Firms with the most normal or weird people? Another firm culture thread Forum

[Anonymous User]

All the milbank people I've met are zany. Not an insult, but they're weird.

[lmlckmlkd]

Of course corp is a bit of a sideshow at PW, and big time litigation is their bread and butter.

there are a lot of dumb posts on this board recently but this one stands out for not engendering some justified vitriol.

I'll be starting there in corporate later this year and am curious to know exactly more about this. Are you referring to the fact that corporate at PW has grown steadily in recent years?

I'm not one of the earlier posters, but I lateraled out of PW corporate. Corporate is not a sideshow at PW and my impression is that the firm sees the corporate department as its growth engine and is allocating resources accordingly. The lateral partners that have been brought in recently are all corporate partners, there are more corporate than lit associates in incoming classes, and 7-8 lit first-years were put into a corporate rotation. That said, I think PW's lit department is among the best in its class whereas corporate tends to lag behind the others in the V10 on many metrics, though it is still very lucrative.

However, PW corporate can be a rough place because there's no cohesive culture (lots of lateral partners and associates) and they tolerate bad behavior. There are good people too, but it's luck of the draw. But this is probably true of most V10 firms.

can you describe the bad behavior you've seen?

[Anonymous User]

Of course corp is a bit of a sideshow at PW, and big time litigation is their bread and butter.

there are a lot of dumb posts on this board recently but this one stands out for not engendering some justified vitriol.

I'll be starting there in corporate later this year and am curious to know exactly more about this. Are you referring to the fact that corporate at PW has grown steadily in recent years?

I'm not one of the earlier posters, but I lateraled out of PW corporate. Corporate is not a sideshow at PW and my impression is that the firm sees the corporate department as its growth engine and is allocating resources accordingly. The lateral partners that have been brought in recently are all corporate partners, there are more corporate than lit associates in incoming classes, and 7-8 lit first-years were put into a corporate rotation. That said, I think PW's lit department is among the best in its class whereas corporate tends to lag behind the others in the V10 on many metrics, though it is still very lucrative.

However, PW corporate can be a rough place because there's no cohesive culture (lots of lateral partners and associates) and they tolerate bad behavior. There are good people too, but it's luck of the draw. But this is probably true of most V10 firms.

can you describe the bad behavior you've seen?

Not the same anon but I’ve worked with/across from them a fair amount and the sharpness of elbows can be noticeable. In particular, I’ve seen their partners act jerk-ish to our folks when we are representing the same client (one firm as fund counsel and the other as m&a counsel). One example in this scenario — a junior at our firm requested some background info from PW (something that juniors would’ve typically resolved amongst themselves) and a young PW partner jumped in to dress down our junior. Think “you should know that … next time you need to actually think about …”. Totally out of proportion to the point where partners on our side were taken aback and having a chuckle about it. If that tone flies with lawyers on the same side of a deal, can’t imagine they’re placing much premium on bedside manner.

[Anonymous User]

All the milbank people I've met are zany. Not an insult, but they're weird.

Restructuring group? They’re the psychos of the firm

[Anonymous User]

All the milbank people I've met are zany. Not an insult, but they're weird.

Restructuring group? They’re the psychos of the firm

Mostly know people in the corporate group. Everyone was kind and seemed fun to work with but just a little off. Let's call them eccentric?

Only know two people from the restructuring group. Didn't get psycho but they certainly seemed to be the most miserable and humorless.

[Anonymous User]

Perspective from a 3L from T6, so admit that I still don’t know anything about anything.

Personally, I see no difference at all in selectivity among DPW, CSM, STB (at least on the Corporate side, which is what I was recruiting for). For what it’s worth, I received offers from the first two but didn’t make it past the first round with STB, which was a bummer cause STB does some really cutting-edge work in the private equity space (an industry/practice area that I’m very interested in).

On culture, I found myself fitting in best with the people I met at KE and Latham. I chose one of those two firms and had a great summer. I think there will always be some strange attorneys, but I found that most were very easy to get along with. With firms as large as these, I don’t think they attract any singular type of personality, though I did get the sense that culture varies a bit from practice group to practice group.

Yeah, it shows that you don't know about anything.

[Anonymous User]

Perspective from a 3L from T6, so admit that I still don’t know anything about anything.

Personally, I see no difference at all in selectivity among DPW, CSM, STB (at least on the Corporate side, which is what I was recruiting for). For what it’s worth, I received offers from the first two but didn’t make it past the first round with STB, which was a bummer cause STB does some really cutting-edge work in the private equity space (an industry/practice area that I’m very interested in).

On culture, I found myself fitting in best with the people I met at KE and Latham. I chose one of those two firms and had a great summer. I think there will always be some strange attorneys, but I found that most were very easy to get along with. With firms as large as these, I don’t think they attract any singular type of personality, though I did get the sense that culture varies a bit from practice group to practice group.

Yeah, it shows that you don't know about anything.

Can you elaborate?

[Anonymous User]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

[LBJ's Hair]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

i assume this is the weird STB troll who pops up occasionally

[Anonymous User]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

i assume this is the weird STB troll who pops up occasionally

The anon you quoted is giving some specific numbers so you gotta have something more than "(s)he's a troll" if you want to repudiate their claim

[Anonymous User]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

Similar here at CCNP, although obviously with different GPA cutoffs. I wouldn't say bottom 10%, more median-ish, but STB gives out offers like candy around here. CSM is much harder to swing and requires probably top 20%-ish grades. DPW is high median.

[Anonymous User]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

i assume this is the weird STB troll who pops up occasionally

I had the exact same thought. STBYES strikes again

[Anonymous User]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

i assume this is the weird STB troll who pops up occasionally

The anon you quoted is giving some specific numbers so you gotta have something more than "(s)he's a troll" if you want to repudiate their claim

Surprised to see that it's not DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S/C), STB is high-median (you can't be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around high-median, and CSM is also high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

[Anonymous User]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

i assume this is the weird STB troll who pops up occasionally

The anon you quoted is giving some specific numbers so you gotta have something more than "(s)he's a troll" if you want to repudiate their claim

Surprised to see that it's not DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S/C), STB is high-median (you can't be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around high-median, and CSM is also high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

I don't care whether STB gets high-median or low-median students, but they only have 3 Yale kids (and even fewer Stanford folks) going there in the first place so how are we supposed to discern a trend out of thin air? It's not like CSM/DPW where you can actually discern a pattern with the Yale/Stanford kids judging from the summer associate class thread.

Also, if they're getting only 2 or 3 students each year from two of the finest law schools in the country, but they only dip to "high-median" (whatever that means), they better start changing their recruiting practices imho.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

i assume this is the weird STB troll who pops up occasionally

The anon you quoted is giving some specific numbers so you gotta have something more than "(s)he's a troll" if you want to repudiate their claim

Surprised to see that it's not DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S/C), STB is high-median (you can't be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around high-median, and CSM is also high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

I don't care whether STB gets high-median or low-median students, but they only have 3 Yale kids (and even fewer Stanford folks) going there in the first place so how are we supposed to discern a trend out of thin air? It's not like CSM/DPW where you can actually discern a pattern with the Yale/Stanford kids judging from the summer associate class thread.

Also, if they're getting only 2 or 3 students each year from two of the finest law schools in the country, but they only dip to "high-median" (whatever that means), they better start changing their recruiting practices imho.

STB doesn’t need to change their recruiting practices. They have no legitimate need for Yale/Stanford grads, and Blackstone doesn’t care either.

[Anonymous User]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

i assume this is the weird STB troll who pops up occasionally

The anon you quoted is giving some specific numbers so you gotta have something more than "(s)he's a troll" if you want to repudiate their claim

Surprised to see that it's not DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S/C), STB is high-median (you can't be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around high-median, and CSM is also high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

I don't care whether STB gets high-median or low-median students, but they only have 3 Yale kids (and even fewer Stanford folks) going there in the first place so how are we supposed to discern a trend out of thin air? It's not like CSM/DPW where you can actually discern a pattern with the Yale/Stanford kids judging from the summer associate class thread.

Also, if they're getting only 2 or 3 students each year from two of the finest law schools in the country, but they only dip to "high-median" (whatever that means), they better start changing their recruiting practices imho.

STB doesn’t need to change their recruiting practices. They have no legitimate need for Yale/Stanford grads, and Blackstone doesn’t care either.

To the extent they want to move up reputationally relative to DPW and CSM, then they should care. Now maybe that isn't important to them, fine, but it is clear that they are not getting the top talent in their pipeline. There is a reason that Wachtell is able to command outrageous rates relative to its peers, and a big part of it is getting the absolute top talent in their pipeline.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

i assume this is the weird STB troll who pops up occasionally

The anon you quoted is giving some specific numbers so you gotta have something more than "(s)he's a troll" if you want to repudiate their claim

Surprised to see that it's not DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S/C), STB is high-median (you can't be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around high-median, and CSM is also high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

I don't care whether STB gets high-median or low-median students, but they only have 3 Yale kids (and even fewer Stanford folks) going there in the first place so how are we supposed to discern a trend out of thin air? It's not like CSM/DPW where you can actually discern a pattern with the Yale/Stanford kids judging from the summer associate class thread.

Also, if they're getting only 2 or 3 students each year from two of the finest law schools in the country, but they only dip to "high-median" (whatever that means), they better start changing their recruiting practices imho.

STB doesn’t need to change their recruiting practices. They have no legitimate need for Yale/Stanford grads, and Blackstone doesn’t care either.

To the extent they want to move up reputationally relative to DPW and CSM, then they should care. Now maybe that isn't important to them, fine, but it is clear that they are not getting the top talent in their pipeline. There is a reason that Wachtell is able to command outrageous rates relative to its peers, and a big part of it is getting the absolute top talent in their pipeline.

The STB partners make the same money as the WLRK partners. You're talking about two different ways to skin a cat: leverage (STB) and top-of-the-market pricing (WLRK).

Recruiting is important, and STB gets that. Their partners are not idiots. But offering every warm body at Yale and Stanford isn't going to allow them to bill at Wachtell rates. Two different firms with two different ways of doing things. Biglaw partners just don't think about prestige and entry-level recruiting in the way that you're thinking about it. After years of experience, they do not believe that offering every warm body at Stanford and Yale equates to "top talent" in any meaningful sense.

[Joachim2017]

LOL, this is some high-level dumbassery. The person who posted about STB needing/wanting Y/S grads in order to maintain or enhance reputation or increase rates must be a college or law school student. The reputational bands in which schools exist are broader. The factors by which billing rates can be increased are more subtle and commercial. The real world does not work that way.

Partners at law firms know firsthand that Y/S students (especially Y) are often much worse as day-to-day lawyers than folks from less pie-in-the-sky schools. They're picky, entitled, academicky, and lack strong work ethic. They'll put their noses up at long-haul doc review projects or think they're too good for the low-level stuff that allows firms to bill associates out for long hours. And this isn't unique to Big Law. I know a CA2 judge firsthand who no longer hires from Yale, specifically, because s/he has had multiple experiences with Yale grads who just were not good workers under high-stress, long-hour situations where the work wasn't always intellectually stimulating. That judge now hires predominantly from HLS/CLS/NYU and doesn't bother with Yale.

Also, you're deluding yourself if you think Y/S grads have any additional intellectual firepower that, for the purposes of Big Law, CLS/NYU/UMich grads lack. This isn't rocket science. Even the most complex questions of diversity jx or whatever don't benefit from the associate's having previously studied English poetry as a Rhodes Scholar before enrolling at YLS. The guy with a poli-sci degree from Chicago will probably do better in the real-world grind.

Finally, WLRK absolutely has no need to draw from Y/S to command their rates. If you think they do, you don't understand their business model or their work space.

[Anonymous User]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

i assume this is the weird STB troll who pops up occasionally

The anon you quoted is giving some specific numbers so you gotta have something more than "(s)he's a troll" if you want to repudiate their claim

Surprised to see that it's not DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S/C), STB is high-median (you can't be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around high-median, and CSM is also high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

I don't care whether STB gets high-median or low-median students, but they only have 3 Yale kids (and even fewer Stanford folks) going there in the first place so how are we supposed to discern a trend out of thin air? It's not like CSM/DPW where you can actually discern a pattern with the Yale/Stanford kids judging from the summer associate class thread.

Also, if they're getting only 2 or 3 students each year from two of the finest law schools in the country, but they only dip to "high-median" (whatever that means), they better start changing their recruiting practices imho.

STB doesn’t need to change their recruiting practices. They have no legitimate need for Yale/Stanford grads, and Blackstone doesn’t care either.

To the extent they want to move up reputationally relative to DPW and CSM, then they should care. Now maybe that isn't important to them, fine, but it is clear that they are not getting the top talent in their pipeline. There is a reason that Wachtell is able to command outrageous rates relative to its peers, and a big part of it is getting the absolute top talent in their pipeline.

STBYES, which firm do you work at? We can add that to the "most weird people" list.

STB has more Stanford associates (not that it matters to firm profitability) than both CSM and DPW, and is doing just fine for YLS. This is all open info on the internet. And even if this wasn't the case, it's no knock on STB, or any firm that isn't picking up "top" USNWR students, because law students are behind the market information power curve. The first to know are the top client GCs, then comes law firm partners, then comes AmLaw and Chambers, then comes associates, then comes Vault, and the very last to know are law students. Students who stumbled on Kirkland back in the 90s when it was a V20 something can now make more than Wachtell partners. Top students who went to Sherman have lived a different story.

Also, Wachtell is not able to charge rates due to "top talent." They charge higher rates the same way STB does, by specializing in a portion of the legal market that supports high rates and providing excellent professional services. You have to produce to do that (and have a little luck), not rest on laurels or credentials or rely on YLS students. Wachtell was started by a group of NYU Law grads back when NYU was further down the food chain and that hasn't stopped them. Columbia, Harvard, NYU, Penn, UVA and other large schools like Gtown that have students who actually want to work in biglaw (especially transactional) are the drivers of the V20 and high-profit firms.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

If STB does not start showing Yale and Stanford law students the RESPECT they deserve, they might as well close up shop.

[Anonymous User]

LOL, this is some high-level dumbassery. The person who posted about STB needing/wanting Y/S grads in order to maintain or enhance reputation or increase rates must be a college or law school student. The reputational bands in which schools exist are broader. The factors by which billing rates can be increased are more subtle and commercial. The real world does not work that way.

Partners at law firms know firsthand that Y/S students (especially Y) are often much worse as day-to-day lawyers than folks from less pie-in-the-sky schools. They're picky, entitled, academicky, and lack strong work ethic. They'll put their noses up at long-haul doc review projects or think they're too good for the low-level stuff that allows firms to bill associates out for long hours. And this isn't unique to Big Law. I know a CA2 judge firsthand who no longer hires from Yale, specifically, because s/he has had multiple experiences with Yale grads who just were not good workers under high-stress, long-hour situations where the work wasn't always intellectually stimulating. That judge now hires predominantly from HLS/CLS/NYU and doesn't bother with Yale.

Also, you're deluding yourself if you think Y/S grads have any additional intellectual firepower that, for the purposes of Big Law, CLS/NYU/UMich grads lack. This isn't rocket science. Even the most complex questions of diversity jx or whatever don't benefit from the associate's having previously studied English poetry as a Rhodes Scholar before enrolling at YLS. The guy with a poli-sci degree from Chicago will probably do better in the real-world grind.

Finally, WLRK absolutely has no need to draw from Y/S to command their rates. If you think they do, you don't understand their business model or their work space.

Heard similar sentiments about YS from partners at 5 different firms, perception about YS grads in M&A/PE spaces is hilariously negative. People want HCCN grads who have lay prestige but also won’t be dorks about the day to day practice of law.

Also, isn’t WLRK’s RPL so high in part because they charge based on the “value of service provided”=they’re charging based on results/deal value? Maybe it’s an urban legend but thought that was a significant factor, it’s not their billing rates per se.

[Anonymous User]

LOL, this is some high-level dumbassery. The person who posted about STB needing/wanting Y/S grads in order to maintain or enhance reputation or increase rates must be a college or law school student. The reputational bands in which schools exist are broader. The factors by which billing rates can be increased are more subtle and commercial. The real world does not work that way.

Partners at law firms know firsthand that Y/S students (especially Y) are often much worse as day-to-day lawyers than folks from less pie-in-the-sky schools. They're picky, entitled, academicky, and lack strong work ethic. They'll put their noses up at long-haul doc review projects or think they're too good for the low-level stuff that allows firms to bill associates out for long hours. And this isn't unique to Big Law. I know a CA2 judge firsthand who no longer hires from Yale, specifically, because s/he has had multiple experiences with Yale grads who just were not good workers under high-stress, long-hour situations where the work wasn't always intellectually stimulating. That judge now hires predominantly from HLS/CLS/NYU and doesn't bother with Yale.

Also, you're deluding yourself if you think Y/S grads have any additional intellectual firepower that, for the purposes of Big Law, CLS/NYU/UMich grads lack. This isn't rocket science. Even the most complex questions of diversity jx or whatever don't benefit from the associate's having previously studied English poetry as a Rhodes Scholar before enrolling at YLS. The guy with a poli-sci degree from Chicago will probably do better in the real-world grind.

Finally, WLRK absolutely has no need to draw from Y/S to command their rates. If you think they do, you don't understand their business model or their work space.

Heard similar sentiments about YS from partners at 5 different firms, perception about YS grads in M&A/PE spaces is hilariously negative. People want HCCN grads who have lay prestige but also won’t be dorks about the day to day practice of law.

Also, isn’t WLRK’s RPL so high in part because they charge based on the “value of service provided”=they’re charging based on results/deal value? Maybe it’s an urban legend but thought that was a significant factor, it’s not their billing rates per se.

Some GCs care about how the firm divides up their internal revenue (looking over tasks/rates charged by position) but others just look at the overall cost of service provided. Regardless of choosing billing rates or deal value, the firms all have one number at the end of the deal and the GCs can compare the cost of potential firms/deals based on that.

Wachtell is able to do so well in RPL because they scoop up transactions where the clients are willing to pay high overall rates (selling the company M&A) and they do so with low leverage and high hours worked. Many of the referrals they get for selling the company M&A work come from firms that have a conflict. The firms with conflicts prefer Wachtell because Wachtell is not a player in capital markets and won't steal client relationships with banks. Also, Wachtell has half as many associates (compared to partners) as the normal firm, and the yearly hours billed are across the board higher than other firms.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

LOL, this is some high-level dumbassery. The person who posted about STB needing/wanting Y/S grads in order to maintain or enhance reputation or increase rates must be a college or law school student. The reputational bands in which schools exist are broader. The factors by which billing rates can be increased are more subtle and commercial. The real world does not work that way.

Partners at law firms know firsthand that Y/S students (especially Y) are often much worse as day-to-day lawyers than folks from less pie-in-the-sky schools. They're picky, entitled, academicky, and lack strong work ethic. They'll put their noses up at long-haul doc review projects or think they're too good for the low-level stuff that allows firms to bill associates out for long hours. And this isn't unique to Big Law. I know a CA2 judge firsthand who no longer hires from Yale, specifically, because s/he has had multiple experiences with Yale grads who just were not good workers under high-stress, long-hour situations where the work wasn't always intellectually stimulating. That judge now hires predominantly from HLS/CLS/NYU and doesn't bother with Yale.

Also, you're deluding yourself if you think Y/S grads have any additional intellectual firepower that, for the purposes of Big Law, CLS/NYU/UMich grads lack. This isn't rocket science. Even the most complex questions of diversity jx or whatever don't benefit from the associate's having previously studied English poetry as a Rhodes Scholar before enrolling at YLS. The guy with a poli-sci degree from Chicago will probably do better in the real-world grind.

Finally, WLRK absolutely has no need to draw from Y/S to command their rates. If you think they do, you don't understand their business model or their work space.

Heard similar sentiments about YS from partners at 5 different firms, perception about YS grads in M&A/PE spaces is hilariously negative. People want HCCN grads who have lay prestige but also won’t be dorks about the day to day practice of law.

Also, isn’t WLRK’s RPL so high in part because they charge based on the “value of service provided”=they’re charging based on results/deal value? Maybe it’s an urban legend but thought that was a significant factor, it’s not their billing rates per se.

Some GCs care about how the firm divides up their internal revenue (looking over tasks/rates charged by position) but others just look at the overall cost of service provided. Regardless of choosing billing rates or deal value, the firms all have one number at the end of the deal and the GCs can compare the cost of potential firms/deals based on that.

Wachtell is able to do so well in RPL because they scoop up transactions where the clients are willing to pay high overall rates (selling the company M&A) and they do so with low leverage and high hours worked. Many of the referrals they get for selling the company M&A work come from firms that have a conflict. The firms with conflicts prefer Wachtell because Wachtell is not a player in capital markets and won't steal client relationships with banks. Also, Wachtell has half as many associates (compared to partners) as the normal firm, and the yearly hours billed are across the board higher than other firms.

And by extension, it's not even possible to scale the niche business of WLRK to STB proportions, which would be 2x the revenue. Pretty much everything the STB troll said is incorrect, starting with the premise that Yale/Stanford degree = automatically better lawyer, and then everything else following that reflected zero understanding of this business.

[Anonymous User]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

FYI, I looked back at our updated data w/ c/o 2023 included and this is now wrong. DPW/STB hire around the same (median/low-median as their median hire), Cravath is slightly stronger (median hire is only marginally higher but they have a higher floor and get more students who are noticeably above median). Apologies for accidentally seeming like an anti-STB troll, I was just working off of old data.


Edit: Looking at a few more firms, I think the real explanation for this is that NY is a heavily disfavored market. GDC NY is around the same as CSM/DPW/STB, but GDC DC is insanely difficult to get, for example.

[Anonymous User]

Suprised to see that DPW = CSM = STB at your school selectivity wise. For us (Y/S), STB is far and away the easiest to get (you can be bottom 10% and get hired), DPW is around low-median, and CSM is high-median. Noticeable differences in our data.

FYI, I looked back at our updated data w/ c/o 2023 included and this is now wrong. DPW/STB hire around the same (median/low-median as their median hire), Cravath is slightly stronger (median hire is only marginally higher but they have a higher floor and get more students who are noticeably above median). Apologies for accidentally seeming like an anti-STB troll, I was just working off of old data.


Edit: Looking at a few more firms, I think the real explanation for this is that NY is a heavily disfavored market. GDC NY is around the same as CSM/DPW/STB, but GDC DC is insanely difficult to get, for example.

Really interesting because, at least from UVA, NYC CSM/DPW (and maybe STB, not sure) seemed to be harder to get than GDC DC.