Article Discusses New Study

[sallyawp]

<p>The following are exerpts from an article published in the New York Times yesterday (you can access the article for free at the NY Times website) titled “Why Blacks Lag at Major Firms”. The study on diversity in law firms was undertaken by Richard H. Sander, a UCLA law professor. This study and this article have been much discussed around the water cooler, so to speak, around the country. Other than the one comment I made below regarding women in major law firms, I have left my comments to myself. I hope that you find it interesting.</p>

<p>The premise:</p>

<p>

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.

</p>

<p>

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.

</p>

<p>

The new study . . . 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.

</p>

<p>Analysis:</p>

<p>

James E. Coleman Jr., the first black lawyer to make partner at Wilmer Cutler & Pickering . . . said Professor Sander was overemphasizing grades at the expense of other qualities like writing skills, temperament and the ability to analyze complex problems.

</p>

<p>

Supporters of affirmative action acknowledge that trend, and add that high rates of minority attrition should be unsurprising given the grinding, mercenary culture of most law firms.</p>

<p>“Minorities, when they look at management structures and see that so few make it, they probably give up,” said Veta T. Richardson, the executive director of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association.

</p>

<p>The problem: </p>

<p>

But black lawyers, the study found, are about one-fourth as likely to make partner as white lawyers from the same entering class of associates.<br>
Professor Coleman attributed that largely to law firms’ failure to provide minority associates with mentoring, encouragement and good assignments. “It’s such a high-pressure place that places so much emphasis on getting it right that a young associate easily loses confidence,” he said. “But to succeed you have to take risks."

</p>

<p>

“Black and Hispanic attrition at corporate firms is devastatingly high,” Professor Sander wrote, “with blacks from their first year onwards leaving firms at two to three times the rate of whites. By the time partnership decisions roll around, black and Hispanic pools at corporate firms are tiny.”

</p>

<p>

Critics generally concede the raw numbers. But they offer different reasons for the gap between hiring and promotion. Some point to old-fashioned racism. Others say that firms act institutionally in hiring but leave work assignments to individual partners. Those partners often provide poor training, rote assignments and little mentoring to minority lawyers.

</p>

<p>Here’s the devastatingly inaccurate (in my opinion) description of the only mentioned reason why women, who are also disproportionately underrepresented in the partnership ranks of major law firms, leave those law firms:</p>

<p>

“As women of all races approach the seventh year of their tenure, and contemplate the compatibility of big-firm partnership with their family and quality-of-life goals,” Professor Sander said, “many women pull out of the running for partners and seek out less demanding jobs.”

</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>I see that this thread has received little attention so far, but I just want to point out that reviewing the study mentioned in the article is a very good idea if you’re considering law school. This study has literally been all the talk around Wall Street (not just law firms) for the past week.</p>

[lkf725]

<p>Thanks for the article, sallyawp! If a group, such as blacks, are hired using much lower standards, I guess I can see why they may not rise in the ranks as much as one would expect. But the underrepresentation of women of all races surprises me. Are women’s promotions on par with men’s promotions up until the seventh year? Do you think women of childbearing age are presumed to be on the mommy-track and just move on to greener pastures? Are law firms really just “good ol’ boys” clubs in disguise?</p>

[Shiboing_Boing]

<p>This article is silly. Minorities get into top law schools mainly through affirmative action. It is no suprise they make worst grades than their white counterparts. Its a taboo fact African-American matriculant scores around 10 LSAT points lower than the average white matriculant at top law scools.</p>

<p>Affirmative action doesn’t work, it just elevates people into positions that they are throughly unsuited which this article proves. Now, affirmative action zealots claim that “minority” groups need extra-special care because they face more “obstacles.” </p>

<p>Its amazing the logical leaps people will make in order to defend assumptions which are clearly wrong–in this case, that minority groups are held behind by racism and structural flaws rather than their own innate lack of talent.</p>

[Shiboing_Boing]

<p>I also think Women are under-represented because of a tendency, whether from societey or innate genetics, to be less competitive than men and value relationships and emotional health over career goals. This is hard to prove empirically but it seems like a truism to me. Just consider how many women you know put their careers aside for family or their husband’s careers and compare that to the number of men you know that do the same for their wives.</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>

Affirmative action doesn’t work, it just elevates people into positions that they are throughly unsuited which this article proves. Now, affirmative action zealots claim that “minority” groups need extra-special care because they face more “obstacles.”

</p>

<p>These statements could, of course, both be true. For example, it could be that Irish people (hypothetically) on average face more obstacles in their lives, and that affirmative action perpetuates rather than fixes these obstacles.</p>

[VacaPro31]

<p>The analysis is definitely interesting to me. Maybe because it’s I’m black and I’ll be applying to law school down the line. Most of the time I question affirmative action. Even though it might (and probably will) help me down the line, if I get into a college (or law firm) that I clearly would not have got into if i was white, it will make me wonder, “Should I even be here?” Of course I’ll push my numbers as far as possible and work hard. But I think it’s something to think about for a lot of people. The population of minorities is so small compared to the population of caucasians. I think the best thing for minorities to do for themselves to overcome obstacles is push to achieve more. Of course there will always (or at least for a very long time) be that popuation difference, but the only way to make up for it seems to be if more minorities push to be as skilled as their white counterparts.</p>

[system]

<p>i don’t understand why they are concerned about minorities who have already graduated law school and relatively very good jobs. although they may dislike this struggle with law firms, they are still privileged and very capable of making their own decisions. citing that the firms are such a “high-pressure place” has nothing to do with minorities. although i agree with policies to give people a chance that they didn’t have a choice about (ie. born into poverty, broken home, etc), it is useless to adjust policies so late and at such a high status on the job ladder. if they are actually facing obstacles, they are ones that have stayed with them since pre-college years, not post law school.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>Whether you make partner or advance in a large law firms depends largely on how profitable you are. If blacks don’t advance at large law firms, it is because they are not as profitable as other lawyers.</p>

[DRab]

<p>sallyawp, how do you explain the situation with women?</p>

[lskinner]

<p>

I also think Women are under-represented because of a tendency, whether from societey or innate genetics, to be less competitive than men and value relationships and emotional health over career goals. This is hard to prove empirically but it seems like a truism to me. Just consider how many women you know put their careers aside for family or their husband’s careers and compare that to the number of men you know that do the same for their wives.

</p>

<p>I basically agree. In our society, there is a lot of pressure on men to succeed financially (and in status) just as there is a lot of pressure on women to be attractive in appearance. Why is anorexia a much bigger problem among women than among men? Same reason why a lot more men than women endure years and years of misery of BIGLAW in order to make partner. Their decisions are informed – at least in part – by a desire to meet society’s expectations.</p>

<p>Just my humble opinion.</p>

[younghov1983]

<p>wow. the article caught me off guard. i guess you have to admire its author for investigating the subject.</p>

<p>well, law firms are not forced to take into consideration diversity when they hire associates. yet they do. I think there are various reasons for this which go beyond producing poster childs for the law firm (which would not, in itself, be financially benifical for the firm)</p>

[younghov1983]

<p>Yeah, I’m carious, sallyawp, why you disagree about the articles rational on why women are disproportionately represented.</p>

<p>The rational sounds logical to me. But I have absolutely no experience in the world of big law.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>The most interesting part was that of the grades when hired.</p>

<p>Whites going into Big Law have grades at the 75th percentile of their school. Blacks going into Big Law have grades at the 18th(!) percentile.</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>Rather than discussing why I think the article is incorrect regarding the underrepresentation of women at the top ranks of top law firms, I would rather discuss the reasons why I believe that women are underrepresented:</p>

<p>First, there are simply fewer women attending top law schools than men. I believe that the statistics show (and feel free to correct me) that while women represent approximately 50% of all law students, women represent only 40-45% of the law students in top law schools. I will leave the discussion of the reasons for this phenomenon to another thread. However, since much of the hiring by top law firms is from students drawn from top law schools, women are already represented in smaller numbers in the pool of potential future big law firm associates.</p>

<p>Second, women may just know themselves better than men. Hear me out on this one . . . When you attend a top law school, there is a lot of pressure to get a high paying job at a big law firm, and many follow through in accordance with that pressure by interviewing with, and then being offered employment by, top law firms. We all know that the hours and craziness of big law firm life is not for everyone, but I have always observed that many women opt out of that big law firm life before it starts by choosing not to interview with those big law firms, where many men will take the high paying, high powered, job regardless of where they believe their true interests lie. Is it societal pressure to be a provider? Testosterone? Ego? I don’t know and I don’t pretend to know. Again, this is just one person’s opinion based on having attended law school, worked in big law and recruited on campus at top law schools for many years. I would love to hear other opinions.</p>

<p>Third, once women get to big law firms, there are few women role models around. Big law firms, and the most prestigious law firms, in particular, have few women partners and other senior attorneys. Many of the women who did manage to make partner (particularly those who made partner years ago) have no interest in making the road any easier on young female associates. I have often heard women partners who made partner in the 70’s and 80’s speak of how difficult the road was that they had to travel, and why should the road be any easier for women (or men, for that matter) today? Of course, there are exceptions, but I’ve always been surprised by how pervasive these attitudes can be. </p>

<p>Fourth, women are often shut out in big law firms. All too many plum assignments are handed out at the weekly “boys’ lunch” or over cocktails or at a basketball game sitting in the firm’s seats. One of the difficulties of the sexual harrassment rules for women is that men are often all too conscious that inviting a woman along may invite trouble. Therefore, I often see women excluded in the guise of avoiding unwarranted inferences. (Of course, I often see women excluded just because the boys want to get together.)</p>

<p>Fifth, women often just leave big law firms before men do. Attributing that instinct entirely (or even partially) to child rearing is just not accurate in many cases, particularly where women are not thinking of starting families when they leave. See my third point for same discussion applicable here. Furthermore, too many male partners simply assume without asking that women who return to work after having babies won’t be willing to work as hard and will get less visible and less desirable assignments thereafter.<br>
Finally, women are held to different (and sometimes higher) standards than men. Women walk a tightrope in biglaw – they want to be seen as tough and smart, but they want to avoid getting the “<strong><em>" title so often given to demanding women. Furthermore, women are expected to act like men at meetings and in the boardroom, acting aggressive and pounding fists. Yup, women often earn that dreaded "</em></strong>” label for doing just that. Sound like a double standard to you? Me too. </p>

<p>The reality remains that only about 17 percent of the partners at major law firms nationwide were women in 2005 (according to NALP). That number has risen only slightly in recent years.</p>

[sybbie719]

<p>

The most interesting part was that of the grades when hired.

</p>

<p>Unless I am truly having a senior moment, the only reference made about grades are as follows:</p>

<p>

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.

</p>

<p>I am always facinated to know where does the empirical evidence that supports these studies come from, over what period of time and what factors were considered. It does not state what exactly consitutes relaxing the standard? maybe you can elaborate on this and tell how it is done at the firm where you work. It could be anything from going lower in the pool in a top ranked school to taking a higher ranked student at a lower ranked school. Please enlighten us on the process the way it plays out at the firm where you evaluate the criteria.</p>

<p>

Professor Sander found that very few blacks graduated from top-30 law schools with high grades.</p>

<p>Yet grades, according to many hiring partners and law students, are a significant criterion in hiring decisions, rivaled only by the prestige of the law school in question. For instance, Professor Sander found, “white law school graduates with G.P.A.’s of 3.5 or higher are nearly 20 times as likely to be working for a large law firm as are white graduates with G.P.A.’s of 3.0 or lower.”</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

Whites going into Big Law have grades at the 75th percentile of their school. Blacks going into Big Law have grades at the 18th(!) percentile.

</p>

<p>Do tell, Is your statement actually based on your experience working in HR or recruiting for Big Law where you are actually reviewing the transcripts of potenital candidates?</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>sybbie,
The quotes you provide sounded like quite serious evidence in favor of the claim that you… well, seek evidence for.</p>

<p>And I do think it’s at least partly an issue of “what’s needed”. Say I’m a law student seeking a job, and that I can get a 3.5 without studying. If all I need is a 3.3, trust me, I don’t think I’ll be putting in that much time. If I need to make law review, then trust me – I’m going to be up all night in the library.</p>

<p>So I think that while the majority of the achievement gap is related to substandard schooling and a culture that doesn’t/can’t emphasize academic achievement the same way, surely some of the gap has to do with lowered expectations.</p>

[sybbie719]

<p>If I remember correctly, the # 1 school in the country does not even give grades and it is virtually impossible to tell who is graduating at the top middle or bottom of the class.</p>

[sybbie719]

<p>server went down.</p>

<p>I also don’t think that Sanders looks at blacks in law school or in the work place as a whol because especially when it comes to BIGLAW, it is more of a self selected group of blacks that pursue it. </p>

<p>Even if these boards are any indication, when you have most non-urms asking what school they need to attend in order to get the big law jobs. I can only speak antecdotally, but I know very few law students or aspiring law students who are looking to go into law with the mind set of entering big law when they finish.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

Do tell, Is your statement actually based on your experience working in HR or recruiting for Big Law where you are actually reviewing the transcripts of potenital candidates?

It seemed as if the study actually went to HR department and asked for grades.</p>