in the short run tho.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

No, I mean his stipend has to cover everything, from bar expenses to rent/living. It's actually not a lot of money if you're in places like SF/LA/NY especially since start dates are towards the end of October. On the other hand, my advance is pretty much solely for living because everything gets reimbursed or direct billed. Not to mention a bar trip, another thing the stipend has to cover. The real problem is the stipend is taxed whereas an advance is not.

i don't want to nitpick here but isnt an advance also taxed? either way i definitely see how getting an advance (+ direct billing of expenses) might be better in the short run tho.

My advance was disbursed pre-tax so I got the entire amount and will have to pay taxes when I file. My buddy's stipend was disbursed post tax so a solid chunk was taken out.

[spyke123]

No, I mean his stipend has to cover everything, from bar expenses to rent/living. It's actually not a lot of money if you're in places like SF/LA/NY especially since start dates are towards the end of October. On the other hand, my advance is pretty much solely for living because everything gets reimbursed or direct billed. Not to mention a bar trip, another thing the stipend has to cover. The real problem is the stipend is taxed whereas an advance is not.

i don't want to nitpick here but isnt an advance also taxed? either way i definitely see how getting an advance (+ direct billing of expenses) might be better in the short run tho.

My advance was disbursed pre-tax so I got the entire amount and will have to pay taxes when I file. My buddy's stipend was disbursed post tax so a solid chunk was taken out.

ah interesting. i received mine post tax. i guess there seems to be a lot more variations among firms than i realized.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

No, I mean his stipend has to cover everything, from bar expenses to rent/living. It's actually not a lot of money if you're in places like SF/LA/NY especially since start dates are towards the end of October. On the other hand, my advance is pretty much solely for living because everything gets reimbursed or direct billed. Not to mention a bar trip, another thing the stipend has to cover. The real problem is the stipend is taxed whereas an advance is not.

i don't want to nitpick here but isnt an advance also taxed? either way i definitely see how getting an advance (+ direct billing of expenses) might be better in the short run tho.

My advance was disbursed pre-tax so I got the entire amount and will have to pay taxes when I file. My buddy's stipend was disbursed post tax so a solid chunk was taken out.

ah interesting. i received mine post tax. i guess there seems to be a lot more variations among firms than i realized.

FWIW my advance was technically an interest free loan so that is why it wasn't taxed at disbursement.

[mvp99]

and there's a reason for the advance not being more than 10k. it would be taxed as a free loan. the irs even has a tax for intrafamily free loans over 100k.

[Anonymous User]

Another day and still NORAISES.