Winston & Strawn offer rate Forum

[09042014]

And if they really "just didn't have room" they could have given differed offers like firms did in 2009 and 10.

Well you don't know that. Maybe some shitboomer partner fucked up a case while all the future Winston summers were studying evidence and they lost ten million in yearly billings.

Still wouldn't prevent them from deferring people.

[manofjustice]

And if they really "just didn't have room" they could have given differed offers like firms did in 2009 and 10.

Well you don't know that. Maybe some shitboomer partner fucked up a case while all the future Winston summers were studying evidence and they lost ten million in yearly billings.

Still wouldn't prevent them from deferring people.

Again, the issue is: if you defer, you just fuck over future classes.

There is no way around this. The pie is so small whether you get a slice or you don't is largely a function of luck for most candidates--except the very few who really couldn't have gotten accepted to a lower-ranked school or gotten less than the top grades, because they're that smart.

[Icculus]

And if they really "just didn't have room" they could have given differed offers like firms did in 2009 and 10.

Well you don't know that. Maybe some shitboomer partner fucked up a case while all the future Winston summers were studying evidence and they lost ten million in yearly billings.

Still wouldn't prevent them from deferring people.

Again, the issue is: if you defer, you just fuck over future classes.

There is no way around this. The pie is so small whether you get a slice or you don't is largely a function of luck for most candidates--except the very few who really couldn't have gotten accepted to a lower-ranked school or gotten less than the top grades, because they're that smart.

They can control future class sizes and not do this again so really deferring people doesn't screw over future classes.

[manofjustice]

They can control future class sizes and not do this again so really deferring people doesn't screw over future classes.

We have different definitions of "screw over." You're only seeing what's in front of you. If the future class is smaller because the last class was too large but got deferred, there are people who will never be interviewed, never called-back, and never offered for the future class, who otherwise would be if last class was cut instead of deferred.

[09042014]

And if they really "just didn't have room" they could have given differed offers like firms did in 2009 and 10.

Well you don't know that. Maybe some shitboomer partner fucked up a case while all the future Winston summers were studying evidence and they lost ten million in yearly billings.

Still wouldn't prevent them from deferring people.

Again, the issue is: if you defer, you just fuck over future classes.

There is no way around this. The pie is so small whether you get a slice or you don't is largely a function of luck for most candidates--except the very few who really couldn't have gotten accepted to a lower-ranked school or gotten less than the top grades, because they're that smart.

There is no future class yet. They'd just reduce, or not hire one.

[09042014]

They can control future class sizes and not do this again so really deferring people doesn't screw over future classes.

We have different definitions of "screw over." You're only seeing what's in front of you. If the future class is smaller because the last class was too large but got deferred, there are people who will never be interviewed, never called-back, and never offered for the future class, who otherwise would be if last class was cut instead of deferred.

Why are you falsely comparing random law students to their summer associates?

[FlightoftheEarls]

If you can't tell the difference between (i) a person's reliance on statements that he will be employed until it's far too late to salvage any meaningful hope at pursuing the type of career he had multiple opportunities of pursuing and (ii) a person knowing that he needs to actively search for a job while that career remains a possibility, I'm just not sure what to tell you.

Also, the "You guys should get tougher skin because I understand the name of the game and you guys need to grow up and stop complaining" shtick is just silly. Sure, Winston is welcome to no-offer a bunch of their summer class and wish them well by providing little to no career outplacement support. In the same vein, though, law students are welcome to talk about how other students should avoid a firm like that unless they have absolutely no other options. It's an incredibly shitty situation to find yourself in as a rising 3L post-SA, and a firm that knowingly puts students in that situation, one that the firm knows full well can be devastating to one's career, will earn that reputation. Quit defending them out of some bullshit sense of free market grandstanding.

I am not defending W&S. I am just pissed at the comment from NYState that W&S needed to "hit the pavement."

Look, it's one summer. You suffered no reliance damages that were not fungible. As I explained, you suffered, but that suffering did not add to the total suffering of you and your fellow law students. It just shifted it. (So long as those suffering had other offers they gave up.) You are right where the others would be. (Except you made a cool 30 grand during the summer.) So, no. I don't have an ounce more sympathy for you than for the other students--no less either.

This goes to my first point, though. Unless you're willing to say that it's all a zero sum game such that every biglaw firm could fire every single employee tomorrow and whogivesafuckbecausesomeoneelsewilltakethejobamiriteguys?, then it does put those certain individuals at a disadvantage who had presumably worked hard their entire life and achieved the level of credentials that would allow them to pursue this type of practice. That person would possibly be facing completely different outcomes if (i) he was told at the outset that they'd accepted a large number of offers and it might be wise to pursue another opportunity, (ii) the firm explained at the beginning of the summer that it wasn't sure if would be able to absorb all of the summers and they would encourage networking with other possible post-summer leads, or (iii) the firm decided to absorb the costs of its hiring mistake over a significantly large number of partners instead of transferring them to a select few individuals in a manner that was much more detrimental to their careers than it would be to the partners' bottom line.

The reality is, though, that other firms did do (iii) quite a bit during the recession. Not all, but several of them didn't latham or no offer students right out the gate and at least gave them a couple years to develop before initiating forced attrition with at least a stint at a quality firm on their resume, instead of branding them immediately like damaged goods. And to the extent that other firms were willing to eat into their PPP slightly to avoid these mass firings, that substantially undercuts the zero sum argument you seem to be making.

See my post above. In fat times, you could claim that everyone who didn't get BigLaw the first time must be unqualified or must not have worked hard enough. You can't say that now.

You got lucky getting the offer--then you got unlucky.

All your other points make all sorts of assumptions. And point (iii) is ludicrous. You literally are asking for a severance package when, as a summer, you have never done anything that mattered for the firm's partners. That's worse than "these guys needed to have hit the pavement for me."

edit: if with (iii) you're asking to be brought on even though they don't have the work for you--that just shuts out future students. Seems to be happening now at OCI.

There are plenty of options that a firm could (and many firms that maintain good reputations, did) take, including deferred starting dates, absorbing the PPP loss by taking the students that they knew were in a precarious position career-wise and simply hiring fewer students in the next year's class, providing fellowship programs that placed students in non-profit organizations, etc. All of those would be preferable to just axe'ing a huge number of students, which is effectively worse than Latham'ing first years for these students' careers.

And if they really "just didn't have room" they could have given differed offers like firms did in 2009 and 10.

Well you don't know that. Maybe some shitboomer partner fucked up a case while all the future Winston summers were studying evidence and they lost ten million in yearly billings.

I'm not even going to go into the absurdity of you casually throwing around "shitboomer" while defending the type of conduct you seem to take no issue with.

Again, the issue is: if you defer, you just fuck over future classes.

There is no way around this. The pie is so small whether you get a slice or you don't is largely a function of luck for most candidates--except the very few who really couldn't have gotten accepted to a lower-ranked school or gotten less than the top grades, because they're that smart.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement: to me, you're not fucking over future classes in nearly the same way as you are the individuals that you no offer. The long-term career trajectory of these students can be devastated once you no offer them, whereas students in the midst of OCI the next year at least have an opportunity to still pursue other options that will result in the career they want to be at. This is where the reliance issue is key: for a no-offered SA, you're simply left dead in the water with no lifeboat, and all of the ships are moving ahead miles in front of you. That's very different from a situation where students may have marginally more competition (assuming that this is a zero sum game as you assume and that, for example, there will be 2,980 biglaw positions instead of 3,000). In this second situation, all of the students remain in an equal footing and the "best" students will still have an opportunity to compete for those positions.

I don't think there's much point in us going back and forth with this other than for me to say that I think it's something students should both be aware of and be entitled to feel upset about, and at the very least it's something any individual student considering SA offers should strongly consider if one of the firms has earned a reputation for putting past SAs in this position.

[manofjustice]

There is no future class yet. They'd just reduce, or not hire one.

That's shitboomer logic. You're borrowing from the future and seeing just what is in front of you.

The suffering of someone shut out because the future class got cut is just as morally weighty as the suffering of a no-offered summer in a class that was too large.

There is 0 moral reason why W&S needs to reject future applicants to make sure you have a job. Not after they already gave you 30 grand for being of absolutely no value to the firm over your second summer in LS.

[manofjustice]

They can control future class sizes and not do this again so really deferring people doesn't screw over future classes.

We have different definitions of "screw over." You're only seeing what's in front of you. If the future class is smaller because the last class was too large but got deferred, there are people who will never be interviewed, never called-back, and never offered for the future class, who otherwise would be if last class was cut instead of deferred.

Why are you falsely comparing random law students to their summer associates?

Because you advocate as close to 100% offer rates as possible. At 100% offer rates, there is in fact nothing that separates you from someone else who could be a summer at the firm.

[manofjustice]

The long-term career trajectory of these students can be devastated once you no offer them, whereas students in the midst of OCI the next year at least have an opportunity to still pursue other options that will result in the career they want to be at. This is where the reliance issue is key: for a no-offered SA, you're simply left dead in the water with no lifeboat, and all of the ships are moving ahead miles in front of you.

I think there is a point in going back and forth. What you describe as the feeling after being no-offered is exactly the feeling a student has after striking out.

[FlightoftheEarls]

The long-term career trajectory of these students can be devastated once you no offer them, whereas students in the midst of OCI the next year at least have an opportunity to still pursue other options that will result in the career they want to be at. This is where the reliance issue is key: for a no-offered SA, you're simply left dead in the water with no lifeboat, and all of the ships are moving ahead miles in front of you.

I think there is a point in going back and forth. What you describe as the feeling after being no-offered is exactly the feeling a student has after striking out.

I'm not describing a feeling. I'm describing a reality of legal hiring. They're completely, and totally, different things.

[manofjustice]

The long-term career trajectory of these students can be devastated once you no offer them, whereas students in the midst of OCI the next year at least have an opportunity to still pursue other options that will result in the career they want to be at. This is where the reliance issue is key: for a no-offered SA, you're simply left dead in the water with no lifeboat, and all of the ships are moving ahead miles in front of you.

I think there is a point in going back and forth. What you describe as the feeling after being no-offered is exactly the feeling a student has after striking out.

I'm not describing a feeling. I'm describing a reality of legal hiring. They're completely, and totally, different things.

Help me out. I'm confused. In both cases (strike-out and no-offer), the student lacks a job. The student is outside of a career trajectory. The student has to hustle. The only difference is that the no-offer had some interesting experience and an extra 30 grand.

Can you be a little more specific as to how you claim that strike-out and no-offer are on unequal footing, such that the no-offer is worse? I don't think you can without presupposing that the strike-out was unqualified and deserved to strike-out. But for many strike-outs that's not the case. That is certainly not the case with the strike-outs I am focusing on: those who could be a summer at another big firm or at Winston in the future.

You are asking the firm to do one of two things: hire fewer qualified people in the future (i.e. defer your start date) or spend money on you (i.e. funding a fellowship, hire you even though you're not profitable and taking a hit to PPP.) Why not do those things for strike-outs?

[manofjustice]

Look, Winston arguably is an awful firm. Horrible to its summers and its associates and even to its partners. Just like every other BigLaw firm. That's my only point. You're certainly right that by no-offering a large portion of a class after promising not to do so (provided that's true-I have no firsthand knowledge), Winston does not positively distinguish itself in this vein.

We're all playing a dirty game. You know the saying: if you're making a lot of money, either the job sucks or it's illegal. Here, BigLaw is not a sterling model of goodwill and moral rectitude.

[FlightoftheEarls]

The long-term career trajectory of these students can be devastated once you no offer them, whereas students in the midst of OCI the next year at least have an opportunity to still pursue other options that will result in the career they want to be at. This is where the reliance issue is key: for a no-offered SA, you're simply left dead in the water with no lifeboat, and all of the ships are moving ahead miles in front of you.

I think there is a point in going back and forth. What you describe as the feeling after being no-offered is exactly the feeling a student has after striking out.

I'm not describing a feeling. I'm describing a reality of legal hiring. They're completely, and totally, different things.

Help me out. I'm confused. In both cases (strike-out and no-offer), the student lacks a job. The student is outside of a career trajectory. The student has to hustle. The only difference is that the no-offer had some interesting experience and an extra 30 grand.

Can you be a little more specific as to how you claim that strike-out and no-offer are on unequal footing, such that the no-offer is worse? I don't think you can without presupposing that the strike-out was unqualified and deserved to strike-out. But for many strike-outs that's not the case. That is certainly not the case with the strike-outs I am focusing on: those who could be a summer at another big firm or at Winston in the future.

You are asking the firm to do one of two things: hire fewer qualified people in the future (i.e. defer your start date) or spend money on you (i.e. funding a fellowship, hire you even though you're not profitable and taking a hit to PPP.) Why not do those things for strike-outs?

I'm starting to feel like you're deliberately ignoring the reliance argument that has been made repeatedly throughout this thread.

For starters, a strike-out has not avoided job searching for an entire year based on the firm's statements that he can count on having a job upon graduation. A strike-out has not passed on other offered opportunities that could have resulted in a full-time job after graduation. A strike-out can still look to non-OCI firms to attempt to land a small or mid-law full-time after graduation, many of which also operate on a similar (albeit slightly delayed) 2L SA hiring timeline. A strike-out that ends up at a well-respected but non-biglaw firm at the very least has a semblance of a shot (if he decides to pursue it) at biglaw from 3L OCI after obtaining his offer. And a strike-out isn't labeled with the very real hiring stigma of being "damaged goods" as a no-offered summer associate.

Look, Winston arguably is an awful firm. Horrible to its summers and its associates and even to its partners. Just like every other BigLaw firm. That's my only point. You're certainly right that by no-offering a large portion of a class after promising not to do so (provided that's true-I have no firsthand knowledge), Winston does not positively distinguish itself in this vein.

We're all playing a dirty game. You know the saying: if you're making a lot of money, either the job sucks or it's illegal. Here, BigLaw is not a sterling model of goodwill and moral rectitude.

This might be the underlying assumption where we're not seeing eye to eye. You're totally right that all firms attempt to make money and many are cutthroat in that respect, but I would suggest that some are much more humane about it than others. It's a difference of degree, perhaps, but I think students should want to work at a firm where there's at least a semblance of consideration for its employees. To my mind, firms that push attorneys out through forced attrition after 3-5 years (which everyone knows is the model anyways) are rightfully considered to be much more desirable places to work than firms that no offer entire blocks of summers from the outset. Neither one is a particularly pleasant outcome when it happens, but one leaves you in a much more difficult position than another. And that is something worth valuing.

[Ludo!]

Pollfressor you have no idea what you're talking about. Shut the fuck up

[quesniot]

Look, Winston arguably is an awful firm. Horrible to its summers and its associates and even to its partners. Just like every other BigLaw firm. That's my only point. You're certainly right that by no-offering a large portion of a class after promising not to do so (provided that's true-I have no firsthand knowledge), Winston does not positively distinguish itself in this vein.

We're all playing a dirty game. You know the saying: if you're making a lot of money, either the job sucks or it's illegal. Here, BigLaw is not a sterling model of goodwill and moral rectitude.

I don't think it's correct to throw everyone into the same boat. Some firms act morally better than others. For example, a firm with economic problems that lays off associates and publicly states it is because of the economy is better than one that lays them off behind closed doors and uses made up performance reviews to do it (compare firms with initials WGM and WH, as an example). The associate at the latter firm is in a worse situation, but the real reason why the latter is worse is because of the dishonesty of it all.

[manofjustice]

Pollfressor you have no idea what you're talking about. Shut the fuck up

LT, go suck a cock. I know what I am talking about more than you.

FightoftheEarls, it only seems like I'm deliberately ignoring the reliance argument. I addressed it when I said the reliance damage is fungible. That was my first argument and it still is my main argument. You're deliberately ignoring that argument.

You finally hit on an argument that works: forgoing the summer of job searching.

But I don't think that dog hunts. 30 grand is still a lot, and the jobs strike-outs find are not all that good anyway and are temporary. Most are unpaid.

edit: both the strike-out and no-offer can do 3L OCI. Both the strike-out and no-offer are labeled as damaged goods. At least the no-offer can point to the firm's low offer rate and boast that he had other offers.

[FlightoftheEarls]

Pollfressor you have no idea what you're talking about. Shut the fuck up

LT, go suck a cock. I know what I am talking about more than you.

FightoftheEarls, it only seems like I'm deliberately ignoring the reliance argument. I addressed it when I said the reliance damage is fungible. That was my first argument and it still is my main argument. You're deliberately ignoring that argument.

You finally hit on an argument that works: forgoing the summer of job searching.

But I don't think that dog hunts. 30 grand is still a lot, and the jobs strike-outs find are not all that good anyway.

I'm not deliberately ignoring that argument - that's what essentially every post I've made has addressed. You said it's fungible, and I explained why the situations are simply not the same. Both are tough, without a doubt, but they're legitimately different circumstances.

And it's not just the summer of job searching, but an entire year. 2L hiring for small and mid-law firms may be later in the fall or in the spring, but a very large number of those jobs won't be possible to a no-offered 3L (due to both the timeline and the no-offer stigma) in the same way they would be obtainable for an OCI strike out.

At the end of the day, we've completely moved the goal posts from our line of discussion because now we're talking about why it's better to be a strike out than a no-offered 3L. The real issue we were initially discussing is whether it's reasonable that a law firm suffers reputational harm due to its no-offering of summer associates, and I think it's unquestionable that firms do. I also think there are legitimate reasons for why that is fair, and it does this thread a disservice to limit that discussion with an argument that essentially boils down to "whatever, people are making money and you knew that going in, so you can't complain" when in fact there are considerable differences between how different firms handle certain situations.

[Ludo!]

Pollfressor you have no idea what you're talking about. Shut the fuck up

LT, go suck a cock. I know what I am talking about more than you.

FightoftheEarls, it only seems like I'm deliberately ignoring the reliance argument. I addressed it when I said the reliance damage is fungible. That was my first argument and it still is my main argument. You're deliberately ignoring that argument.

You finally hit on an argument that works: forgoing the summer of job searching.

But I don't think that dog hunts. 30 grand is still a lot, and the jobs strike-outs find are not all that good anyway and are temporary. Most are unpaid.

edit: both the strike-out and no-offer can do 3L OCI. Both the strike-out and no-offer are labeled as damaged goods. At least the no-offer can point to the firm's low offer rate and boast that he had other offers.[/qouote]

Lol you really have no clue what you're talking about. You sound like even more of an idiot than usual

[manofjustice]

Pollfressor you have no idea what you're talking about. Shut the fuck up

LT, go suck a cock. I know what I am talking about more than you.

FightoftheEarls, it only seems like I'm deliberately ignoring the reliance argument. I addressed it when I said the reliance damage is fungible. That was my first argument and it still is my main argument. You're deliberately ignoring that argument.

You finally hit on an argument that works: forgoing the summer of job searching.

But I don't think that dog hunts. 30 grand is still a lot, and the jobs strike-outs find are not all that good anyway and are temporary. Most are unpaid.

edit: both the strike-out and no-offer can do 3L OCI. Both the strike-out and no-offer are labeled as damaged goods. At least the no-offer can point to the firm's low offer rate and boast that he had other offers.[/qouote]

Lol you really have no clue what you're talking about. You sound like even more of an idiot than usual

Lol good comeback bro.

[manofjustice]

Pollfressor you have no idea what you're talking about. Shut the fuck up

LT, go suck a cock. I know what I am talking about more than you.

FightoftheEarls, it only seems like I'm deliberately ignoring the reliance argument. I addressed it when I said the reliance damage is fungible. That was my first argument and it still is my main argument. You're deliberately ignoring that argument.

You finally hit on an argument that works: forgoing the summer of job searching.

But I don't think that dog hunts. 30 grand is still a lot, and the jobs strike-outs find are not all that good anyway.

I'm not deliberately ignoring that argument - that's what essentially every post I've made has addressed. You said it's fungible, and I explained why the situations are simply not the same. Both are tough, without a doubt, but they're legitimately different circumstances.

And it's not just the summer of job searching, but an entire year. 2L hiring for small and mid-law firms may be later in the fall or in the spring, but a very large number of those jobs won't be possible to a no-offered 3L (due to both the timeline and the no-offer stigma) in the same way they would be obtainable for an OCI strike out.

At the end of the day, we've completely moved the goal posts from our line of discussion because now we're talking about why it's better to be a strike out than a no-offered 3L. The real issue we were initially discussing is whether it's reasonable that a law firm suffers reputational harm due to its no-offering of summer associates, and I think it's unquestionable that firms do. I also think there are legitimate reasons for why that is fair, and it does this thread a disservice to limit that discussion with an argument that essentially boils down to "whatever, people are making money and you knew that going in, so you can't complain" when in fact there are considerable differences between how different firms handle certain situations.

To the second bolded: I agree. The firm suffers reputational damage. But it is important to connect the no-offering of the summer class to the larger normative and economic context. Once we do that, we recognize the entire profession, and BigLaw in particular, suffers the same kind of reputational damage when so many qualified candidates strike out.

To the first bolded: I am only willing to admit that the no-offer suffers foregone job-search time but the strike-out does not. I do not agree that there is any extra stigma to being no-offered than there is to striking out (provided the no-offering firm, as alleged here, no-offered a large portion of their class and that that is public knowledge). Nor do I agree (nor would you suggest) that strike-outs who land the typical post-OCI position--an unpaid internship--are in a substantially better position than they would be if they had no position at all. (It's also important to recognize that an extra 30 grand in your pocket really is a very big deal.)

I reiterate that to suggest the firm should defer and cut future class sizes, hire you anyway and take a hit to PPP, or fund a fellowship, ignores the larger context, and ignores the plight of the legions of qualified strike-outs.

Please keep in mind the logical connection in my argument: ONLY IF the no-offer had offers elsewhere that they gave up does my argument work. That way, the no-offer "took one for the team" and gave up an offer that (presumably) turned out better to someone else. (Now, that someone else might have had multiple offers--but it's a chain reaction and at some point in the chain, someone who wouldn't have had any offers gets a chance at BigLaw.)

It's not fair that you're the one who gets screwed. No one should get screwed. But aside from the question of foregone job-search time, which I admit is valid, it's not any less fair to you than to that person at the end of the chain, who, if you took the offer that would have turned out well, would have struck out (or taken an offer from Winston and been screwed just like you).

[androstan]

ITT: everyone agrees that firms can make hiring decisions with no regard for the well-being of their current and potential employees. Also everyone agrees that students can consider how (poorly) a firm has treated its employees when deciding among multiple offers. Also lots of butthurt.

People unwittingly trolling each other.

[manofjustice]

ITT: everyone agrees that firms can make hiring decisions with no regard for the well-being of their current and potential employees. Also everyone agrees that students can consider how (poorly) a firm has treated its employees when deciding among multiple offers. Also lots of butthurt.

People unwittingly trolling each other.

Agree.

[rad lulz]

.

[manofjustice]

You know nothing about being no offered (I do) and you should probably immolate yourself

Do you think you're the only fucking person in this economy to suffer from bad luck? Do you know a dammed thing about me? No and no. We are an entire generation of Americans and Europeans who are struggling without a middle class.

Sympathize with others in your same plight; stop putting yourself above those who struck out.