Skadden NY vs. Cravath Forum

[Anonymous User]

Crazy to take Skadden NY over Cravath? Mostly interested in capital markets work.

[QContinuum]

Crazy? No. Sure, taking feelings out of the picture, Cravath would be the better choice: Guaranteed bonuses (Skadden has an hours requirement), slight bump up in prestige. But biglaw's hard. It's important to do it at a place where you're at least reasonably happy. If you like Skadden much more, go there. Skadden's still one of the very top NY firms. This isn't "Kirkland vs. mid-market" - going to Skadden isn't going to significantly (or even measurably) limit your future opps. Go to Skadden.

And congrats on your great offers!

[v5junior]

I think this question is pretty dead even if you are really interested in capital markets work. Two reasons—

1st, Cravath will force you to rotate, so you’ll be forced to rotate out of capital markets. You could do one rotation and then lateral, but you’d be starting from scratch in terms of relationships at the firm, which would be shooting yourself in the foot in fairly significant fashion. There’s value in rotations, but Cravath’s are very long if you already know what you want to do, and the inability to ever choose permanently is a clear downside for your preferences.

2nd, Cravath’s practice is overwhelmingly underwriter-side work (which can be somewhat limiting), while Skadden’s practice is more balanced between issuers and underwriters. If you want to exit to something other than a NYC investment bank, your deal sheet is going to be a harder sell. Of course, the name brand of either firm can overcome things like this, but there’s clear value in having a more diversified background of relevant work experience, and also in having done more of the work that such a future employer will be looking for you to do (i.e., issuer side work).

https://data.bloomberglp.com/profession ... 2018-2.pdf

With those factors in mind plus your fit preference, I’d choose Skadden.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t think it’s crazy. It’s like Harvard versus Stanford: You could argue differences making one better than the other, but at the end of the day, differences are negligible. Go with fit.

[Anonymous User]

I think this question is pretty dead even if you are really interested in capital markets work. Two reasons—

1st, Cravath will force you to rotate, so you’ll be forced to rotate out of capital markets. You could do one rotation and then lateral, but you’d be starting from scratch in terms of relationships at the firm, which would be shooting yourself in the foot in fairly significant fashion. There’s value in rotations, but Cravath’s are very long if you already know what you want to do, and the inability to ever choose permanently is a clear downside for your preferences.

2nd, Cravath’s practice is overwhelmingly underwriter-side work (which can be somewhat limiting), while Skadden’s practice is more balanced between issuers and underwriters. If you want to exit to something other than a NYC investment bank, your deal sheet is going to be a harder sell. Of course, the name brand of either firm can overcome things like this, but there’s clear value in having a more diversified background of relevant work experience, and also in having done more of the work that such a future employer will be looking for you to do (i.e., issuer side work).

https://data.bloomberglp.com/profession ... 2018-2.pdf

With those factors in mind plus your fit preference, I’d choose Skadden.

Interesting link. Thanks for giving OP real advice with evidence (not bullshit like Skadden is "fratty" or other dumb nonsense). If all posters were like you.

[Wild Card]

why are you dead set on capital markets work? past work experience?

if you don't really know what you want to do for the rest of your life, Cravath is the safer choice.

[Anonymous User]

I think this question is pretty dead even if you are really interested in capital markets work. Two reasons—

1st, Cravath will force you to rotate, so you’ll be forced to rotate out of capital markets. You could do one rotation and then lateral, but you’d be starting from scratch in terms of relationships at the firm, which would be shooting yourself in the foot in fairly significant fashion. There’s value in rotations, but Cravath’s are very long if you already know what you want to do, and the inability to ever choose permanently is a clear downside for your preferences.

2nd, Cravath’s practice is overwhelmingly underwriter-side work (which can be somewhat limiting), while Skadden’s practice is more balanced between issuers and underwriters. If you want to exit to something other than a NYC investment bank, your deal sheet is going to be a harder sell. Of course, the name brand of either firm can overcome things like this, but there’s clear value in having a more diversified background of relevant work experience, and also in having done more of the work that such a future employer will be looking for you to do (i.e., issuer side work).

https://data.bloomberglp.com/profession ... 2018-2.pdf

With those factors in mind plus your fit preference, I’d choose Skadden.

Interesting link. Thanks for giving OP real advice with evidence (not bullshit like Skadden is "fratty" or other dumb nonsense). If all posters were like you.

I see you're spreading your BS to other threads now that you've been embarrassed out of your own.