So, at Law Review Orientation, the Diversity Committee gave us a discussion of what they do, and how. Essentially they pick X number of students in the top half of the class for Law Review based on race, gender, socioeconomic background, nationality, academic background, sexual orientation, etc. etc.
However, there's a bit of a problem with the set up. Law review, and indeed the other journals, do not ask people to fill out a questionnaire asking about their diversity. Instead, diverse students are chosen by their application essay, which is supposed to discuss why they want to be on the journal. I'm sure everybody here can see the problem with that. My question about "Doesn't this encourage students to box themselves in and mention their ethnicity or "diversity" over why they actually want to be here?" was kind of ignored, but I am curious.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 14, 2009, 09:15:09 AM
So, at Law Review Orientation, the Diversity Committee gave us a discussion of what they do, and how. Essentially they pick X number of students in the top half of the class for Law Review based on race, gender, socioeconomic background, nationality, academic background, sexual orientation, etc. etc.
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
I would write: 'As a gay female native american-Latina mix I can say that my view on this particular court case differs from the standard heteronormative white male view of the world.'
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 09:19:06 AM
I would write: 'As a gay female native american-Latina mix
It all makes sense now! :P
Quote from: Caliga on August 14, 2009, 09:16:44 AM
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
I dunno. I'm not averse to the idea of giving people from poor backgrounds a leg up. Some guy from a busted up coal mining town in Kentucky isn't gonna be as able to hack it as well as the daughter of a partner at a BigLaw firm, no?
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 09:19:06 AM
I would write: 'As a gay female native american-Latina mix I can say that my view on this particular court case differs from the standard heteronormative white male view of the world.'
You laugh, but I avoided mentioning I was gay on my application because I thought it would cheapen my application. I got a few dirty looks when I mentioned that.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 14, 2009, 09:42:12 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 14, 2009, 09:16:44 AM
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
I dunno. I'm not averse to the idea of giving people from poor backgrounds a leg up. Some guy from a busted up coal mining town in Kentucky isn't gonna be as able to hack it as well as the daughter of a partner at a BigLaw firm, no?
Something like Berea college as a model?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berea_College
I would prefer they go to Beria college.
I've never heard of this Berea college before...Quite unfortunate for them that someone called Beria would pop up as what he was....
Anyway- giving advantages to poorer kids is a very very good move that I wholeheartedly support.
A kid from a poor family and a real shit hole of a place who does slightly worse than little miss over-privileged with her best school in the country and private tutors and whatnot stands out as the better candidate in my book.
Mixing this in with diversity of getting more blacks, gays, etc...though....not good at all.
Especially on the gay angle, that is just :blink: worthy. Do they test you to prove you actually are gay? Though Faelin thought it would cheapen his application I doubt many others would be so sporting.
It's fairly well regarded here in Kentucky. The best college in the state is Centre College. The colleges are fairly close to one another (Berea is in the town of Berea, and Centre is in the town of Danville).
Quote from: Caliga on August 14, 2009, 10:09:48 AM
It's fairly well regarded here in Kentucky. The best college in the state is Centre College. The colleges are fairly close to one another (Berea is in the town of Berea, and Centre is in the town of Danville).
I remember Centre well they were in the same conference with my school. I remember their volleyball team had this really peppy girl with pigtails on the team who would never shut up during the match:
'Come on Centre!'
'Let's go Centre!'
'Wahoo! Centre!'
And so forth...boy did she love to say the word 'Centre'. And she wasn't even on the bench cheerleading...she was actually playing on the court while she was doing this.
The best solution to the problem of unearned educational advantage is to address education at the primary level with improvements to schooling for those in less affluent areas, so that these pupils can later compete on an objective level with those from socially advantaged backgrounds.
There is no good purpose to be served, and many bad unintended consequences, to "adding diversity" by wieghing the balance in favour of certain backgrounds and ethnicities in what is, after all, professional education.
People at the professional level want results. The client simply does not care if you have "unearned advantage" because of your background. If you are having open heart surgery, or are facing ruin or imprisionment in a lawsuit, you want the *best professional* as far as it can be determined - whether or not they are the "best" because, in part, their ancestors were as lilly white as some brand of toilet paper, or Black as coal.
Perhaps it is different in a purely academic humanities discipline where "results" are highly subjective. In medicine and law, results are quite objective - the patient either dies or recovers, the lawsuit is either lost or won.
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 10:18:11 AM
People at the professional level want results. The client simply does not care if you have "unearned advantage" because of your background. If you are having open heart surgery, or are facing ruin or imprisionment in a lawsuit, you want the *best professional* as far as it can be determined - whether or not they are the "best" because, in part, their ancestors were as lilly white as some brand of toilet paper, or Black as coal.
Perhaps it is different in a purely academic humanities discipline where "results" are highly subjective. In medicine and law, results are quite objective - the patient either dies or recovers, the lawsuit is either lost or won.
On the other hand, consider the marketing implications from a Law Review that has an all white, predominantly male student body.
Malthus, no one is forced to hire an affirmative-actioned trained lawyer. People will hire the best lawyer they can afford.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 14, 2009, 12:53:06 PM
Malthus, no one is forced to hire an affirmative-actioned trained lawyer. People will hire the best lawyer they can afford.
The issue, as is usually the case with these things, is dilution of the school brand.
The reason people wish to get into a particular school or law review within a school is that it is perceived to be an honour. That honour has practical implications: it advantages the person receiving it.
The next step is that people, seeing this bright shiny brass ring, declare it is a pity that everyone earning it is lilly-white heteronorms or whatever. They agitate for it to me made "more inclusive" - meaning that those with lesser qualifications and abilities be allowed to grasp that shiny brass ring and obtain its benefits, because those who already grasp it are only in a position to do so because of privileges they haven't earned.
Thing is, the more you allow people of lesser qualifications to grasp the brass ring, the less that ring is worth; it only has "worth' in the first place because people allowed to grasp it have proven, in objective manner, to have a greater potential to be good lawyers (or docs or whatever). The brass ring is tarnished and something else becomes the new "brass ring", only to face the same pressures to be "inclusive" as before.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2009, 10:15:37 AMAnd so forth...boy did she love to say the word 'Centre'. And she wasn't even on the bench cheerleading...she was actually playing on the court while she was doing this.
It's got a rep as a bit of a snob school, but I've been there and it has a beautiful campus (reminds me of Harvard Yard actually).
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 02:07:17 PM
people allowed to grasp it have proven, in objective manner, to have a greater potential to be good lawyers (or docs or whatever).
That is one of the usual contentious issue. When do objective manners and conformism merge ? Boards who select have a tendency to pick their own, or to pick, what, in their minds, constitute the best answer. Boards without diversity will have a harder time being confronted with differing viewpoints.
The other is on what grounds any sort of selection is made, and if these grounds actually produce what their aim is. In other words, many people can get into med school without any sort of social skill because they were good at high school physics. Does that make a better doctor than one who did slightly less because of all sorts of real life commitments ?
A last one would be about chance to shine, i.e.: a student without any real-life commitment can spend hours polishing a bland assignment whereas a student who needs to work / raise a kid / etc. can have a much more complex worldview - or ultimately be a best whatever - without the time to produce a neat paper. This is especially relevant in the case of scholarships.
Tests and selections are tools to help us cut through entanglements, but they are only tools, not ends.
Quote from: Caliga on August 14, 2009, 02:12:56 PM
It's got a rep as a bit of a snob school, but I've been there and it has a beautiful campus (reminds me of Harvard Yard actually).
Well we were the conference of snobby southern schools.
Oglethorpe
DePauw
Centre
Rhodes
Sewanee
Trinity
Hendrix
Millsaps
Southwestern
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 14, 2009, 02:27:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 02:07:17 PM
people allowed to grasp it have proven, in objective manner, to have a greater potential to be good lawyers (or docs or whatever).
That is one of the usual contentious issue. When do objective manners and conformism merge ? Boards who select have a tendency to pick their own, or to pick, what, in their minds, constitute the best answer. Boards without diversity will have a harder time being confronted with differing viewpoints.
The other is on what grounds any sort of selection is made, and if these grounds actually produce what their aim is. In other words, many people can get into med school without any sort of social skill because they were good at high school physics. Does that make a better doctor than one who did slightly less because of all sorts of real life commitments ?
A last one would be about chance to shine, i.e.: a student without any real-life commitment can spend hours polishing a bland assignment whereas a student who needs to work / raise a kid / etc. can have a much more complex worldview - or ultimately be a best whatever - without the time to produce a neat paper. This is especially relevant in the case of scholarships.
Tests and selections are tools to help us cut through entanglements, but they are only tools, not ends.
Then reverse the issue and see what happens when one deliberately discriminates *against* a minority group, by making the "brass ring" of school admission harder for them to grasp because they need higher marks and better qualifications.
I don't have to run this particular experiment - it was already done, here in Ontario. Prior to the late '50s, if you were a Jew in Ontario you needed "straight firsts" - basically, all A's - to get into med school, whereas a non-Jew needed far lesser qualifications. Why? Because the assumption was that there were "too many Jew doctors".
The result? Everyone, Jew and non-Jew alike, found that Jewish doctors were in point of fact
better than non-Jewish doctors. If you were really sick, you sought out a Jewish doc., because
on average it was in your interests to do so - they had been carefully selected for being the most brilliant, and real-world test (i.e. whose patients had a tendancy to survive) confirmed this judgment.
Maybe those straight-A students were all kinds of unbalanced compared to some student who was more brilliant and had a better world-view because of their real-life experience or whatever. Fact is, there is no way of telling about such stuff, and
on average those with better marks etc. are
more likely to be better even if marking is all bunk. At least it shows that the person can achieve results within some arbitratry system.
When selecting a doc or a lawyer, you really don't care why they get results, you just care about the results. Maybe a lawyer wins cases because he or she is better able to "conform" to the judges or at least to the sometimes arbitrary rules of the court-room. Doesn't matter to the client.
I would still guess that there were much more Jewish doctors coming from upper-middle-class Jewish families than Jewish doctors coming from working-class Jewish families.
As for the rest of your argument, you do not see it as an apology of conservatism ? Faelin's question is then left thus answered: «you do not need diversity because a selection process will always chose the best. If our boards are made up of people with exactly the same background, it is because that background produces the best. ». You think it is a fair assessment of reality ?
It might be all fine and dandy if University and Law, and Medecine were actually *only* about pleasing the courts and the powerful and clients. But it is not only about that - or at least I contend it shouldn't. University, and Law, and Medecine, and sales and whatnot are enriched by people of varying backgrounds, because I don't want universities to produce only people who will squeeze out money for themselves, but who can also be well-rounded individuals and who might, perhaps, out of unconventionnal thinking, bring unexpected but otherwise excellent solutions to problems.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 14, 2009, 03:46:15 PM
I would still guess that there were much more Jewish doctors coming from upper-middle-class Jewish families than Jewish doctors coming from working-class Jewish families.
What has that to do with the argument?
QuoteAs for the rest of your argument, you do not see it as an apology of conservatism ? Faelin's question is then left thus answered: «you do not need diversity because a selection process will always chose the best. If our boards are made up of people with exactly the same background, it is because that background produces the best. ». You think it is a fair assessment of reality ?
I think it is a loaded way of posing the question. The way I see the question is 'an objective system of choosing 'the best' based on marks and tests may be imperfect, but on average it gets results - it produces an outcome in which people, set to a particular task, tend to complete it with distinction. If this is so, is it right to move the goal-posts for members of certain historically disadvantaged groups? Or will this, on the contrary, mean that members of that profession who happen to be from those groups will now face
further discrimination out in the workforce in the justified fear that they are not, in fact, equal in quality in completing tasks on average?'
QuoteIt might be all fine and dandy if University and Law, and Medecine were actually *only* about pleasing the courts and the powerful and clients. But it is not only about that - or at least I contend it shouldn't. University, and Law, and Medecine, and sales and whatnot are enriched by people of varying backgrounds, because I don't want universities to produce only people who will squeeze out money for themselves, but who can also be well-rounded individuals and who might, perhaps, out of unconventionnal thinking, bring unexpected but otherwise excellent solutions to problems.
The law and medicine aren't about "pleasing" anyone, but in general are about
getting results. The law in particular is ruthelessly Manichean in this respect - you either win a court case or you do not.
If being "enriched" by alternative viewpoints and "well-rounded" helps to win cases (and I think it does), people will in self-interest choose such individuals; merely having the best marks isn't enough. Point is, ideally one would want someone who has the best marks and thus attended the best institutions and
also is well-rounded etc.
Certainly lawyers and doctors make contributions beyond the merely professional - contributing pro bono to important constitutional cases, research into new medical techniques, or te like. But very often that is something that the
best professionals do; it is not something that one chooses to do
rather than sully one's hands with professional work.
The professions are simply different from academia. It may well be the case that in academia actual results are rather subjective and thus it doesn't really matter much how "the best" is defined. In the professions, reality itself winnows "the best" from the rest rather ruthlessly - the surgeon whose patients tend to die, the lawyer who loses all their cases, etc.
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 05:14:24 PM
What has that to do with the argument?
It is a way of reiterating the fact that not all discrimination - positive or negative - is racially based. Jewish people had all sorts of circumstances (in the 50s...) that other groups might not have had at other times: models, community support, value given to learning, etc.
QuoteI think it is a loaded way of posing the question.
Yet I still think it is a legitimate way of adressing the issue. In your world of test-makes-the-best, how do you introduce change ? How do you ensure that people who come from different backgrounds are judged according to their merits, or even that the definition of merit actually changes, rather than being continously reinforced by peers who have little incentive themselves to change the standards that allowed them to succeed in ?
QuoteThe law and medicine aren't about "pleasing" anyone, but in general are about getting results. The law in particular is ruthelessly Manichean in this respect - you either win a court case or you do not.
But that's not the only goal of anyone who wants to study at Law (not to mention that I do not suscribe to that über-utilitarian view). That's why I don't get your division between profession and academia. If Law Firms want to discriminate and only hire rich white kids, let them then devise their own «objective» tests. But the University, where those people are trained, should make a point at getting a wider variety of people to tackle on the subject. In any case, this is a continuous process, which you seem to forget. The aim is getting people into a topic, not simply give a single exam out of which people will receive a license to treat or practice. Some people with excellent grades will drop out. Some who did reasonably good during a BA or high school might shine. In any case, these things are never about the stellar student, who will shine regardless. It is - or should be - about either stellar students which can be undervalued due to circumstances or about the solid upper medium.
Anyway, I think you end up caricaturing the choices: in many cases, the differences at the time of admission are never as great between the bottom candidates as to make it an issue of blatant mediocrity, between lawyers who are incompetent fools and doctors who kill off their patients.
QuotePoint is, ideally one would want someone who has the best marks and thus attended the best institutions and also is well-rounded etc.
You do not have a problem that this usually selects strongly people from the upper-middle-class and up?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 14, 2009, 05:44:27 PM
It is a way of reiterating the fact that not all discrimination - positive or negative - is racially based. Jewish people had all sorts of circumstances (in the 50s...) that other groups might not have had at other times: models, community support, value given to learning, etc.
Of course not all discrimination is racially biased. Certainly, there is loads of 'unearned privilege' in simply belonging to a community that values education etc.
The point is that there is no particular reason to attempt to balance against "unearned privilege" at the adult level. The 'damage' has already been done - some kids have already grown up with a superior education and better work ethic. Who
doesn't want to hire people with a superior education abd a better work ethic?
If you wish to correct for this problem, you must concentrate your efforts at children, not adults; find ways of balancing out the 'unearned privilege' through boosting education, don't attempt to pretend that those who aren't hard workers are, if they are not. Even though it isn't necessarily their fault that they are not.
QuoteYet I still think it is a legitimate way of adressing the issue. In your world of test-makes-the-best, how do you introduce change ? How do you ensure that people who come from different backgrounds are judged according to their merits, or even that the definition of merit actually changes, rather than being continously reinforced by peers who have little incentive themselves to change the standards that allowed them to succeed in ?
The definition of merit will change when people become dissatisfied with the results that they are obtaining. You underestimate the willingness of the professions to embrace change when it is in their own interests. Example: law is now gender-balanced, in spite of the fact that it is the ultimate "good old boys" network. How do you explain that?
QuoteBut that's not the only goal of anyone who wants to study at Law (not to mention that I do not suscribe to that über-utilitarian view). That's why I don't get your division between profession and academia. If Law Firms want to discriminate and only hire rich white kids, let them then devise their own «objective» tests. But the University, where those people are trained, should make a point at getting a wider variety of people to tackle on the subject. In any case, this is a continuous process, which you seem to forget. The aim is getting people into a topic, not simply give a single exam out of which people will receive a license to treat or practice. Some people with excellent grades will drop out. Some who did reasonably good during a BA or high school might shine. In any case, these things are never about the stellar student, who will shine regardless. It is - or should be - about either stellar students which can be undervalued due to circumstances or about the solid upper medium.
Law firms do not want to "discriminate and hire only rich white kids". Law firms want to discriminate in such a way as to hire hard and flexible workers. But that is beside the point: the fact is that a professional must, above all else, know how to use his or her tools; there are real results at stake no matter what they want to do.
Want to pursue civil rights? Want to save the whales? Want to make a difference, hate the corporate rat race? That's fine: but you won't get anywhere if you aren't any good at
using the tools that lawyers must have - the ability to work hard, stay focussed, persuade, reason.
That is exactly the difference between a profession and a purely academic pursuit in the humanities. In the humanities, success is the result of persuading one's peers as to one's value in various ways - publishing, lecturing, research. There is a higher element of the purely subjective. At its worst, academia can be an echo chamber, where success is decided by appropriating the positions of one's established mentors. No wonder that, in academia, "new voices" are such an important consideration.
In law, you are not dealing necessarily with one's peers alone, but with a host of other interests which have real force and power. "Having alternative voices" isn't nearly as significant an issue, because you will get those voices sounding loud and clear whether you like it or not - from you clients, from those whose causes you are esposing, and most of all from those whom you oppose.
There should be no compromise in determining 'the best' because
life will not compromise and resources are limited. If you really
care about saving the whales etc. you want the
best student to devote themselves to it, not someone allowed in because they got the correct 'idenity marks' for representing the currently fashionable mix of disadvantaged backgrounds.
Moreover, that latter choice is of necessity arbitrary and partial. Who is to say that being born Black is a "worse" obsticle or represents some sort of "missing" perspective, rather than (say) being born to an alcoholic?
QuoteAnyway, I think you end up caricaturing the choices: in many cases, the differences at the time of admission are never as great between the bottom candidates as to make it an issue of blatant mediocrity, between lawyers who are incompetent fools and doctors who kill off their patients.
The problem with adding marks (or other forms of making allowances for 'missing' backgrounds or perspectives) is that it characturizes
people in exactly the same way as every form of ethnic or class discrimination: it assumes that if someone is Black or whatever that they are lesser, because the average for the category is lesser (the difference is that the racist views this as because of some sort of inherent inferiority and the non-racist because of systemic discrimination or cultural factors). The man beneficiaries are, of course, not those most impacted by real racial or ethnic discrimination (or victims of a culture which de-emphasizes education and hard work), because such people are only rarely in a position to apply to an elite law school. It of necessity benefits most those who have
not suffered from such discrimination, but rather are from solid middle-class backgrounds.
QuoteYou do not have a problem that this usually selects strongly people from the upper-middle-class and up?
Not really; all proposals for 'benefiting' those from 'disadvantaged backgrounds' tend, in the natural order of things, to benefit those from such backgrounds
anyway.
If one really wants to help people who are disadvantaged, the best way is to boost early childhood education.
Incidentally, the Review is having a meeting on the following tomorrow:
QuoteAlso, importantly, the editorial board is voting for a 'blind review' policy on Friday. This is a really controversial proposal that the law review has been struggling with for a couple of years. On the one hand, it seems to make sense that we not favor famous individuals ala Posner (sr.) and Epstein. On the other hand, the articles department (in particular, this thing I just found out existed called the Articles Diversity Working Group) has been trying to address something that they realized, which is that the books before theirs featured surprisingly few authors who were women or people of color. To the extent that the LR bylaws commit us to having a diverse staff, is there some level on which we are committed to publishing a diversity of scholarship? Though, anticipating counterargument, perhaps we should just focus on diversity of SCHOLARSHIP, and focus on making sure we publish articles in non-traditional fields, which is perfectly possible with a blind review policy. Anyway, this is clearly a complex issue - but it's something we should acknowledge is happening and perhaps participate in.
I've been told by a 3L not to go, as there will be
enormous drama, but I kind of want to go. Can I steal your argument Malthus?
Quote from: Faeelin on October 01, 2009, 03:20:48 PM
Incidentally, the Review is having a meeting on the following tomorrow:
QuoteAlso, importantly, the editorial board is voting for a 'blind review' policy on Friday. This is a really controversial proposal that the law review has been struggling with for a couple of years. On the one hand, it seems to make sense that we not favor famous individuals ala Posner (sr.) and Epstein. On the other hand, the articles department (in particular, this thing I just found out existed called the Articles Diversity Working Group) has been trying to address something that they realized, which is that the books before theirs featured surprisingly few authors who were women or people of color. To the extent that the LR bylaws commit us to having a diverse staff, is there some level on which we are committed to publishing a diversity of scholarship? Though, anticipating counterargument, perhaps we should just focus on diversity of SCHOLARSHIP, and focus on making sure we publish articles in non-traditional fields, which is perfectly possible with a blind review policy. Anyway, this is clearly a complex issue - but it's something we should acknowledge is happening and perhaps participate in.
I've been told by a 3L not to go, as there will be enormous drama, but I kind of want to go. Can I steal your argument Malthus?
You can - just be prepared to get slapped around a lot.
Of course, that's good prep for being a lawyer. :D
By "blind review", do they mean that the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors of the articles, and the "problem' being that when the authours' identities are hidden most articles chosen for review are by white men? I got that impression but I may be totally wrong.
Yes, that is the concern. My problem is that I don't see the concern; law review articles are written by professors, so why should we be patronizing black professors over their colleagues? Rewarding diverse scholarship is one thing, and IMO that's hindered by not having blind review.
Beautifully done, as usual, Malty. :bowler:
"Positive" discrimination is a fallacy from beginning to end.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 01, 2009, 03:35:30 PM
Yes, that is the concern. My problem is that I don't see the concern; law review articles are written by professors, so why should we be patronizing black professors over their colleagues? Rewarding diverse scholarship is one thing, and IMO that's hindered by not having blind review.
Obviously, Black Law School Professors are severely disadvantaged folks. :D
Seriously though - this is a perfect example of the issue. The real issue (if there is one) is that there are (possibly) fewer Black Professors than statistically warranted (if that's the case). The "solution" to the shortage of great papers written by Black Professors, ones that would be chosen in a blind review process, isn't to break the blind review process or even to choose "unconventional' scholarship (often a code-word for fields of legal scholarship dominated by minorities but of scant interest to anyone else), but to hire more Black Professors.
Which of course only defers the problem to a new level, as the solution to the lack of Black candidates for professorship is not to break 'colourblind' hiring policies, but to have more Black law students ... and so on, until we get to the root of the actual problem: lack of a good basic education for large sections of the Black population.
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2009, 03:44:38 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 01, 2009, 03:35:30 PM
Yes, that is the concern. My problem is that I don't see the concern; law review articles are written by professors, so why should we be patronizing black professors over their colleagues? Rewarding diverse scholarship is one thing, and IMO that's hindered by not having blind review.
Obviously, Black Law School Professors are severely disadvantaged folks. :D
I'm debating pointing this out tomorrow, but I've been warned not to come by a 3l who's a friend of mine and is stressing out about the drama.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 01, 2009, 03:58:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2009, 03:44:38 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 01, 2009, 03:35:30 PM
Yes, that is the concern. My problem is that I don't see the concern; law review articles are written by professors, so why should we be patronizing black professors over their colleagues? Rewarding diverse scholarship is one thing, and IMO that's hindered by not having blind review.
Obviously, Black Law School Professors are severely disadvantaged folks. :D
I'm debating pointing this out tomorrow, but I've been warned not to come by a 3l who's a friend of mine and is stressing out about the drama.
You'll probably earn nothing but hatred and abuse if you point out that this particular Emperor Has No Clothes. :lol:
Of course, when you are a student is as good a time as any to twist a few tails. I never took the safe route, didn't harm me any - so far.
But just be prepared for a Languish-like experience.
Don't do it mang. You'll end up eating lunch with the ugly kids.
Malthus, at least in the US I'd disagree to a certain extent with regard to lawyers. Many governmental entities as well as large corporations have minority and gender requirements for service providers including law firms. For this and other reasons, there is a demand for diverse candidates.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 01, 2009, 04:05:52 PM
Malthus, at least in the US I'd disagree to a certain extent with regard to lawyers. Many governmental entities as well as large corporations have minority and gender requirements for service providers including law firms. For this and other reasons, there is a demand for diverse candidates.
If law firms have "diversity requirement" quotas, I've never heard of it. I've done work for the US gov't as a contractor, they never inquired about my gender or race ...
Gender typically isn't an issue in the legal field, about half of young lawyers are women.
Maybe in the US there are other considerations, but I must admit, none of my American lawyer friends or clients (I frequently work for US entities) have ever mentioned them. I'm guessing that unless you are working for very specific clients, they aren't a big deal.
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2009, 04:11:41 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 01, 2009, 04:05:52 PM
Malthus, at least in the US I'd disagree to a certain extent with regard to lawyers. Many governmental entities as well as large corporations have minority and gender requirements for service providers including law firms. For this and other reasons, there is a demand for diverse candidates.
If law firms have "diversity requirement" quotas, I've never heard of it. I've done work for the US gov't as a contractor, they never inquired about my gender or race ...
Gender typically isn't an issue in the legal field, about half of young lawyers are women.
Maybe in the US there are other considerations, but I must admit, none of my American lawyer friends or clients (I frequently work for US entities) have ever mentioned them. I'm guessing that unless you are working for very specific clients, they aren't a big deal.
I've never heard of a law firm with a diversity requirement quota either. I don't know of any federal requirements, but I do know there are cities that require a certain percentage of work go to firms with minority or female equity stakes as well as taking into account diversity policies for other significant law firms.
I've also heard of Fortune 100 companies evaluating law firms based on diversity, but my guess is that law school grads are diverse enough that any large firm that makes any effort to be diverse is going to pass and it won't be a big deal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2009, 04:05:17 PM
Don't do it mang. You'll end up eating lunch with the ugly kids.
Actually, I feel like I'd get a bit of slack, since it's hard to tell the gay guy to stop being so bigoted.
@Malthus: Lots of firms have "diversity programs," so I know a lot of people who got jobs their 1l summer so firms can show "we hired unpriveliged Latinos whose parents slaved away in Beverly Hills as plastic surgeons!"
When recruiting, they also like to play up diversity; every firm I interviewed with, frex, had a list of how many minorities they hired.
Malthus, here is an article that discusses the issue (it is the first article that popped up after a google search):
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/03/13/debating-law-firms-and-affirmative-action-again/
Quote from: alfred russel on October 01, 2009, 04:20:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2009, 04:11:41 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 01, 2009, 04:05:52 PM
Malthus, at least in the US I'd disagree to a certain extent with regard to lawyers. Many governmental entities as well as large corporations have minority and gender requirements for service providers including law firms. For this and other reasons, there is a demand for diverse candidates.
If law firms have "diversity requirement" quotas, I've never heard of it. I've done work for the US gov't as a contractor, they never inquired about my gender or race ...
Gender typically isn't an issue in the legal field, about half of young lawyers are women.
Maybe in the US there are other considerations, but I must admit, none of my American lawyer friends or clients (I frequently work for US entities) have ever mentioned them. I'm guessing that unless you are working for very specific clients, they aren't a big deal.
I've never heard of a law firm with a diversity requirement quota either. I don't know of any federal requirements, but I do know there are cities that require a certain percentage of work go to firms with minority or female equity stakes as well as taking into account diversity policies for other significant law firms.
I've also heard of Fortune 100 companies evaluating law firms based on diversity, but my guess is that law school grads are diverse enough that any large firm that makes any effort to be diverse is going to pass and it won't be a big deal.
Law firms that do work for municipal govt's = a tiny and specialized sub-percentage.
I've never in life heard of a major corporate client giving a shit about the "diversity" of the law firms they use.
It is possible that certain large firms publish some guidance or policy statements that *claim* that they do, but the reality is that most contracted-out legal work is on an ad hoc basis - the corporate client invariably has in-house counsel with ties to one (or more) outside firms, and directs the work accordingly. Occasionally, there is a "dog and pony show" for a big file for a client, where a firm is unsatisfied with whom they are using and are looking around - in such cases, available proven talent vs. price is what governs.
Any statements by firms to the contrary I would assume, absent firm evidence to the contrary, as being purely for media consumption. The movers and shakers who actually direct the work would think you were positively brain-damaged if you suggested taking on a bunch of lawyers who had less talent, were less well connected, and were more expensive, simply because they were "more diverse".
Quote from: Faeelin on October 01, 2009, 04:23:46 PM
Actually, I feel like I'd get a bit of slack, since it's hard to tell the gay guy to stop being so bigoted.
The forces of political correctness love nothing better than to purge one of their own who has sinned.
Totally anecdotally, I heard from from a couple of freshly-minted Korean-American JDs that female Asian lawyers could write their own ticket when it came to hiring. This was back in the early/mid 90s.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 01, 2009, 04:25:44 PM
Malthus, here is an article that discusses the issue (it is the first article that popped up after a google search):
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/03/13/debating-law-firms-and-affirmative-action-again/
Article is short on details about this alleged "pressure".
One thing is certain - if it exists, it is a purely US domestic issue.
malthus, it isn't so cut and dried. when you bring in a group of students for interviews, who is the best?
Diversity is a big deal here: discriminations settlements have run into the hundreds of millions for fortune 100 companies that contend they did nothing wrong. Many companies have put in place board members with backgrounds in civil rights to oversee diversity policies which include vendor reviews. In the real world, people are mostly focused on the bottom line and performance versus pay, but for a law firm gaining a significant amount of business it won't be unheard of for a review of minority participation and hiring/promotion/hr policies at the firm.
Sigh. Some women are now angry that a lower number of women are being published than men in the journal, a sure sign of passive discrimination.
Apparently it is very hard for them to respond to:
QuoteFinally, I must ask why we are limiting ourselves to women and people of color. Is it not a problem if queer individuals are underrepresented? If you're concerned about underrepresentation of minority groups, go ahead and count the number of federal judges who are openly gay or lesbian.
Now, the obvious answer, at least to me, is that I am not sure what a person's race/gender/sexual orientation/favorite pizza has to do with their legal analysis the SEC's regulation of bundled securities transfers. If an individual's experience as a minority is related to the piece, that should reveal itself in the quality of the piece. And I have enough faith in our classmates to think they would recognize that.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 18, 2009, 12:58:55 AM
Sigh. Some women are now angry that a lower number of women are being published than men in the journal, a sure sign of passive discrimination.
Apparently it is very hard for them to respond to:
Sigh indeed. I love how everybody misses the Bakke memo that quota systems are verbot.
At least in the medical field, it's beneficial to consider diversity because many patients are racists and tend to desire doctors of their own ethnicity. The health of the black community as a whole is better served by having less qualified black doctors than having higher qualified white doctors. Then there's the additional consideration that a minority doctor is more likely to return to medically underserved communities than a white doctor.
So, is there an inner city free clinic in your future, Fate? :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2009, 02:28:08 AM
So, is there an inner city free clinic in your future, Fate? :)
Fuck no, I'm in it for the money. The school I'm going to is one of the whitest in the nation and serves a (relatively) rural community.
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2009, 02:32:19 AM
Fuck no, I'm in it for the money. The school I'm going to is one of the whitest in the nation and serves a (relatively) rural community.
I hope you said that in your personal statement. :lmfao:
Quote from: Faeelin on August 14, 2009, 10:51:58 AM
On the other hand, consider the marketing implications from a Law Review that has an all white, predominantly male student body.
I would say that you have a serious problem then, given that women make up about half a given law school class. if the problem is that your law school doesn't admit women (or admit qualified women), then this isn't the Law Review's problem. If an "objective, gender-neutral" Law Review selection process passes up highly qualified women in favor of less qualified men (or, worse, highly qualified women do not apply for the Law Review) then the serious problem is yours.
In any case, the answer isn't to break the broken system in a new way, but to fix it.
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2009, 10:22:50 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 14, 2009, 10:51:58 AM
On the other hand, consider the marketing implications from a Law Review that has an all white, predominantly male student body.
I would say that you have a serious problem then, given that women make up about half a given law school class. if the problem is that your law school doesn't admit women (or admit qualified women), then this isn't the Law Review's problem. If an "objective, gender-neutral" Law Review selection process passes up highly qualified women in favor of less qualified men (or, worse, highly qualified women do not apply for the Law Review) then the serious problem is yours.
The majority of the journal's members are women.
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 05:14:24 PM
The law and medicine aren't about "pleasing" anyone, but in general are about getting results. The law in particular is ruthelessly Manichean in this respect - you either win a court case or you do not.
But law firms are full of people who never handle court cases. And of course lawyers who work for companies almost never do.
Indeed. I am also surprised by Malthus's claim that he has never heard about diversity (and similar issues) being important - this seems to be like a constant thing being touted around for the last 2-3 years - along with pro bono work, commitment to human rights etc. that we have been using for several years now in pitches for clients.
In fact some clients (like government institutions or NGO organizations) have been asking for that kind of data when organizing a pitch.
I think a big part of it is to build non-remuneration-related employee satisfaction (and also a safeguard against potential discrimination lawsuits, I guess). For example over the last few years, my firm has done the following in the GLBT area (I remember it the best since obviously I am personally interested in it): started a GLBT employee network, sent official representation to London and New york pride parades, started to participate in the HRC review (and got 100% rating), sponsored the London GLBT film festival and a bunch of gay-related art exhibitions in London and America etc.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2009, 01:21:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 05:14:24 PM
The law and medicine aren't about "pleasing" anyone, but in general are about getting results. The law in particular is ruthelessly Manichean in this respect - you either win a court case or you do not.
But law firms are full of people who never handle court cases. And of course lawyers who work for companies almost never do.
Even in people who do go to court, trying to determine who gets
results can be very difficult for even lawyers to determine, never mind laypeople. The facts of a case go 90% of the way to determining the outcome, so you can find a lot of very mediocre lawyers who are able to point to good results by only taking on favourable cases, and a lot of very good lawyers that actually have very poor records in court because they like to take on very difficult cases.
So in the end it still comes back to salesmanship.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 01:44:17 PM
I think a big part of it is to build non-remuneration-related employee satisfaction (and also a safeguard against potential discrimination lawsuits, I guess). For example over the last few years, my firm has done the following in the GLBT area (I remember it the best since obviously I am personally interested in it): started a GLBT employee network, sent official representation to London and New york pride parades, started to participate in the HRC review (and got 100% rating), sponsored the London GLBT film festival and a bunch of gay-related art exhibitions in London and America etc.
:bleeding: Woo-hoo, diversity. Is it me or is Diversity becoming some sort of religion?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2009, 01:21:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 05:14:24 PM
The law and medicine aren't about "pleasing" anyone, but in general are about getting results. The law in particular is ruthelessly Manichean in this respect - you either win a court case or you do not.
But law firms are full of people who never handle court cases. And of course lawyers who work for companies almost never do.
Of course. But lawyers who work for companies must still do stuff like provide legal opinions on situations - which are either helpful and correct, or not.
I mostly do regulatory work; I'm almost never in court. That doesn't mean that the stuff I do can't be judged fpr usefulness.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 01:37:31 PM
Indeed. I am also surprised by Malthus's claim that he has never heard about diversity (and similar issues) being important - this seems to be like a constant thing being touted around for the last 2-3 years - along with pro bono work, commitment to human rights etc. that we have been using for several years now in pitches for clients.
In fact some clients (like government institutions or NGO organizations) have been asking for that kind of data when organizing a pitch.
Committment to human rights? Our clients would die laughing. :lol:
I suspect it stongly depends on who you do work for. If you do work for some UN NGO, sure, their bread and butter is stuff like "diversity" and "human rights". That's the sort of thing they work with.
Work for someone who actually makes stuff, not so much.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2009, 01:53:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2009, 01:21:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 14, 2009, 05:14:24 PM
The law and medicine aren't about "pleasing" anyone, but in general are about getting results. The law in particular is ruthelessly Manichean in this respect - you either win a court case or you do not.
But law firms are full of people who never handle court cases. And of course lawyers who work for companies almost never do.
Even in people who do go to court, trying to determine who gets results can be very difficult for even lawyers to determine, never mind laypeople. The facts of a case go 90% of the way to determining the outcome, so you can find a lot of very mediocre lawyers who are able to point to good results by only taking on favourable cases, and a lot of very good lawyers that actually have very poor records in court because they like to take on very difficult cases.
So in the end it still comes back to salesmanship.
If you work for companies, you can't pick and choose what cases you get. You get what they give you to do - sometimes hard or impossible "dog files".
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 02:28:51 PM
Work for someone who actually makes stuff, not so much.
I agree, but it isnt so much the winning and losing as did you give good advice as to the risks of same and further give good advice as to how to best mitigate those risks.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 02:25:40 PM
Of course. But lawyers who work for companies must still do stuff like provide legal opinions on situations - which are either helpful and correct, or not.
I mostly do regulatory work; I'm almost never in court. That doesn't mean that the stuff I do can't be judged fpr usefulness.
It's very difficult for a client to assess how correct or useful your advice is. It tends to come down to how you sell your advice, not how 'correct' it is.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2009, 02:33:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 02:28:51 PM
Work for someone who actually makes stuff, not so much.
I agree, but it isnt so much the winning and losing as did you give good advice as to the risks of same and further give good advice as to how to best mitigate those risks.
Yup - and moreover, was the advice for mitigating risks actually helpful and practical with an eye to the business realities of the particular business they are engaged in (rather than an excessively "law-y" analysis).
It is hardly "merely salesmanship", though of course a certain amount of that is necessary to get clients in the first place.
If having a diversity program sells in getting clients - then by all means have one; so far, at least, I haven't seen much evidence that the clients I work for would be particularly impressed by such a thing - not because they hate minorities, but because they would regard it as an irrelevant cosmetic frill. What they want to know is whether you can help them solve pressing problems and keep them in business, not whether you are in favour of gay pride parades or care deeply about the rights of Tibetians.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2009, 02:38:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 02:25:40 PM
Of course. But lawyers who work for companies must still do stuff like provide legal opinions on situations - which are either helpful and correct, or not.
I mostly do regulatory work; I'm almost never in court. That doesn't mean that the stuff I do can't be judged fpr usefulness.
It's very difficult for a client to assess how correct or useful your advice is. It tends to come down to how you sell your advice, not how 'correct' it is.
That's not true at all. :huh:
Over the course of a business relationship possibly lasting years, it very quickly becomes evident whether your advice is useful and correct or not.
In my business, if the advice I give is incorrect, it leads to Health Canada issuing compliance orders, which are sort of obvious.
Edit: I should add, "when I didn't properly assess the risk that this was a possible or probable outcome of what they were doing".
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 02:25:40 PM
But lawyers who work for companies must still do stuff like provide legal opinions on situations - which are either helpful and correct, or not.
Unless the case is very complex or very niche, you can get that kind of service everywhere. So it becomes a matter of being able to provide something extra.
It's similar to putting your hobby on your cv.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 02:28:51 PM
Work for someone who actually makes stuff, not so much.
I can't name names but you are wrong.
Do your clients value being condescending?
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 02:48:29 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 02:25:40 PM
But lawyers who work for companies must still do stuff like provide legal opinions on situations - which are either helpful and correct, or not.
Unless the case is very complex or very niche, you can get that kind of service everywhere. So it becomes a matter of being able to provide something extra.
Most businesses have a "niche". The food manufacturing business isn't the same as the medical device manufacturing business isn't the same as the electronic manufacturing business.
While there are thousands of lawyers, the actual competition at the high end is among those who know the business and have years of experience in the field. If you want top advice that is (a) local to the jurisdiction, (b) knows the particular industry you are in and (c) has experience, the field is generally not that open.
That's why we can charge the big bucks.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 02:49:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 02:28:51 PM
Work for someone who actually makes stuff, not so much.
I can't name names but you are wrong.
Do your clients value being condescending?
I charge extra for that. :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 02:42:45 PM
Yup - and moreover, was the advice for mitigating risks actually helpful and practical with an eye to the business realities of the particular business they are engaged in (rather than an excessively "law-y" analysis).
It is hardly "merely salesmanship", though of course a certain amount of that is necessary to get clients in the first place.
Please note I did not use the word "mere". Legal salesmanship is a very important and powerful skill.
But I tend to disagree with you. There are many lawyers and firms that could do the same kind of work you do. But through good client service and building up the reputation as being an expert you are able to keep client and charge the "big bucks".
Some lawyer at a small shop away from downtown might be twice the lawyer you are even in your specialized area, but doesn't have all those other factors. And there'd be almost no way for the client to know.
Of course I'm not saying that you can be incompetent and succeed. Clearly not. But the legal business is nowhere near as meritocratic as you make it out to be. Once you have a certain level of competence it is other factors, not pure legal skills, that determines success.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2009, 03:03:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 02:42:45 PM
Yup - and moreover, was the advice for mitigating risks actually helpful and practical with an eye to the business realities of the particular business they are engaged in (rather than an excessively "law-y" analysis).
It is hardly "merely salesmanship", though of course a certain amount of that is necessary to get clients in the first place.
Please note I did not use the word "mere". Legal salesmanship is a very important and powerful skill.
But I tend to disagree with you. There are many lawyers and firms that could do the same kind of work you do. But through good client service and building up the reputation as being an expert you are able to keep client and charge the "big bucks".
Some lawyer at a small shop away from downtown might be twice the lawyer you are even in your specialized area, but doesn't have all those other factors. And there'd be almost no way for the client to know.
Of course I'm not saying that you can be incompetent and succeed. Clearly not. But the legal business is nowhere near as meritocratic as you make it out to be. Once you have a certain level of competence it is other factors, not pure legal skills, that determines success.
There is no way that a small lawyer away from downtown would have the same
experience in the business. How are they to acquire it, if no manufacturer knows who they are?
They may be twice as smart and all that, sure; but they will not (and cannot)
know the business, which is the result of simply doing hundreds or thousands of files over more than a decade specific to that line of business.
For example: I have participated in the only New Drugs Committee proceeding (a specialized administrative process used when Health Canada strips a drug of its NOC) since 1968 (and we won). That doesn't make me any
smarter than your hypothetical unknown but smart lawyer, of course; but if a drug company was facing being stripped of its NOC, who are they going to go with? The guy who has a decade of experience in the field and who has *done that very thing before*, or a guy (or gal) who says s/he is real smart, has a great diversity program?
I do not doubt the importance of salesmanship. You are I think underrating merit. Salesmanship only gets you so far - it will not retain sophisticated business clients who can well understand the quality of product they receive, as they see the results and the impact over months and years.
Quote from: derspiess on November 18, 2009, 02:13:10 PM
:bleeding: Woo-hoo, diversity. Is it me or is Diversity becoming some sort of religion?
I hope so, we need more diversity among religions.
I think diversity is a bigger issue among corporations than law firms- law firms being more traditional, conservative institutions. But, at least according to one of my professors, some large corporations are beginning to put pressure on firms for some level of diversity. He cited specifically Walmart as one corporation that requires outside law firms to have some level of diversity. Obviously, if you have a big client like Walmart demanding something, you're probably going to throw them a diversity bone.
Quote from: stjaba on November 18, 2009, 03:32:27 PM
I think diversity is a bigger issue among corporations than law firms- law firms being more traditional, conservative institutions. But, at least according to one of my professors, some large corporations are beginning to put pressure on firms for some level of diversity. He cited specifically Walmart as one corporation that requires outside law firms to have some level of diversity. Obviously, if you have a big client like Walmart demanding something, you're probably going to throw them a diversity bone.
Indeed. Plus bigger, global lawfirms are actually changing their behavior by becoming more like corporations than traditional lawfirms, too. Some are even starting to delegate management to people who are actually trained to do so, rather than just other lawyers - something that had been previously unheard of.
Coming to think of it, it's bizarre how nonsensical some stuff about law firm management really is. I mean, it's like having the best guy at designing cars being put at the head of General Motors.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 18, 2009, 08:59:19 AM
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2009, 02:32:19 AM
Fuck no, I'm in it for the money. The school I'm going to is one of the whitest in the nation and serves a (relatively) rural community.
I hope you said that in your personal statement. :lmfao:
Who actually tells the truth in their personal statement? It's all bullshit.
Quote from: stjaba on November 18, 2009, 03:32:27 PM
I think diversity is a bigger issue among corporations than law firms- law firms being more traditional, conservative institutions. But, at least according to one of my professors, some large corporations are beginning to put pressure on firms for some level of diversity. He cited specifically Walmart as one corporation that requires outside law firms to have some level of diversity. Obviously, if you have a big client like Walmart demanding something, you're probably going to throw them a diversity bone.
Well, sure: to a big retailer like Wal-mart, lawyers are pretty well interchangable - they probably employ hundreds of 'em.
I don't think it has anything to do with "tradition" or "conservatism", as with the realities of political pressure. Wal-Mart is a target for criticism, which they will be anxious to forestall by "diversity programs". Whether these are any more than window dressing is of course another story.
Most businesses are not as open to the same sort of political pressure.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 04:06:12 PM
Quote from: stjaba on November 18, 2009, 03:32:27 PM
I think diversity is a bigger issue among corporations than law firms- law firms being more traditional, conservative institutions. But, at least according to one of my professors, some large corporations are beginning to put pressure on firms for some level of diversity. He cited specifically Walmart as one corporation that requires outside law firms to have some level of diversity. Obviously, if you have a big client like Walmart demanding something, you're probably going to throw them a diversity bone.
Well, sure: to a big retailer like Wal-mart, lawyers are pretty well interchangable - they probably employ hundreds of 'em.
I don't think it has anything to do with "tradition" or "conservatism", as with the realities of political pressure. Wal-Mart is a target for criticism, which they will be anxious to forestall by "diversity programs". Whether these are any more than window dressing is of course another story.
Most businesses are not as open to the same sort of political pressure.
It isn't just Wal Mart and it isn't just employees. He is talking about reviews of outside firms and their diversity programs.
Yes, Wal Mart is a target for criticism, and that is probably the motivation for moving down the path. But take a gander at the Fortune 100--many if not most of them are subject to the same sorts of pressures as Wal Mart.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2009, 04:11:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 04:06:12 PM
Quote from: stjaba on November 18, 2009, 03:32:27 PM
I think diversity is a bigger issue among corporations than law firms- law firms being more traditional, conservative institutions. But, at least according to one of my professors, some large corporations are beginning to put pressure on firms for some level of diversity. He cited specifically Walmart as one corporation that requires outside law firms to have some level of diversity. Obviously, if you have a big client like Walmart demanding something, you're probably going to throw them a diversity bone.
Well, sure: to a big retailer like Wal-mart, lawyers are pretty well interchangable - they probably employ hundreds of 'em.
I don't think it has anything to do with "tradition" or "conservatism", as with the realities of political pressure. Wal-Mart is a target for criticism, which they will be anxious to forestall by "diversity programs". Whether these are any more than window dressing is of course another story.
Most businesses are not as open to the same sort of political pressure.
It isn't just Wal Mart and it isn't just employees. He is talking about reviews of outside firms and their diversity programs.
Yes, Wal Mart is a target for criticism, and that is probably the motivation for moving down the path. But take a gander at the Fortune 100--many if not most of them are subject to the same sorts of pressures as Wal Mart.
I don't doubt that some large US firms face this kind of pressure (though again, how much besides lip service is paid to it, I dunno).
What I *am* saying, is that in my professional career I've never once encountered it. It simply is not a factor here in Canada. Clients do not ask for 'diversity'. Proposals to clients do not mention 'diversity'. I've done work on occasion for Hudson's Bay, and we were not quizzed on 'diversity'. I've worked for the US government, and they did not ask about 'diversity'. Our firm has a "diversity policy". No-one ever, to my knowledge, refers to it or asks to see it. It is mere verbiage at this stage.
Make of that what you will. I'm not really arguing, I'm simply making an observation.
My observation is backed up with facts, though. a search of Canadian Lawyer Magazine reveals this article:
http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Dont-ask-dont-tell.html
QuoteThe government of Canada's legal agent program — wherein you're a lawyer or law firm and do work for the federal government — clearly states that all service providers must have workplace equity programs in place.
"It is also the policy of the Department of Justice to encourage respect for, commitment to, and implementation of the principles of employment equity by lawyers and law firms appointed as agents of the Attorney General of Canada. To this end, agents must, as a condition of their appointment, comply with the requirements set out in this policy," states the government's workplace equity policy for legal agents.
It would seem pretty cut and dried that law firms paid to do legal work by the federal government would have to abide by the policy as it states: "This policy applies to lawyers and law firms in Canada appointed as agents of the Attorney General of Canada."
But in reality, it's not clear, or rather what's not clear is whether law firms are adhering to the policy.
The policy has two levels; one for law firms with 20 or fewer lawyers and a more comprehensive one for those with more than 21 lawyers.
For smaller firms, these are the criteria:
• "to make a commitment in writing to respect the workplace equity principles set out above;
• to communicate their commitment to all staff within the law firm; and,
• to report on the representation of designated group members among lawyers within the firm at the request of
the Department of Justice."
The larger firms must also "have and implement a workplace equity policy and action plan" that meets Justice's criteria; and "collect and record information on the representation and employment status of designated group members within the firm in terms of hiring, promotion, and termination in relation to other employees, and on the measures taken by the firm to achieve workplace equity goals."
The reality is, however, that most law firms don't seem to be aware that they have agreed to this as standing agents of the Crown — even though the policy has been in place since 1996.
Canadian Lawyer contacted many of the outside counsel that received the most money for their work for the federal government in 2008 (See Law Times article from June 29, 2009). The firms at the top of that list include Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP in Toronto, Calgary-based Macleod Dixon LLP, Lang Michener LLP's Ottawa office, and Calgary's Code Hunter LLP. None of them, including the larger firms lower down on the list, collected statistics on visible or sexual minorities, aboriginal people, or lawyers with disabilities.
A few said they had written diversity policies, but the majority did not have equity policies of any kind. Of those with policies, a handful had programs aimed at women but nothing regarding equity in a broader sense.
In conducting research for Canadian Lawyer's special report on diversity, it became clear that most law firms did not think the federal government's equity policies even applied to legal agents.
The government itself is not doing much to change that commonly held belief.
According to Karen Beasleigh, program officer with Justice Canada's litigation practice management centre, they "have not routinely requested" equity information from law firms and therefore the government does not have any diversity statistics from its legal agents.
When firms sign on as legal agents, they agree to the employment equity policy but Beasleigh says essentially the DoJ has "relied on the integrity of firms to comply" with it.
In other words, the DoJ's workplace equity policy for legal agents is Canada's own version of "don't ask, don't tell."
So far, that system doesn't seem to be working to encourage commitment to the equity policies the government espouses.
Which sort of exactly corresponds to my observations ...
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2009, 03:03:45 PM
Some lawyer at a small shop away from downtown might be twice the lawyer you are even in your specialized area, but doesn't have all those other factors. And there'd be almost no way for the client to know.
Since most of my clients are nearer to those small shops then they are to me I am pretty sure that if a more local lawyer was twice the lawyer I am then I would be out of business. Fact is a lot of my business comes from referrals from those local lawyers who realize they are way out of their depth on particular issues. Just as I refer out to lawyers who I know are very good in a particular area when I am out of my depth.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 03:16:56 PM
I do not doubt the importance of salesmanship. You are I think underrating merit. Salesmanship only gets you so far - it will not retain sophisticated business clients who can well understand the quality of product they receive, as they see the results and the impact over months and years.
I would go further. I am unware of any clients I have who I obtained through any salesmenship. My area of practice is fairly narrow and people come to me when their regular lawyers are not able to deal with the issues - Much like you.
If I had to depend on salesmenship for any part of my income I would be looking for another line of work for sure.
I'm would bet that the same article could be written in the US.
My point was that your largest law firms serving the largest clients are going to have diversity initiatives, and there will be clients that expect them. One of those law firms showing up at NYU to recruit isn't going to be happy if all it gets are a bunch of white guys, when that means it is going to have to report to its clients in a few years that it is a 90% white male law firm.
A smaller firm--even one with more than 21 lawyers--may not have any incentive to care.
How do you add diversity?
By subtracting unity.
I think some of you guys have a too-idealistic perfect-world type of view when it comes to the decision-making process of a client choosing a lawyer.
Expertise is only one aspect of this, and often not the most important (and certainly not more important than all other aspects combined).
1. Many clients will not be able to fully appreciate the expertise or compare the expertise of two similarly experienced lawyers. Sure they can tell a newbie from a senior, but it's not always as easy to compare two similarly experienced people.
2. Most work does not require top expertise - pure and simple. Expertise does not come cheap.
3. A small boutique-style lawfirm specializing in some area may have a better expertise than a big generalistic lawfirm. But many clients will choose the latter simply because the latter has a bigger insurance coverage.
4. As a corollary to 4 above, for many clients, people making the choice are not CEOs, but people lower in the food chain (e.g. head of legal department or the like); as such they are more likely to choose a lawfirm that is "safe" (big insurance, big name overall) than one that has better experts for the specific job because in the former case they can do a better job at CYA if something goes wrong.
5. Most clients looking for an expert will look to various rankings. Many rankings are based on peer opinion rather than client opinion. Think why it can go wrong.
I went for the jew lawyer.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 18, 2009, 05:02:12 PM
I went for the jew lawyer.
Did you win the paternity suit?
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 02:25:40 PM
Of course. But lawyers who work for companies must still do stuff like provide legal opinions on situations - which are either helpful and correct, or not.
Yes but it is very difficult for a client ex ante to assess the quality of transactional work, unless they are very sophisticated. Often the only way to find out the quality of the work is years later if someone sues.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 04:33:02 PM
I don't doubt that some large US firms face this kind of pressure (though again, how much besides lip service is paid to it, I dunno).
It is a significant issue in recruiting. Most US firms compete hard for the strongest "diverse" candidates and try to play up their record on diversity to attract recruits in the first place.
Most clients realistically don't care that much, but some do, and a few care quite a bit.
Also as a practical matter, if you have a jury case where the jury has a particular ethnic or gender makeup or certain key jurors with such a makeup, it can be useful to have someone with an active role on a trial team that matches.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2009, 04:50:24 PM
I'm would bet that the same article could be written in the US.
My point was that your largest law firms serving the largest clients are going to have diversity initiatives, and there will be clients that expect them. One of those law firms showing up at NYU to recruit isn't going to be happy if all it gets are a bunch of white guys, when that means it is going to have to report to its clients in a few years that it is a 90% white male law firm.
A smaller firm--even one with more than 21 lawyers--may not have any incentive to care.
It would seem that it would *not* have been written in the US. You tell me that big firms care about diversity there, and I have no reason to doubt you.
The article states flat out that the biggest Canadian law firms *don't* collect "diversity" info and most don't even have a written policy (though in theory they are required to do so to act as a federal agent). Obviously, clients here
don't require such info; if they did, the firms would of necessity collect it.
What we have here is a difference in the practice. For whatever reason, the "culture" of seriously requiring diversity reporting
does not exist here in Canada.
What is Canadian policy on school admissions for minorities and women?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 14, 2009, 09:15:09 AM
So, at Law Review Orientation, the Diversity Committee gave us a discussion of what they do, and how. Essentially they pick X number of students in the top half of the class for Law Review based on race, gender, socioeconomic background, nationality, academic background, sexual orientation, etc. etc.
Wow; this law review must suck. Picking editors and subciters based upon visual ethnicity from people ranked as low as the top half of their class, instead of merit selection?
This is insane. Why not just select the hottest 1ls to law review? It will still create visual diversity (at least in contrast to the typical unshaven unkempt bespectacled white male 20 something editor) and can't achieve much worse of substantive outcome.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2009, 05:27:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 02:25:40 PM
Of course. But lawyers who work for companies must still do stuff like provide legal opinions on situations - which are either helpful and correct, or not.
Yes but it is very difficult for a client ex ante to assess the quality of transactional work, unless they are very sophisticated. Often the only way to find out the quality of the work is years later if someone sues.
I don't necessarily agree. The effect of much transactional work is often much more immediate, as it is passed through multiple hands - in house counsel, counsel for the other side, etc. All of whom are more than happy to raise questions, complaints or objections. Not that this prevents sleeping disasters (nothing does), but rather that routine shoddy work will eventually be obvious.
Moreover, purely transactional work is only a part. Lawyers are often called on in effect to predict the future, like seers in the ancient world - only in this case the future risks of various sorts of business acts; too many wrong predictions and you get cast into the outer void. Some predictions may take years to come true or not; others are
much more immediate.
Plus, in many cases such work (at least in my field, and I suspect in some others) is subject to various forms of regulatory oversight, often in very hostile environments. The threat is not necessarily a lawsuit, but rather a regulatory complaint - often initiated by a competitor itching to throw stones in glass houses ...
All of which means that, in many cases, shoddy lawyering will be detected relatively swiftly.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 14, 2009, 09:42:12 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 14, 2009, 09:16:44 AM
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
I dunno. I'm not averse to the idea of giving people from poor backgrounds a leg up. Some guy from a busted up coal mining town in Kentucky isn't gonna be as able to hack it as well as the daughter of a partner at a BigLaw firm, no?
Merit is merit. Law review is an honor and should be about putting out a quality legal product not giving a leg up in the recruiting process to those who didn't get there on merit. It's a deception on those employers who recruit at your law school and look to Law Review as a validation of academic success and legal writing proficiency.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 05:50:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2009, 04:50:24 PM
I'm would bet that the same article could be written in the US.
My point was that your largest law firms serving the largest clients are going to have diversity initiatives, and there will be clients that expect them. One of those law firms showing up at NYU to recruit isn't going to be happy if all it gets are a bunch of white guys, when that means it is going to have to report to its clients in a few years that it is a 90% white male law firm.
A smaller firm--even one with more than 21 lawyers--may not have any incentive to care.
It would seem that it would *not* have been written in the US. You tell me that big firms care about diversity there, and I have no reason to doubt you.
The article states flat out that the biggest Canadian law firms *don't* collect "diversity" info and most don't even have a written policy (though in theory they are required to do so to act as a federal agent). Obviously, clients here don't require such info; if they did, the firms would of necessity collect it.
What we have here is a difference in the practice. For whatever reason, the "culture" of seriously requiring diversity reporting does not exist here in Canada.
The reason I was saying that it could be written in the US is the description of a large firm--it was looking at firms that did work for the government, not ones active in private sector, and the legal threshold for a large firm was 21 or more lawyers. I'm sure there are a lot of US firms with more than 21 lawyers without diversity policies in place. I'm actually probably wrong though, because many government entities here are not going to be as lax with diversity, so I would guess most 21+ lawyer firms that do business with the government would be more aware.
You don't need to prove to me how things are in Canada, I take your word for it. You are a better source than a journalist in any event.
As usual, I agree with Malthus and declare him the winner...overpriced baby stroller trophy to follow.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 18, 2009, 06:04:02 PM
Merit is merit. Law review is an honor and should be about putting out a quality legal product not giving a leg up in the recruiting process to those who didn't get there on merit. It's a deception on those employers who recruit at your law school and look to Law Review as a validation of academic success and legal writing proficiency.
That's one view of meritocracy. Another is that given equal brains and determination, the advantages of the partner's daughter means she will come out ahead of the coalminer's son. Both views have their pluses and minuses.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 02:28:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 01:37:31 PM
Indeed. I am also surprised by Malthus's claim that he has never heard about diversity (and similar issues) being important - this seems to be like a constant thing being touted around for the last 2-3 years - along with pro bono work, commitment to human rights etc. that we have been using for several years now in pitches for clients.
In fact some clients (like government institutions or NGO organizations) have been asking for that kind of data when organizing a pitch.
Committment to human rights? Our clients would die laughing. :lol:
I suspect it stongly depends on who you do work for. If you do work for some UN NGO, sure, their bread and butter is stuff like "diversity" and "human rights". That's the sort of thing they work with.
Work for someone who actually makes stuff, not so much.
Clients only care about one thing, the bottom line. Whether it's money at stake, or liberty interest, it's about the results and they could care less about ethnicity.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 04:03:58 PM
... I mean, it's like having the best guy at designing cars being put at the head of General Motors.
I'm not sure that's the best example.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2009, 05:52:07 PM
What is Canadian policy on school admissions for minorities and women?
Depends on the school. Here's U of T's policies:
http://www.law.utoronto.ca/prosp_stdn_content.asp?itemPath=3/6/15/1/0&contentId=347
QuoteThe Faculty of Law seeks to identify and select a student body of diverse interests and backgrounds joined by a commitment to academic excellence and intellectual rigour and demonstrating unusual promise for distinguished performance at the law school, and, subsequently, in the legal profession and community.
The law school is enriched and Canadian society is benefited by a diverse student body made up of students from various ethnic, racial, cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, from different regions of Canada, as well as from a range of academic disciplines, careers, and community and extracurricular experiences.
The Admissions Committee, chaired by a faculty member and composed of the Assistant Dean, Students, faculty and third-year students, chooses those applicants whom it judges are likely to complete the program with the greatest intellectual return. The Faculty believes that the qualities of mind and personality necessary to satisfy its requirements are:
high intelligence,
sound judgment,
the capacity and motivation for demanding intellectual effort,
the capacity and motivation to engage in sophisticated legal reasoning, and
an understanding of and sensitivity to human interaction.
As evidence of these qualities, the Admissions Committee looks to a number of factors. These include:
academic achievement;
Law School Admission Test (LSAT) score;
nonacademic achievement;
the response to disadvantage due to adverse personal or socio-economic circumstances or to barriers faced by cultural (including racial or ethnic) or linguistic minorities;
motivation and involvement in academic and non-academic activities; and
the impact of temporary or permanent physical disabilities
The Faculty seeks a diverse, stimulating and highly motivated student body. Thus, the Admissions Committee may also give weight to
work experience,
graduate study,
outstanding accomplishment in a non-academic activity, and
other special circumstances brought to its attention
While the Admissions Committee gives greatest weight to an applicant's cumulative undergraduate academic record and LSAT score, these other factors may, in some cases, play an important role in the admissions decision. For this reason, applicants are strongly encouraged to bring to the attention of the Committee the above mentioned factors in their personal statements. Such factors will only be considered to the extent that they assist the applicant.
As to how much weight this gets - I dunno.
Note that the school has a special program for aboriginal students: it states that 25-30 out of 180 students will be aboriginal, which is wildly out of purportion to the population (13-17% of the class vs. about 3.8% of the pop. of Canada).
The policy is to admit aboriginals if they are breathing, evidently:
QuoteThe Faculty believes that Aboriginal people including those of Indian, Métis and Inuit heritage represent unique groups in Canada deserving special recognition in admissions policy. We believe that the admissions policy is an appropriate means of attempting to increase access to legal services for Aboriginal people and to redress historic systemic discrimination against them in Canadian society. The Faculty is concerned that Aboriginal people do not have substantial representation among the ranks of the Canadian legal profession. The Faculty also believes that the ethnic and cultural backgrounds of these students provide valuable dimensions which enhance the quality of legal education.
The Faculty therefore welcomes applications from Aboriginal people and seeks to enhance their participation in legal education and legal practice. If the Admissions Committee believes that an Aboriginal applicant can be successful in our program, he or she will be admitted. In appropriate cases, admission may be conditional on successful performance in the Program of Legal Studies for Native People offered each summer at the University of Saskatchewan. This program is designed as a preparation for formal studies at a Canadian law school. Application forms and further information are available from:
Program of Legal Studies for Native People
University of Saskatchewan
15 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A6
Tel: (306) 966-6189
Fax: (306) 966-6207
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.usask.ca/nativelaw
Usually, there are approximately 25 to 30 Aboriginal students enrolled in the J.D. program.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 18, 2009, 06:15:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 04:03:58 PM
... I mean, it's like having the best guy at designing cars being put at the head of General Motors.
I'm not sure that's the best example.
:blink: You've got a lot of nerve criticizing one of Marti's analogies on this board, mister.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2009, 06:10:37 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 18, 2009, 06:04:02 PM
Merit is merit. Law review is an honor and should be about putting out a quality legal product not giving a leg up in the recruiting process to those who didn't get there on merit. It's a deception on those employers who recruit at your law school and look to Law Review as a validation of academic success and legal writing proficiency.
That's one view of meritocracy. Another is that given equal brains and determination, the advantages of the partner's daughter means she will come out ahead of the coalminer's son. Both views have their pluses and minuses.
Law Reviews traditionally merit select in a blind environment (top 10% of the class after year one with a handful selected as write ons (anonymous papers selected by faculty and law review member committee). Thus your premise is false. Given equal brains and determination whichever one wrote the better paper or scored the highest on blindly graded exams over their first year gets onto law review.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 18, 2009, 06:20:20 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 18, 2009, 06:15:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 04:03:58 PM
... I mean, it's like having the best guy at designing cars being put at the head of General Motors.
I'm not sure that's the best example.
:blink: You've got a lot of nerve criticizing one of Marti's analogies on this board, mister.
I can understand how a gay communist might look to an example of a spectacular failure of a private business that had to be nationalized for guidance, but I just cannot help but think that if a few more car guys had been running the show at GM instead of professional managers and bean counters, GM might have survived.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 18, 2009, 06:23:24 PM
Law Reviews traditionally merit select in a blind environment (top 10% of the class after year one with a handful selected as write ons (anonymous papers selected by faculty and law review member committee). Thus your premise is false. Given equal brains and determination whichever one wrote the better paper or scored the highest on blindly graded exams over their first year gets onto law review.
Whoever had better brains and determination at the moment the articles were written and the first year grades awarded. Which is a function of, among many other things, the quality of schools attended, the intellectual culture in the home, summer jobs, internships, travel, etc. etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2009, 06:27:40 PM
Whoever had better brains and determination at the moment the articles were written and the first year grades awarded. Which is a function of, among many other things, the quality of schools attended, the intellectual culture in the home, summer jobs, internships, travel, etc. etc.
I totally agree. People from "standard" upper middle class upbringings have a lot of unearned advantages.
My point is that the eventual end user of legal services wants as many "advantages" as they can get, and doesn't care whether they are fairly earned or not: their money or freedom is on the line.
Edit: in some cases, people from such upbringings have unearned *disadvantages* as well - spoiled, lack work ethic, etc.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 06:31:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2009, 06:27:40 PM
Whoever had better brains and determination at the moment the articles were written and the first year grades awarded. Which is a function of, among many other things, the quality of schools attended, the intellectual culture in the home, summer jobs, internships, travel, etc. etc.
I totally agree. People from "standard" upper middle class upbringings have a lot of unearned advantages.
My point is that the eventual end user of legal services wants as many "advantages" as they can get, and doesn't care whether they are fairly earned or not: their money or freedom is on the line.
Edit: in some cases, people from such upbringings have unearned *disadvantages* as well - spoiled, lack work ethic, etc.
I revoke your victory and am returning your trophy.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 18, 2009, 06:33:46 PM
I revoke your victory and am returning your trophy.
I want that stroller back. :mad:
Anyway, don't see what's controversial about what I said. certainly, going to good schools and having lots of stimulation as a kid is an advantage - my point is that this is no reason to in effect attempt to manipulate the balance in the other direction.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 18, 2009, 05:58:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 14, 2009, 09:15:09 AM
So, at Law Review Orientation, the Diversity Committee gave us a discussion of what they do, and how. Essentially they pick X number of students in the top half of the class for Law Review based on race, gender, socioeconomic background, nationality, academic background, sexual orientation, etc. etc.
Wow; this law review must suck. Picking editors and subciters based upon visual ethnicity from people ranked as low as the top half of their class, instead of merit selection?
I have bad news for you about the nation's top law schools.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 18, 2009, 06:23:24 PM
Law Reviews traditionally merit select in a blind environment (top 10% of the class after year one with a handful selected as write ons (anonymous papers selected by faculty and law review member committee). Thus your premise is false. Given equal brains and determination whichever one wrote the better paper or scored the highest on blindly graded exams over their first year gets onto law review.
I think that's the traditional idea, but in practice not so, both now and even in the past. My dad who went to Georgtown Law in the late 70s, told me that the "write-on" was basically used a way to get non white males onto the journals.
At my law school(UF), to get onto law review, the only automatic way to get onto law review is to finish in the top 4 of your section of approximately 100. The other spots are handed out via competition. I'm assuming that is to help achieve some sort of diversity on the law review. I've been in the law review office before, and the group pictures of previous law editors are like 95% white males. :lol:But they were mostly from before this decade, so I imagine it has probably changed a little bit in the past 10 years. Apparently UF was about 60% men to women ratio as recently as about 15 years ago.
I think people arguing against diversity here forget that the academic results alone are not such a very good measure for the future employee's capabilities either. After all, noone sane would say that we should hire some who is an obnoxious antisocial loner only because he had a 91% score over someone who works well with others but had a 90% score. It's all a matter of weighing in various pros and cons of the prospective employee, academic results being just one of many.
Now, the question shouldn't really be why diversity should trump academic results, but whether it is relevant at all for the employee's performance. I believe the diversity advocates (this is also the official line of our firm when it comes to promoting diversity) argue that a more diverse working environment promotes both better working relations (both inside and outside, towards clients etc. - this is in essence a "daily diversity training" so to speak - and since our clients come from different backgrounds this is useful) but also can help coming up with more creative solutions to problems (and contrary to what some of you may believe, certain areas of law especially are not resistant to stuff like creativity and innovation). Essentially the argument goes that a room full of 10 white straight males is less likely to come up with something new or creative than a room of 10 people from diverse backgrounds.
Not to mention, from my personal experience, kids from poorer backgrounds often prove more hardworking and dedicated employees than all-As upper middle class kids with a sense of entitlement.
Again, the alternative of "hire a black lesbian idiot instead of a white straight genius" is a false one. Both people are likely to have a similar academic score. But hiring someone only based on their academic score and nothing else is what would be really insane.
To put it differently, consider the following mental exercise: you get applications from two candidates. Their cvs in terms of academic record are exactly the same. The only difference is that one is an obviously upper middle class white kid, and the other is a black kid from a disadvantaged background.
In the absence of any other information, the sensible choice would be then to hire the black kid. Why? Because he is more likely to be hardworking and dedicated, considering his disadvantaged start (that's not to say the white privileged kid is not necessarily that either, but we are talking about probabilities here).
Now, if you agree with the above conclusion, then it clearly means that we are assigning some value to the fact that a job applicant is from a disadvantaged group or background, no? So once we get there, the question really remains how much value we assign to it. If the white applicant had a 91% academic score and the black had 90%, would you still hire the black one? What about 91% vs. 89%? Etc.
:facepalm:
Quote from: stjaba on November 18, 2009, 07:47:06 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 18, 2009, 06:23:24 PM
Law Reviews traditionally merit select in a blind environment (top 10% of the class after year one with a handful selected as write ons (anonymous papers selected by faculty and law review member committee). Thus your premise is false. Given equal brains and determination whichever one wrote the better paper or scored the highest on blindly graded exams over their first year gets onto law review.
I think that's the traditional idea, but in practice not so, both now and even in the past. My dad who went to Georgtown Law in the late 70s, told me that the "write-on" was basically used a way to get non white males onto the journals.
At my law school(UF), to get onto law review, the only automatic way to get onto law review is to finish in the top 4 of your section of approximately 100. The other spots are handed out via competition. I'm assuming that is to help achieve some sort of diversity on the law review. I've been in the law review office before, and the group pictures of previous law editors are like 95% white males. :lol:But they were mostly from before this decade, so I imagine it has probably changed a little bit in the past 10 years. Apparently UF was about 60% men to women ratio as recently as about 15 years ago.
Uf is the perfect example of what I speak. The Uf law review selection process is a merit based process based upon either class rank (determined by a blind grading system) or by an anonymous writing competition. As a result, being on UF's law review is a meaningful indicator of competitive academic achievement to a prospective employer to the point where that same employer assumes that someone who could only make the Journal of Law and Public Policy, instead of the Law Review, was just not quite as a good a writer or not quite as academically talented.
Quite simply among the prestige law firms, Law Review is typically one of the most important criteria in determining whether a hiring partner (as opposed to staff) will ever even see a student's resume.
Dilute that brand on the altar of diversity and it only hurts those who got there by achievement because employers will cease giving it any weight.
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 03:03:53 AM
I think people arguing against diversity here forget that the academic results alone are not such a very good measure for the future employee's capabilities either. After all, noone sane would say that we should hire some who is an obnoxious antisocial loner only because he had a 91% score over someone who works well with others but had a 90% score. It's all a matter of weighing in various pros and cons of the prospective employee, academic results being just one of many.
Now, the question shouldn't really be why diversity should trump academic results, but whether it is relevant at all for the employee's performance. I believe the diversity advocates (this is also the official line of our firm when it comes to promoting diversity) argue that a more diverse working environment promotes both better working relations (both inside and outside, towards clients etc. - this is in essence a "daily diversity training" so to speak - and since our clients come from different backgrounds this is useful) but also can help coming up with more creative solutions to problems (and contrary to what some of you may believe, certain areas of law especially are not resistant to stuff like creativity and innovation). Essentially the argument goes that a room full of 10 white straight males is less likely to come up with something new or creative than a room of 10 people from diverse backgrounds.
Not to mention, from my personal experience, kids from poorer backgrounds often prove more hardworking and dedicated employees than all-As upper middle class kids with a sense of entitlement.
Again, the alternative of "hire a black lesbian idiot instead of a white straight genius" is a false one. Both people are likely to have a similar academic score. But hiring someone only based on their academic score and nothing else is what would be really insane.
It's a false dichotomy you are proposing. What opponents of mandatory "diversity" programs tend to oppose is not flexibility in hiring practices, but some sort of quota system that in effect enforces "diversity" in the face of actual applicants.
No law office has ever hired on the basis of marks alone, there is always an interview and subjective component to it. The problem is of course that, when left to their choice, law firms are ready to embrace some forms of "diversity' readily (most law offices have no problem achieving 'gender diversity') but not others (law offices conspicuously lack visible minorities and people from lower class backgrounds, whereas other minorities - such as Jews - are vastly over-represented).
Why? Because, for whatever reason, visible minorities and folks from lower class backgrounds are not attracted to the practice of law.
What this means in practice is that there simply are very few candidates who are "black kids from disadvantaged backgrounds". My law school year had none - not one; and not because the school did not want Black students. If law firms are *forced* by some sort of "diversity program" to hire a certain percentage of Black kids from low class backgrounds, they will have no choice but to hire whoever applies. Chances are, with incentives like that, that the student will *not* be as good as a comparable White candidate - not because Blacks are dumb but because the pool is so tiny.
Assuming this is true, the logical thing to have happen is a sort of tokenism - hire the (presumably less capable) Black student because you have to, and have him do some joe-job or other where he or she can do no harm.
In terms of school admissions look at what I posted about the U of T's policy on aboriginals. The U of T basically requires 25-30 out of a class of 180 to be aboriginal (or 13-17% of the class vs. about 3.8% of the pop. of Canada - the imbalance being even worse than suggested as aboriginals are generally not a group that traditionally is highly represented in law); in order to do that (given that not so many aboriginals apply), it has to relax standards to the point where the only admission criteria is convincing the committe that you can survive law school. The remaining places are taken by everyone else, who must compete on the usual standards - grades, aptitude, etc. Moreover, grading while *in* law school is relaxed in the case of aboriginal students.
Knowing that, if you were under arrest and facing a hefty prision sentence for something you didn't do, who would you want representing you if you were forced to choose someone fresh out of law school - an aboriginal lawyer, or a non-aboriginal one? Would you take the chance with your liberty that the aboriginal guy has some unique perspective lacking in boring button-down upper middle class white people who merely got excellent marks and otherwise demonstrated exceptional aptitude?
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 03:15:07 AM
To put it differently, consider the following mental exercise: you get applications from two candidates. Their cvs in terms of academic record are exactly the same. The only difference is that one is an obviously upper middle class white kid, and the other is a black kid from a disadvantaged background.
In the absence of any other information, the sensible choice would be then to hire the black kid. Why? Because he is more likely to be hardworking and dedicated, considering his disadvantaged start (that's not to say the white privileged kid is not necessarily that either, but we are talking about probabilities here).
Now, if you agree with the above conclusion, then it clearly means that we are assigning some value to the fact that a job applicant is from a disadvantaged group or background, no? So once we get there, the question really remains how much value we assign to it. If the white applicant had a 91% academic score and the black had 90%, would you still hire the black one? What about 91% vs. 89%? Etc.
You've almost made a good point. An employer will and should hire the kid from an economically disadvantaged background (assuming academics were comparable) because that employee will have an intangible hunger to succeed and better themselves.
You however are quite racist in your suggestion that this determination can be made by visual aesthetics.
I submit Obama's daughters will not be nearly as disadvantaged or hungry as the average white male who grew up in Appalachia.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 06:03:00 PM
All of which means that, in many cases, shoddy lawyering will be detected relatively swiftly.
I can think of many examples to the contrary. Good thing to, because that fact helps keep me in business.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 09:25:52 AM
Knowing that, if you were under arrest and facing a hefty prision sentence for something you didn't do, who would you want representing you if you were forced to choose someone fresh out of law school - an aboriginal lawyer, or a non-aboriginal one? Would you take the chance with your liberty that the aboriginal guy has some unique perspective lacking in boring button-down upper middle class white people who merely got excellent marks and otherwise demonstrated exceptional aptitude?
Well since aboriginals are grossly over-represented in the criminal justice system the fact of who a white middle class male might choose to represent them isn't all that important. An aboriginal offender may very well want the aboriginal lawyer because he has, not a unique perspective, but a perspective very similar to the offender's own and who might well be better able to explain that perspective to the court.
U of M Law had a number of spots reserved for aboriginal law students. They were never able to even fill all of them, and yes the entrance requirements for an aboriginal person were quite a bit lower than for me. I'm not convinced that is the best way to rectify the very low number of aboriginal lawyers, but I can at least understand why they do it.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2009, 02:47:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 09:25:52 AM
Knowing that, if you were under arrest and facing a hefty prision sentence for something you didn't do, who would you want representing you if you were forced to choose someone fresh out of law school - an aboriginal lawyer, or a non-aboriginal one? Would you take the chance with your liberty that the aboriginal guy has some unique perspective lacking in boring button-down upper middle class white people who merely got excellent marks and otherwise demonstrated exceptional aptitude?
Well since aboriginals are grossly over-represented in the criminal justice system the fact of who a white middle class male might choose to represent them isn't all that important. An aboriginal offender may very well want the aboriginal lawyer because he has, not a unique perspective, but a perspective very similar to the offender's own and who might well be better able to explain that perspective to the court.
U of M Law had a number of spots reserved for aboriginal law students. They were never able to even fill all of them, and yes the entrance requirements for an aboriginal person were quite a bit lower than for me. I'm not convinced that is the best way to rectify the very low number of aboriginal lawyers, but I can at least understand why they do it.
As can I.
But like any quota system, it makes for less confidence in members of the "favoured" group, to the extent that they are identifiable - a lack of confidence that is totally justified.
That may be a price worth paying for policy reasons - but it does no good at all to deny the reality of the price, by in effect suggesting that skills don't really matter all that much.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2009, 02:42:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 06:03:00 PM
All of which means that, in many cases, shoddy lawyering will be detected relatively swiftly.
I can think of many examples to the contrary. Good thing to, because that fact helps keep me in business.
Sure there are many cases in which on some specific piece of work no-one will notice incompetence or out-of-depth. But in a practice, over many pieces of work, reiterated over months - it isn't very probable that it will not be noticed.
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 03:03:53 AM
I believe the diversity advocates (this is also the official line of our firm when it comes to promoting diversity) argue that a more diverse working environment promotes both better working relations (both inside and outside, towards clients etc. - this is in essence a "daily diversity training" so to speak - and since our clients come from different backgrounds this is useful) but also can help coming up with more creative solutions to problems (and contrary to what some of you may believe, certain areas of law especially are not resistant to stuff like creativity and innovation). Essentially the argument goes that a room full of 10 white straight males is less likely to come up with something new or creative than a room of 10 people from diverse backgrounds.
Yep, that's pretty much the core philosophy of the Cult of Diversity. It makes you feel warm inside to imagine Diversity magically making a business run better. Too bad it's all complete bunk.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 02:56:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2009, 02:42:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 06:03:00 PM
All of which means that, in many cases, shoddy lawyering will be detected relatively swiftly.
I can think of many examples to the contrary. Good thing to, because that fact helps keep me in business.
Sure there are many cases in which on some specific piece of work no-one will notice incompetence or out-of-depth. But in a practice, over many pieces of work, reiterated over months - it isn't very probable that it will not be noticed.
While I don't doubt that an incompetent lawyer will be found out (eventually!), my own experience tends to show me that clients are unable to distinguish between a merely average practitioner and an excellent one.
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2009, 02:59:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 03:03:53 AM
I believe the diversity advocates (this is also the official line of our firm when it comes to promoting diversity) argue that a more diverse working environment promotes both better working relations (both inside and outside, towards clients etc. - this is in essence a "daily diversity training" so to speak - and since our clients come from different backgrounds this is useful) but also can help coming up with more creative solutions to problems (and contrary to what some of you may believe, certain areas of law especially are not resistant to stuff like creativity and innovation). Essentially the argument goes that a room full of 10 white straight males is less likely to come up with something new or creative than a room of 10 people from diverse backgrounds.
Yep, that's pretty much the core philosophy of the Cult of Diversity. It makes you feel warm inside to imagine Diversity magically making a business run better. Too bad it's all complete bunk.
My pet peave is that diversity cultists only care about visual diversity.
True diversity would be grouping people with different socio-economic backrounds and different politics and different poltical beliefs. Then you'd have a true marketplace of ideas and true diversity.
The suggestion that the mere happenstance of the color of ones skin or gender creates a diversity of thought is itself rascist.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2009, 03:03:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 02:56:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2009, 02:42:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 06:03:00 PM
All of which means that, in many cases, shoddy lawyering will be detected relatively swiftly.
I can think of many examples to the contrary. Good thing to, because that fact helps keep me in business.
Sure there are many cases in which on some specific piece of work no-one will notice incompetence or out-of-depth. But in a practice, over many pieces of work, reiterated over months - it isn't very probable that it will not be noticed.
While I don't doubt that an incompetent lawyer will be found out (eventually!), my own experience tends to show me that clients are unable to distinguish between a merely average practitioner and an excellent one.
A merely average lawyer in my field is always telling clients why they can't do something. An excellent lawyer is always telling clients how they can.
I assume in both cases the lawyers are accurate; but the difference, I suggest, is great.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 02:56:28 PM
Sure there are many cases in which on some specific piece of work no-one will notice incompetence or out-of-depth. But in a practice, over many pieces of work, reiterated over months - it isn't very probable that it will not be noticed.
In my area the opposite is true. A lot of times clients are surprised to learn that what they (and their lawyers) have always been doing is exactly what is landing them in trouble.
edit: My experience is skewed since I mainly see cases where things have gone really wong before it landed in my lap and that tends to happen when a long serious of mistakes have been made, and often repeatedly made.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 03:14:44 PM
A merely average lawyer in my field is always telling clients why they can't do something. An excellent lawyer is always telling clients how they can.
I assume in both cases the lawyers are accurate; but the difference, I suggest, is great.
Same in any field. The average advisor tells clients how things are. The great advisor tells them how things are, how things could be, how they might get there and what risks are involved. The truly great advisor gets them there.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2009, 02:42:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 06:03:00 PM
All of which means that, in many cases, shoddy lawyering will be detected relatively swiftly.
I can think of many examples to the contrary. Good thing to, because that fact helps keep me in business.
How long does it usually take before they catch on to you?
Sheesh, Malthus and CC really are having trouble with the idea that they may not, in fact, be some of the most amazing lawyers in their fields. :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2009, 04:48:02 PM
Sheesh, Malthus and CC really are having trouble with the idea that they may not, in fact, be some of the most amazing lawyers in their fields. :lol:
Truth is an absolute defence.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2009, 03:42:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 02:56:28 PM
Sure there are many cases in which on some specific piece of work no-one will notice incompetence or out-of-depth. But in a practice, over many pieces of work, reiterated over months - it isn't very probable that it will not be noticed.
In my area the opposite is true. A lot of times clients are surprised to learn that what they (and their lawyers) have always been doing is exactly what is landing them in trouble.
edit: My experience is skewed since I mainly see cases where things have gone really wong before it landed in my lap and that tends to happen when a long serious of mistakes have been made, and often repeatedly made.
Litigators are like that. They tend to deal with the crappy lawyering of non-litigators, because crappy lawyering leads to litigation.
I do regulatory stuff; the feedback loop in my field tends to be swift. Put out an ad to physicians for a drug that isn't defensible, you don't have to wait years for trouble. More like days.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 02:56:28 PM
Sure there are many cases in which on some specific piece of work no-one will notice incompetence or out-of-depth. But in a practice, over many pieces of work, reiterated over months - it isn't very probable that it will not be noticed.
An anecdote immediately comes to mind of a large company in the engineering sector (whose name will not be mentioned) who for years filed poorly filed patents, because the inhouse lawyer in charge either didn't know or didn't care. This went under management radar for many years, because there can be a long lead time between patent filing and eventual litigation and disposition of cases. But eventually it cost big team as what appeared to an impressive patent portfolio turned out to be junk.
That kind of situation is not unusual. Some transactional lawyers acquire great reps for their understanding of substantive law and their counselling ability but can't draft worth a damn. And a run-of-the-mill inhouse lawyer may lack the ability to see that or the time to check the work carefully. Or you could have a great draftsman that gives lousy advice, the effects of which are not felt until years later.
Even in litigation, there are a number of people routinely recognized as leading practicioners in their field that I would not trust to litigate a traffic ticket.
There is a lot of smoke and mirrors out there . . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2009, 04:57:30 PM
An anecdote immediately comes to mind of a large company in the engineering sector (whose name will not be mentioned) who for years filed poorly filed patents, because the inhouse lawyer in charge either didn't know or didn't care. This went under management radar for many years, because there can be a long lead time between patent filing and eventual litigation and disposition of cases. But eventually it cost big team as what appeared to an impressive patent portfolio turned out to be junk.
I have similar anecdotes about the use of precedent agreements that might have been valid (emphasis on the might) when they were first drafted but then in house people who didnt really understand the law or what they were doing manipulated them over the years so that by the time a dispute arose and the company actually had to rely on one of those agreements they found that all the protections they thought they had were either unenforceable or meaningless.
This gets to Malthus' point about fields of law where there is constant scrutiny and bad work is found out immediately and transactional work where, for example, most contracts are signed and never see the light of day thereafter.... unless and until there is a dispute.
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2009, 02:59:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 03:03:53 AM
I believe the diversity advocates (this is also the official line of our firm when it comes to promoting diversity) argue that a more diverse working environment promotes both better working relations (both inside and outside, towards clients etc. - this is in essence a "daily diversity training" so to speak - and since our clients come from different backgrounds this is useful) but also can help coming up with more creative solutions to problems (and contrary to what some of you may believe, certain areas of law especially are not resistant to stuff like creativity and innovation). Essentially the argument goes that a room full of 10 white straight males is less likely to come up with something new or creative than a room of 10 people from diverse backgrounds.
Yep, that's pretty much the core philosophy of the Cult of Diversity. It makes you feel warm inside to imagine Diversity magically making a business run better. Too bad it's all complete bunk.
It's not bunk for all fields. Who really wants to go serve as a doctor to primarily Blacks or Hispanic patients? History shows that this is most likely a lesser preforming Black or Hispanic student. This market place dogma Malthus is describing doesn't well serve the needs of many US citizens. However I'm sure it'd be a great system if you were a rich white Jew.
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2009, 05:50:24 PM
It's not bunk for all fields. Who really wants to go serve as a doctor to primarily Blacks or Hispanic patients? History shows that this is most likely a lesser preforming Black or Hispanic student. This market place dogma Malthus is describing doesn't well serve the needs of many US citizens. However I'm sure it'd be a great system if you were a rich white Jew.
Yeah, all those poor Blacks and Hispanics are seriously hurting for IP, regulatory and transactional lawyers of familiar ethnicity. :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 05:55:46 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2009, 05:50:24 PM
It's not bunk for all fields. Who really wants to go serve as a doctor to primarily Blacks or Hispanic patients? History shows that this is most likely a lesser preforming Black or Hispanic student. This market place dogma Malthus is describing doesn't well serve the needs of many US citizens. However I'm sure it'd be a great system if you were a rich white Jew.
Yeah, all those poor Blacks and Hispanics are seriously hurting for IP, regulatory and transactional lawyers of familiar ethnicity. :D
If you and other GOPtards like derspiess had their way and eliminated affirmative action, those poor Blacks and Hispanics be hurting even more for primary care physicians.
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2009, 06:20:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 05:55:46 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2009, 05:50:24 PM
It's not bunk for all fields. Who really wants to go serve as a doctor to primarily Blacks or Hispanic patients? History shows that this is most likely a lesser preforming Black or Hispanic student. This market place dogma Malthus is describing doesn't well serve the needs of many US citizens. However I'm sure it'd be a great system if you were a rich white Jew.
Yeah, all those poor Blacks and Hispanics are seriously hurting for IP, regulatory and transactional lawyers of familiar ethnicity. :D
If you and other GOPtards like derspiess had their way and eliminated affirmative action, those poor Blacks and Hispanics be hurting even more for primary care physicians.
I think it'd be a far stretch to call Malthus a GOPtard. For one he's not even American, and for two he tends to vote Liberal (although I think he came to his senses last election).
.....
QuoteFirst, before getting to our success, I think there are two things that we can all agree on: we are a group of conscientious, equality-minded people, and we face an uphill battle in a professional world that has only recently opened its doors to women and minorities. The majority of tenured faculty are white men; the majority of our submissions are by white men. We, and all of our peer journals, face the extremely difficult task of balancing our fundamental missions for promoting scholarship with our strong desire to change the demographics of the legal world we are entering.
Now, on to our success. On our own, we have very limited tools for addressing this problem, but there is one extremely important way in which we can effect real change. Law school hiring decisions are based in large part on the publications of candidates. By publishing the work of young, untenured women and minorities, we shape the future legal world (I'll also include tenured at lower ranking schools where they are likely to be paid less and have higher course loads, making publication more difficult).
:bash: :frusty:
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2009, 06:20:16 PM
If you and other GOPtards....
:lol:
You are joking right.
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2009, 06:20:16 PM
If you and other GOPtards like derspiess had their way and eliminated affirmative action, those poor Blacks and Hispanics be hurting even more for primary care physicians.
:D
GOPtard. I like it.
I got three words for you: Canadian socialized medicare.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 19, 2009, 06:28:25 PM
.....
QuoteFirst, before getting to our success, I think there are two things that we can all agree on: we are a group of conscientious, equality-minded people, and we face an uphill battle in a professional world that has only recently opened its doors to women and minorities. The majority of tenured faculty are white men; the majority of our submissions are by white men. We, and all of our peer journals, face the extremely difficult task of balancing our fundamental missions for promoting scholarship with our strong desire to change the demographics of the legal world we are entering.
Now, on to our success. On our own, we have very limited tools for addressing this problem, but there is one extremely important way in which we can effect real change. Law school hiring decisions are based in large part on the publications of candidates. By publishing the work of young, untenured women and minorities, we shape the future legal world (I'll also include tenured at lower ranking schools where they are likely to be paid less and have higher course loads, making publication more difficult).
:bash: :frusty:
Heh, that's hilarious. a perfect example.
'There's a nice, shiny brass ring associated with professional success. Why not just hand it out to groups we wish to support and make them successful? What possible problem can there be?'
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 06:41:07 PM
Heh, that's hilarious. a perfect example.
'There's a nice, shiny brass ring associated with professional success. Why not just hand it out to groups we wish to support and make them successful? What possible problem can there be?'
There is a flip side to that though.
I don't have the statistics in front of me, but if you look at the higher scoring groups on college entrance exams in the US, the problem isn't that certain groups are moderately less likely to be represented than other groups, but that certain groups are virtually absent altogether.
If we want to ignore race as a consideration, then we are going to be left with a society where some groups are almost entirely excluded from higher education and certain professions.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 19, 2009, 06:51:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 06:41:07 PM
Heh, that's hilarious. a perfect example.
'There's a nice, shiny brass ring associated with professional success. Why not just hand it out to groups we wish to support and make them successful? What possible problem can there be?'
There is a flip side to that though.
I don't have the statistics in front of me, but if you look at the higher scoring groups on college entrance exams in the US, the problem isn't that certain groups are moderately less likely to be represented than other groups, but that certain groups are virtually absent altogether.
If we want to ignore race as a consideration, then we are going to be left with a society where some groups are almost entirely excluded from higher education and certain professions.
The topic is a journal's submission criteria for papers for publication. The folks under consideration are already "inside' the profession.
The problem here is that
the very difficulty of being accepted is what gives such papers the cachet that is being sought. Publication is a good "predictor of success" because only the best get published. Hand that "prize" out to someone based on who they are, rather than on how well they write, and the "cachet" will be eroded; it will no longer be a "prize" worth seeking to the same extent; and the more you simply hand it out based on identity, the less worth it has as a "prize".
Fate, do you have any documentation on that blacks and Hispanics docs in underserved areas thing?
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 06:37:28 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2009, 06:20:16 PM
If you and other GOPtards like derspiess had their way and eliminated affirmative action, those poor Blacks and Hispanics be hurting even more for primary care physicians.
:D
GOPtard. I like it.
I got three words for you: Canadian socialized medicare.
What about it? GOPtards defend socialized medicine all the time so as long as it scares up elderly votes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2009, 07:47:32 PM
Fate, do you have any documentation on that blacks and Hispanics docs in underserved areas thing?
I'll see what I can find.
AAMC Title VII Reauthorization Committee Recommendations (http://www.aamc.org/advocacy/library/laborhhs/t7reauth.pdf). AAMC stands for the Association of American Medical Colleges.
Quote
...
A. Diversity (Sections 736-739)
In the 1998 reauthorization, Congress emphasized its concern about the under representation of
minorities in the health professions compared to their proportion in the general population. The
continuation of these programs was described as part of an overall strategy to increase the
availability of health care providers to populations that have difficulty accessing health care. The
AAMC is deeply committed to increasing diversity in the health professions and eliminating
health disparities relative to race and ethnicity, and considers the Minority and Disadvantaged
Health Professions Programs (Sections 736-739) key components in pursuing these goals....
AAMC: Minorities in Medical Education: Facts & Figures 2005 (https://services.aamc.org/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=Product.displayForm&prd_id=133&prv_id=154&cfid=1&cftoken=56F321CB-C5B3-4782-A92A31A2ADA49C2A)
Quote
...
3. Black physicians were found to practice in areas where the proportion of Black residents was nearly five times as high as where other physicians practice. Likewise, Hispanic physicians worked in communities with twice the proportion of Hispanic residents when compared to their non-Hispanic colleagues.*
...
Quote
...
Diversity in the physician workforce can affect health care. For example, studies show that minority physicians are more likely to treat minority patients and indigent patients and to practice in underserved communities. According to their responses on the AAMC's Medical School Graduation Questionnaire (GQ), about one-fifth of all medical students graduating in 2004 indicated they planned to locate their practice in underserved areas. Responses differed by race and ethnicity, however.
Nearly 51% of Black, 41% of Native American/Alaska Native, and 33% of Hispanic graduating medical students reported intentions to practice in underserved areas, whereas only 18.4% of Whites reported such plans. Studies also indicate that when minority patients have the opportunity to select a health care professional they are more likely to choose someone of their own racial and ethnic background and generally are more satisfied with the care they receive from minority health care professionals.
...
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2009, 05:50:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2009, 02:59:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 03:03:53 AM
I believe the diversity advocates (this is also the official line of our firm when it comes to promoting diversity) argue that a more diverse working environment promotes both better working relations (both inside and outside, towards clients etc. - this is in essence a "daily diversity training" so to speak - and since our clients come from different backgrounds this is useful) but also can help coming up with more creative solutions to problems (and contrary to what some of you may believe, certain areas of law especially are not resistant to stuff like creativity and innovation). Essentially the argument goes that a room full of 10 white straight males is less likely to come up with something new or creative than a room of 10 people from diverse backgrounds.
Yep, that's pretty much the core philosophy of the Cult of Diversity. It makes you feel warm inside to imagine Diversity magically making a business run better. Too bad it's all complete bunk.
It's not bunk for all fields. Who really wants to go serve as a doctor to primarily Blacks or Hispanic patients? History shows that this is most likely a lesser preforming Black or Hispanic student. This market place dogma Malthus is describing doesn't well serve the needs of many US citizens. However I'm sure it'd be a great system if you were a rich white Jew.
The great thing about being stupid is you can blame every one else and not worry about whether you created your own misery.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2009, 07:47:32 PM
Fate, do you have any documentation on that blacks and Hispanics docs in underserved areas thing?
Fate said it was so, so it must be so.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 20, 2009, 08:08:38 AM
Fate said it was so, so it must be so.
You're awesome. :lol:
Quote from: Rasputin on November 20, 2009, 08:05:13 AM
The great thing about being stupid is you can blame every one else and not worry about whether you created your own misery.
For what it's worth, I respect you for not taking the easy way out.
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2009, 10:08:01 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 20, 2009, 08:05:13 AM
The great thing about being stupid is you can blame every one else and not worry about whether you created your own misery.
For what it's worth, I respect you for not taking the easy way out.
What is the point of trying to have a discussion with someone who writes:
QuoteIf you and other GOPtards like derspiess had their way and eliminated affirmative action, those poor Blacks and Hispanics be hurting even more for primary care physicians.
First it presumes the Blacks and Hispanics are poor but there are not poor whites. Then we must assume that white doctors do not target poor black neighborhoods (a premise I know to be false) and that Black Doctors universally return to Black neighborhoods (another false premise) to cure a problem that does not exist at least as fate describes it. That is, if the community is underserved, why is it underserved?
The problem is not one of situs of the physicians but one of resources to pay for healthcare. Fate would have us believe that poverty or lack of insurance hit all minorities and no one else.
Under Fate's Weltanschaung, we cure this problem by training an unqualified minority over whoever would've gotten that spot in medical school and hope that the unqualified minority Doctor forgoes the big bucks elswehere to "return" to a minority neighborhood where he/she won't get paid reasonably for his/her services and meanwhile the poor white trash goes without primary care physicians.
In short, it is assinign to discuss class problems with someone who sees econiomics as inexoriably linked to race.
After all, according to Fate, we can dismiss Malthus' ideas completely, because he is a rich Jewish lawyer and as a Jew he cannot have any concept of poverty or what it's like to be a minority. I submit that Fate is the racist here.
As an aside, I still think you're a moron too (even if a sophomore), but that's been true for a while.
Where is seedy?
Quote from: Rasputin on November 20, 2009, 10:32:42 AM
As an aside, I still think you're a moron too (even if a sophomore), but that's been true for a while.
Where did this come from? :unsure: Did we even debate each other at any point?
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2009, 10:08:01 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 20, 2009, 08:05:13 AM
The great thing about being stupid is you can blame every one else and not worry about whether you created your own misery.
For what it's worth, I respect you for not taking the easy way out.
I love how this went right over his head! I guess he will next announce that another great thing bout being stupid is that no one ever zings him! :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2009, 11:08:29 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 20, 2009, 10:32:42 AM
As an aside, I still think you're a moron too (even if a sophomore), but that's been true for a while.
Where did this come from? :unsure: Did we even debate each other at any point?
Probably when he was logged in as OvB.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 07:03:07 PM
The topic is a journal's submission criteria for papers for publication. The folks under consideration are already "inside' the profession.
The problem here is that the very difficulty of being accepted is what gives such papers the cachet that is being sought. Publication is a good "predictor of success" because only the best get published. Hand that "prize" out to someone based on who they are, rather than on how well they write, and the "cachet" will be eroded; it will no longer be a "prize" worth seeking to the same extent; and the more you simply hand it out based on identity, the less worth it has as a "prize".
You are right, I'm just saying that there is a point to affirmative action. And it doesn't necessarily follow that just giving a foot in the door of the profession is where it should stop: you could then end up with the upper tier of the profession excluding some groups, even if the lower tiers still have them.
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2009, 11:42:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2009, 10:08:01 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 20, 2009, 08:05:13 AM
The great thing about being stupid is you can blame every one else and not worry about whether you created your own misery.
For what it's worth, I respect you for not taking the easy way out.
I love how this went right over his head! I guess he will next announce that another great thing bout being stupid is that no one ever zings him! :lol:
:console:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 20, 2009, 11:56:55 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 07:03:07 PM
The topic is a journal's submission criteria for papers for publication. The folks under consideration are already "inside' the profession.
The problem here is that the very difficulty of being accepted is what gives such papers the cachet that is being sought. Publication is a good "predictor of success" because only the best get published. Hand that "prize" out to someone based on who they are, rather than on how well they write, and the "cachet" will be eroded; it will no longer be a "prize" worth seeking to the same extent; and the more you simply hand it out based on identity, the less worth it has as a "prize".
You are right, I'm just saying that there is a point to affirmative action. And it doesn't necessarily follow that just giving a foot in the door of the profession is where it should stop: you could then end up with the upper tier of the profession excluding some groups, even if the lower tiers still have them.
I was always of the opinion that the higher you go up the professional ladder, the less sense "affirmative action" makes.
The problem of insufficent numbers of visible minorities in the higer tiers of a profession is generally not caused by "racism" against those in the profession, so much as by lack of entrants lower down; that has multiple root causes, one of which being a lack of what you might call unearned privileges on the part of the visible minority group on average (such as lack of access to certain types of educational enrichment as children). A solution that aims at making life easier for those few members of the visible minority group who *do* manage to get so far as to enter the profession does not address the problem; worse, it rewards those who, by and large, have proved they do not need the reward; and last (and worst), it has the perverse unintended consequence of devaluing their achievements and abilities. A person seeing a visible minority person in a responsible professional role cannot know whether they actually achieved the same level as a non-visible minority person. It makes racism on the part of clients
rational.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 20, 2009, 10:32:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2009, 10:08:01 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 20, 2009, 08:05:13 AM
The great thing about being stupid is you can blame every one else and not worry about whether you created your own misery.
For what it's worth, I respect you for not taking the easy way out.
First it presumes the Blacks and Hispanics are poor but there are not poor whites.
...
Fate would have us believe that poverty or lack of insurance hit all minorities and no one else.
...
we can dismiss Malthus' ideas completely, because he is a rich Jewish lawyer and as a Jew he cannot have any concept of poverty or what it's like to be a minority.
Onward, Don Quixote! You are absolutely ravaging those strawmans good sir! :lmfao:
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2009, 12:47:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 20, 2009, 11:56:55 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 07:03:07 PM
The topic is a journal's submission criteria for papers for publication. The folks under consideration are already "inside' the profession.
The problem here is that the very difficulty of being accepted is what gives such papers the cachet that is being sought. Publication is a good "predictor of success" because only the best get published. Hand that "prize" out to someone based on who they are, rather than on how well they write, and the "cachet" will be eroded; it will no longer be a "prize" worth seeking to the same extent; and the more you simply hand it out based on identity, the less worth it has as a "prize".
You are right, I'm just saying that there is a point to affirmative action. And it doesn't necessarily follow that just giving a foot in the door of the profession is where it should stop: you could then end up with the upper tier of the profession excluding some groups, even if the lower tiers still have them.
I was always of the opinion that the higher you go up the professional ladder, the less sense "affirmative action" makes.
The problem of insufficent numbers of visible minorities in the higer tiers of a profession is generally not caused by "racism" against those in the profession, so much as by lack of entrants lower down; that has multiple root causes, one of which being a lack of what you might call unearned privileges on the part of the visible minority group on average (such as lack of access to certain types of educational enrichment as children). A solution that aims at making life easier for those few members of the visible minority group who *do* manage to get so far as to enter the profession does not address the problem; worse, it rewards those who, by and large, have proved they do not need the reward; and last (and worst), it has the perverse unintended consequence of devaluing their achievements and abilities. A person seeing a visible minority person in a responsible professional role cannot know whether they actually achieved the same level as a non-visible minority person. It makes racism on the part of clients rational.
So let's hand wave away a real solution (Title VII) that is currently increasing minority representation in professional fields for your fantasy that relies on the good will of Southern Republican and Southern Democrat state legislatures who are beholden to the racist white majority/plurality? These entities aren't going to better fund poor black school districts in an effort to equalize "unearned privileges" vis-à-vis the white man. :lmfao:
Quote from: Fate on November 20, 2009, 04:31:07 PM
So let's hand wave away a real solution (Title VII) that is currently increasing minority representation in professional fields for your fantasy that relies on the good will of Southern Republican and Southern Democrat state legislatures who are beholden to the racist white majority/plurality? These entities aren't going to better fund poor black school districts in an effort to equalize "unearned privileges" vis-à-vis the white man. :lmfao:
Once again, I'm not American. I have not
become American during the course of this thread. I do not know what "Title VII" is, nor how this relates to a discussion about publishing papers in a law review.
I would nevertheless suggest that a society in which there exists a major class division created by deliberately underfunding schools for poor minortities (if such is the case), a system of rewarding
middle class minorities who succeed in obtaining professional certification is nothing more than a concience-salving band-aid, with more unintended negative consequences than positive outcomes likely. Of course, that said, I don't know the details of "Title VII".
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2009, 04:49:37 PM
Once again, I'm not American. I have not become American during the course of this thread.
Dang, I was starting to think you had moved to the US and registered Republican :(
Quote from: Fate on November 20, 2009, 04:17:25 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 20, 2009, 10:32:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2009, 10:08:01 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on November 20, 2009, 08:05:13 AM
The great thing about being stupid is you can blame every one else and not worry about whether you created your own misery.
For what it's worth, I respect you for not taking the easy way out.
First it presumes the Blacks and Hispanics are poor but there are not poor whites.
...
Fate would have us believe that poverty or lack of insurance hit all minorities and no one else.
...
we can dismiss Malthus' ideas completely, because he is a rich Jewish lawyer and as a Jew he cannot have any concept of poverty or what it's like to be a minority.
Onward, Don Quixote! You are absolutely ravaging those strawmans good sir! :lmfao:
I clearly owe good twin fate an apology because it must have been evil twin fate who posted the following a couple pages back:
QuoteWho really wants to go serve as a doctor to primarily Blacks or Hispanic patients? History shows that this is most likely a lesser preforming Black or Hispanic student. This market place dogma Malthus is describing doesn't well serve the needs of many US citizens. However I'm sure it'd be a great system if you were a rich white Jew.