On the second one, there are two things that I think are very important to bear in mind. This Q is framed differently to q lot of other 'why this firm' Qs, both with its focus on training and with the comparative element.
So firstly, you're looking at specific features of training at Latham - seats, structure, exposure, etc.
Secondly, you're looking at what that training offers you that other firms don't. I'd take this in two steps. One is the broad differences between US & MC/SC firms - intake size, level of formal training, responsibility at junior level. Two, what makes training at Latham different from its most directly comparable peers? The standard comparisons here are Weil and Kirkland, though you could look at other PE-heavy firms like Ropes as well. Standout points on Latham are that its banking team is top-tier for both lender and sponsor work and juniors get experience on both sides of the table (cf. I think Kirkland(?) is all sponsor-side on leveraged finance); Latham is more present in VC/early stage PE than Weil and Kirkland, though you could possibly compare with a firm like Orrick on this point.
These are just a few examples, I'm sure there are plenty of others - the important thing is to flag up a couple of things that you consider significant, explain them credibly and, most importantly, articulate why they matter to you and why they would lead you to choose Latham over another firm.
