Summer Classes 2021 Edition Forum

[cheaptilts]

Let’s not do this please

[Anonymous User]

Can we not, please?

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland & Ellis Houston - 35 total

• UTexas - 12
  Harvard - 6
  Northwestern - 6
  Virginia - 2
  Chicago - 2
  Tulane - 2
  Yale - 1
  Georgetown - 1
  BYU - 1
  Houston - 1
  Minnesota - 1

Kirkland & Ellis Dallas - 17 total

• UTexas - 6
  Virginia - 3
  Harvard - 2
  SMU - 2
  Columbia - 1
  Berkeley - 1
  Northwestern - 1
  Georgetown - 1

So the era of 50+ KE Houston classes is over? That year (2019?) was just an aberration?

[publius365]

If we can keep this thread about providing info about the school breakdown for 2021 classes of biglaw firms, and not devolve into diversity/school rankings, that'd be great.

[Anonymous User]

Latham NY (76)

GULC (11)
Fordham (10)
U Penn (8)
NYU (8)
Northwestern(5)
Columbia Law (5)
Harvard (4)
Texas (3)
Stanford (3)
Cornell Law (3)
Cal (3)
Michigan (2)
U Chicago (1)
Duke (1)
UCLA (1)
Vanderbilt (1)
Notre Dame (1)
USC (1)
Howard (1)
Emory (1)
Boston University (1)
Brooklyn Law (1)
St. John’s (1)

wow, Latham def has yield problem at T6 schools LOL unlike many of its peer firms. crazy to see schools like Fordham/GULC taking the lead here - are they still hurt by their 2008 reputation? They have a decent rep at my CCN actually, not sure why their acceptance rate is so low. Curious about their recruiting strategy in NY

[Anonymous User]

wow, Latham def has yield problem at T6 schools LOL unlike many of its peer firms. crazy to see schools like Fordham/GULC taking the lead here - are they still hurt by their 2008 reputation? They have a decent rep at my CCN actually, not sure why their acceptance rate is so low. Curious about their recruiting strategy in NY

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

"Yield protecting" is something law schools do because they publish acceptance rates, which directly factor into their USNWR rates.

Law firms do not "yield protect." Within the bounds of their target hiring numbers, they make offers to the people they want and ding the people they don't. It's really that simple.

[Anonymous User]

Law firms do not "yield protect." Within the bounds of their target hiring numbers, they make offers to the people they want and ding the people they don't. It's really that simple.

They may not yield protect, but at least this year, they definitely were stingier than usual by means of releasing limited offers at a time and really embracing the "waves" concept.

[Anonymous User]

wow, Latham def has yield problem at T6 schools LOL unlike many of its peer firms. crazy to see schools like Fordham/GULC taking the lead here - are they still hurt by their 2008 reputation? They have a decent rep at my CCN actually, not sure why their acceptance rate is so low. Curious about their recruiting strategy in NY

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

Agreed re offer amount at CCN - heard much less latham offers than other peer firms, although I think class size (1/2 size of most of the NY elites) was the main factor

based on the cb experience i got the impression that they prefer "self-starters" and people who have vested interests in certain industries (like life science, tech, energy, etc.) as opposed to just generic corporate practice

[Anonymous User]

wow, Latham def has yield problem at T6 schools LOL unlike many of its peer firms. crazy to see schools like Fordham/GULC taking the lead here - are they still hurt by their 2008 reputation? They have a decent rep at my CCN actually, not sure why their acceptance rate is so low. Curious about their recruiting strategy in NY

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

Agreed re offer amount at CCN - heard much less latham offers than other peer firms, although I think class size (1/2 size of most of the NY elites) was the main factor

based on the cb experience i got the impression that they prefer "self-starters" and people who have vested interests in certain industries (like life science, tech, energy, etc.) as opposed to just generic corporate practice

Agreed. At my CCN (one of the NY ones), I think Latham is viewed below the NY elites (the usual Cravath, DPW, PW, etc. but then also Cleary, Weil, Debevoise) so they end up not typically being a top choice for the top students. They therefore end up in this weird middle ground where they are still selective but also do not see high yield.

[Anonymous User]

wow, Latham def has yield problem at T6 schools LOL unlike many of its peer firms. crazy to see schools like Fordham/GULC taking the lead here - are they still hurt by their 2008 reputation? They have a decent rep at my CCN actually, not sure why their acceptance rate is so low. Curious about their recruiting strategy in NY

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

Agreed re offer amount at CCN - heard much less latham offers than other peer firms, although I think class size (1/2 size of most of the NY elites) was the main factor

based on the cb experience i got the impression that they prefer "self-starters" and people who have vested interests in certain industries (like life science, tech, energy, etc.) as opposed to just generic corporate practice

Agreed. At my CCN (one of the NY ones), I think Latham is viewed below the NY elites (the usual Cravath, DPW, PW, etc. but then also Cleary, Weil, Debevoise) so they end up not typically being a top choice for the top students. They therefore end up in this weird middle ground where they are still selective but also do not see high yield.

Cavath or DPW might be true, but not sure re PW (corporate), Cleary or Debevosie. Several ppl I know chose latham over them (and vice versa), I just think these firms attract different types of candidates. Also Weil probs have the lowest yield rate out of all the firms you mentioned (at least at my CCN)

[Anonymous User]

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

"Yield protecting" is something law schools do because they publish acceptance rates, which directly factor into their USNWR rates.

Law firms do not "yield protect." Within the bounds of their target hiring numbers, they make offers to the people they want and ding the people they don't. It's really that simple.

OK, so what’s the right terminology for “candidate X checks all the right boxes and would be a good fit here, but let’s ding X in favor of candidates A, B, and C who demonstrated stronger interest in our firm”? Particularly when candidate X has stronger paper credentials than the typical SA hired at that firm?

You could say that’s just completely normal hiring practice. But it does seem different in principle from “candidate Y doesn’t meet our criteria, let’s ding.”

[namefromplace]

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

"Yield protecting" is something law schools do because they publish acceptance rates, which directly factor into their USNWR rates.

Law firms do not "yield protect." Within the bounds of their target hiring numbers, they make offers to the people they want and ding the people they don't. It's really that simple.

OK, so what’s the right terminology for “candidate X checks all the right boxes and would be a good fit here, but let’s ding X in favor of candidates A, B, and C who demonstrated stronger interest in our firm”? Particularly when candidate X has stronger paper credentials than the typical SA hired at that firm?

You could say that’s just completely normal hiring practice. But it does seem different in principle from “candidate Y doesn’t meet our criteria, let’s ding.”

I think they're pretty similar; firms have as their criteria that the candidate seem interested in the firm's work and seem like they would be a good fit.

[Anonymous User]

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

"Yield protecting" is something law schools do because they publish acceptance rates, which directly factor into their USNWR rates.

Law firms do not "yield protect." Within the bounds of their target hiring numbers, they make offers to the people they want and ding the people they don't. It's really that simple.

OK, so what’s the right terminology for “candidate X checks all the right boxes and would be a good fit here, but let’s ding X in favor of candidates A, B, and C who demonstrated stronger interest in our firm”? Particularly when candidate X has stronger paper credentials than the typical SA hired at that firm?

You could say that’s just completely normal hiring practice. But it does seem different in principle from “candidate Y doesn’t meet our criteria, let’s ding.”

i doubt it's active YP - it doesn't really make sense bc law firm rankings and what not are not impacted by it. It could be a hiring strategy - I know PW/Deb/Cleary corporate constantly dip around median at my T6, and they are more invested in t6 schools in general, I was told by my OCS that LW has a strict cut-off (not super high), and they don't usually dip below that cutoff. The impression i got during EIW was their NY office def do not favor NYU/CLS students just bc they are t6 - which is a weird strategy among elite firms tbh. They are seeking certain types of candidates (from my observation of the ppl with offers). Many of the brightest/top students in my class year got offers from them and did not end up choosing them. It's more about personality fit than YP with this firm - which is a similar vibe i picked up from gibson dunn.

[Anonymous User]

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

"Yield protecting" is something law schools do because they publish acceptance rates, which directly factor into their USNWR rates.

Law firms do not "yield protect." Within the bounds of their target hiring numbers, they make offers to the people they want and ding the people they don't. It's really that simple.

OK, so what’s the right terminology for “candidate X checks all the right boxes and would be a good fit here, but let’s ding X in favor of candidates A, B, and C who demonstrated stronger interest in our firm”? Particularly when candidate X has stronger paper credentials than the typical SA hired at that firm?

You could say that’s just completely normal hiring practice. But it does seem different in principle from “candidate Y doesn’t meet our criteria, let’s ding.”

i doubt it's active YP - it doesn't really make sense bc law firm rankings and what not are not impacted by it. It could be a hiring strategy - I know PW/Deb/Cleary corporate constantly dip around median at my T6, and they are more invested in t6 schools in general, I was told by my OCS that LW has a strict cut-off (not super high), and they don't usually dip below that cutoff. The impression i got during EIW was their NY office def do not favor NYU/CLS students just bc they are t6 - which is a weird strategy among elite firms tbh. They are seeking certain types of candidates (from my observation of the ppl with offers). Many of the brightest/top students in my class year got offers from them and did not end up choosing them. It's more about personality fit than YP with this firm - which is a similar vibe i picked up from gibson dunn.

Why is it a weird strategy at elite NYC firms to take top students at non-T14s instead of taking a bunch below median at the best schools? Cravath is a big example of the former.

[Anonymous User]

Didn't Latham also do pre-OCI like crazy? That might have an impact too

[Anonymous User]

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

"Yield protecting" is something law schools do because they publish acceptance rates, which directly factor into their USNWR rates.

Law firms do not "yield protect." Within the bounds of their target hiring numbers, they make offers to the people they want and ding the people they don't. It's really that simple.

Firms don't "yield protect," but they only give offers to those people that they think have a sufficiently high likelihood of accepting their offers. They try not to waste their offers.

[Anonymous User]

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

"Yield protecting" is something law schools do because they publish acceptance rates, which directly factor into their USNWR rates.

Law firms do not "yield protect." Within the bounds of their target hiring numbers, they make offers to the people they want and ding the people they don't. It's really that simple.

Firms don't "yield protect," but they only give offers to those people that they think have a sufficiently high likelihood of accepting their offers. They try not to waste their offers.

[Anonymous User]

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

"Yield protecting" is something law schools do because they publish acceptance rates, which directly factor into their USNWR rates.

Law firms do not "yield protect." Within the bounds of their target hiring numbers, they make offers to the people they want and ding the people they don't. It's really that simple.

OK, so what’s the right terminology for “candidate X checks all the right boxes and would be a good fit here, but let’s ding X in favor of candidates A, B, and C who demonstrated stronger interest in our firm”? Particularly when candidate X has stronger paper credentials than the typical SA hired at that firm?

You could say that’s just completely normal hiring practice. But it does seem different in principle from “candidate Y doesn’t meet our criteria, let’s ding.”

i doubt it's active YP - it doesn't really make sense bc law firm rankings and what not are not impacted by it. It could be a hiring strategy - I know PW/Deb/Cleary corporate constantly dip around median at my T6, and they are more invested in t6 schools in general, I was told by my OCS that LW has a strict cut-off (not super high), and they don't usually dip below that cutoff. The impression i got during EIW was their NY office def do not favor NYU/CLS students just bc they are t6 - which is a weird strategy among elite firms tbh. They are seeking certain types of candidates (from my observation of the ppl with offers). Many of the brightest/top students in my class year got offers from them and did not end up choosing them. It's more about personality fit than YP with this firm - which is a similar vibe i picked up from gibson dunn.

Why is it a weird strategy at elite NYC firms to take top students at non-T14s instead of taking a bunch below median at the best schools? Cravath is a big example of the former.

Yes, but this (and the above posters on firm culture/fit) still doesn't explain how GULC and Fordham make up 30% of this year's Latham pool.

[Anonymous User]

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

"Yield protecting" is something law schools do because they publish acceptance rates, which directly factor into their USNWR rates.

Law firms do not "yield protect." Within the bounds of their target hiring numbers, they make offers to the people they want and ding the people they don't. It's really that simple.

OK, so what’s the right terminology for “candidate X checks all the right boxes and would be a good fit here, but let’s ding X in favor of candidates A, B, and C who demonstrated stronger interest in our firm”? Particularly when candidate X has stronger paper credentials than the typical SA hired at that firm?

You could say that’s just completely normal hiring practice. But it does seem different in principle from “candidate Y doesn’t meet our criteria, let’s ding.”

i doubt it's active YP - it doesn't really make sense bc law firm rankings and what not are not impacted by it. It could be a hiring strategy - I know PW/Deb/Cleary corporate constantly dip around median at my T6, and they are more invested in t6 schools in general, I was told by my OCS that LW has a strict cut-off (not super high), and they don't usually dip below that cutoff. The impression i got during EIW was their NY office def do not favor NYU/CLS students just bc they are t6 - which is a weird strategy among elite firms tbh. They are seeking certain types of candidates (from my observation of the ppl with offers). Many of the brightest/top students in my class year got offers from them and did not end up choosing them. It's more about personality fit than YP with this firm - which is a similar vibe i picked up from gibson dunn.

Why is it a weird strategy at elite NYC firms to take top students at non-T14s instead of taking a bunch below median at the best schools? Cravath is a big example of the former.

You meant “latter” instead of “former,” right?

T6 schools account for 61% of Cravath associates vs. 47% of DPW associates, 42% of Cleary associates, and 41% of S&C associates. Some of that could be geographical dispersion of the other firms vs. single-NYC-office Cravath, but that wouldn’t explain all of it.

Cravath indexes on school prestige like 50% more heavily than peer firms do.

[Anonymous User]

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

"Yield protecting" is something law schools do because they publish acceptance rates, which directly factor into their USNWR rates.

Law firms do not "yield protect." Within the bounds of their target hiring numbers, they make offers to the people they want and ding the people they don't. It's really that simple.

OK, so what’s the right terminology for “candidate X checks all the right boxes and would be a good fit here, but let’s ding X in favor of candidates A, B, and C who demonstrated stronger interest in our firm”? Particularly when candidate X has stronger paper credentials than the typical SA hired at that firm?

You could say that’s just completely normal hiring practice. But it does seem different in principle from “candidate Y doesn’t meet our criteria, let’s ding.”

i doubt it's active YP - it doesn't really make sense bc law firm rankings and what not are not impacted by it. It could be a hiring strategy - I know PW/Deb/Cleary corporate constantly dip around median at my T6, and they are more invested in t6 schools in general, I was told by my OCS that LW has a strict cut-off (not super high), and they don't usually dip below that cutoff. The impression i got during EIW was their NY office def do not favor NYU/CLS students just bc they are t6 - which is a weird strategy among elite firms tbh. They are seeking certain types of candidates (from my observation of the ppl with offers). Many of the brightest/top students in my class year got offers from them and did not end up choosing them. It's more about personality fit than YP with this firm - which is a similar vibe i picked up from gibson dunn.

Why is it a weird strategy at elite NYC firms to take top students at non-T14s instead of taking a bunch below median at the best schools? Cravath is a big example of the former.

Yes, but this (and the above posters on firm culture/fit) still doesn't explain how GULC and Fordham make up 30% of this year's Latham pool.

They probs did too much pre-oci at those schools lol, didn't hear anyone with pre-oci offer from LW at my T6 (pre-oci was also strictly forbidden here)

Aside from that, at least 3 ppl I know gave up latham for other firms bc the recruiting team was not responsive - no followup calls; no offeree events; no partners/alums/past SAs reaching out. Made virtual interview experience even less personal. But this is perhaps understandable - they have national presence so recruiting schedule was probs busier than many NY rivals that only really heavily recruit for the NY market, while they have to worry about Boston/Chicago/CA/TX at the same time

[Anonymous User]

Latham as a pretty strong yield at my CCN (actually higher than DPW, S&C, Cleary, etc.) - but they seem to yield protect and/or actively search out a specific type of candidate more so than other V10s at my school. As a result, Latham makes markedly fewer offers here relative to other comparably-sized firms.

And yes, it's not only Latham doesn't "like" us, I think students here aren't that jazzed about Latham either (again: relatively speaking).

"Yield protecting" is something law schools do because they publish acceptance rates, which directly factor into their USNWR rates.

Law firms do not "yield protect." Within the bounds of their target hiring numbers, they make offers to the people they want and ding the people they don't. It's really that simple.

OK, so what’s the right terminology for “candidate X checks all the right boxes and would be a good fit here, but let’s ding X in favor of candidates A, B, and C who demonstrated stronger interest in our firm”? Particularly when candidate X has stronger paper credentials than the typical SA hired at that firm?

You could say that’s just completely normal hiring practice. But it does seem different in principle from “candidate Y doesn’t meet our criteria, let’s ding.”

i doubt it's active YP - it doesn't really make sense bc law firm rankings and what not are not impacted by it. It could be a hiring strategy - I know PW/Deb/Cleary corporate constantly dip around median at my T6, and they are more invested in t6 schools in general, I was told by my OCS that LW has a strict cut-off (not super high), and they don't usually dip below that cutoff. The impression i got during EIW was their NY office def do not favor NYU/CLS students just bc they are t6 - which is a weird strategy among elite firms tbh. They are seeking certain types of candidates (from my observation of the ppl with offers). Many of the brightest/top students in my class year got offers from them and did not end up choosing them. It's more about personality fit than YP with this firm - which is a similar vibe i picked up from gibson dunn.

Why is it a weird strategy at elite NYC firms to take top students at non-T14s instead of taking a bunch below median at the best schools? Cravath is a big example of the former.

You meant “latter” instead of “former,” right?

T6 schools account for 61% of Cravath associates vs. 47% of DPW associates, 42% of Cleary associates, and 41% of S&C associates. Some of that could be geographical dispersion of the other firms vs. single-NYC-office Cravath, but that wouldn’t explain all of it.

Cravath indexes on school prestige like 50% more heavily than peer firms do.

Hmm where are you getting S&C number? Maybe my math is off, but I am getting around 53%

[Anonymous User]

You meant “latter” instead of “former,” right?

T6 schools account for 61% of Cravath associates vs. 47% of DPW associates, 42% of Cleary associates, and 41% of S&C associates. Some of that could be geographical dispersion of the other firms vs. single-NYC-office Cravath, but that wouldn’t explain all of it.

Cravath indexes on school prestige like 50% more heavily than peer firms do.

Hmm where are you getting S&C number? Maybe my math is off, but I am getting around 53%

Are you sure you're looking at associates only, not associates + partners? I got: 20 Y + 15 S + 47 H + 54 C + 18 C + 29 N = 183 T6 associates, out of 447 total = 41%

[Anonymous User]

You meant “latter” instead of “former,” right?

T6 schools account for 61% of Cravath associates vs. 47% of DPW associates, 42% of Cleary associates, and 41% of S&C associates. Some of that could be geographical dispersion of the other firms vs. single-NYC-office Cravath, but that wouldn’t explain all of it.

Cravath indexes on school prestige like 50% more heavily than peer firms do.

Hmm where are you getting S&C number? Maybe my math is off, but I am getting around 53%

Are you sure you're looking at associates only, not associates + partners? I got: 20 Y + 15 S + 47 H + 54 C + 18 C + 29 N = 183 T6 associates, out of 447 total = 41%

oh, I thought your numbers were based on incoming summer associates. Never mind!

[Anonymous User]

You meant “latter” instead of “former,” right?

T6 schools account for 61% of Cravath associates vs. 47% of DPW associates, 42% of Cleary associates, and 41% of S&C associates. Some of that could be geographical dispersion of the other firms vs. single-NYC-office Cravath, but that wouldn’t explain all of it.

Cravath indexes on school prestige like 50% more heavily than peer firms do.

Hmm where are you getting S&C number? Maybe my math is off, but I am getting around 53%

Are you sure you're looking at associates only, not associates + partners? I got: 20 Y + 15 S + 47 H + 54 C + 18 C + 29 N = 183 T6 associates, out of 447 total = 41%

oh, I thought your numbers were based on incoming summer associates. Never mind!

Post the S&C summer class list, please - posterity thanks you!