What Does WLRK Look For? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Interviews are definitely different, looking to see if you can think on your feet. They are still very friendly, but they definitely push back on your answers, ask why a lot, and make you explain or justify things that just get a "Neat!" at other firms.

Obviously grades and school are threshold issues. I think we had 3 non T6 people this summer, two of whom were JD/MBAs and one ex-military. No one from outside the T14 (although my understanding is that some people with juice are pushing back on the school elitism, no telling if that means anything will change in the near future). It's not a prerequisite to be on law review, I think most people with the grades to get an offer just end up getting on depending on how the school handles grading on. There are a couple juniors who were on their school's business law journal, for example.

Interview-wise, it's my understanding that they are looking for serious, professional, self-driven people. The teams are very small (often like 1 partner and 2 associates), so they are looking for people who won't need their hand held and will work themselves to the bone without anyone having to check in on them. Even as a summer you will be on calls with clients, CCed on on client and opposing counsel email chains, etc. They expect you to come in the door ready to represent the firm, which is why you see a lot of people with previous professional experience.

OP here. Just want to thank you and the other users for being so helpful and responsive. Do you think that the firm is also picky about where someone did their undergrad? I was STEM at a top public-(realized late in undergrad that IP wasn’t for me)- and have always been told that even the most prestigious firms by and large don’t care about where someone did their undergrad.

Not the anon you were responding to, but in my summer class of ~30, only a handful didn't go to very good undergrads (like top-20 USNWR ranking). The most common undergrad school was Harvard. I'm sure there's some correlation there (i.e. people who went to those schools for undergrad probably do better on average in law school), but hard to say they don't care at all where you went.

It's not like you can change where you went for UG at this point, though, so seems pretty useless to worry. And people who went to random undergrad schools do get hired each year.

OP here. I figured as much given the outsized number of top LAC and Ivy grads in the class, though I’m sure there are some correlary effects. But you’re right there’s nothing I can do it about it. If I’m competitive by years end hopefully my STEM degree will soften the blow and come summer time I’ll make sure to come up with thoughtful reasons for why I chose my undergrad.

[Anonymous User]

To be fair, WLRK is more different from the rest of the V10/20 than HLS is from the rest of the T6/T13. For one thing, WLRK pays much more. But it cuts both ways: WLRK associates earn that extra pay by putting in insane hours (even by NYC V10/20 standards). So keep in mind that it may not be a clear-cut decision to go to WLRK over, say, DPW or STB. There are real tradeoffs involved.

I'm interested in the bolded, if anyone with experience can speak to it. Roughly how many more hours per year (or month, week, w/e) will a WLRK associate be working than a Cravath associate in the same area, be it M&A or Litigation? Is it significantly more at this level, or is that just a reputation that some people like to foster?

[BrainsyK]

I'm interested in the bolded, if anyone with experience can speak to it. Roughly how many more hours per year (or month, week, w/e) will a WLRK associate be working than a Cravath associate in the same area, be it M&A or Litigation? Is it significantly more at this level, or is that just a reputation that some people like to foster?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150203174 ... _hours.php

It's not up-to-date or comprehensive, but it's at least one datapoint.

[QContinuum]

I'm interested in the bolded, if anyone with experience can speak to it. Roughly how many more hours per year (or month, week, w/e) will a WLRK associate be working than a Cravath associate in the same area, be it M&A or Litigation? Is it significantly more at this level, or is that just a reputation that some people like to foster?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150203174 ... _hours.php

It's not up-to-date or comprehensive, but it's at least one datapoint.

That's a very interesting datapoint. From that survey it looks like the difference isn't as large as I had believed. Either this is due to the survey's shortcomings (e.g., Wachtell only had a 45% response rate, vs. S&C with an 83% response rate, so it's possible that the hardest-working WLRK associates disproportionately didn't have time to respond to the survey...), or my friends are exaggerating the workload.

[Anonymous User]

I'm interested in the bolded, if anyone with experience can speak to it. Roughly how many more hours per year (or month, week, w/e) will a WLRK associate be working than a Cravath associate in the same area, be it M&A or Litigation? Is it significantly more at this level, or is that just a reputation that some people like to foster?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150203174 ... _hours.php

It's not up-to-date or comprehensive, but it's at least one datapoint.

That's a very interesting datapoint. From that survey it looks like the difference isn't as large as I had believed. Either this is due to the survey's shortcomings (e.g., Wachtell only had a 45% response rate, vs. S&C with an 83% response rate, so it's possible that the hardest-working WLRK associates disproportionately didn't have time to respond to the survey...), or my friends are exaggerating the workload.

Of interest, only 3 of the top 10 firms on that list (for worst hours) pays above market compensation, though I don't know much about Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal admittedly.

[M458]

I'm interested in the bolded, if anyone with experience can speak to it. Roughly how many more hours per year (or month, week, w/e) will a WLRK associate be working than a Cravath associate in the same area, be it M&A or Litigation? Is it significantly more at this level, or is that just a reputation that some people like to foster?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150203174 ... _hours.php

It's not up-to-date or comprehensive, but it's at least one datapoint.

That's a very interesting datapoint. From that survey it looks like the difference isn't as large as I had believed. Either this is due to the survey's shortcomings (e.g., Wachtell only had a 45% response rate, vs. S&C with an 83% response rate, so it's possible that the hardest-working WLRK associates disproportionately didn't have time to respond to the survey...), or my friends are exaggerating the workload.

Of interest, only 3 of the top 10 firms on that list (for worst hours) pays above market compensation, though I don't know much about Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal admittedly.

That's Dentons.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW--I received an offer at WLRK and I am not at a T6 law school and I did not go to an ivy for undergrad. I am also a K-JD, so no full-time work experience. I do not know where I land at my law school (which is a T10), but I guess I am in the top 5%, maybe even top 2.5%.

All that is to say, it is possible to punch above your weight if you kill the interview. My interviews went extremely well and I think that's why I received an offer. Try not to focus on the variables you can't control and instead focus on the interview prep. They will likely ask you about substantive legal issues you worked on over the summer or during 1L, so be prepared to speak extensively about an issue. I was asked about certain SCOTUS cases by name (not out of the blue, it was because I mentioned a certain class/area of law that interests me). Just relax and be eloquent; think of the interview as a conversation. I think they are truly looking for smart people who can hold their own in an intellectual conversation above all else.

[Elston Gunn]

I'm interested in the bolded, if anyone with experience can speak to it. Roughly how many more hours per year (or month, week, w/e) will a WLRK associate be working than a Cravath associate in the same area, be it M&A or Litigation? Is it significantly more at this level, or is that just a reputation that some people like to foster?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150203174 ... _hours.php

It's not up-to-date or comprehensive, but it's at least one datapoint.

That's a very interesting datapoint. From that survey it looks like the difference isn't as large as I had believed. Either this is due to the survey's shortcomings (e.g., Wachtell only had a 45% response rate, vs. S&C with an 83% response rate, so it's possible that the hardest-working WLRK associates disproportionately didn't have time to respond to the survey...), or my friends are exaggerating the workload.

Sorry for responding to an old post, but working an extra compared ~16 hours a month as compared to known sweatshops like S&C and Cravath, and ~30 more a month than a lot of firms that are not exactly a picnic to work at, does not strike me as a minor difference. That’s huge.

[Anonymous User]

Posting Anon since I'm going to share a lot of info that's identifiable.

I agree grades are crucial but I am not sure about needing top 5%. I am sure that would be very helpful but I don't think it's 100% necessary. I was literally on the cut off of 10% (less than 0.01 below announced cutoff) at lower T14 and I got through the screener and wasn't dinged until very late in the process. My education is what MBA consultants call "silver" with non-ivy but top 50 schools and T14 law. Although I never joined GS full time, I was effectively working full time from my Sophomore summer on, after interning during my freshman year at Merril Lynch as a banker as well, even during the school year and I made sure employers knew that. I also know people that didn't have top grades getting in WLRK.

The interview questions reminded me very strongly of investment banking questions I had in college that very much hinted at just how much do you really understand what's going to be demanded of you and I made sure to basically say I enjoyed throwing myself into my work and I always lived very close to work (like less than 15 minute walk close) for my entire life. They are looking for certain types that will thrive with long hours and understand why long hours can work to your advantage. (I talked about learning curve time to master and I wanted to get up the learning curve as soon as possible.)

Other than that it's fairly basic questions, from a technical perspective, to make sure you actually knew what happened in class. It was also helpful I had a story to tell about how I plotted out M&A concepts in Excel models and had no problems navigating and even rebuilding the Excel models I saw during 1L SA.

[notinbiglaw]

I'm interested in the bolded, if anyone with experience can speak to it. Roughly how many more hours per year (or month, week, w/e) will a WLRK associate be working than a Cravath associate in the same area, be it M&A or Litigation? Is it significantly more at this level, or is that just a reputation that some people like to foster?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150203174 ... _hours.php

It's not up-to-date or comprehensive, but it's at least one datapoint.

That's a very interesting datapoint. From that survey it looks like the difference isn't as large as I had believed. Either this is due to the survey's shortcomings (e.g., Wachtell only had a 45% response rate, vs. S&C with an 83% response rate, so it's possible that the hardest-working WLRK associates disproportionately didn't have time to respond to the survey...), or my friends are exaggerating the workload.

Sorry for responding to an old post, but working an extra compared ~16 hours a month as compared to known sweatshops like S&C and Cravath, and ~30 more a month than a lot of firms that are not exactly a picnic to work at, does not strike me as a minor difference. That’s huge.

That 15 extra hours a week is huge QOL wise.

168 hours in a week. 42 hours sleeping. (Notice only budgeting 6 per night). 8 hours commuting. 12 hours eating/getting food. 6 hours misc life stuff including showering. Another 10 for going to gym (including commute to gym and additional showers) and you really only have 90 hours a week of time to budget.

When your baseline is 60 hours of work, that’s 30 hours of free time. Taking 15 of that away is pretty brutal, impossible if you have any other commitments at all (kids for example) or want to sleep 8 hours a day.

[BlackAndOrange84]

I'm interested in the bolded, if anyone with experience can speak to it. Roughly how many more hours per year (or month, week, w/e) will a WLRK associate be working than a Cravath associate in the same area, be it M&A or Litigation? Is it significantly more at this level, or is that just a reputation that some people like to foster?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150203174 ... _hours.php

It's not up-to-date or comprehensive, but it's at least one datapoint.

That's a very interesting datapoint. From that survey it looks like the difference isn't as large as I had believed. Either this is due to the survey's shortcomings (e.g., Wachtell only had a 45% response rate, vs. S&C with an 83% response rate, so it's possible that the hardest-working WLRK associates disproportionately didn't have time to respond to the survey...), or my friends are exaggerating the workload.

Sorry for responding to an old post, but working an extra compared ~16 hours a month as compared to known sweatshops like S&C and Cravath, and ~30 more a month than a lot of firms that are not exactly a picnic to work at, does not strike me as a minor difference. That’s huge.

That 15 extra hours a week is huge QOL wise.

168 hours in a week. 42 hours sleeping. (Notice only budgeting 6 per night). 8 hours commuting. 12 hours eating/getting food. 6 hours misc life stuff including showering. Another 10 for going to gym (including commute to gym and additional showers) and you really only have 90 hours a week of time to budget.

When your baseline is 60 hours of work, that’s 30 hours of free time. Taking 15 of that away is pretty brutal, impossible if you have any other commitments at all (kids for example) or want to sleep 8 hours a day.

Yes, it is huge for QOL. The best way I've heard it put was that 2000 hours a year is plenty to fill up M-F normal working hours (and then some, since nobody bills 100% of their time at work and there'll be evening/weekend work sprinkled in). While 200 hours more on the margin may not seem like much more in absolute terms, in real life every marginal hour billed is an evening, weekend, or holiday.

[Anonymous User]

I'm interested in the bolded, if anyone with experience can speak to it. Roughly how many more hours per year (or month, week, w/e) will a WLRK associate be working than a Cravath associate in the same area, be it M&A or Litigation? Is it significantly more at this level, or is that just a reputation that some people like to foster?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150203174 ... _hours.php

It's not up-to-date or comprehensive, but it's at least one datapoint.

That's a very interesting datapoint. From that survey it looks like the difference isn't as large as I had believed. Either this is due to the survey's shortcomings (e.g., Wachtell only had a 45% response rate, vs. S&C with an 83% response rate, so it's possible that the hardest-working WLRK associates disproportionately didn't have time to respond to the survey...), or my friends are exaggerating the workload.

Sorry for responding to an old post, but working an extra compared ~16 hours a month as compared to known sweatshops like S&C and Cravath, and ~30 more a month than a lot of firms that are not exactly a picnic to work at, does not strike me as a minor difference. That’s huge.

That 15 extra hours a week is huge QOL wise.

168 hours in a week. 42 hours sleeping. (Notice only budgeting 6 per night). 8 hours commuting. 12 hours eating/getting food. 6 hours misc life stuff including showering. Another 10 for going to gym (including commute to gym and additional showers) and you really only have 90 hours a week of time to budget.

When your baseline is 60 hours of work, that’s 30 hours of free time. Taking 15 of that away is pretty brutal, impossible if you have any other commitments at all (kids for example) or want to sleep 8 hours a day.

Yes, it is huge for QOL. The best way I've heard it put was that 2000 hours a year is plenty to fill up M-F normal working hours (and then some, since nobody bills 100% of their time at work and there'll be evening/weekend work sprinkled in). While 200 hours more on the margin may not seem like much more in absolute terms, in real life every marginal hour billed is an evening, weekend, or holiday.

I’m not at WLRK but I have friends there. I think this distinction is meaningful for the vast majority of people, but like other posters mentioned WLRK attracts and looks for a very specific type of person. The way my friends have described it, about half of every new class is composed of people who are there largely for the money/prestige and plan on staying only a couple of years. The other half, however, are true believers. They buy into the culture 110% and measure their self worth in part by how many hours they work. These are the people who become senior in the firm and eventually make partner if they’re lucky. My friends tend to fall into the latter camp, and one of them told me that the happiest day of his life was when he got his WLRK offer. Many may think this is crazy but you’ve got to respect the devotion at some level.

[Splurgles23]

I’m not at WLRK but I have friends there. I think this distinction is meaningful for the vast majority of people, but like other posters mentioned WLRK attracts and looks for a very specific type of person. The way my friends have described it, about half of every new class is composed of people who are there largely for the money/prestige and plan on staying only a couple of years. The other half, however, are true believers. They buy into the culture 110% and measure their self worth in part by how many hours they work. These are the people who become senior in the firm and eventually make partner if they’re lucky. My friends tend to fall into the latter camp, and one of them told me that the happiest day of his life was when he got his WLRK offer. Many may think this is crazy but you’ve got to respect the devotion at some level

Late-stage capitalism at its finest.

[Anonymous User]

went to a CCN, got a WLRK offer. anon for obvious reasons. hopefully this will slow down the random speculation from 1Ls?

- at least for non-diverse applicants top 10% is basically necessary but by no means sufficient. once you're in that band, grades are still important but not determinative, the class is so small that people with really really good grades are routinely rejected. (this is presuming you don't have actual perfect grades, maybe a literal 4.0 is an auto-offer, i wouldn't know.)
- interviews seemed to be a bit harder than at other firms—more substantive questions, higher pressure, less "tell me about yourself"—but not inordinately so. standard callback + screener with nothing especially distinctive process-wise.
- finance or other legitimate professional services work experience will help. this obviously exists on a continuum so experience at bb ib / mbb consulting / similar (which many but not most hires have) is going to be way more helpful than working in compliance.
- maybe just correlation but elite undergrads are very overrepresented.
- basically no hires ever from outside of the T14, vast majority (90%+) are from T6 schools.
- the person who says law review is necessary is flatly wrong. that's basically the one prestige marker WLRK cares about less than other firms.

just some general thoughts, of course none of the above is an absolute, every year people who went to middling state undergrads with limited or weird work experience get hired, etc.

For what it's worth, ay my lower T13 WLRK min-25-med-75 is roughly 3.9is for the first two and roughly 4.0 for the second two

[Anonymous User]

I'm interested in the bolded, if anyone with experience can speak to it. Roughly how many more hours per year (or month, week, w/e) will a WLRK associate be working than a Cravath associate in the same area, be it M&A or Litigation? Is it significantly more at this level, or is that just a reputation that some people like to foster?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150203174 ... _hours.php

It's not up-to-date or comprehensive, but it's at least one datapoint.

That's a very interesting datapoint. From that survey it looks like the difference isn't as large as I had believed. Either this is due to the survey's shortcomings (e.g., Wachtell only had a 45% response rate, vs. S&C with an 83% response rate, so it's possible that the hardest-working WLRK associates disproportionately didn't have time to respond to the survey...), or my friends are exaggerating the workload.

Sorry for responding to an old post, but working an extra compared ~16 hours a month as compared to known sweatshops like S&C and Cravath, and ~30 more a month than a lot of firms that are not exactly a picnic to work at, does not strike me as a minor difference. That’s huge.

That 15 extra hours a week is huge QOL wise.

168 hours in a week. 42 hours sleeping. (Notice only budgeting 6 per night). 8 hours commuting. 12 hours eating/getting food. 6 hours misc life stuff including showering. Another 10 for going to gym (including commute to gym and additional showers) and you really only have 90 hours a week of time to budget.

When your baseline is 60 hours of work, that’s 30 hours of free time. Taking 15 of that away is pretty brutal, impossible if you have any other commitments at all (kids for example) or want to sleep 8 hours a day.

Yes, it is huge for QOL. The best way I've heard it put was that 2000 hours a year is plenty to fill up M-F normal working hours (and then some, since nobody bills 100% of their time at work and there'll be evening/weekend work sprinkled in). While 200 hours more on the margin may not seem like much more in absolute terms, in real life every marginal hour billed is an evening, weekend, or holiday.

I’m not at WLRK but I have friends there. I think this distinction is meaningful for the vast majority of people, but like other posters mentioned WLRK attracts and looks for a very specific type of person. The way my friends have described it, about half of every new class is composed of people who are there largely for the money/prestige and plan on staying only a couple of years. The other half, however, are true believers. They buy into the culture 110% and measure their self worth in part by how many hours they work. These are the people who become senior in the firm and eventually make partner if they’re lucky. My friends tend to fall into the latter camp, and one of them told me that the happiest day of his life was when he got his WLRK offer. Many may think this is crazy but you’ve got to respect the devotion at some level.

Yes, despite all the negativity on TLS, we should respect the hard work. I am a 3rd year M&A associate at a different NYC firm, but I do admire WLRK. It's the only firm that's meaningfully different from other M&A shops.

[dabigchina]

I wish American Lawyer still published the above QOL survey, instead of 20 masturbatory articles per month about which firm has slightly higher PPP.

Really shows how the recession has changed the legal industry.

[QContinuum]

https://web.archive.org/web/20150203174 ... _hours.php

It's not up-to-date or comprehensive, but it's at least one datapoint.

That's a very interesting datapoint. From that survey it looks like the difference isn't as large as I had believed.

Sorry for responding to an old post, but working an extra compared ~16 hours a month as compared to known sweatshops like S&C and Cravath, and ~30 more a month than a lot of firms that are not exactly a picnic to work at, does not strike me as a minor difference. That’s huge.

That 15 extra hours a week is huge QOL wise.

168 hours in a week. 42 hours sleeping. (Notice only budgeting 6 per night). 8 hours commuting. 12 hours eating/getting food. 6 hours misc life stuff including showering. Another 10 for going to gym (including commute to gym and additional showers) and you really only have 90 hours a week of time to budget.

When your baseline is 60 hours of work, that’s 30 hours of free time. Taking 15 of that away is pretty brutal, impossible if you have any other commitments at all (kids for example) or want to sleep 8 hours a day.

I think we mistakenly 'evolved' ITT from the extra 4 hours per week shown by the survey to "15 extra hours a week." Of course 15 extra hours a week is huge no matter how you slice it. 4 hours? Could be very significant if that means an extra all-nighter, but alternately could be insignificant to the point of being barely noticeable if spread out over 5 weekdays plus weeknight/weekend work.

[Pulsar]

I think we mistakenly 'evolved' ITT from the extra 4 hours per week shown by the survey to "15 extra hours a week." Of course 15 extra hours a week is huge no matter how you slice it. 4 hours? Could be very significant if that means an extra all-nighter, but alternately could be insignificant to the point of being barely noticeable if spread out over 5 weekdays plus weeknight/weekend work.

You're measuring that from Cravath, which in reality is a horror show too, just with a guarantee of not making more than market. The better measure is how much harder WLRK is than a typical highly-reputable-but-not-V1 law firm. The poll seems to show about 10 hours a week (not sure where 15 came from).

Still, 10 hours/week, I promise, is huge. It's a whole Saturday of being able to hang out with your spouse/lover, or a free afternoon plus a few extra hours of sleep, or a few trips to the gym, or some combination of the above. All of which are significant and critical to the average human health/QOL. Maybe an extra $100k+ comp is worth it, but be aware of the very significant toll you're exacting on yourself.

[BlackAndOrange84]

I think we mistakenly 'evolved' ITT from the extra 4 hours per week shown by the survey to "15 extra hours a week." Of course 15 extra hours a week is huge no matter how you slice it. 4 hours? Could be very significant if that means an extra all-nighter, but alternately could be insignificant to the point of being barely noticeable if spread out over 5 weekdays plus weeknight/weekend work.

You're measuring that from Cravath, which in reality is a horror show too, just with a guarantee of not making more than market. The better measure is how much harder WLRK is than a typical highly-reputable-but-not-V1 law firm. The poll seems to show about 10 hours a week (not sure where 15 came from).

Still, 10 hours/week, I promise, is huge. It's a whole Saturday of being able to hang out with your spouse/lover, or a free afternoon plus a few extra hours of sleep, or a few trips to the gym, or some combination of the above. All of which are significant and critical to the average human health/QOL. Maybe an extra $100k+ comp is worth it, but be aware of the very significant toll you're exacting on yourself.

And even 4 hours/week—on average—is a big deal over the course of the year. 4*52=208 more hours out of your nights, weekends, and holidays. There is a real difference between 2000 to 2200, 2200 to 2400, 2400 to 2600, 2600 to 2800, and so on—and in every case the true impact of that marginal difference is progressively worse for QOL even if relatively smaller.

[dabigchina]

it's important to note an extra 4 hours per week on average is different from working an extra 4 hours every single week. biglaw being biglaw, those extra 200 hours a year can all come in 5-10 weeks, which is definitely painful.

[Elston Gunn]

I think we mistakenly 'evolved' ITT from the extra 4 hours per week shown by the survey to "15 extra hours a week." Of course 15 extra hours a week is huge no matter how you slice it. 4 hours? Could be very significant if that means an extra all-nighter, but alternately could be insignificant to the point of being barely noticeable if spread out over 5 weekdays plus weeknight/weekend work.

Everyone is different, but this is baffling to me. You think the difference between going home at, say, 9 PM every day Monday through Thursday, and going home at 10 PM every night instead is “barely noticeable”?

[Splurgles23]

I think we mistakenly 'evolved' ITT from the extra 4 hours per week shown by the survey to "15 extra hours a week." Of course 15 extra hours a week is huge no matter how you slice it. 4 hours? Could be very significant if that means an extra all-nighter, but alternately could be insignificant to the point of being barely noticeable if spread out over 5 weekdays plus weeknight/weekend work.

You're measuring that from Cravath, which in reality is a horror show too, just with a guarantee of not making more than market. The better measure is how much harder WLRK is than a typical highly-reputable-but-not-V1 law firm. The poll seems to show about 10 hours a week (not sure where 15 came from).

Still, 10 hours/week, I promise, is huge. It's a whole Saturday of being able to hang out with your spouse/lover, or a free afternoon plus a few extra hours of sleep, or a few trips to the gym, or some combination of the above. All of which are significant and critical to the average human health/QOL. Maybe an extra $100k+ comp is worth it, but be aware of the very significant toll you're exacting on yourself.

I don't work there but know people who do. I think it's significantly more than an extra $100k. If their bonus is historically 80%-100% of comp, a first-year is making close to twice that. Their comp really is eye-popping...

[notinbiglaw]

I apparently can’t read. Assuming 30 hours of time to budget a week, every hour lost is a pretty big deal especially if you can’t control when which hour to lose.

[QContinuum]

I think we mistakenly 'evolved' ITT from the extra 4 hours per week shown by the survey to "15 extra hours a week." Of course 15 extra hours a week is huge no matter how you slice it. 4 hours? Could be very significant if that means an extra all-nighter, but alternately could be insignificant to the point of being barely noticeable if spread out over 5 weekdays plus weeknight/weekend work.

Everyone is different, but this is baffling to me. You think the difference between going home at, say, 9 PM every day Monday through Thursday, and going home at 10 PM every night instead is “barely noticeable”?

I'm saying that it's insignificant when you take into account the fact that those 4 extra hours per week could net you an extra $150k+ in your annual comp. IMO most anyone willing to work Cravath hours would be willing to work an additional 4 hours per week for an additional $150k+ - if it's generally an extra hour a day. If it's generally an extra all-nighter every week, then I could see more people saying the extra money isn't worth it.

[Anonymous User]

I think we mistakenly 'evolved' ITT from the extra 4 hours per week shown by the survey to "15 extra hours a week." Of course 15 extra hours a week is huge no matter how you slice it. 4 hours? Could be very significant if that means an extra all-nighter, but alternately could be insignificant to the point of being barely noticeable if spread out over 5 weekdays plus weeknight/weekend work.

Everyone is different, but this is baffling to me. You think the difference between going home at, say, 9 PM every day Monday through Thursday, and going home at 10 PM every night instead is “barely noticeable”?

I'm saying that it's insignificant when you take into account the fact that those 4 extra hours per week could net you an extra $150k+ in your annual comp. IMO most anyone willing to work Cravath hours would be willing to work an additional 4 hours per week for an additional $150k+ - if it's generally an extra hour a day. If it's generally an extra all-nighter every week, then I could see more people saying the extra money isn't worth it.

Agree with QC. For me-and probably most people willing to work V5 Corp. hours-the extra money is easily worth the 80-100% salary bonus you can expect as a junior. If you think the tradeoff isn’t worth it you probably wouldn’t choose CSM or S&C either.