Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
Dafaq

Bronze
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:19 pm

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by Dafaq » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:02 pm

I rarely see any blacks in Texas and never in Oklahoma. None at law firms. Ditto Asians.

User avatar
middlebear

Silver
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 4:48 pm

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by middlebear » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:05 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'm Asian, and I personally feel as if we are fairly well-represented in biglaw...

do you have stats to back up your claim that Asians are "nowhere to be found"?
My firm has no asian males in my office. Maybe it's just DC or just my firm.
DC BigLaw here. Maybe it's because I'm next to the Korea practice, but this whole "no Asians" thing is totally unfounded.

User avatar
encore1101

Silver
Posts: 826
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:13 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by encore1101 » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:07 pm

dixiecupdrinking wrote:Cannot believe this troll thread has generated this amount of legitimate response.

iplulzer

New
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 4:43 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by iplulzer » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:09 pm

Regarding the Asian community, one thing that might explain whatever underrepresentation they are facing is language. Asians as a group perform at the top of many fields, but law is so language based that fourth and fifth generation Americans have a distinct advantage in law school, and in the profession.
Is this a joke? Please tell me this is a joke because otherwise it might just be the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Apparently it takes several generations (4 or 5!) to speak/write English well enough to do well in law...?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:11 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'm Asian, and I personally feel as if we are fairly well-represented in biglaw...

do you have stats to back up your claim that Asians are "nowhere to be found"?
My firm has no asian males in my office. Maybe it's just DC or just my firm.
Might just be DC. More Asians in Cali/NYC in general. Anecdotally speaking, most Asian people I know look to settle down in LA or SF, and sometimes in NY.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


User avatar
encore1101

Silver
Posts: 826
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:13 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by encore1101 » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:13 pm

Asians represent 4.8% of the total national population, so there's that, compared to 12.6% of African-Americans, 17% Hispanics, and 72.4% of white (9% mixed overlap, so that's why its above 100%).

User avatar
encore1101

Silver
Posts: 826
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:13 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by encore1101 » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:16 pm

Rahviveh wrote:asians suck at interviewing

Only if interviews consist mostly of questions about Duck Dynasty, NBA Playoffs, and tacos, I guess this is true.

User avatar
sideroxylon

Gold
Posts: 2245
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:13 pm

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by sideroxylon » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:18 pm

i think they're there but that the bamboo ceiling is real

Anonymous User
Posts: 428104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:19 pm

During the recruiting process I encountered some pretty heavy discrimination from certain firms related to a disability that I've worked my entire life to overcome. To be rejected from somewhere predominately because of a protected trait, and to be told that it'd be hard to succeed in any legal job because of such a trait clearly violates the law. Of course, I couldn't do or say anything about it, because the legal industry is a small world so you'd be excommunicated. Even if you found a place with good people who admired your tenacity, being known as the guy that sued (and 99% of the time loses) brings too much baggage. So you just find a place that is more in the 21st century, or you go into life long debt trying.

It'd be disgusting if this is a flame post, because many people have dealt with some heavy discrimination. Moreover, because of the debt figures it's not just an "okay, you can't do big law because you're different". Rather, it is a you are never going to be able to own a home, live in a good neighborhood, etc. because your credit is going to be screwed when you cannot repay your loans. It's because of this I personally think that law schools should not only be allowed to reject candidates solely based off of race, religion, or disability, but should have a legal duty to at the very least inform such candidates that they will likely not be able to repay their debt. This is different than just getting bad grades, because most schools make you pay 2L tuition before OCI. So if you have good grades, but get discriminated against, you're more times than not totally screwed. The fact is that most people and most professions don't discriminate so many uninformed students would never expect it. In the past some lawyers with a trait that made them get discriminated against despite having strong credentials hung a shingle, and as most disabilities don't have anything to do with being a good lawyer or businessman, were very successful. Some even developed books of business, and lateraled in as a partner. Due to the increasing costs of tuition, the same lawyer today is essentially given a career death sentence.

I have thick enough skin to make fun of my disability all the time. However, to make fun of discrimination is not only offensive, but also undermines a very real problem.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


09042014

Diamond
Posts: 18203
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by 09042014 » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:During the recruiting process I encountered some pretty heavy discrimination from certain firms related to a disability that I've worked my entire life to overcome. To be rejected from somewhere predominately because of a protected trait, and to be told that it'd be hard to succeed in any legal job because of such a trait clearly violates the law. Of course, I couldn't do or say anything about it, because the legal industry is a small world so you'd be excommunicated. Even if you found a place with good people who admired your tenacity, being known as the guy that sued (and 99% of the time loses) brings too much baggage. So you just find a place that is more in the 21st century, or you go into life long debt trying.

It'd be disgusting if this is a flame post, because many people have dealt with some heavy discrimination. Moreover, because of the debt figures it's not just an "okay, you can't do big law because you're different". Rather, it is a you are never going to be able to own a home, live in a good neighborhood, etc. because your credit is going to be screwed when you cannot repay your loans. It's because of this I personally think that law schools should not only be allowed to reject candidates solely based off of race, religion, or disability, but should have a legal duty to at the very least inform such candidates that they will likely not be able to repay their debt. This is different than just getting bad grades, because most schools make you pay 2L tuition before OCI. So if you have good grades, but get discriminated against, you're more times than not totally screwed. The fact is that most people and most professions don't discriminate so many uninformed students would never expect it.

I have thick enough skin to make fun of my disability all the time. However, to make fun of discrimination is not only offensive, but also undermines a very real problem.
What kind of disability to people make fun of in 2014? That's pretty shocking.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29293
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by A. Nony Mouse » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:26 pm

I mean, I understand the concerns about discrimination and I'm not remotely saying it doesn't happen. But allowing law schools to reject students who are likely to face discrimination on the basis of their race/religion/disability is the worst idea I've heard in a long time.

(I also think the issue of debt and getting shut out of biglaw is way more complicated than "your life is over," but that's sort of beside the point.)

User avatar
sideroxylon

Gold
Posts: 2245
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:13 pm

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by sideroxylon » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:During the recruiting process I encountered some pretty heavy discrimination from certain firms related to a disability that I've worked my entire life to overcome. To be rejected from somewhere predominately because of a protected trait, and to be told that it'd be hard to succeed in any legal job because of such a trait clearly violates the law. Of course, I couldn't do or say anything about it, because the legal industry is a small world so you'd be excommunicated. Even if you found a place with good people who admired your tenacity, being known as the guy that sued (and 99% of the time loses) brings too much baggage. So you just find a place that is more in the 21st century, or you go into life long debt trying.

It'd be disgusting if this is a flame post, because many people have dealt with some heavy discrimination. Moreover, because of the debt figures it's not just an "okay, you can't do big law because you're different". Rather, it is a you are never going to be able to own a home, live in a good neighborhood, etc. because your credit is going to be screwed when you cannot repay your loans. It's because of this I personally think that law schools should not only be allowed to reject candidates solely based off of race, religion, or disability, but should have a legal duty to at the very least inform such candidates that they will likely not be able to repay their debt. This is different than just getting bad grades, because most schools make you pay 2L tuition before OCI. So if you have good grades, but get discriminated against, you're more times than not totally screwed. The fact is that most people and most professions don't discriminate so many uninformed students would never expect it. In the past some lawyers with a trait that made them get discriminated against despite having strong credentials hung a shingle, and as most disabilities don't have anything to do with being a good lawyer or businessman, were very successful. Some even developed books of business, and lateraled in as a partner. Due to the increasing costs of tuition, the same lawyer today is essentially given a career death sentence.

I have thick enough skin to make fun of my disability all the time. However, to make fun of discrimination is not only offensive, but also undermines a very real problem.
Is this post unfunny/elaborate flame?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:40 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I mean, I understand the concerns about discrimination and I'm not remotely saying it doesn't happen. But allowing law schools to reject students who are likely to face discrimination on the basis of their race/religion/disability is the worst idea I've heard in a long time.

(I also think the issue of debt and getting shut out of biglaw is way more complicated than "your life is over," but that's sort of beside the point.)
Never said life over, but the financial situation is not bright. You also need to realize that it's different psychologically than the bottom of the class student who is in heavy debt. There the issue is grades. A student with bad grades can rationalize her self-concept back up. "Practice is so different from school", or "if I worked harder I'd have gotten better grades", etc. If you're discriminated against the issue is plainly you. You're in a very bad position only because of something you had no control over, and will be with you your entire life so it's not easy to see the light at the end of the tunnel. You need to really think about it from the perspective of "you had everything needed to succeed, but this uncontrollable trait so you failed, and now can't repay your loans to even be able to start from scratch while knowing you'll have this uncontrollable trait for life". This is what the discriminated against candidate is facing psychologically so it's harder for them to jump back on their feet.

I don't think schools rejecting people based off of protected traits is ideal, but the basic situation is we train individuals to think that in America everything is based off of performance and merit. We tell children they can be whatever they want to be. People aren't prepared for this discrimination. Discrimination was easier to come back from when it was just the old I can't get a high paying job, because I'm of this skin color. Imagine pre-1964 discrimination if the people went 250k in debt to be discriminated against.

Before 1964, people expected to be discriminated against so would be less likely to pursue fields that they would historically be discriminated from. This is to say rational people are going into irrational debt, because the possibility of being discriminated against never crosses their mind. My solution is merely that if discrimination is going to continue, people likely to be discriminated against should at least be informed that they are likely to be discriminated against. We should at least treat victims as well as we did pre-1964, not worse.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


User avatar
sideroxylon

Gold
Posts: 2245
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:13 pm

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by sideroxylon » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:42 pm

ok i'll bite

what should this warning be?

how should it be given?

to whom should it be given?

what should happen if they don't give your desired warning?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:46 pm

sideroxylon wrote:ok i'll bite

what should this warning be?

how should it be given?

to whom should it be given?

what should happen if they don't give your desired warning?
I think an interview should be required to attend any ABA accredited law school to determine whom it should be given to. I don't know the wording should be or how it should be given. I'm merely trying to raise the idea, because (A) it's better than the current regime, and (B) if there is awareness of the problem then the problem will be fixed.

User avatar
rickgrimes69

Silver
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by rickgrimes69 » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:48 pm

Literally over 1/3 of my summer class was Asian (NYC V20)

Not sure if trole

thatgirlthere

New
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:03 pm

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by thatgirlthere » Sun Aug 10, 2014 8:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I mean, I understand the concerns about discrimination and I'm not remotely saying it doesn't happen. But allowing law schools to reject students who are likely to face discrimination on the basis of their race/religion/disability is the worst idea I've heard in a long time.

(I also think the issue of debt and getting shut out of biglaw is way more complicated than "your life is over," but that's sort of beside the point.)
Never said life over, but the financial situation is not bright. You also need to realize that it's different psychologically than the bottom of the class student who is in heavy debt. There the issue is grades. A student with bad grades can rationalize her self-concept back up. "Practice is so different from school", or "if I worked harder I'd have gotten better grades", etc. If you're discriminated against the issue is plainly you. You're in a very bad position only because of something you had no control over, and will be with you your entire life so it's not easy to see the light at the end of the tunnel. You need to really think about it from the perspective of "you had everything needed to succeed, but this uncontrollable trait so you failed, and now can't repay your loans to even be able to start from scratch while knowing you'll have this uncontrollable trait for life". This is what the discriminated against candidate is facing psychologically so it's harder for them to jump back on their feet.

I don't think schools rejecting people based off of protected traits is ideal, but the basic situation is we train individuals to think that in America everything is based off of performance and merit. We tell children they can be whatever they want to be. People aren't prepared for this discrimination. Discrimination was easier to come back from when it was just the old I can't get a high paying job, because I'm of this skin color. Imagine pre-1964 discrimination if the people went 250k in debt to be discriminated against.

Before 1964, people expected to be discriminated against so would be less likely to pursue fields that they would historically be discriminated from. This is to say rational people are going into irrational debt, because the possibility of being discriminated against never crosses their mind. My solution is merely that if discrimination is going to continue, people likely to be discriminated against should at least be informed that they are likely to be discriminated against. We should at least treat victims as well as we did pre-1964, not worse.
This is really among the dumbest shit I've seen on this site. Before 1964, people (colored ppl I assume you mean?) expected to be discriminated against and still pursued their fields of interest. For example, we (Black people) were shut out of most colleges, so we established new ones. In 2014, please believe that the possibility of being discriminated always crosses our mind. Who are you that you don't know that you're going to be discriminated against. If you're old enough to be in law school, and don't realize that discrimination is real and if you're a certain type of person it may happen to, you lack the common sense and social awareness to be anybody's lawyer.

To the OP: Have you read The Partner Track by Helen Wan? It's about working in biglaw from the perspective of an Asian American woman.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Anonymous User
Posts: 428104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Aug 10, 2014 8:23 pm

thatgirlthere wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I mean, I understand the concerns about discrimination and I'm not remotely saying it doesn't happen. But allowing law schools to reject students who are likely to face discrimination on the basis of their race/religion/disability is the worst idea I've heard in a long time.

(I also think the issue of debt and getting shut out of biglaw is way more complicated than "your life is over," but that's sort of beside the point.)
Never said life over, but the financial situation is not bright. You also need to realize that it's different psychologically than the bottom of the class student who is in heavy debt. There the issue is grades. A student with bad grades can rationalize her self-concept back up. "Practice is so different from school", or "if I worked harder I'd have gotten better grades", etc. If you're discriminated against the issue is plainly you. You're in a very bad position only because of something you had no control over, and will be with you your entire life so it's not easy to see the light at the end of the tunnel. You need to really think about it from the perspective of "you had everything needed to succeed, but this uncontrollable trait so you failed, and now can't repay your loans to even be able to start from scratch while knowing you'll have this uncontrollable trait for life". This is what the discriminated against candidate is facing psychologically so it's harder for them to jump back on their feet.

I don't think schools rejecting people based off of protected traits is ideal, but the basic situation is we train individuals to think that in America everything is based off of performance and merit. We tell children they can be whatever they want to be. People aren't prepared for this discrimination. Discrimination was easier to come back from when it was just the old I can't get a high paying job, because I'm of this skin color. Imagine pre-1964 discrimination if the people went 250k in debt to be discriminated against.

Before 1964, people expected to be discriminated against so would be less likely to pursue fields that they would historically be discriminated from. This is to say rational people are going into irrational debt, because the possibility of being discriminated against never crosses their mind. My solution is merely that if discrimination is going to continue, people likely to be discriminated against should at least be informed that they are likely to be discriminated against. We should at least treat victims as well as we did pre-1964, not worse.
This is really among the dumbest shit I've seen on this site. Before 1964, people (colored ppl I assume you mean?) expected to be discriminated against and still pursued their fields of interest. For example, we (Black people) were shut out of most colleges, so we established new ones. In 2014, please believe that the possibility of being discriminated always crosses our mind. Who are you that you don't know that you're going to be discriminated against. If you're old enough to be in law school, and don't realize that discrimination is real and if you're a certain type of person it may happen to, you lack the common sense and social awareness to be anybody's lawyer.

To the OP: Have you read The Partner Track by Helen Wan? It's about working in biglaw from the perspective of an Asian American woman.
So if Sarah wants to be a lawyer, but has a certain protected trait, and looks at different firms' websites that all have diversity pages that not only state they don't discriminate, but even encourage such diversity then Sarah should be penalized for not thinking she'd be discriminated against? Really?

Even at the worst firms I'm sure nobody intends to discriminate. Likely, they make assumptions that require time to disprove. In an ideal world the entire interviewing process would change, and instead be based off a full day at a firm. The process would include mock assignments, working with other applicants, and a cocktail reception. Not only would such a process make unintentional discrimination significantly less likely, it would also give the firms more data to select the best candidates for them.

dixiecupdrinking

Gold
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by dixiecupdrinking » Sun Aug 10, 2014 8:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
thatgirlthere wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I mean, I understand the concerns about discrimination and I'm not remotely saying it doesn't happen. But allowing law schools to reject students who are likely to face discrimination on the basis of their race/religion/disability is the worst idea I've heard in a long time.

(I also think the issue of debt and getting shut out of biglaw is way more complicated than "your life is over," but that's sort of beside the point.)
Never said life over, but the financial situation is not bright. You also need to realize that it's different psychologically than the bottom of the class student who is in heavy debt. There the issue is grades. A student with bad grades can rationalize her self-concept back up. "Practice is so different from school", or "if I worked harder I'd have gotten better grades", etc. If you're discriminated against the issue is plainly you. You're in a very bad position only because of something you had no control over, and will be with you your entire life so it's not easy to see the light at the end of the tunnel. You need to really think about it from the perspective of "you had everything needed to succeed, but this uncontrollable trait so you failed, and now can't repay your loans to even be able to start from scratch while knowing you'll have this uncontrollable trait for life". This is what the discriminated against candidate is facing psychologically so it's harder for them to jump back on their feet.

I don't think schools rejecting people based off of protected traits is ideal, but the basic situation is we train individuals to think that in America everything is based off of performance and merit. We tell children they can be whatever they want to be. People aren't prepared for this discrimination. Discrimination was easier to come back from when it was just the old I can't get a high paying job, because I'm of this skin color. Imagine pre-1964 discrimination if the people went 250k in debt to be discriminated against.

Before 1964, people expected to be discriminated against so would be less likely to pursue fields that they would historically be discriminated from. This is to say rational people are going into irrational debt, because the possibility of being discriminated against never crosses their mind. My solution is merely that if discrimination is going to continue, people likely to be discriminated against should at least be informed that they are likely to be discriminated against. We should at least treat victims as well as we did pre-1964, not worse.
This is really among the dumbest shit I've seen on this site. Before 1964, people (colored ppl I assume you mean?) expected to be discriminated against and still pursued their fields of interest. For example, we (Black people) were shut out of most colleges, so we established new ones. In 2014, please believe that the possibility of being discriminated always crosses our mind. Who are you that you don't know that you're going to be discriminated against. If you're old enough to be in law school, and don't realize that discrimination is real and if you're a certain type of person it may happen to, you lack the common sense and social awareness to be anybody's lawyer.

To the OP: Have you read The Partner Track by Helen Wan? It's about working in biglaw from the perspective of an Asian American woman.
So if Sarah wants to be a lawyer, but has a certain protected trait, and looks at different firms' websites that all have diversity pages that not only state they don't discriminate, but even encourage such diversity then Sarah should be penalized for not thinking she'd be discriminated against? Really?

Even at the worst firms I'm sure nobody intends to discriminate. Likely, they make assumptions that require time to disprove. In an ideal world the entire interviewing process would change, and instead be based off a full day at a firm. The process would include mock assignments, working with other applicants, and a cocktail reception. Not only would such a process make unintentional discrimination significantly less likely, it would also give the firms more data to select the best candidates for them.
This little subthread is pretty questionable overall, but I actually do agree that the current informality and subjectiveness of biglaw interviewing does probably encourage discrimination.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Aug 10, 2014 8:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I mean, I understand the concerns about discrimination and I'm not remotely saying it doesn't happen. But allowing law schools to reject students who are likely to face discrimination on the basis of their race/religion/disability is the worst idea I've heard in a long time.

(I also think the issue of debt and getting shut out of biglaw is way more complicated than "your life is over," but that's sort of beside the point.)
Never said life over, but the financial situation is not bright. You also need to realize that it's different psychologically than the bottom of the class student who is in heavy debt. There the issue is grades. A student with bad grades can rationalize her self-concept back up. "Practice is so different from school", or "if I worked harder I'd have gotten better grades", etc. If you're discriminated against the issue is plainly you. You're in a very bad position only because of something you had no control over, and will be with you your entire life so it's not easy to see the light at the end of the tunnel. You need to really think about it from the perspective of "you had everything needed to succeed, but this uncontrollable trait so you failed, and now can't repay your loans to even be able to start from scratch while knowing you'll have this uncontrollable trait for life". This is what the discriminated against candidate is facing psychologically so it's harder for them to jump back on their feet.

I don't think schools rejecting people based off of protected traits is ideal, but the basic situation is we train individuals to think that in America everything is based off of performance and merit. We tell children they can be whatever they want to be. People aren't prepared for this discrimination. Discrimination was easier to come back from when it was just the old I can't get a high paying job, because I'm of this skin color. Imagine pre-1964 discrimination if the people went 250k in debt to be discriminated against.

Before 1964, people expected to be discriminated against so would be less likely to pursue fields that they would historically be discriminated from. This is to say rational people are going into irrational debt, because the possibility of being discriminated against never crosses their mind. My solution is merely that if discrimination is going to continue, people likely to be discriminated against should at least be informed that they are likely to be discriminated against. We should at least treat victims as well as we did pre-1964, not worse.
OK. At this point, I am convinced that this threat is a giant flame because this is like the 4th astonishingly dumb comment I'm coming across here, and I'm starting to think they they're all from the same poster.

Swimp

Bronze
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:32 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by Swimp » Sun Aug 10, 2014 11:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I mean, I understand the concerns about discrimination and I'm not remotely saying it doesn't happen. But allowing law schools to reject students who are likely to face discrimination on the basis of their race/religion/disability is the worst idea I've heard in a long time.

(I also think the issue of debt and getting shut out of biglaw is way more complicated than "your life is over," but that's sort of beside the point.)
Never said life over, but the financial situation is not bright. You also need to realize that it's different psychologically than the bottom of the class student who is in heavy debt. There the issue is grades. A student with bad grades can rationalize her self-concept back up. "Practice is so different from school", or "if I worked harder I'd have gotten better grades", etc. If you're discriminated against the issue is plainly you. You're in a very bad position only because of something you had no control over, and will be with you your entire life so it's not easy to see the light at the end of the tunnel. You need to really think about it from the perspective of "you had everything needed to succeed, but this uncontrollable trait so you failed, and now can't repay your loans to even be able to start from scratch while knowing you'll have this uncontrollable trait for life". This is what the discriminated against candidate is facing psychologically so it's harder for them to jump back on their feet.

I don't think schools rejecting people based off of protected traits is ideal, but the basic situation is we train individuals to think that in America everything is based off of performance and merit. We tell children they can be whatever they want to be. People aren't prepared for this discrimination. Discrimination was easier to come back from when it was just the old I can't get a high paying job, because I'm of this skin color. Imagine pre-1964 discrimination if the people went 250k in debt to be discriminated against.

Before 1964, people expected to be discriminated against so would be less likely to pursue fields that they would historically be discriminated from. This is to say rational people are going into irrational debt, because the possibility of being discriminated against never crosses their mind. My solution is merely that if discrimination is going to continue, people likely to be discriminated against should at least be informed that they are likely to be discriminated against. We should at least treat victims as well as we did pre-1964, not worse.
OK. At this point, I am convinced that this threat is a giant flame because this is like the 4th astonishingly dumb comment I'm coming across here, and I'm starting to think they they're all from the same poster.
He's disabled, man. Lighten up.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428104
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:11 am

asian and female; i'm on the west coast and there are plenty of asian attorneys here. there's also a big overseas presence here/ practices working with offices in tokyo/shanghai. any chance you guys work in the midwest?
Last edited by Anonymous User on Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

jd20132013

Silver
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by jd20132013 » Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:12 am

mephistopheles wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:I would guess they suffer from the same things blacks do; the stereotypes about Asians don't lend themselves to being perceived as for for advancement.

DAMN SHOTS FIRED

what do you mean? this isn't an attack on any minority group. i'm not saying the stereotypes are true, I'm saying they have to fight against them which makes it harder to stay

User avatar
OneMoreLawHopeful

Silver
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:21 pm

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by OneMoreLawHopeful » Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:15 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'm Asian, and I personally feel as if we are fairly well-represented in biglaw...

do you have stats to back up your claim that Asians are "nowhere to be found"?
My firm has no asian males in my office. Maybe it's just DC or just my firm.
Might just be DC. More Asians in Cali/NYC in general. Anecdotally speaking, most Asian people I know look to settle down in LA or SF, and sometimes in NY.
I don't know about "where Asians look to settle down" but I can confirm that virtually all Nor Cal biglaw offices have a significant Asian presence. The "no Asians" is probably just a DC thing.

Edit: I have heard from friends that were in Asian students orgs that there are two specific concerns about Asians being discriminated against in biglaw, (1) that Asians are essentially "shunted" into IP without much say in the matter, and (2) that Asians don't make partner at a representative rate. There are potentially legitimate counter-arguments though (e.g. self-selection into IP when it was perceived to be a safer bet for employment), so it's not clear, but still probably cause for concern especially in the long-term.

User avatar
sinfiery

Gold
Posts: 3310
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw

Post by sinfiery » Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:36 am

of the lawyers in the USA, 3.4% are asian (2010)

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf



T14:
yale: 13.6; Harvard: 10.7%; Stanford: 10.2%; Columbia: 15.4%; UChi: 8.8%; NYU: 10.7%Virginia: 11; Penn: 14.6% Mich: 9.5%; Berk: 19.3% Duke: 10.8%; NU: 17.9%; COrnell: 14.4%; Gtown: 4.9%

too lazy to average based on class size; let's go with 10%.


odds on 10% of SAs being asian?

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”