S&C vs. Skadden Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am at the end of my OCI decision...

Interested in Corporate work, particularly M&A (at least at the moment, with my 2L experience).

I did second looks at both places. Really liked S&C, and know that the name is a powerhouse.

At the same time, Skadden also really impresses me. I feel like as if the two partners that I have met with have really taken an interest in me, more so than the usual. This is extremely comforting as we all know, sometimes it is who you know...

I am an outgoing personality and really appreciate that part of a culture.

Can anyone assist me? Does anyone take Skadden over S&C?

[thesealocust]

Does anyone take Skadden over S&C?

Sure. Not meaningful different in terms of reputation in M&A out of NYC.

[Anonymous User]

i believe skadden has better name branding among board of directors and general counsels according to a certain magazine that i can't name off the top of my head. might be worth looking into that if you're curious, though.

[Anonymous User]

Sure. Not meaningful different in terms of reputation in M&A out of NYC.

Probably correct, but I think meaningfully different experiences. Both towards the top of M&A tables, but Skadden is way bigger. My understanding is that Skadden takes work that "peer" firms wouldn't in terms of size / clients. Also, isn't associate:partner ratio much higher at Skadden?

[Anonymous User]

I would go to S&C unless you really believe the fit at Skadden was much better. It comes down to two things, really.

First, there is no guarantee you'll end up in M&A at Skadden. I know people who started there only to get burned and not placed in the practice group they wanted. At S&C, you don't get put in a practice group for up to two years, so the risk of being placed into something against your will is much smaller -- and that risk is almost non-existent for two years since you can stay "general" for that amount of time.

Second, you correctly noted that as a 2L, you're not totally sure what you want to do. You think it's M&A, but you're not really sure, which makes total sense given where you're at in your career. Maybe you'll love Capital Markets or IP transactions or who knows. At S&C, you'll probably have a chance to do all of those things as a full-time associate before you have to specialize. [Edit: Or you can specialize right away if you realize immediately that you love M&A, for example. You don't have to stay general if you don't want to.]

From a strictly career perspective, I think it's a pretty clear win for S&C. A lot of people say the culture is better at Skadden. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. And whether that matters to you is something you have to decide for yourself.

[thesealocust]

Picking S&C over Skadden because you might not get M&A at Skadden is silly. You run the risk of not getting your preferred area at any firm you pick.

[Anonymous User]

Picking S&C over Skadden because you might not get M&A at Skadden is silly. You run the risk of not getting your preferred area at any firm you pick.

OP here. Agreed. I really am struggling with this. I know I "can't go wrong", but I want to make the most optimal decision.

I just don't know what to do from here after going back for second looks...

[legends159]

My understanding is that Skadden takes work that "peer" firms wouldn't in terms of size / clients. Also, isn't associate:partner ratio much higher at Skadden?

In this market with how slow m&a activity has been no one is turning down work

[Anonymous User]

i believe skadden has better name branding among board of directors and general counsels according to a certain magazine that i can't name off the top of my head. might be worth looking into that if you're curious, though.

--LinkRemoved--
Apparently Skadden's been #1 since the survey started, in 2001.

Weirdly, Jones Day was #12 in 2011, but is #2 this year.

Presumably this survey gives an advantage to larger firms, and firms with a strong national presence. Maybe only relevant if OP intends to leave NY and/or look for work in house.

[Anonymous User]

I would go to S&C unless you really believe the fit at Skadden was much better. It comes down to two things, really.

First, there is no guarantee you'll end up in M&A at Skadden. I know people who started there only to get burned and not placed in the practice group they wanted. At S&C, you don't get put in a practice group for up to two years, so the risk of being placed into something against your will is much smaller -- and that risk is almost non-existent for two years since you can stay "general" for that amount of time.

Second, you correctly noted that as a 2L, you're not totally sure what you want to do. You think it's M&A, but you're not really sure, which makes total sense given where you're at in your career. Maybe you'll love Capital Markets or IP transactions or who knows. At S&C, you'll probably have a chance to do all of those things as a full-time associate before you have to specialize. [Edit: Or you can specialize right away if you realize immediately that you love M&A, for example. You don't have to stay general if you don't want to.]

From a strictly career perspective, I think it's a pretty clear win for S&C. A lot of people say the culture is better at Skadden. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. And whether that matters to you is something you have to decide for yourself.

Sounds like someone has been brainwashed by the recruiting committee. Skadden let's you try whatever you want during the summer program, followed by two rotations before choosing a practice group. Two years at S&C is not enough time to try out everything, so you will need to make choices there too.

From a strictly career perspective, these firms are identical, and only a neurotic law student or S&C recruiting will tell you that there is a meaningful difference.

Pick based on fit.

[Anonymous User]

i believe skadden has better name branding among board of directors and general counsels according to a certain magazine that i can't name off the top of my head. might be worth looking into that if you're curious, though.

--LinkRemoved--
Apparently Skadden's been #1 since the survey started, in 2001.

Weirdly, Jones Day was #12 in 2011, but is #2 this year.

Presumably this survey gives an advantage to larger firms, and firms with a strong national presence. Maybe only relevant if OP intends to leave NY and/or look for work in house.

Baker & McKenzie > S&C, Cravath, DPW, & STB? Yeah, I think it's heavily skewed by size.

[Anonymous User]

i believe skadden has better name branding among board of directors and general counsels according to a certain magazine that i can't name off the top of my head. might be worth looking into that if you're curious, though.

--LinkRemoved--
Apparently Skadden's been #1 since the survey started, in 2001.

Weirdly, Jones Day was #12 in 2011, but is #2 this year.

Presumably this survey gives an advantage to larger firms, and firms with a strong national presence. Maybe only relevant if OP intends to leave NY and/or look for work in house.

Should also point out that there are apparently two rankings - you have to view the second page of the article to see the other one. The first is a ranking by corporate directors and the second is a ranking by corporate GCs.

[Anonymous User]

Sounds like someone has been brainwashed by the recruiting committee. Skadden let's you try whatever you want during the summer program, followed by two rotations before choosing a practice group. Two years at S&C is not enough time to try out everything, so you will need to make choices there too.

From a strictly career perspective, these firms are identical, and only a neurotic law student or S&C recruiting will tell you that there is a meaningful difference.

Pick based on fit.

I don't agree with this at all. "Fit" is meaningless when you're talking about meeting a handful of people in interviews. Picking where you start your career based on a handful of people you met, people whom you may or may not work with ever again, is just silly in my opinion.

If you want to do M&A, you are far more likely to do higher quality work earlier on at S&C than you are at Skadden. I actually don't know why a junior associate that wanted to do M&A would ever pick Skadden over S&C if they had the opportunity to go to the latter.

Other than WLRK and maybe Cravath, S&C is the leader in New York M&A. Boards and laypeople may recognize the name Skadden, but I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything -- except maybe exit options. But your exit options from S&C will be just as good if not better, and you'll get a hell of a lot better training.

OP, you've got great choices, and I'm sure you'll be happy at either. But that's just my two cents if you want to do M&A.

[Anonymous User]

Sounds like someone has been brainwashed by the recruiting committee. Skadden let's you try whatever you want during the summer program, followed by two rotations before choosing a practice group. Two years at S&C is not enough time to try out everything, so you will need to make choices there too.

From a strictly career perspective, these firms are identical, and only a neurotic law student or S&C recruiting will tell you that there is a meaningful difference.

Pick based on fit.

I don't agree with this at all. "Fit" is meaningless when you're talking about meeting a handful of people in interviews. Picking where you start your career based on a handful of people you met, people whom you may or may not work with ever again, is just silly in my opinion.

If you want to do M&A, you are far more likely to do higher quality work earlier on at S&C than you are at Skadden. I actually don't know why a junior associate that wanted to do M&A would ever pick Skadden over S&C if they had the opportunity to go to the latter.

Other than WLRK and maybe Cravath, S&C is the leader in New York M&A. Boards and laypeople may recognize the name Skadden, but I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything -- except maybe exit options. But your exit options from S&C will be just as good if not better, and you'll get a hell of a lot better training.

OP, you've got great choices, and I'm sure you'll be happy at either. But that's just my two cents if you want to do M&A.

Lol. "Fit" is meaningless, but you think a rising 2L's "preference" for "substantive M&A work" is real?

On top of that, I am skeptical that S&C provides more substantive M&A work than Skadden, because both groups are huge. Admittedly, I don't have enough experience to say with certainty, but it sounds like you have been sold pretty hard by the recruiting group.

[thesealocust]

If you want to do M&A, you are far more likely to do higher quality work earlier on at S&C than you are at Skadden . . . But your exit options from S&C will be just as good if not better, and you'll get a hell of a lot better training.

I was worried I wouldn't have a chance to whip this bad boy out after the last thread I used it on got nuked from orbit by the OP.

I should have had more faith.

[AntipodeanPhil]

If you want to do M&A, you are far more likely to do higher quality work earlier on at S&C than you are at Skadden.

I heard that repeatedly at both my S&C screener and my CB; it pleases me that the S&C recruiting pitch is consistent across the TLS-IRL divide.

[Anonymous User]

If you want to do M&A, you are far more likely to do higher quality work earlier on at S&C than you are at Skadden.

I heard that repeatedly at both my S&C screener and my CB; it pleases me that the S&C recruiting pitch is consistent across the TLS-IRL divide.

I'm pretty sure there is an S&C recruiter who is trolling these threads and spitting that pitch at every possible opportunity. Happened in the other S&C thread too. Makes sense, given their marketing apparatus.

Alas, such spin doesn't reasonably follow from the facts. If juniors are doing the work of mid-levels (after all, apparently juniors are getting "higher quality" work early on), then what are the mid-levels doing? Are they all gone from attrition? Or are they doing what seniors should be doing? And if the latter, then where are the seniors? Burned out? S&C's incoming class is just as large as any of the other firms, so I don't see how they can possibly provide a better work experience than other top firms, and I assume a large number of the incoming class works on M&A since that's what S&C is known for (likely in larger numbers than at other firms that can at least control the number through a rotation system). Thus, unless some senior or mid-level associates are getting screwed for work or the attrition rate is much higher than at other firms, this pitch is baseless.

The only reason WLRK can afford to provide a better experience for its associates is because the incoming class is so small and an even smaller number chooses corporate. No such advantage exists at S&C, and to spin some "make-believe" advantage that is counter to a logical conclusion based on the facts is simply deceptive and unhelpful.

[Anonymous User]

If you want to do M&A, you are far more likely to do higher quality work earlier on at S&C than you are at Skadden.

I heard that repeatedly at both my S&C screener and my CB; it pleases me that the S&C recruiting pitch is consistent across the TLS-IRL divide.

I'm pretty sure there is an S&C recruiter who is trolling these threads and spitting that pitch at every possible opportunity. Happened in the other S&C thread too. Makes sense, given their marketing apparatus.

Alas, such spin doesn't reasonably follow from the facts. If juniors are doing the work of mid-levels (after all, apparently juniors are getting "higher quality" work early on), then what are the mid-levels doing? Are they all gone from attrition? Or are they doing what seniors should be doing? And if the latter, then where are the seniors? Burned out? S&C's incoming class is just as large as any of the other firms, so I don't see how they can possibly provide a better work experience than other top firms, and I assume a large number of the incoming class works on M&A since that's what S&C is known for (likely in larger numbers than at other firms that can at least control the number through a rotation system). Thus, unless some senior or mid-level associates are getting screwed for work or the attrition rate is much higher than at other firms, this pitch is baseless.

The only reason WLRK can afford to provide a better experience for its associates is because the incoming class is so small and an even smaller number chooses corporate. No such advantage exists at S&C, and to spin some "make-believe" advantage that is counter to a logical conclusion based on the facts is simply deceptive and unhelpful.

S&C partner told me that juniors are being generalists learning, mid levels doing substantive work, seniors running deals, partners signing off and focusing on client development/growth.

HTH

[Anonymous User]

If you want to do M&A, you are far more likely to do higher quality work earlier on at S&C than you are at Skadden.

I heard that repeatedly at both my S&C screener and my CB; it pleases me that the S&C recruiting pitch is consistent across the TLS-IRL divide.

I'm pretty sure there is an S&C recruiter who is trolling these threads and spitting that pitch at every possible opportunity. Happened in the other S&C thread too. Makes sense, given their marketing apparatus.

Alas, such spin doesn't reasonably follow from the facts. If juniors are doing the work of mid-levels (after all, apparently juniors are getting "higher quality" work early on), then what are the mid-levels doing? Are they all gone from attrition? Or are they doing what seniors should be doing? And if the latter, then where are the seniors? Burned out? S&C's incoming class is just as large as any of the other firms, so I don't see how they can possibly provide a better work experience than other top firms, and I assume a large number of the incoming class works on M&A since that's what S&C is known for (likely in larger numbers than at other firms that can at least control the number through a rotation system). Thus, unless some senior or mid-level associates are getting screwed for work or the attrition rate is much higher than at other firms, this pitch is baseless.

The only reason WLRK can afford to provide a better experience for its associates is because the incoming class is so small and an even smaller number chooses corporate. No such advantage exists at S&C, and to spin some "make-believe" advantage that is counter to a logical conclusion based on the facts is simply deceptive and unhelpful.

S&C partner told me that juniors are being generalists learning, mid levels doing substantive work, seniors running deals, partners signing off and focusing on client development/growth.

HTH

That sounds no different than a lot of top law firms.