Question About Vault Rankings
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 1:07 am
Why do people care so much about Vault rankings? Does this even matter at all?
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=266529
While some ideas in this post aren't entirely off-base, the comparison between Cravath and "Kellog, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel" (or, as most people familiar with the firm would refer to as "Kellogg Huber") is a bad example for the point you are trying to make. In terms of credentials required to get a job at the firm, Kellogg Huber is more selective than Cravath, and I could see an argument for them being peers in terms of litigation practices. In the end, though, this only demonstrates the overall point, which is that a firm's Vault ranking isn't a good metric for making a career decision.Anonymous User wrote:Vault is just a way of finding "biglaw" law firms, much like people would use AmLaw/NLJ/Chambers or a host of other rankings. Most large full service firms will be in Vault, but a lot will come down to what kind of law and where you want to practice, since IIRC Vault is very NY-heavy. For instance, Fenwick is ranked in the 70s on Vault but is a pretty well-respected firm in California/SV, where it originates from. Fish is in the 60s, but is a top IP firm. Schulte is in the 80s, but has a top hedge fund practice. That isn't to say there isn't a difference between Cravath and Kellog, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, but generally speaking you shouldn't use it to guide your career decisions if you have a good idea of what you want to practice. You're better off looking at Chambers and Partners for a better idea of top practices and gauging that based on where you want to practice. Vault does weakly correlate with grade selectivity, though, in that V20s will be more grade snobby whereas V100s will be more personality-selective, but it depends on a lot of things in the end.
Or selectivity, or compensation . . .smaug wrote:lmao at the notion that Cravath is anywhere near Kellogg Huber in lit
Ahh my bad. I was going to use Troutman or Stroock as the extreme other end to Cravath, but both no longer appear to be in the V100. Stroock at least has some decent practice areas, though (I think bankruptcy?), which again demonstrates the limitation of Vault as a guide for OCI. My experience is that Chambers and Partners is probably the best resource out there, short of just asking attorneys in your practice area of interest.run26.2 wrote:While some ideas in this post aren't entirely off-base, the comparison between Cravath and "Kellog, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel" (or, as most people familiar with the firm would refer to as "Kellogg Huber") is a bad example for the point you are trying to make. In terms of credentials required to get a job at the firm, Kellogg Huber is more selective than Cravath, and I could see an argument for them being peers in terms of litigation practices. In the end, though, this only demonstrates the overall point, which is that a firm's Vault ranking isn't a good metric for making a career decision.Anonymous User wrote:Vault is just a way of finding "biglaw" law firms, much like people would use AmLaw/NLJ/Chambers or a host of other rankings. Most large full service firms will be in Vault, but a lot will come down to what kind of law and where you want to practice, since IIRC Vault is very NY-heavy. For instance, Fenwick is ranked in the 70s on Vault but is a pretty well-respected firm in California/SV, where it originates from. Fish is in the 60s, but is a top IP firm. Schulte is in the 80s, but has a top hedge fund practice. That isn't to say there isn't a difference between Cravath and Kellog, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, but generally speaking you shouldn't use it to guide your career decisions if you have a good idea of what you want to practice. You're better off looking at Chambers and Partners for a better idea of top practices and gauging that based on where you want to practice. Vault does weakly correlate with grade selectivity, though, in that V20s will be more grade snobby whereas V100s will be more personality-selective, but it depends on a lot of things in the end.
Yeah this illustrates exactly why reliance on Vault is dangeroussmaug wrote:lmao at the notion that Cravath is anywhere near Kellogg Huber in lit
It isn't the vault ranking that's primarily driving either of those things. No firm is saying "Well shit candidate A has relevant experience at a firm specifically known for the type of work we're hiring but candidate B is from a firm 3 notches up the ole Vault Rankings what do we do?" Nor are firms looking at their nearest Vault rank people for cues as to whether they need to move on compensation/bonuses (AmLaw and who their actual competition in markets/practice areas are better gauges of this and both operate on, y'know, actually objective metrics rather than what random midlevel attorneys think of firms they don't work at).Toni V wrote:One obvious upside is the major lateraling advantages. Plus, increased income via the lockstep salary mentality that exists with most V firms (as recently seen).
We get a lot of these threads throughout the year. Can we just sticky a locked thread that reads "NO, VAULT RANKINGS DON'T MATTER. EVER." ?jbagelboy wrote:no they don't rly matter at all
Its not that they dont matter for anything--try telling they dont matter to law firm partners. Partners know that there is some marketing value in the rankings. But they are not a good basis for chosing to work at a firm on the list.Capitol_Idea wrote:Basically just this:
We get a lot of these threads throughout the year. Can we just sticky a locked thread that reads "NO, VAULT RANKINGS DON'T MATTER. EVER." ?jbagelboy wrote:no they don't rly matter at all
This is a bit extreme. Vault rankings are a proxy. Like most proxies, they are imperfect, but to say that the rankings do not matter because they are imperfect proves too much. Chambers & Partners, anecdotal evidence from practicing attorneys, and all the other measures that others have proposed in this thread are imperfect. But if we were to disregard them all, we would be left with nothing on which to base our decisions.Capitol_Idea wrote:Basically just this:
We get a lot of these threads throughout the year. Can we just sticky a locked thread that reads "NO, VAULT RANKINGS DON'T MATTER. EVER." ?jbagelboy wrote:no they don't rly matter at all
heythatslife wrote:Yeah this illustrates exactly why reliance on Vault is dangeroussmaug wrote:lmao at the notion that Cravath is anywhere near Kellogg Huber in lit
It's just a rough proxy for prestige which is a self-perpetuating thing.Capitol_Idea wrote:Vault rankings are literally, LITERALLY, entirely based on surveys received from associates at these firms (and associates can't rank their own firm, I believe). So no, some random Reed Smith associate who knows fuck-all about Wachtell isn't really qualified to remark on its quality in literally any capacity (work-life balance, strength of practices, etc.).
18,000 associates responded to the Vault surveys, ranking these other 99 firms on scales of 1-10. Even if we assume that every single associate has lateraled twice and in their time has worked extensively with 10 other firms (all of these assumptions are incredibly generous, by the way), that gives them experience at 12 firms, and only from their perspective of being a junior/midlevel associate in a particular office, in a particular practice area. That is ~200K dubiously qualified opinions out of 1.78 Million total.
So do tell me how this is meaningfully relevant to anyone
It is a rough rough proxy of prestige as others have said upthread. It can't really help you distinguish between individual firms but it gives people roughly an idea of the caliber of firm people are discussing. Alternatively, it's a way for people to talk about their firm without giving away the name.AndroidLawyer wrote:I know that the Vault rankings are meaningless, but my question is why I always see on TLS people saying that they want to get into a certain ranked firm? Such as people saying they want to get into a V10, a V50, etc.
You don't have to rank all the firms. It is acknowledged there are problems with the ranking. But it is a measure of the prestige of the firms, as assigned by associates at other firms. Lawyers are obsessed with prestige and with ranking things. Hence the staying power.Capitol_Idea wrote:Vault rankings are literally, LITERALLY, entirely based on surveys received from associates at these firms (and associates can't rank their own firm, I believe). So no, some random Reed Smith associate who knows fuck-all about Wachtell isn't really qualified to remark on its quality in literally any capacity (work-life balance, strength of practices, etc.).
18,000 associates responded to the Vault surveys, ranking these other 99 firms on scales of 1-10. Even if we assume that every single associate has lateraled twice and in their time has worked extensively with 10 other firms (all of these assumptions are incredibly generous, by the way), that gives them experience at 12 firms, and only from their perspective of being a junior/midlevel associate in a particular office, in a particular practice area. That is ~200K dubiously qualified opinions out of 1.78 Million total.
So do tell me how this is meaningfully relevant to anyone