Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM? Forum

[20141023]

.

[iamgeorgebush]

OP: I don't know about LGBT, but the problem for women lies with law firms, not law schools.

Regulus et al: The whole "oh it's just that the partners are all old, it will change soon" argument doesn't work, because even new partner classes are still disproportionately male, despite the fact that new associates are roughly 50/50. This isn't just a case of it taking time for things to change. There are still many many factors limiting the progress of women. For example:

• 1. Lack of access to mentors within the firm. Yes, many firms have formal mentorship programs, but the informal mentorships are the ones that really make a difference. And fact is that men (particularly straight men) tend to have better access to informal mentorships than women. Why? Imagine you're a straight male partner. Who are you more likely to invite out to drinks, the male midlevel/senior associate with whom you can talk about your wives and ogle hot twenty somethings at the bar, or the female midlevel/senior associate whom you might be construed as hitting on? Even if you, the straight male partner, do invite the woman out to drinks and she does advance because of your mentorship, people may assume that she got there for reasons other than her talent. People make these assumptions ("she must have slept her way to the top!") all the time.
  
  2. Lack of access to clients. Same as above, but replace partner with client. As we all know, the ability to bring in business is crucial for any attorney who wishes to become a partner, so if women are at an inherent disadvantage here, then that's going to be an issue.
  
  3. Different styles of leadership. Just as much a result of social conditioning as of genetics, men and women tend to have different styles of leadership, each with advantages and disadvantages for different situations. However, people naturally value styles of leadership similar to their own, which comes into play when the mostly male straight male partners are deciding whom to select as new partners. Even if Jane's less assertive leadership style works better than Joe's in many situations, partners whose leadership styles are more similar to Joe's will tend to think Joe is a better leader because his style is similar to their own.
  
  4. Implicit biases. Even if they don't consciously discriminate against women, male partners still carry unconscious biases that affect their evaluation of the female attorneys at their firm. When the Harvard Implicit Assumption Test is administered at large law firms, the male partners are routinely shown to carry these biases. How does this play out? Here's an example: When a woman is as assertive and aggressive as her male colleagues, the men in power think her to be a "bitch" (unconscious bias against aggressive women at work). When she tones it down, the men in power think her to be "weak" (implicit assumption that women are weak at work). It's a Catch-22.

And many of these problems apply to LGBTs and minorities as well.

[guano]

Why doesn't being redhead count as URM?

[iamgeorgebush]

As for the specific reasons why people were pushed out/voluntarily left, here are a few of the reasons (these are not mutually exclusive; firms could select up to 5 different reasons why the associates left, and I am not listing all of the reasons, but rather just those that are relevant to our conversation):

This looks fishy to me. Where is the unconscious discrimination and/or subtly hostile work environment options?

Also, there's the issue that even if many women do leave to be full-time mothers, relocate with their spouse, work part-time or anything else spousal/mother-related, they might not feel that pressure if advancement in the firm were more equitable for women...if it were, maybe their husbands would be the ones making the switch/move instead. Thus, a woman might say she is leaving for family-related reasons but still feel the influence of an unfair work environment for women.

[20141023]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I am not going to address all of your points individually, but you do make a few valid arguments. However, I feel that in a lot of ways you are blowing the actual circumstances way out of proportion by assuming that the firm atmosphere is overbearingly sexist. Just as one example, here are the stats regarding the "lack of mentors" that you stated above, as well as a few more relevant statistics:



Also, I am not saying that the percentage of all partners are tipped towards males because of how things used to be, but rather that this is just one of many factors that contributes to the difference in the number of men who make it to partner in comparison to the number of women. When you combine past hiring trends / social norms for women to nurture their families / slightly higher chances of males have more "qualified" resumes (law review, higher grades in law school) / etc., I think it adds up so that the number of women who won't make it to partner because of their gender alone is a lot less than feminists claim. Once again, the number of women who make it into firms (45% of associates) is roughly equal to the number who go to law school (47% of law students). We're therefore looking at a 25% gap (since 20% of the partners at firms are women), and I think it would be crazy to attribute a majority of that to sexist biases.

Depends how you define "sexist biases." The social norms that make it a lot more likely for women than men to step off the partnership track to raise children could well fall into that category, and I think family pressures are a huge factor in women not ending up as partners.

[20141023]

.

[Kimikho]

Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM when these groups are clearly underrepresented in the legal field? For example there are more male attorneys and more male partners than female/transgender partners at big firms. So would it not make sense to in addition to accepting more African Americans, to also admit more women to law school to balance the scale?

Like others have noted, women at least are not very underrepresented in law school (I say this as a woman). LGBTQ is a bit harder because a lot of people aren't open about their sexuality and, unlike race and gender, law schools don't advertise "And 10% of our entering class is gay!" Transgenders make up such a small portion of the population and are often even less open about their identity that it is hard to know how underrepresented they are. That being said, for homosexuals and transgenders, they could probably write excellent diversity statements that could give them an edge.

Also, if you look through this http://admissionsbythenumbers.blogspot.com/ site, you'll see that many schools do give slight bumps for being female. The author actually jokes that if you are male and want to get into NYU you are better off getting a sex reassignment surgery than applying ED because the bump for females is more significant than the bump for ED.

The problems in the actual legal field are undeniable, of course, but are often more societal than anything. Women are still unfairly expected to perform the majority of household work, to have children and to take time off to raise them, and to put their families always ahead of their careers. Men aren't. That's not the fault of law schools, however, it's the fault of the legal profession and societal norms.

I have wondered how much of this is because women have higher GPAs than men do (on average), and this could lead to slightly better LORs on average. LORs barely matter, but all other things equal the applicant with better recommendations would get in.

Then, I wouldn't be surprised if women have fewer C+F violations. I don't have the data for it, but data on crime would suggest this (plus, just surveying my friends). I think this probably explains a large part of the perceived "boost" for women--it's really just having (sometimes) slightly better LORs, and less likely to have C+F issues.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Depends how you define "sexist biases." The social norms that make it a lot more likely for women than men to step off the partnership track to raise children could well fall into that category, and I think family pressures are a huge factor in women not ending up as partners.

Yes, but my point is that this is the fault of neither law firms nor law schools, and so it would be wrong to give females a "boost" during law school admissions in hopes that it will somehow improve their chances at making partner.

Oh, I don't think there should be a boost in law school admissions, either. I absolutely think that law firms help perpetuate those social norms (as do law schools, depending on how far you want to take causation), because neither law firms nor law schools operate somehow outside of the society that creates/perpetuates those norms. But that's a totally different thing from giving a URM-style boost for gender in law school admissions.

[iamgeorgebush]

I am not going to address all of your points individually, but you do make a few valid arguments. However, I feel that in a lot of ways you are blowing the actual circumstances way out of proportion by assuming that the firm atmosphere is overbearingly sexist.

Woah woah, whence "overbearingly sexist"? The sexism isn't "overbearing." It's subtle, usually unconscious, and much more insidious than any outright proclamation about the supposed inferiority of women.

Just as one example, here are the stats regarding the "lack of mentors" that you stated above, as well as a few more relevant statistics:

The "desire" for mentors or role models is irrelevant. Women need not realize that a lack of mentor-mentee relationships is holding them back for it to be so. They might be unaware of the extent to which these forces shape their careers. Classic fallacy really, straight out of the LSAT. In fact, using surveys of departing associates in the first place is a classic fallacy. Departing associates' stated reasons for leaving do not necessarily reflect the what's really going on.

Also, I am not saying that the percentage of all partners are tipped towards males because of how things used to be, but rather that this is just one of many factors that contributes to the difference in the number of men who make it to partner in comparison to the number of women. When you combine past hiring trends / social norms for women to nurture their families / slightly higher chances of males having more "qualified" resumes (law review, higher grades in law school) / etc., I think it adds up so that the number of women who won't make it to partner because of their gender alone is a lot less than feminists claim. Once again, the number of women who make it into firms (45% of associates) is roughly equal to the number who go to law school (47% of law students). We're therefore looking at a 25% gap (since 20% of the partners at firms are women), and I think it would be crazy to attribute a majority of that to sexist biases.

Actually, 15% of BigLaw equity partners are women, not 20%. Source: I am involved with attorney recruiting and development at an AmLaw 100 firm.

And even with 20%, I don't understand where you're getting this "25% gap." With 80% partners being male and 20% female, that means 75% fewer women than men at the partner level. With the real numbers (85% and 15%), there are 82% fewer women than men. 82.35% actually, according to Excel.

I agree that some of the gap is attributable to social norms and perhaps even a natural desire for women to nurture their families. I expect, in a perfectly fair work world, there would still be some gap between the proportions of male and female partners. But 82% fewer female partners? Hell no.

Edit: Maybe you're talking about the gap between female associates and female partners? Yes, that must be where you're getting the 25% figure. In that case, it's still wrong. The change from 45% to 20% would be -55.6%, and the change from 45% to 15% (the real numbers) would be -66.7%.

Edit 2: Made an Excel thing illustrating the above. HTH.

[Captainunaccountable]

I hope it's acceptable to state that the average man is more cutthroat and competitive than the average woman (IMO). Making partner is competitive. Social norms & preferential treatment are certainly considerations in this debate, but I'd be willing to bet that there are less women competing for these positions and less that are willing to compete against their male counterparts.

[hohenheim]

Also, I am not saying that the percentage of all partners are tipped towards males because of how things used to be, but rather that this is just one of many factors that contributes to the difference in the number of men who make it to partner in comparison to the number of women. When you combine past hiring trends / social norms for women to nurture their families / slightly higher chances of males having more "qualified" resumes (law review, higher grades in law school) / etc., I think it adds up so that the number of women who won't make it to partner because of their gender alone is a lot less than feminists claim. Once again, the number of women who make it into firms (45% of associates) is roughly equal to the number who go to law school (47% of law students). We're therefore looking at a 25% gap (since 20% of the partners at firms are women), and I think it would be crazy to attribute a majority of that to sexist biases.

Actually, 15% of BigLaw equity partners are women, not 20%. Source: I am involved with attorney recruiting and development at an AmLaw 100 firm.

Can you source? NALP is suggesting that in 2011 (and 2010) it was 19.x% for each size of law firm (<100,101-250,etc.). Maybe it's changed since then? Seems unlikely, but it's possible
http://www.nalp.org/2011_law_firm_diversity

Edit: Maybe you're talking about the gap between female associates and female partners? Yes, that must be where you're getting the 25% figure. In that case, it's still wrong. The change from 45% to 20% would be -55.6%, and the change from 45% to 15% (the real numbers) would be -66.7%.

Edit 2: Made an Excel thing illustrating the above. HTH.

I think he just wanted to use basis points - which probably makes the most sense in this kind of comparison anyway - and this was the quickest way to state it. Feel free to correct, reg

[A. Nony Mouse]

I hope it's acceptable to state that the average man is more cutthroat and competitive than the average woman (IMO). Making partner is competitive. Social norms & preferential treatment are certainly considerations in this debate, but I'd be willing to bet that there are less women competing for these positions and less that are willing to compete against their male counterparts.

Yeah, this is pretty much bullshit, because 1) it's a huge generalization and 2) it presumes what it's trying to demonstrate, which is that being "competitive" requires being "cutthroat," that being cutthroat and competitive is necessary for making partner, and that women engaging in the same cutthroat competitive behaviors as men get the same results as men.

[iamgeorgebush]

Can you source? NALP is suggesting that in 2011 (and 2010) it was 19.x% for each size of law firm (<100,101-250,etc.). Maybe it's changed since then? Seems unlikely, but it's possible
http://www.nalp.org/2011_law_firm_diversity

Here are sources: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... ransparen/ & http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... w_5_firms/

I think the 19% figure must come from lumping together both equity and nonequity partners.

I think he just wanted to use basis points - which probably makes the most sense in this kind of comparison anyway - and this was the quickest way to state it. Feel free to correct, reg

I'm sure "using basis points" is exactly what reg was doing. But how convenient that the metric you use just happens to be the one that makes the gap seem smallest.

Actually, just realized the most useful way to look at the gap between male and female partners would be to compare the change in the "difference" column of my little chart, since that takes into account the fact that there are more male associates than female associates in the first place. This would tell us that there are 77.9% fewer female partners than expected.

[Captainunaccountable]

I hope it's acceptable to state that the average man is more cutthroat and competitive than the average woman (IMO). Making partner is competitive. Social norms & preferential treatment are certainly considerations in this debate, but I'd be willing to bet that there are less women competing for these positions and less that are willing to compete against their male counterparts.

Yeah, this is pretty much bullshit, because 1) it's a huge generalization and 2) it presumes what it's trying to demonstrate, which is that being "competitive" requires being "cutthroat," that being cutthroat and competitive is necessary for making partner, and that women engaging in the same cutthroat competitive behaviors as men get the same results as men.

My point is not as strict as you make it out to be. I'm not attempting to say that it's a 'requirement'. Nor am I saying that women will necessarily get the same results as men if they were to be cutthroat. I'm suggesting that it is a factor to consider that has not been mentioned on this thread.

More cutthroat/competitive-> Stronger likelihood to make partner
Male tendency to be more cutthroat/competitive than woman-> Stronger likelihood to make partner

Of course, I AM NOT saying that women are, by their nature, less competitive; but I think it would be hard to deny that men have a tendency to be moreso competitive. I mean, at least from my experiences in school/life.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I hope it's acceptable to state that the average man is more cutthroat and competitive than the average woman (IMO). Making partner is competitive. Social norms & preferential treatment are certainly considerations in this debate, but I'd be willing to bet that there are less women competing for these positions and less that are willing to compete against their male counterparts.

Yeah, this is pretty much bullshit, because 1) it's a huge generalization and 2) it presumes what it's trying to demonstrate, which is that being "competitive" requires being "cutthroat," that being cutthroat and competitive is necessary for making partner, and that women engaging in the same cutthroat competitive behaviors as men get the same results as men.

My point is not as strict as you make it out to be. I'm not attempting to say that it's a 'requirement'. Nor am I saying that women will necessarily get the same results as men if they were to be cutthroat. I'm suggesting that it is a factor to consider that has not been mentioned on this thread.

More cutthroat/competitive-> Stronger likelihood to make partner
Male tendency to be more cutthroat/competitive than woman-> Stronger likelihood to make partner

Of course, I AM NOT saying that women are, by their nature, less competitive; but I think it would be hard to deny that men have a tendency to be moreso competitive. I mean, at least from my experiences in school/life.

Maybe what you think "competitive" looks like differs from men to women.

[hohenheim]

Can you source? NALP is suggesting that in 2011 (and 2010) it was 19.x% for each size of law firm (<100,101-250,etc.). Maybe it's changed since then? Seems unlikely, but it's possible
http://www.nalp.org/2011_law_firm_diversity

Here are sources: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... ransparen/ & http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... w_5_firms/

I think the 19% figure must come from lumping together both equity and nonequity partners.

Yeah, makes sense. Thanks for the quick links.

I think he just wanted to use basis points - which probably makes the most sense in this kind of comparison anyway - and this was the quickest way to state it. Feel free to correct, reg

I'm sure "using basis points" is exactly what reg was doing. But how convenient that the metric you use just happens to be the one that makes the gap seem smallest.

Actually, just realized the most useful way to look at the gap between male and female partners would be to compare the change in the "difference" column of my little chart, since that takes into account the fact that there are more male associates than female associates in the first place. This would tell us that there are 77.9% fewer female partners than expected.

Hmm, I don't think that particular figure is super useful, since the really significant statistic is the low female associate-to-partner conversion rate. Like regulus showed, the associate gender ratios already basically track law school demographics. If you prefer percent change instead of basis points, then the -66.7% would work, though

[20141023]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

To use some bullshit anecdotal evidence of my own, before law school, I worked in a field (engineering) where there were even fewer females than in law, and it was rare to see a female in management. However, it was also rare to see a male employee cry, or yell at people in public (actually, I never saw that at work), whereas the hours and stress got to a lot of my female coworkers and they would display emotions openly a lot more often. This might be what you described above under "different styles of leadership," but management pretty much decided that those individuals were too emotional to be in charge of a group of people; this was pretty much universally true where I worked in regards to the female employees.

Dude, this kind of assessment is entirely about gendered assumptions about leadership. (Also, you're telling me that men don't yell at people in public? There are all kinds of stories on this site about screamer male partners.)

[NYstate]

I hope it's acceptable to state that the average man is more cutthroat and competitive than the average woman (IMO). Making partner is competitive. Social norms & preferential treatment are certainly considerations in this debate, but I'd be willing to bet that there are less women competing for these positions and less that are willing to compete against their male counterparts.

Yeah, this is pretty much bullshit, because 1) it's a huge generalization and 2) it presumes what it's trying to demonstrate, which is that being "competitive" requires being "cutthroat," that being cutthroat and competitive is necessary for making partner, and that women engaging in the same cutthroat competitive behaviors as men get the same results as men.

My point is not as strict as you make it out to be. I'm not attempting to say that it's a 'requirement'. Nor am I saying that women will necessarily get the same results as men if they were to be cutthroat. I'm suggesting that it is a factor to consider that has not been mentioned on this thread.

More cutthroat/competitive-> Stronger likelihood to make partner
Male tendency to be more cutthroat/competitive than woman-> Stronger likelihood to make partner

Of course, I AM NOT saying that women are, by their nature, less competitive; but I think it would be hard to deny that men have a tendency to be moreso competitive. I mean, at least from my experiences in school/life.

Where do you get that being cutthroat is the determining factor in making partner??
Also,at big law firms the competition to make partner is within practice groups, often there are just as many women up for partner within a group as there are men. We are talking about a small number of people here.

[sublime]

..

[20141023]

.

[drawstring]

Doesn't make him look like a douche to me given why he used that argument.

edit: this post looks ridiculous because the post I was responding to was deleted

[Lwoods1020]

a woman as a URM... seriously? women make up about half if not more at just about every school...

[A. Nony Mouse]

I was purposely making a bad blanket argument there at the end to show how easy it is to make anecdotal arguments without backing them up with some sort of data.

Okay. I still don't actually get how that statement serves that purpose, but that's probably just me.