Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
User avatar
JustE
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:49 pm

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby JustE » Tue May 15, 2012 3:13 pm

nmop_apisdn wrote:IBTMFL

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby Tom Joad » Tue May 15, 2012 3:14 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
TrialLawyer16 wrote:
lisjjen wrote:OK, I'll play. The history of racial repression and oppression in the United States means that historically, fewer Blacks have had an exposure to high end professions. There is what sociologists call a "conceptualization gap." That is, even if Blacks and Hispanics have high ambitions, they don't understand how to get to their end goal. That means fewer Black students saw their Dad work 70 hour weeks with a horrible office culture. That means the few Blacks who can figure out how to get into biglaw feeder schools and then go on to get biglaw grades get into biglaw and decide they hate the lifestyle after a few years because they had no way to conceptualize how bad it really is.

As a young black man myself I have to say the bolded is huge.

As a non-MX/PR Hispanic, I have to +1 this.

Which is a main reason why TLS is awesome. It really is a great service.

User avatar
JustE
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:49 pm

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby JustE » Tue May 15, 2012 3:16 pm

Tom Joad wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
TrialLawyer16 wrote:
lisjjen wrote:OK, I'll play. The history of racial repression and oppression in the United States means that historically, fewer Blacks have had an exposure to high end professions. There is what sociologists call a "conceptualization gap." That is, even if Blacks and Hispanics have high ambitions, they don't understand how to get to their end goal. That means fewer Black students saw their Dad work 70 hour weeks with a horrible office culture. That means the few Blacks who can figure out how to get into biglaw feeder schools and then go on to get biglaw grades get into biglaw and decide they hate the lifestyle after a few years because they had no way to conceptualize how bad it really is.

As a young black man myself I have to say the bolded is huge.

As a non-MX/PR Hispanic, I have to +1 this.

Which is a main reason why TLS is awesome. It really is a great service.


+1000. This site helped me turn U of Iowa dreams into U Mich. No lie.

User avatar
fingerscrossedxx
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:56 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby fingerscrossedxx » Tue May 15, 2012 3:38 pm

JustE wrote:
Tom Joad wrote:
Which is a main reason why TLS is awesome. It really is a great service.


+1000. This site helped me turn U of Iowa dreams into U Mich. No lie.


So very true. I was going to turn down Columbia for a full ride at Chicago kent before TLS. TLS saved my life lol.

ETA: I'm a black student, NOT the first in my family to go to graduate school but the first to go to law school. I had NO idea what I was doing before TLS.

Coco_Local
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby Coco_Local » Tue May 15, 2012 5:11 pm

I posted this somewhere else, but as a black attorney who ran far, far away from biglaw litigation the second my loans were paid off, I think this point might be helpful.

First, I think a lot of people are terrible at biglaw, not just people of color. If it was a qualifications/grades thing, I am at a loss as to why so many Asians get shafted. (google for example shinyung oh...her stealth is textbook but her slapdown was classic). Biglaw is a shitty job. I also think a lot of people do a decent job or have the capacity to be successful in big law. Too many people, actually. That's why there is annual institutional attrition built into big firm's business models. It's built on the premise of "merit" but really it's more complicated. Many, many things can derail your career. None of which have anything to do with your ability to be an excellent attorney.

The people who aren't getting sacked, are looking for greener pastures because there is very little career stability and a fundamental lack of appreciation outside of an attorney's ability to service other partners clients. I found the lack of stability to be troubling, so I left (gracefully) to clerk. And went to the US Attorney's Office immediately after as a line AUSA. Life is lovely. For me.

Friends of mine who were fired/laid off, however, were fucked careeer wise. Firms, after stealthing an associate, basically refuse to provide references, even partners who otherwise might be willing often are restricted from speaking since this would undermine the whole "X couldn't hack it argument." Why bother gambling in a place that might fuck you over, when you could go in-house or to the federal government -- both of which don't have annual institutional attrition built into their business models. Any smart minority is going to scram. The unlucky ones get sacked before they had a chance to find a landing pad. Most of my friends are teaching at law schools, working in house or working for the federal government (like me). I know of two people who are still in biglaw, but neither plans on staying for much longer and are actively looking to move in house when the right opporunity hits.

Associates locked up for 8 years in biglaw won't have clients. At that point, the difficulty is continuing to build billable work. If your institutional client thinks you are too expensive, you're fucked. If some kid starts getting your work, you're fucked. If your big book partner leaves to work across the street (verrrrrrrrry common) you're fucked. None of this outcomes have anything to do with your race. It's just the nature of the game.

It's not rocket science as to why people run away from such places.

And finally, I firmly believe big firms do not give a crap about retaining a diverse workforce. As long as there is a pool of law students to fill the bottom, they are more than happy to get their minority partners from places like DOJ or poach them from the lateral partner market. There is little to no desire to promote anyone -- let alone minorities -- from within. That's just the way biglaw firms work today (where partners operate as free agents in the lateral market).
Last edited by Coco_Local on Wed May 30, 2012 12:04 pm, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby Helmholtz » Tue May 15, 2012 5:18 pm

Tom Joad wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
TrialLawyer16 wrote:
lisjjen wrote:OK, I'll play. The history of racial repression and oppression in the United States means that historically, fewer Blacks have had an exposure to high end professions. There is what sociologists call a "conceptualization gap." That is, even if Blacks and Hispanics have high ambitions, they don't understand how to get to their end goal. That means fewer Black students saw their Dad work 70 hour weeks with a horrible office culture. That means the few Blacks who can figure out how to get into biglaw feeder schools and then go on to get biglaw grades get into biglaw and decide they hate the lifestyle after a few years because they had no way to conceptualize how bad it really is.

As a young black man myself I have to say the bolded is huge.

As a non-MX/PR Hispanic, I have to +1 this.

Which is a main reason why TLS is awesome. It really is a great service.


I'm not URM, but grew up in an economically depressed area in the Midwest. Nobody in my family had graduated from college, much less graduate school. I went to a UG where the most ambitious students were aiming for schools in the T30–60 range, and many were more than happy with local T3/4s (I do not think there is one person from my UG in the entire V50). It's difficult for me to imagine where I would be without TLS. It makes me happy to know that others out there have had the same type of experience.

TheProsecutor
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 12:50 pm

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby TheProsecutor » Tue May 15, 2012 5:24 pm

Coco_Local wrote:I posted this somewhere else, but as a black attorney who ran far, far away from biglaw litigation the second my loans were paid off, I think this point might be helpful.

I think a lot of people are terrible at biglaw, not just people of color. If it was a qualifications/grades thing, I am at a loss as to why so many Asians get shafted. (google for example shinyung oh...her stealth is textbook but her slapdown was classic). Biglaw is a shitty job. The people who aren't getting sacked, are looking for greener pastures because there is very little career stability and a fundamental lack of appreciation outside of an attorney's ability to service other partners clients. I found the lack of stability to be troubling, so I left (gracefully) to clerk. And went to the US Attorney's Office immediately after as a line AUSA.

Friends of mine who were fired/laid off, however, were fucked careeer wise. Firms, after stealthing an associate, basically refuse to provide references, even partners who otherwise might be willing often are restricted from speaking since this would undermine the whole "X couldn't hack it argument." Why bother gambling in a place that might fuck you over, when you could go in-house or to the federal government -- both of which don't have institutional attrition built into their business models. Any smart minority is going to scram. The unlucky ones get sacked before they had a chance to find a landing pad. Most of my friends are teaching at law schools, working in house or working for the federal government (like me). I know of two people who are still in biglaw, but neither plans on staying for much longer and are actively looking to move in house when the right opporunity hits.

Associates locked up for 8 years in biglaw won't have clients. The difficulty is continuing to build billable work. If your institutional client thinks you are too expensive, you're fucked. If some kid starts getting your work, you're fucked. If your big book partner leaves to work across the street (verrrrrrrrry common) you're fucked.

It's not rocket science as to why people run away from such places.

And finally, I firmly believe big firms do not give a crap about retaining a diverse workforce. As long as there is a pool of law students to fill the bottom, they are more than happy to get their minority partners from places like DOJ.


QFT.

Biglaw pays big, but the job is insane. I literally twitch every time the red light on my blackberry goes off.

Coco_Local
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby Coco_Local » Tue May 15, 2012 5:30 pm

I've seen so many bright, talented people get pushed out of the industry for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. One thing I wasn't prepared for after graduating law school is that to a great degree, your future as a lawyer is driven by luck as much as talent, ambition, and smarts. I am incredibly humble and grateful for my fortunate circumstances because but for the grace of God...

Mitterrand
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:59 pm

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby Mitterrand » Tue May 15, 2012 8:03 pm

Coco_Local wrote:I've seen so many bright, talented people get pushed out of the industry for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. One thing I wasn't prepared for after graduating law school is that to a great degree, your future as a lawyer is driven by luck as much as talent, ambition, and smarts. I am incredibly humble and grateful for my fortunate circumstances because but for the grace of God...


This. You can do everything right and just graduate at the wrong time, pick the wrong firm, etc.

User avatar
lisjjen
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby lisjjen » Wed May 16, 2012 2:12 am

As far as TLS being helpful, I have to say that the trolls and the rookies get exhausting but it's worth wading through them. I was going to apply ED to Georgetown when I started my cycle but because I didn't, I got a huge scholarship to UT and couldn't be happier with my decision.

ahnhub
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:14 pm

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby ahnhub » Wed May 16, 2012 2:27 am

The article the OP cites was written in 1996. Blacks are still highly underrepresented in corporate law firms, but still...why cite an article from 1996?

It looks like 2.6% of lawyers at the "largest corporate law firms" in 1996 were black. That percentage is actually much higher today: http://www.nalp.org/race_ethn_jan2010

About 4.7% of associates and 2% of partners at law firms of 100+ are black. That's double the % of partners and 40%+ associates from 1996. So things have moved in the right direction.

It's still behind total African-American student population, in both the overall pool and just the T-14. (I think 6-10% of any given T-14 school is African-American).

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby PDaddy » Wed May 16, 2012 3:33 am

There is no one correct answer, and some of the factors are universal and affect all associates regardless of background. There is a dearth of "qualified" black candidates, but not because black law grads lack the abilities. Some of the posts above have already alluded to some of the reasons for the dearth of qualified black candidates.

There is also a dearth of qualified black candidates willing to go into biglaw, and of those who do, they tend to leave: (1) natural flameouts due to lack of ability, (2) GOB networks that lead to (3) lack of mentoring and (4) racial office politics in general (harassment, poor work assignments, etc.), (5) headhunting and poaching by other firms and corporations, (5) self-selected entrepreneurship, etc.

The latter two reasons play a larger part in biglaw attrition by black associates than many would think, as many black associates simply self-select themselves into other cushy positions after they have paid their debts and made a little savings. The competition for talented black professionals is stiff; to glamorous corporations a black Wall Street associate is ripe for poaching. MTV, NBC, the pro sports leagues, Microsoft, etc. are notorious for stealing black talent from the firms that represent them. Go figure.

It makes sense because many of these associates are the same students that elite law schools had to fight over because there were too few qualified black law school applicants.

There is also a wall at the recruiting booths on law school campuses, and biglaw firms are still recruiting too few qualified black candidates. To minimize diversity, some recruiters find ways to discourage black candidates during interviews, namely exaggerating drawbacks to working in their firms. They know that if the position seems unattractive, black candidates will not accept.

Add to these factors the realities of the legal profession that affect all candiates, such as competition and a poor economy.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby PDaddy » Wed May 16, 2012 3:55 am

lisjjen wrote:OK, I'll play. The history of racial repression and oppression in the United States means that, historically, fewer Blacks have had an exposure to high end professions. There is what sociologists call a "conceptualization gap." That is, even if Blacks and Hispanics have high ambitions, they don't understand know how to get to their end goal


I think your post is ok, but be careful when using the word "understand". It implies that, even if blacks had someone to mentor them, they would not have the ability to execute. That's just wrong. Look at the successes of rap stars and other entertainers, former small businessmen, and professional athletes like Magic Johnson. Many of them have been mistaken for idiots at some point because they were not as well-versed in standard English vernacular as are/were their non-black counterparts. Yet they run multimillion-dollar empires, with long-term, sustainable growth. They run multimedia empires, they are vertically and horizontally integrated and they show no signs of going broke.

Oprah, Jay-Z, Diddy, Russell Simmons (and his brother Rev. Run), Kimora Lee Simmons, Robert Johnson, Master-P, Tyra Banks, etc. Oprah is a billionaire, and each of the others could very well be. Jay-Z and Beyonce already have a combined estimated net worth of over $800M. Master-P's net worth was estimated at over $500M eight years ago. Most importantly, they are providing to the public goods and services (credit cards, clothing, books, movies, music, etc.) that are in high demand.

This strongly suggests that if blacks are given a chance and put in the work, they can succeed as well as anyone else. Jerry Buss treated Magic like a son, and that's why Magic is an even better businessman than he was a basketball player. Tommy Hilfiger and Clive Davis took Russell Simmons and Diddy under their wings, which is why they succeeded in fashion. If given the right guidance, anyone with drive and a little bit of talent can be rich and successful in America. That's why I love this country.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby vanwinkle » Wed May 16, 2012 8:51 pm

PDaddy wrote:
lisjjen wrote:OK, I'll play. The history of racial repression and oppression in the United States means that, historically, fewer Blacks have had an exposure to high end professions. There is what sociologists call a "conceptualization gap." That is, even if Blacks and Hispanics have high ambitions, they don't understand know how to get to their end goal

I think your post is ok, but be careful when using the word "understand". It implies that, even if blacks had someone to mentor them, they would not have the ability to execute. That's just wrong.

I think you misunderstood the above poster. I didn't take it as saying blacks and Hispanics are incapable of understanding, just that even today they're likely to lack that knowledge. "Understanding" just means knowing in that context, and is a real problem among minorities because of the education gap. Such an understanding can be taught (and this thread is evidence that minorities, and others, are learning more from sites like TLS these days), but if they don't initially have it, they don't know even know they're missing it.

User avatar
lisjjen
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby lisjjen » Thu May 17, 2012 12:02 am

PDaddy wrote:
lisjjen wrote:OK, I'll play. The history of racial repression and oppression in the United States means that, historically, fewer Blacks have had an exposure to high end professions. There is what sociologists call a "conceptualization gap." That is, even if Blacks and Hispanics have high ambitions, they don't understand know how to get to their end goal


I think your post is ok, but be careful when using the word "understand". It implies that, even if blacks had someone to mentor them, they would not have the ability to execute. That's just wrong. Look at the successes of rap stars and other entertainers, former small businessmen, and professional athletes like Magic Johnson. Many of them have been mistaken for idiots at some point because they were not as well-versed in standard English vernacular as are/were their non-black counterparts. Yet they run multimillion-dollar empires, with long-term, sustainable growth. They run multimedia empires, they are vertically and horizontally integrated and they show no signs of going broke.

Oprah, Jay-Z, Diddy, Russell Simmons (and his brother Rev. Run), Kimora Lee Simmons, Robert Johnson, Master-P, Tyra Banks, etc. Oprah is a billionaire, and each of the others could very well be. Jay-Z and Beyonce already have a combined estimated net worth of over $800M. Master-P's net worth was estimated at over $500M eight years ago. Most importantly, they are providing to the public goods and services (credit cards, clothing, books, movies, music, etc.) that are in high demand.

This strongly suggests that if blacks are given a chance and put in the work, they can succeed as well as anyone else. Jerry Buss treated Magic like a son, and that's why Magic is an even better businessman than he was a basketball player. Tommy Hilfiger and Clive Davis took Russell Simmons and Diddy under their wings, which is why they succeeded in fashion. If given the right guidance, anyone with drive and a little bit of talent can be rich and successful in America. That's why I love this country.


Again. I am a Black guy.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby PDaddy » Thu May 17, 2012 12:08 am

vanwinkle wrote: I think you misunderstood the above poster. I didn't take it as saying blacks and Hispanics are incapable of understanding, just that even today they're likely to lack that knowledge. "Understanding" just means knowing in that context, and is a real problem among minorities because of the education gap. Such an understanding can be taught (and this thread is evidence that minorities, and others, are learning more from sites like TLS these days), but if they don't initially have it, they don't know even know they're missing it.


And that is exactly my point: to say that someone is likely to lack knowledge is quite different. I stand firmly behind my post, which shows that I very clearly interpreted what was actually written. The poster may have "meant" something else, but it isn't what he actually "wrote". The way I responded shows that I gave the poster the benefit of the doubt. I even stated that the post was good. He just needs to be careful about wording.

Many people would interpret his post to be a commentary on the innate capabilities of blacks. Moreover, saying that someone does not understand something puts the responsibility squarely on his/her shoulders, whereas most rational people here can agree that blacks are not at fault for their lack of presence in biglaw. It's a question of "access", which they cannot entirely control. They are not exposed to the knowledge. As has been stated many times now, there is a host of factors influencing the situation.

Yeah...we all know what the poster meant to say...but he did NOT say it...not exactly, anyways.

User avatar
lisjjen
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby lisjjen » Thu May 17, 2012 12:15 am

PDaddy wrote:
vanwinkle wrote: I think you misunderstood the above poster. I didn't take it as saying blacks and Hispanics are incapable of understanding, just that even today they're likely to lack that knowledge. "Understanding" just means knowing in that context, and is a real problem among minorities because of the education gap. Such an understanding can be taught (and this thread is evidence that minorities, and others, are learning more from sites like TLS these days), but if they don't initially have it, they don't know even know they're missing it.


And that is exactly my point: to say that someone is likely to lack knowledge is quite different. I stand firmly behind my post, which shows that I very clearly interpreted what was actually written. The poster may have "meant" something else, but it isn't what he actually "wrote". The way I responded shows that I gave the poster the benefit of the doubt. I even stated that the post was good. He just needs to be careful about wording.

Many people would interpret his post to be a commentary on the innate capabilities of blacks. Moreover, saying that someone does not understand something puts the responsibility squarely on his/her shoulders, whereas most rational people here can agree that blacks are not at fault for their lack of presence in biglaw. It's a question of "access", which they cannot entirely control. They are not exposed to the knowledge. As has been stated many times now, there is a host of factors influencing the situation.

Yeah...we all know what the poster meant to say...but he did NOT say it...not exactly, anyways.


-----------------------------------------------------------

un·der·stand   [uhn-der-stand]

verb (used with object)
1) to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend: to understand Spanish; I didn't understand your question.
2) to be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of: to understand a trade.
3) to assign a meaning to; interpret: He understood her suggestion as a complaint.
4) to grasp the significance, implications, or importance of: He does not understand responsibility.
5) to regard as firmly communicated; take as agreed or settled: I understand that you will repay this loan in 30 days.

Synonyms
1) See know


-------------------------------------------------------

I see nothing here that implies an innate ability to learn. If you are white, you don't get to be offended for Black people in general. If you are Black, you're being that guy.

TheProsecutor
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 12:50 pm

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby TheProsecutor » Thu May 17, 2012 12:24 am

lol.

Napt
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:43 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby Napt » Thu May 17, 2012 12:25 am

lol @ this thread's answers.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby PDaddy » Thu May 17, 2012 12:26 am

lisjjen wrote:Again. I am a Black guy.


That doesn't excuse you from using careful wording. Your use of the word "understand" implies something different from what you were trying to convey (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here). For many reasons blacks lack competitive access, and blacks lack competitive resources. On this we can all agree. But to say someone "doesn't understand" something implies that he/she is somehow at fault...that he/she bears the responsibility for fixing the problem. That is not the case.

Your claim that "they don't understand" makes you sound like a white guy pretending to be black. No black guy I know would imply that black people as a group "don't understand" something. We know that such wording puts the blame on blacks instead of spreading it around as appropriate.

FYI...if you aren't a longtime member of TLS, you may want to check my record. I am not a fun person battle with. My mouth, and keystrokes are like Uzis. Just accept what I am telling you, be careful about the way you word things and keep it moving. Like many other blacks, I take offense to ANYONE saying that blacks as a group "don't understand" something. My criticism was extremely fair.

User avatar
lisjjen
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby lisjjen » Thu May 17, 2012 12:29 am

PDaddy wrote: My mouth, and keystrokes are like Uzis.


Image

I don't need to say a thing

Napt
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:43 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby Napt » Thu May 17, 2012 12:35 am

PDaddy wrote:
lisjjen wrote:Again. I am a Black guy.


That doesn't excuse you from using careful wording. Your use of the word "understand" implies something different from what you were trying to convey (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here). For many reasons blacks lack competitive access, and blacks lack competitive resources. On this we can all agree. But to say someone "doesn't understand" something implies that he/she is somehow at fault...that he/she bears the responsibility for fixing the problem. That is not the case.

Your claim that "they don't understand" makes you sound like a white guy pretending to be black. No black guy I know would imply that black people as a group "don't understand" something. We know that such wording puts the blame on blacks instead of spreading it around as appropriate.

FYI...if you aren't a longtime member of TLS, you may want to check my record. I am not a fun person battle with. My mouth, and keystrokes are like Uzis. Just accept what I am telling you, be careful about the way you word things and keep it moving. Like many other blacks, I take offense to ANYONE saying that blacks as a group "don't understand" something. My criticism was extremely fair.

u r dumb

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby PDaddy » Thu May 17, 2012 12:39 am

lisjjen wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
vanwinkle wrote: I think you misunderstood the above poster. I didn't take it as saying blacks and Hispanics are incapable of understanding, just that even today they're likely to lack that knowledge. "Understanding" just means knowing in that context, and is a real problem among minorities because of the education gap. Such an understanding can be taught (and this thread is evidence that minorities, and others, are learning more from sites like TLS these days), but if they don't initially have it, they don't know even know they're missing it.


And that is exactly my point: to say that someone is likely to lack knowledge is quite different. I stand firmly behind my post, which shows that I very clearly interpreted what was actually written. The poster may have "meant" something else, but it isn't what he actually "wrote". The way I responded shows that I gave the poster the benefit of the doubt. I even stated that the post was good. He just needs to be careful about wording.

Many people would interpret his post to be a commentary on the innate capabilities of blacks. Moreover, saying that someone does not understand something puts the responsibility squarely on his/her shoulders, whereas most rational people here can agree that blacks are not at fault for their lack of presence in biglaw. It's a question of "access", which they cannot entirely control. They are not exposed to the knowledge. As has been stated many times now, there is a host of factors influencing the situation.

Yeah...we all know what the poster meant to say...but he did NOT say it...not exactly, anyways.


-----------------------------------------------------------

un·der·stand   [uhn-der-stand]

verb (used with object)
1) to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend: to understand Spanish; I didn't understand your question.
2) to be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of: to understand a trade.
3) to assign a meaning to; interpret: He understood her suggestion as a complaint.
4) to grasp the significance, implications, or importance of: He does not understand responsibility.
5) to regard as firmly communicated; take as agreed or settled: I understand that you will repay this loan in 30 days.

Synonyms
1) See know


-------------------------------------------------------

I see nothing here that implies an innate ability to learn. If you are white, you don't get to be offended for Black people in general. If you are Black, you're being that guy.


Knowing and understanding are two different things, my friend; I don't care what your dictionary says. :roll: Understand means to "grasp an idea". That relates to the cognitive ability of the receiver of the information. "Perceive" is also a word that places the responsibility for the transference of information on the receiver...in this case, blacks. Understanding is interpreting...perceiving...all concepts that relate to the receiver of the information, not the giver or any outside influence. Your own list shows that. The synonym you cite is simply wrong because it overreaches.

Knowing something is experiencing it, which is why the Spanish word "conocer" means "to be familiar with...to know". The Spanish word "Saber" also means "to know" by virtue of having been informed. It places the onus on the sender of the information. It denotes experiencing something. Knowing cannot be acheived without experiencing. The word "know" is more appropriate in this discussion, because blacks are unable to gain the access that breeds familiarity with biglaw. "Understand" undermines their efforts by implying that they cannot, or at least do not, comprehend.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby PDaddy » Thu May 17, 2012 12:41 am

Napt wrote:u r dumb


Lol. Frustrated already? Only a dumb person would write that. You have 106 posts, which makes you a neophyte compared to me. You are not even in my league. Take your 150 LSAT and go back to the junkyard.

User avatar
lisjjen
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Why are there so few blacks in corporate law?

Postby lisjjen » Thu May 17, 2012 12:43 am

PDaddy wrote:Knowing and understanding are two different things, my friend; I don't care what your dictionary says. :roll: Understand means to "grasp an idea". That relates to the cognitive ability of the receiver of the information. "Perceive" is also a word that places the responsibility for the transference of information on the receiver...in this case, blacks. Understanding is interpreting...perceiving...all concepts that relate to the receiver of the information, not the giver or any outside influence. Your own list shows that. The synonym you cite is simply wrong because it overreaches.

Knowing something is experiencing it, which is why the Spanish word "conocer" means "to be familiar with...to know". The Spanish word "Saber" also means "to know" by virtue of having been informed. It places the onus on the sender of the information. It denotes experiencing something. Knowing cannot be acheived without experiencing. The word "know" is more appropriate in this discussion, because blacks are unable to gain the access that breeds familiarity with biglaw. "Understand" undermines their efforts by implying that they cannot, or at least do not, comprehend.


Image




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests