Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Lowering The Standards
Articles like this make my blood boil.
So basically law firms are hiring underqualified candidates all in the name of "diversity". God I hope hospitals aren't doing the same thing.
Thanks to vigorous recruiting and pressure from corporate clients, black lawyers are well represented now among new associates at the nation’s most prestigious law firms. But they remain far less likely to stay at the firms or to make partner than their white counterparts.
A recent study says grades help explain the gap. To ensure diversity among new associates, the study found, elite law firms hire minority lawyers with, on average, much lower grades than white ones. That may, the study says, set them up to fail....
...The new study proposes an explanation. It found that the pool of black lawyers with excellent law-school grades is so small that firms must relax their standards if they are to have new associates who resemble the pool of new lawyers.
Professor Sander found that very few blacks graduated from top-30 law schools with high grades....
...The story for black students appears to be different. Black students, who make up 1 to 2 percent of students with high grades (meaning a grade point average in the top half of the class) make up 8 percent of corporate law firm hires, Professor Sander found. “Blacks are far more likely to be working at large firms than are other new lawyers with similar credentials,” he said.
So basically law firms are hiring underqualified candidates all in the name of "diversity". God I hope hospitals aren't doing the same thing.
posted by LWY, 9:01 AM
43 Comments:
Isn't BOTW great? :)
Ironically, foolish diversification programs further the possibility of racism, as white people who get cut out of jobs to underqualified minorities will blame the minorities. Hopefully, this is rare, but it certainly is a possibility.
Ironically, foolish diversification programs further the possibility of racism, as white people who get cut out of jobs to underqualified minorities will blame the minorities. Hopefully, this is rare, but it certainly is a possibility.
Of course hospitals are doing the same thing, or medical schools are, at any rate.
If grades are the overwhelmingly dominant factor in hiring, then your statement is partially correct, but that isn't possible to confirm using the data listed in the article. Perhaps the black lawyers served on their school's law review journals and had other positive aspects that put them on the same level as the white lawyers the firm hired.
Even if my above statement is false, it doesn't make the lawyers "underqualified" - just not he best candidates (To be clear, hiring worse candidates is bad and a legitimate reason to increase blood temperature)
Still, the article shows no evidence of the lawyers being "underqualified." The part discussing that women have both higher grades and attrition show that these aren't directly connected. Menoring, especially with minority groups, is a major factor to success. For example, imagine that you took a job in the deep south and you were the only Jewish lawyer in a firm. You couldn't go to anyone's house for dinner and meet for dinner and drinks at restaurants. You didn't build the informal connections and this separated you from the larger community of partners. Also imagine that you didn't have a host of friends and friends of parents to call on for mentorship advice. Your chance of success would decrease.
If a firm formally sets up mentoring systems and has an open process for assigning cases as evenly as possible to all (both laudable goals in general) and black lawyers still fail, only then can you use the word "underqualified"
Even if my above statement is false, it doesn't make the lawyers "underqualified" - just not he best candidates (To be clear, hiring worse candidates is bad and a legitimate reason to increase blood temperature)
Still, the article shows no evidence of the lawyers being "underqualified." The part discussing that women have both higher grades and attrition show that these aren't directly connected. Menoring, especially with minority groups, is a major factor to success. For example, imagine that you took a job in the deep south and you were the only Jewish lawyer in a firm. You couldn't go to anyone's house for dinner and meet for dinner and drinks at restaurants. You didn't build the informal connections and this separated you from the larger community of partners. Also imagine that you didn't have a host of friends and friends of parents to call on for mentorship advice. Your chance of success would decrease.
If a firm formally sets up mentoring systems and has an open process for assigning cases as evenly as possible to all (both laudable goals in general) and black lawyers still fail, only then can you use the word "underqualified"
Bsci,
The overwhelming number of summaer associates get their jobs because of their grades. Grades are generally the best proxy for important information such as intelligence, discipline, and other factors. And most people on law reviews got there because of their grades. So grades are generally used to determine who should get interviews (though not as true in the top schools, where everyone get interviewed).
The overwhelming number of summaer associates get their jobs because of their grades. Grades are generally the best proxy for important information such as intelligence, discipline, and other factors. And most people on law reviews got there because of their grades. So grades are generally used to determine who should get interviews (though not as true in the top schools, where everyone get interviewed).
If grades are the overwhelmingly dominant factor in hiring, then your statement is partially correct, but that isn't possible to confirm using the data listed in the article. Perhaps the black lawyers served on their school's law review journals and had other positive aspects that put them on the same level as the white lawyers the firm hired.
Baloney. Grades are the only thing that gets you the interview. If you're below a certain GPA, the big firms won't even look at you. You get on Law Review through your grades. You can also write on, but those people don't get the same interviews as those who graded on.
All they care about are grades, and they are hiring blacks with grades that they would never higher whites with.
Baloney. Grades are the only thing that gets you the interview. If you're below a certain GPA, the big firms won't even look at you. You get on Law Review through your grades. You can also write on, but those people don't get the same interviews as those who graded on.
All they care about are grades, and they are hiring blacks with grades that they would never higher whites with.
(though not as true in the top schools, where everyone get interviewed).
Everyone gets interviewed, but the school tells you beforehand what the GPA standard is for every firm, and that you're wasting your time getting an interview there if your grades aren't high enough.
Everyone gets interviewed, but the school tells you beforehand what the GPA standard is for every firm, and that you're wasting your time getting an interview there if your grades aren't high enough.
So grades are generally used to determine who should get interviews
That's the key statement. Are the grades of black lawyers under the interview threshold? For example, let's say the interview threshold is a 3.3 GPA. If you GPA is 3.9 or above then your an etremely strong candidate and just need to not make a fool of yourself at an interview, but a 3.3 plus other positive factors can also get you the job.
If they decide interviews based solely on GPA and the minimum GPA is different for blacks and whites, that would be very bad.
Grades are generally the best proxy for important information such as intelligence, discipline, and other factors.
There are a good proxy, but not the only proxy. In addition, I'd like you to find anything that shows that a few tenths of a point of GPAs have any meaning (i.e. is a 3.4GPA someone who has less of a chance of sucess than someone with a 3.6 GPA?)
That's the key statement. Are the grades of black lawyers under the interview threshold? For example, let's say the interview threshold is a 3.3 GPA. If you GPA is 3.9 or above then your an etremely strong candidate and just need to not make a fool of yourself at an interview, but a 3.3 plus other positive factors can also get you the job.
If they decide interviews based solely on GPA and the minimum GPA is different for blacks and whites, that would be very bad.
Grades are generally the best proxy for important information such as intelligence, discipline, and other factors.
There are a good proxy, but not the only proxy. In addition, I'd like you to find anything that shows that a few tenths of a point of GPAs have any meaning (i.e. is a 3.4GPA someone who has less of a chance of sucess than someone with a 3.6 GPA?)
CYW, like I just responded to Nephtuli, it is unclear whether the difference appears at the interview or hiring stage. It's very possible that the same minimum GPA threshold is used for all and the GPA difference is formed on the basis of hiring decision.
bsci- it's clear that you're not aware how it works in law school...
In law school, if your GPA is off by .01, that can mean the difference between an interview or not. All the firms care about are your grades. Due to the curve in all law schools, the GPA spread is very, very tight. So a firm may interview people only over a 3.5, which can be just the top 10% of the class. But based on what the article says, there's a lower GPA standard for blacks.
In law school, if your GPA is off by .01, that can mean the difference between an interview or not. All the firms care about are your grades. Due to the curve in all law schools, the GPA spread is very, very tight. So a firm may interview people only over a 3.5, which can be just the top 10% of the class. But based on what the article says, there's a lower GPA standard for blacks.
CYW, like I just responded to Nephtuli, it is unclear whether the difference appears at the interview or hiring stage.\
You don't get the interview unless you've got the GPA. And if you don't get the interview, you don't get the job.
You don't get the interview unless you've got the GPA. And if you don't get the interview, you don't get the job.
First it's sad if any serious law firm actually cares about a 0.01 difference in a GPA. That difference is completely meaningless about intelligence or future potential by any stretch of the imagination. Someone will always be 0.01 below a cutoff, but that is random chance with no meaning.
Second, the article is very unclear on what the differences actualy are. Median percentile is a fairly difficult number to read in this case because it doesn't tell you anything about the cutoff.
Here's one quote from the article "Black students, who make up 1 to 2 percent of students with high grades (meaning a grade point average in the top half of the class) make up 8 percent of corporate law firm hires."
Assuming this "high grades" threshold is the cutoff most firms use on whether to grant interviews, its possible that of those interviewed, a black lawyer is 4X as likely to get the job and a everyone else is 0.94X less likely to get the job.
Second, the article is very unclear on what the differences actualy are. Median percentile is a fairly difficult number to read in this case because it doesn't tell you anything about the cutoff.
Here's one quote from the article "Black students, who make up 1 to 2 percent of students with high grades (meaning a grade point average in the top half of the class) make up 8 percent of corporate law firm hires."
Assuming this "high grades" threshold is the cutoff most firms use on whether to grant interviews, its possible that of those interviewed, a black lawyer is 4X as likely to get the job and a everyone else is 0.94X less likely to get the job.
First it's sad if any serious law firm actually cares about a 0.01 difference in a GPA. That difference is completely meaningless about intelligence or future potential by any stretch of the imagination. Someone will always be 0.01 below a cutoff, but that is random chance with no meaning.
True, but that's how it works. There has to be some sort of cutoff, there are way more students applying for an interview slot than slots available. It sucks, but there's nothing you can do about it.
Assuming this "high grades" threshold is the cutoff most firms use on whether to grant interviews, its possible that of those interviewed, a black lawyer is 4X as likely to get the job and a everyone else is 0.94X less likely to get the job.
And if the races were reversed, wouldn't this be a front page story?
True, but that's how it works. There has to be some sort of cutoff, there are way more students applying for an interview slot than slots available. It sucks, but there's nothing you can do about it.
Assuming this "high grades" threshold is the cutoff most firms use on whether to grant interviews, its possible that of those interviewed, a black lawyer is 4X as likely to get the job and a everyone else is 0.94X less likely to get the job.
And if the races were reversed, wouldn't this be a front page story?
If top law firms had 92% black lawyers and 8% from other groups, that probably would be news.
The key here is that raw number of blacks is very low to begin with. If a big firm has 200 lawyers (that's accurate?) Then hiring 2 black lawyers becuase they had something stellar on their resume besides thier slightly lower GPA bumps up the percent black by 1%. In general this skews all stats and makes these things very difficult to interpret. A median value for 184 people has meaning. A median value for 16 people is a very noisy measure.
Another way to put it, with the black hiring numbers so low (probably 1-4 new black lawyers per large firm per year) the only way to reverse the number would be for a firm to hire no black lawyers. If that happened more frequently, that would probably make news.
The key here is that raw number of blacks is very low to begin with. If a big firm has 200 lawyers (that's accurate?) Then hiring 2 black lawyers becuase they had something stellar on their resume besides thier slightly lower GPA bumps up the percent black by 1%. In general this skews all stats and makes these things very difficult to interpret. A median value for 184 people has meaning. A median value for 16 people is a very noisy measure.
Another way to put it, with the black hiring numbers so low (probably 1-4 new black lawyers per large firm per year) the only way to reverse the number would be for a firm to hire no black lawyers. If that happened more frequently, that would probably make news.
BSCI, you're missing the point.
First of all, let me say that I went to a law school that didn't disclose grades before interviews, gave them out based on a lottery and ranking system, and didn't put GPA on the transcript.
And yet, I got, basically, laughed out of interview rooms because I didn't "have the grades." (Two a-holes in particular come to mind, one that wasn't even from a Top 25 firm, let alone Top 10) Mind you, I was very close to a B+ student (in a curve based between B and B+, so, in essence slightly better than average.)
Second of all, the outrage that CWY, Nephtuli and I share about the fact that hiring and/or interview standards being lower for black students aside, you seem to have missed the point that while this may open the door for them, it eventually works to their detriment, as evidenced by the higher attrition rate.
First of all, let me say that I went to a law school that didn't disclose grades before interviews, gave them out based on a lottery and ranking system, and didn't put GPA on the transcript.
And yet, I got, basically, laughed out of interview rooms because I didn't "have the grades." (Two a-holes in particular come to mind, one that wasn't even from a Top 25 firm, let alone Top 10) Mind you, I was very close to a B+ student (in a curve based between B and B+, so, in essence slightly better than average.)
Second of all, the outrage that CWY, Nephtuli and I share about the fact that hiring and/or interview standards being lower for black students aside, you seem to have missed the point that while this may open the door for them, it eventually works to their detriment, as evidenced by the higher attrition rate.
I don't get your point. Grades matter. I know grades matter. The question is not whether they matter, but whether the black lawyer's grades are lower than the cutoff threshold for interviews or that the MEDIAN grades are lower than the grades of white lawyers. I full distribution of percentile in class for black and white lawyers for both the interview and the hiring stage woudl be required to answer this question. Anything else is speculation.
it eventually works to their detriment, as evidenced by the higher attrition rate.
White women and black lawyers both have a higher attrition rate. White women have higher grades. Atrition has to do with other factors beyond intelligence and work ethic. There is strong evidence of different treatment once black lawyers are hired. The article notes that 49% of white lawyers regularly take meals with partners while only 29% of black lawyers do. This is not insignificant. This is a hard number that says nothing about the competance of the lawyer and everything about general acceptance into the law firm.
The other measures talk about differences, but these could be a mix of competance and acceptance: There are difference in being involved in formulating case strategy in half or more cases, handling cases on their own, and getting sufficient mentorship. Assuming a firm isn't going to hire someone that has no chance of succeeding at a job, the fact that they aren't giving black candidates the same chances, speaks detrimentally to the firms.
it eventually works to their detriment, as evidenced by the higher attrition rate.
White women and black lawyers both have a higher attrition rate. White women have higher grades. Atrition has to do with other factors beyond intelligence and work ethic. There is strong evidence of different treatment once black lawyers are hired. The article notes that 49% of white lawyers regularly take meals with partners while only 29% of black lawyers do. This is not insignificant. This is a hard number that says nothing about the competance of the lawyer and everything about general acceptance into the law firm.
The other measures talk about differences, but these could be a mix of competance and acceptance: There are difference in being involved in formulating case strategy in half or more cases, handling cases on their own, and getting sufficient mentorship. Assuming a firm isn't going to hire someone that has no chance of succeeding at a job, the fact that they aren't giving black candidates the same chances, speaks detrimentally to the firms.
The attrition rate for white women is almost entirely related to Biology, and has no bearing or impact on this discussion. You can't compare the attrition of women to the attrition of men.
Second of all, there's this in the article " 'Blacks are far more likely to be working at large firms than are other new lawyers with similar credentials,' he said." Doesn't that answer the grave-level question?
Finally, the self-given reasons from black associates have to be taken with a grain of salt. For instance, a black associate, despite the reality, is likely to perceive a lack of meaningful mentorship because there are fewer black senior attorneys. Blaming that is circular (there are no black senior attorneys because there are too few black senior attorneys).
Second of all, there's this in the article " 'Blacks are far more likely to be working at large firms than are other new lawyers with similar credentials,' he said." Doesn't that answer the grave-level question?
Finally, the self-given reasons from black associates have to be taken with a grain of salt. For instance, a black associate, despite the reality, is likely to perceive a lack of meaningful mentorship because there are fewer black senior attorneys. Blaming that is circular (there are no black senior attorneys because there are too few black senior attorneys).
The question of women definitely relates to this issue. In fact it's a more obvious statement of the problem. Do sucessful women drop from big law firms because it's impossible to be a top lawyer and a mother or because the current system isn't designed to support that decision? For example why isn't it possible for a woman to take a 5-10 year leave of absence and then return to the same firm without having to start from the bottom? Are there no jobs in firms that would allow reduced hours and pay for a period of time? The person clearly has the skills and drive, it's ignorant policies that make women leave. There are similar issues with underepresented minorities, but it's they're not always as easy to say.
I did take the self given reasons with a grain of salt, but the fact that they are lunching with partners significantly less often and saying they are receiving less mentorship seems to point to something more than a selfreporting flaw. Also mentors don't need to be from the same group. Are all your mentors Jewish. Perhaps the problem is that too many white lawyers figure that the black lawyers will mentor other blacks and that leaves a gap in the firm.
I did take the self given reasons with a grain of salt, but the fact that they are lunching with partners significantly less often and saying they are receiving less mentorship seems to point to something more than a selfreporting flaw. Also mentors don't need to be from the same group. Are all your mentors Jewish. Perhaps the problem is that too many white lawyers figure that the black lawyers will mentor other blacks and that leaves a gap in the firm.
Grades are generally the best proxy for important information such as intelligence, discipline, and other factors.
Do you really believe that??
And everyone is avoiding the real question here: Why do blacks have lower grades?
Do you really believe that??
And everyone is avoiding the real question here: Why do blacks have lower grades?
The key word here is "proxy". Law firms don't have the time or resources to carefully check every applicant. So that's why grades are so important.
As for why blacks have lower grades? Well one possible reason for that is affirmative action- law schools routinely
accept minorities with lower academic skills. Keep backtracking until you reach grade school. There's your answer.
As for why blacks have lower grades? Well one possible reason for that is affirmative action- law schools routinely
accept minorities with lower academic skills. Keep backtracking until you reach grade school. There's your answer.
For example why isn't it possible for a woman to take a 5-10 year leave of absence and then return to the same firm without having to start from the bottom?
It's not plausible for any attorney to take 5-10 years off and come back and expect to be in the same place they were when they left. Man or woman. The profession continues to grow, skills atrophy. Making accomodations for that because we want to support a woman's choice to have a family is akin to affirmative action.
People may not be against it, but at least recognize it for what it is. Glossing over sub-qualifications in the name of diversity (whether of sex or race).
It's not plausible for any attorney to take 5-10 years off and come back and expect to be in the same place they were when they left. Man or woman. The profession continues to grow, skills atrophy. Making accomodations for that because we want to support a woman's choice to have a family is akin to affirmative action.
People may not be against it, but at least recognize it for what it is. Glossing over sub-qualifications in the name of diversity (whether of sex or race).
Do you really believe that??
Of course. Can you think of a better proxy?
And everyone is avoiding the real question here: Why do blacks have lower grades?
Richard Sanders, who authored this article, argued that affirmative action causes unqualified blacks to be placed in schools that they are not qualified to be in. He argues that if affirmative action ceased, there'd be less blacks in top schools, but most blacks in law school would do as well as everyone else. As it stands right now, blacks do very poorly on average. He dubs this idea the mismatch effect.
Why they aren't qualified is a difficult question, but not relevant.
Of course. Can you think of a better proxy?
And everyone is avoiding the real question here: Why do blacks have lower grades?
Richard Sanders, who authored this article, argued that affirmative action causes unqualified blacks to be placed in schools that they are not qualified to be in. He argues that if affirmative action ceased, there'd be less blacks in top schools, but most blacks in law school would do as well as everyone else. As it stands right now, blacks do very poorly on average. He dubs this idea the mismatch effect.
Why they aren't qualified is a difficult question, but not relevant.
The question is not whether they matter, but whether the black lawyer's grades are lower than the cutoff threshold for interviews or that the MEDIAN grades are lower than the grades of white lawyers. I full distribution of percentile in class for black and white lawyers for both the interview and the hiring stage woudl be required to answer this question. Anything else is speculation.
I agree. But given what I know about the law school inteviewing process and average grades for black students, it is not a stretch to argue that at least some blacks get interviews because they are black and would not get them if they were white or asian.
I agree. But given what I know about the law school inteviewing process and average grades for black students, it is not a stretch to argue that at least some blacks get interviews because they are black and would not get them if they were white or asian.
It's not plausible for any attorney to take 5-10 years off and come back and expect to be in the same place they were when they left. Man or woman
I chose my words very carefully. I said why would the person have to start from the bottom, not at the same place. And this could extend to anyone, not just women and for other life events beyond having a family (perhaps a person's mother is sick and takes two years off to care for her).
Yes skills atrophy, but if someone had the skills to be a top lawyer, how long would it take to regain those skills and adapt? A year or two? If a company knows someone is a good worker, is it more efficient to gamble with a kid out of law school or take the experienced person who had a 5 year break?
If a kid out of law school can choose to go to a place that is understanding of a long term break for unforseen circumstances or a place that expects you to work 80 hours per week for the next 20 years, which would the new lawyer prefer?
Flexible leaves without having to start from the bottom benefit both the company and the workers.
I chose my words very carefully. I said why would the person have to start from the bottom, not at the same place. And this could extend to anyone, not just women and for other life events beyond having a family (perhaps a person's mother is sick and takes two years off to care for her).
Yes skills atrophy, but if someone had the skills to be a top lawyer, how long would it take to regain those skills and adapt? A year or two? If a company knows someone is a good worker, is it more efficient to gamble with a kid out of law school or take the experienced person who had a 5 year break?
If a kid out of law school can choose to go to a place that is understanding of a long term break for unforseen circumstances or a place that expects you to work 80 hours per week for the next 20 years, which would the new lawyer prefer?
Flexible leaves without having to start from the bottom benefit both the company and the workers.
bsci - really, under what circumstances would someone who took 5-10 years off from law be a better fit for a firm that someone (either fresh out of law school or in the lateral market) who is more current? And when is the person in question taking this supposed break? They'd have to be pretty senior to have learned skills that are worth slavaging after such a long break.
That being said there are quite a few law firms (like mine) that offer all sorts of part-time and flex-time arrangements for working mothers and others who have the necessary skills to be a big firm lawyer, but not the time to devote themselves fully. In addition, I have heard of people (at other firms) taking a year or two off with the only requirement being that they keep current in their practice area (through CLEs I guess), and then being able to pick off where they left off. I don't now that this would be possible for a break of the length you are talking about.
That being said there are quite a few law firms (like mine) that offer all sorts of part-time and flex-time arrangements for working mothers and others who have the necessary skills to be a big firm lawyer, but not the time to devote themselves fully. In addition, I have heard of people (at other firms) taking a year or two off with the only requirement being that they keep current in their practice area (through CLEs I guess), and then being able to pick off where they left off. I don't now that this would be possible for a break of the length you are talking about.
Here's a situation or two. Someone graduates from law school at the age of 24. They spend ten years and the firm and reach partner or spend 8 years and are right below partner. The person is well respected and highly skilled. At the age of 32 or 34 the person has a child and decides to take 75-100% time off until the child the child reaches kindergarden. Or perhaps at 32 or 34 the person's spouse gets diagnosed with a stressful and terminal illness such as ALS and wants to spend a few years as caregiver.
I'd definitely call these people far superior to someone directly out of law school and they would have legitimate reasons to leave most or all work for more than a year or two. The fact that skilled women are leaving before partner hints that the family related example happens often. Do these women want to leave the profession for good or would they love to go back to work after a significant leave?
At the very least, why isn't longer term part time work not acceptiable. Are there no ways for these people to contribute or is a white couple stuck with the option of making one a stay at home parent or hiring a nanny to raise children. The work force is losing good people this way.
I'd definitely call these people far superior to someone directly out of law school and they would have legitimate reasons to leave most or all work for more than a year or two. The fact that skilled women are leaving before partner hints that the family related example happens often. Do these women want to leave the profession for good or would they love to go back to work after a significant leave?
At the very least, why isn't longer term part time work not acceptiable. Are there no ways for these people to contribute or is a white couple stuck with the option of making one a stay at home parent or hiring a nanny to raise children. The work force is losing good people this way.
Quite a few firms have long term part time and flex time programs now, particularly for valuable senior associates - and in some cases partners as well. My firm has arrangements where people work exclusively or mostly from home, so this is done, even at the big firms (if not at all of them).
Part of this conversation stated by saying that black lawyer and white women both leave firms early so it's not the grades of incoming lawyers that defines remaining long term. Someone flippantly said that women are different and leave because of "biology." From your description, it sounds like women have many options that don't require permanently leaving law firms.
Assuming these options are really global why do so many women leave? It's clearly not because they don't have the intelligence or skills. Perhaps it's the same lack of mentorship, support, and sense of belonging that seems to affect black lawyers.
In general, if the "biology" explanation does not explain the leaving then there's less justification to imply that black lawyers are leaving because they are less skilled - the original implications of this post.
Assuming these options are really global why do so many women leave? It's clearly not because they don't have the intelligence or skills. Perhaps it's the same lack of mentorship, support, and sense of belonging that seems to affect black lawyers.
In general, if the "biology" explanation does not explain the leaving then there's less justification to imply that black lawyers are leaving because they are less skilled - the original implications of this post.
Just because women have some alternative options (which vary from firm to firm) does not mean that the stresses of raising a family while trying to hold down a big firm job (even on a flexible schedule) do not have an impact on attrition. Part time at a big firm can be as much of a commitment as a full time job elsewhere. Firms (some more than others) take steps to keep experienced women around - but the "biology" factor is partially that the women may not want to stay (due to family stuff).
On a related note, also consider that women are generally not expected to be a sole or primary breadwinner, and therefore have less of an incentive to persevere through the grueling hours at a big firm, when they can exit for a cushier in house job that still brings on a decent salary after 2-3 years.
On a related note, also consider that women are generally not expected to be a sole or primary breadwinner, and therefore have less of an incentive to persevere through the grueling hours at a big firm, when they can exit for a cushier in house job that still brings on a decent salary after 2-3 years.
You are making multiple generalizations about women and saying that explains the gender difference in reaching partner. You are also implying that everything that can be done to make firms more supportive to women has already been done (therefore anything differences left is due to "biology"). This logic removes all need for introspection and any attempts to remove the system. Does your firm do exit interviews. Does it ask the women who leave if there is anything the firm could have done to make them stay? Does it care what the responses are?
Ok, back up. You had made points saying that firms should try and retain experienced women because they still add value, depite having to balance work with their home life. I pointed out that many of them have taken steps in that direction, at least in part for the reasons you stated. You then asked why the partnership rates were so low, if these accomodations had been made, and I pointed out that the accomodations do not eliminate the "biology" factors that cause women to leave firms earlier than men. I never said that everything that can be done has been (or should be) done to accomodate family raising women.
I have no idea if my firm does exit interviews, as I have not exited.I assume they keep track of this kind of thing though.
As for making generalizations, we are talking about woman lawyers as a whole, so I don't see why perfectly true and supportable generalizations are inappropiate. Like it or not, women do generally bear the majority of the burden for raising a family from conception onward, and are generally the ones responsible for maintaining the home in any relationship. Similarly, women are generally not expected to be the primary breadwinner, and generally are subject to less pressure to subject themselves to the enormous stress it takes to rise to partnership in a firm. Why would you expect that all of these (completely true)factors would not depress the rate of women making partner - even if the firms were accomodating them by letting them work on a flexible schedule, and suchlike?
I have no idea if my firm does exit interviews, as I have not exited.I assume they keep track of this kind of thing though.
As for making generalizations, we are talking about woman lawyers as a whole, so I don't see why perfectly true and supportable generalizations are inappropiate. Like it or not, women do generally bear the majority of the burden for raising a family from conception onward, and are generally the ones responsible for maintaining the home in any relationship. Similarly, women are generally not expected to be the primary breadwinner, and generally are subject to less pressure to subject themselves to the enormous stress it takes to rise to partnership in a firm. Why would you expect that all of these (completely true)factors would not depress the rate of women making partner - even if the firms were accomodating them by letting them work on a flexible schedule, and suchlike?
bsci,
blacks are given interviews and jobs at elite firms where they don't even come close to the mandatory gpa cutoff (I guess it's only mandatory for the oppressed white people). this is unfair to everyone, and it's racist!
I will say that some of the brightest and most ambitious people in my law school classes were black... but they were all going to Capitol Hill or gov't jobs back in their hometown. They all want to give back to their community. That's the truth. I will also say that some of the dumbest and most immature people in my law school classes were black and/or white... and they were all seeking jobs in Biglaw.
Anecdotal evidence: a gw 2l got an offer from Skadden DC with a 3.1 gpa. A white person would need a 3.5+ law review and great personality and great background experience.
The fact is that the big firms are dying for admitted attorneys that have dark skin. They are a showpiece. There are tons of articles in the NLJ and ABA Journal that speak about it. Many of them complain that they are hired to be a piece of furniture and aren't given any meaningful work, which is why they often leave.
blacks are given interviews and jobs at elite firms where they don't even come close to the mandatory gpa cutoff (I guess it's only mandatory for the oppressed white people). this is unfair to everyone, and it's racist!
I will say that some of the brightest and most ambitious people in my law school classes were black... but they were all going to Capitol Hill or gov't jobs back in their hometown. They all want to give back to their community. That's the truth. I will also say that some of the dumbest and most immature people in my law school classes were black and/or white... and they were all seeking jobs in Biglaw.
Anecdotal evidence: a gw 2l got an offer from Skadden DC with a 3.1 gpa. A white person would need a 3.5+ law review and great personality and great background experience.
The fact is that the big firms are dying for admitted attorneys that have dark skin. They are a showpiece. There are tons of articles in the NLJ and ABA Journal that speak about it. Many of them complain that they are hired to be a piece of furniture and aren't given any meaningful work, which is why they often leave.
Somewhat Anonymous, I think we generally agree about women in law firms. Much has been done to make for flexability and increase retention, but other factors remain that hurt retention. I think some of your generalizations are too broad and could be changed with large scale policy changes. For example, there have been several cases where if men are given the same flexible childraising options as women more choose to stay at home or become 50/50 caregivers with their spouse. There will probably always be a bias towards women as primary care givers, but we're no where near the minimum yet.
Back to the point of this thread, I brought up women to show that many factors beyond grades affect retention and before someone starts griping that black lawyers are unqualified because they don't remain at the job, these other factors must be considered.
Back to the point of this thread, I brought up women to show that many factors beyond grades affect retention and before someone starts griping that black lawyers are unqualified because they don't remain at the job, these other factors must be considered.
anonymous,
blacks are given interviews and jobs at elite firms where they don't even come close to the mandatory gpa cutof
As I said above, I've seen no evidence of this and no one else has provided any evidence. The GPA of people getting jobs has a racial difference, but that is also affect by what happens during the interviews. I wrote more about this above. Do you have any hard evidence that the racial difference appears pre-interview?
I will also say that some of the dumbest and most immature people in my law school classes were black and/or white... and they were all seeking jobs in Biglaw.
I think you are overgeneralizing on this point. If Biglaw is full of the bottom feeders why would anyone care who end up there?
Many of them complain that they are hired to be a piece of furniture and aren't given any meaningful work, which is why they often leave.
Exactly! They are hiring competent people who want to do serious work, blue their co-workers consider them show pieces that must have only been hired due to affirmative action. They aren't given a chance to prove themselves and they are made unwelcome. They leave. This isn't about skills. This is about idiotic treatment of employees after you hire them.
blacks are given interviews and jobs at elite firms where they don't even come close to the mandatory gpa cutof
As I said above, I've seen no evidence of this and no one else has provided any evidence. The GPA of people getting jobs has a racial difference, but that is also affect by what happens during the interviews. I wrote more about this above. Do you have any hard evidence that the racial difference appears pre-interview?
I will also say that some of the dumbest and most immature people in my law school classes were black and/or white... and they were all seeking jobs in Biglaw.
I think you are overgeneralizing on this point. If Biglaw is full of the bottom feeders why would anyone care who end up there?
Many of them complain that they are hired to be a piece of furniture and aren't given any meaningful work, which is why they often leave.
Exactly! They are hiring competent people who want to do serious work, blue their co-workers consider them show pieces that must have only been hired due to affirmative action. They aren't given a chance to prove themselves and they are made unwelcome. They leave. This isn't about skills. This is about idiotic treatment of employees after you hire them.
and before someone starts griping that black lawyers are unqualified because they don't remain at the job, these other factors must be considered.
I'm griping that people with inferior GPA's are getting interviews and jobs that I could never get solely because their skin is darker than mine. I don't care that they're leaving early.
I'm griping that people with inferior GPA's are getting interviews and jobs that I could never get solely because their skin is darker than mine. I don't care that they're leaving early.
bsci,
I am not saying that you are wrong and I am right - after all, what claim do I have to absolute truth. But I will say that you completely misunderstood everything I was trying to say and you drew conclusions that are absolutely absurd, in my humble opinion.
If you really want to get a handle on this issue, I would suggest that you speak to a law student or recent graduate from a top school. A real-time conversation would benefit you more than a stilted blog convo.
BTW, there are hard statistics about the gpa cutoff. They are available at the office of career services, who of course do not release the sensitive information. Neverthless, everyone I know who had a meeting with an OCS officer came away with the same impression as me. Also, speaking to recruiters, and watching recruiting activities that are targeted at speicific groups tells you everything you need to know. BTW, what was wrong with my anecdotal evidence?
I am not saying that you are wrong and I am right - after all, what claim do I have to absolute truth. But I will say that you completely misunderstood everything I was trying to say and you drew conclusions that are absolutely absurd, in my humble opinion.
If you really want to get a handle on this issue, I would suggest that you speak to a law student or recent graduate from a top school. A real-time conversation would benefit you more than a stilted blog convo.
BTW, there are hard statistics about the gpa cutoff. They are available at the office of career services, who of course do not release the sensitive information. Neverthless, everyone I know who had a meeting with an OCS officer came away with the same impression as me. Also, speaking to recruiters, and watching recruiting activities that are targeted at speicific groups tells you everything you need to know. BTW, what was wrong with my anecdotal evidence?
CWY,
I'm griping that people with inferior GPA's are getting interviews and jobs that I could never get solely because their skin is darker than mine
Based on the data presented, I've seen no evidence this is true. As I mentioned above, the hiring GPA is different, but no one mentions the interview GPA. The article that made your blood boil doesn't talk about the GPA threshold for interviews. Can you point to any data that supports your statement or is it just "anecdotal experience"?
I'm griping that people with inferior GPA's are getting interviews and jobs that I could never get solely because their skin is darker than mine
Based on the data presented, I've seen no evidence this is true. As I mentioned above, the hiring GPA is different, but no one mentions the interview GPA. The article that made your blood boil doesn't talk about the GPA threshold for interviews. Can you point to any data that supports your statement or is it just "anecdotal experience"?
anonymous,
in my humble opinion.
Your humility is hereby noted.
You are making reference to conversations implied from career office officials. I understand this the hard numbers are difficult to get directly, but it seems like there would be some real evidence. Do your friends sit down and talk about their GPAs? If you really wanted to figure out an interview cutoff, it wouldn't be hard to get the GPAs of 50 people and see which firms interview them. Is there a hard cutoff based solely on GPA or is there some fuzziness near the border. Are the GPAs of black lawyers clearly below this interview border? The answer might be yes, but not based on what I've seen so far.
As for recruiting events and recruiters, those are very difference from interviews and hiring. In virtually every field people complete over the top candidates from underrepresented minorities. By the nature of being underrepresented, you'll have 100 firms fighting over 10 top black lawyers. No one wants to be the firm without minority lawyers. They will target these people directly and describe why their firm is the best place to work. Given that someone is good enough to hire, recruiting is a different beast.
Anecdotal evidence: a gw 2l got an offer from Skadden DC with a 3.1 gpa. A white person would need a 3.5+ law review and great personality and great background experience.
I have no idea what your anecdotal evidence is trying to say. This is again about an offer and not an interview. Anecdotal evidence also doesn't usually talk about what someone would need. Did a white person with a 3.5+ etc not get a gput and a person with a 3.1 etc did? Even if that is so, what's your point?
in my humble opinion.
Your humility is hereby noted.
You are making reference to conversations implied from career office officials. I understand this the hard numbers are difficult to get directly, but it seems like there would be some real evidence. Do your friends sit down and talk about their GPAs? If you really wanted to figure out an interview cutoff, it wouldn't be hard to get the GPAs of 50 people and see which firms interview them. Is there a hard cutoff based solely on GPA or is there some fuzziness near the border. Are the GPAs of black lawyers clearly below this interview border? The answer might be yes, but not based on what I've seen so far.
As for recruiting events and recruiters, those are very difference from interviews and hiring. In virtually every field people complete over the top candidates from underrepresented minorities. By the nature of being underrepresented, you'll have 100 firms fighting over 10 top black lawyers. No one wants to be the firm without minority lawyers. They will target these people directly and describe why their firm is the best place to work. Given that someone is good enough to hire, recruiting is a different beast.
Anecdotal evidence: a gw 2l got an offer from Skadden DC with a 3.1 gpa. A white person would need a 3.5+ law review and great personality and great background experience.
I have no idea what your anecdotal evidence is trying to say. This is again about an offer and not an interview. Anecdotal evidence also doesn't usually talk about what someone would need. Did a white person with a 3.5+ etc not get a gput and a person with a 3.1 etc did? Even if that is so, what's your point?
bsci-I don't expect you to understand how the law firm interview process works.
If you don't have a high enough GPA you don't get the interview. End of story. Everyone who does get hired pretty much has the same or very similar GPA. So if the black lawyers have a lower GPA then everyone else, it must mean they they are interviewing black law school students with lower GPA's than the white students.
If you don't have a high enough GPA you don't get the interview. End of story. Everyone who does get hired pretty much has the same or very similar GPA. So if the black lawyers have a lower GPA then everyone else, it must mean they they are interviewing black law school students with lower GPA's than the white students.
Everyone who does get hired pretty much has the same or very similar GPA.
Why do firms bother interviewing if they could just pick a GPA range and hire from it? Or why bother interviewing someone with a 3.85 GPA if you are a 3.75 GPA law firm? Are the just weeding out serial killers? The firms are getting value added from the interviews. I should suspect that just like university admissions and most other hiring the GPA distribution has a bell curve. The vast majority (i.e. 75%) of all people hiring are tightly grouped in the center. There are some people will higher and lower GPAs that are also hired. To capture the full range, the minimum GPA for interviews must be as low as the lowest person the firm thinks it might hire.
Why do firms bother interviewing if they could just pick a GPA range and hire from it? Or why bother interviewing someone with a 3.85 GPA if you are a 3.75 GPA law firm? Are the just weeding out serial killers? The firms are getting value added from the interviews. I should suspect that just like university admissions and most other hiring the GPA distribution has a bell curve. The vast majority (i.e. 75%) of all people hiring are tightly grouped in the center. There are some people will higher and lower GPAs that are also hired. To capture the full range, the minimum GPA for interviews must be as low as the lowest person the firm thinks it might hire.
bsci- please, just stop already. Everything you does make sense, but still conflicts with reality. You simply don't understand how the interview and hiring process works.
Forget about what is ethical or right. Here is a simple question. Is it legal for a private firm to select people for interviewing based on only three factors: school attended, GPA, and race?
I honestly don't the law well enough to answer this question, but I strongly suspect the answer is "no." If it is now, how and the hiring system possibly work the way you say it does?
I honestly don't the law well enough to answer this question, but I strongly suspect the answer is "no." If it is now, how and the hiring system possibly work the way you say it does?
Here is a simple question. Is it legal for a private firm to select people for interviewing based on only three factors: school attended, GPA, and race?
I'm not an expert in labor law, but as far as I know, it's perfectly legal, as long as you're giving preference for a black person over a white person. Vice-versa is considered illegal discrimination.
I'm not an expert in labor law, but as far as I know, it's perfectly legal, as long as you're giving preference for a black person over a white person. Vice-versa is considered illegal discrimination.
school attended and gpa are fine. sex, race, handicap, religion and age is where you run afoul.
