Date: October 31st, 2006 10:35 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film feces
Ah...
That's why I said not exactly V5. I left out Skadden because their hours are averaged across all their offices, so the hours are probably skewed more so than these NYC-centric firms.
I might be wrong but I seem to remember Skadden's numbers were fairly consistent with its peers, which I thought indicated it wasn't very skewed (plus I don't think e.g. Skadden LA bills significantly less than Skadden NY).
Date: November 1st, 2006 12:21 AM Author: histrionic useless brakes
This Skadden argument is ludicrous. In Wilmington the average associate averages more than NY, and they only average at 2200 billables, which puts them far below 2750 which is the Cravath number if you do the math (50 weeks times 58.875).
Palo Alto and LA were the "low" offices at 2050, but no office was higher than ~2200.
I hope this ends the "YOU MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SKADDEN'S MANY OFFICES" arguments when bashing Skadden. The fact is that Cravath and DPW work just as bad if not worse (according to the numbers) than Skadden.
In Wilmington, the range was between 1800 and 3000/year, with 3000 being the CLEAR OUTLIER--she was a crazy bankruptcy associate who liked working. Next highest was 2600, next after that is 2500. Out of 48 associates, 2500 is the number 3 biller? Come on folks... at DPW, 2500 makes you below the median.
Date: November 1st, 2006 12:40 AM Author: bat-shit-crazy copper shrine cuck
Thank you. This is why I don't feel quite so bad about spreading unconfirmed info, because sometimes it's the only way to motivate somebody to post the real info.
Sadly, with this board's search engine, I'll probably have to spend an hour looking for this thread again in a few months.
I was hoping you'd be ashamed enough of your posts in the Cravath thread to shut up and stop posting nonsense. Why don't you re-read the post you replied to and actually think about the difference between Skadden's structure and e.g. STB's.
What are you talking about? You were trying to criticize this post (which I did not write): "I left out Skadden because their hours are averaged across all their offices, so the hours are probably skewed more so than these NYC-centric firms."
The poster was pointing out (*correctly*) that Skadden has a far greater % of its lawyers outside NY than other top NY firms. Somehow you're trying to compare this with a firm like STB, which has like 15 people in LA of which maybe 1 replied?
Date: October 31st, 2006 10:33 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film feces
Do a google search for "associates survey X" where X is the year. You should be pointed to the older surveys on Law.com. You'll need a registration (free) to view them.
Date: November 1st, 2006 12:17 AM Author: abnormal party of the first part field
has anyone notice on these that random firms in minneapolis and atlanta work only about 3-5 hours less a week than your average nyc firm (not cravath).
Date: November 1st, 2006 10:39 AM Author: Frozen Market Newt
Yeah, I think the choice turns on three things:
1) The COL adjusted salary differences are small or in favor of smaller cities
2) The reputation of NYC firms for treating their people like crap and giving them practically no shot at partnership
3) If you have a family, etc., that extra hour a day means quite a bit. It is the difference between eating with your kids and putting them to bed vs. sneaking in the house to avoid waking them.
Date: November 1st, 2006 10:48 AM Author: Maniacal stimulating nibblets box office
Vault also suggests that S&C hours are slightly worse/longer than CSM hours. Vault survey gives CSM a 6.2, and S&C a 5.7. (A lower number means longer hours.)
Not that I trust everything Vault has to say . . . but when Vault and AmLaw match up, yes, you can bet that you'll be working just as much at S&C. Enjoy.
I believe a lower number in the vault hours rating reflects lower satisfaction with hours, not the aggregate amount of hours. Lots of possible explanations that have nothing to do with total hours (the CSM people could've come in expecting more hours, so had less of a problem with it).
"Associates rank how they feel about their hours on a scale from 'overwhelming' to 'very livable.' Please note the hours score is based on the subjective perceptions of associates, not on the actual hours they work."
So yes: it may well be that people at S&C are lazy bums who are disappointed that they actually have to work.
But given both Vault and AmLaw survey of total number of hours, it seems to me that S&C folks work as many or more hours than CSM folks. Do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise?
Cool . . . good for you. Are they pretty much the top pick for you right now? Why would you pick them over DPW and/or Cravath (assumign those are among the five).
I was dinged by CSM and am still waiting on DPW, so my answer probably wouldn't be that useful. For the record, I would probably take S&C over DPW regardless. I'm only minorly leaning toward S&C right now though over the rest of my options (a few others that aren't quite as prestigious at S&C, but no one would really question choosing them instead of Sullivan).
If you made your decision based upon hours, you made a HUGE mistake. Don't feel bad, Sullivan does have an excellent litigation group. Notably, Sullivan has a good white-collar practice, which you can't get at Cravath. So you might have an easier time exiting to a USAO or something like that.
Since I was considering the same firms, I actually looked at the hours data a while back too. Here's the data in one place:
2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 AVG
Cravath 65.7 69.8 63.4 58.3 59.9 63.42
Sulli 65 62.5 65.2 65.2 60.7 63.72
DPW 62.7 58.9 67.8 52.1 55.8 59.46
Wacht 69.1 71.1 - 70.8 71.2 70.55
I included Wachtell for reference, to make myself feel better about the firms that I actually had offers from. I did not get an offer there.
My conclusion from looking at the data is that all of these firms really work similar hours and I shouldn't base my decision on that.
Well, a difference of even four hours is actually very significant. That's almost an hour every weeknight. Or, if you spend 12 hours every weekday in the office, the difference between DPW and S&C/CSM is the difference between also having to spend half of every Saturday in the office.
Obviously, I am simplifiying, since every firm will have busier and less busy times. But the averages, at least, do make DPW look better.
Picking between any V5 firm based on hours is fucking retarded. In most practice groups, your hours are going to be highly variable. It's not like Cravath or S&C is going to stand there with a whip and make you work those extra hours, or like a partner at Skadden is any more likely to let you go home early without finishing something he wants from you.
Picking a firm based on hours is even more short-sighted and ignorant than picking based on perceived chances at partnership. The hours are long everywhere, and most of us are not going to make partner at any V5 firm. Seriously, picking DPW over Cravath based soley on the fact that its average hours worked appear to be lower is as bad as picking S&C over Davis just because its Vault ranking is higher. It's totally arbitrary. Flip a coin instead.
That being said, when you're picking between most of these firms - other than Wacthell and Cravath - you might as well pick arbitrarily because they're all great.
Date: November 4th, 2006 6:29 PM Author: electric area
Yes. My point was not that I should have chosen CSM (as I didn't have the choice). My point was that I didn't think S&C (which I chose over DPW and CGSH) hours were as bad as CSM. If this is truly the case, it makes S&C a less appealing choice vis a vis DPW or CGSH, as there actually is an hours vs. prestige tradeoff.
For the record, I am still very happy with my choice.
Yes, your numbers clearly demonstrate that among students who had the choice between Skadden, S&C, and Davis Polk, students tended to prefer Skadden. How could I have been so blind?
And, too bad those 29 Harvard folks going to Davis Polk couldn't get Skadden offers. They must be real idiots.