Top Law Schools

fliptrip wrote:Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

sesto elemento wrote:

fliptrip wrote:Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Flokkness wrote:I remember seeing this last year. Not exactly congruent with firms' so-called "diversity initiatives," eh? Showed it to a black prof who worked in biglaw and they were not even remotely surprised.

"First to hire, first to fire" is pretty much what, anecdotally, I've heard about life for black associates.

FWTW.

sesto elemento wrote:

fliptrip wrote:Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Another1 wrote:

sesto elemento wrote:

fliptrip wrote:Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Black will always be black. Degrees, prestige, or money will never change that.

fliptrip wrote:

Another1 wrote:

sesto elemento wrote:

fliptrip wrote:Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Black will always be black. Degrees, prestige, or money will never change that.

i get the overcredentialing point though. If youre fighting an uphill battle against unconscious bias; every little thing that makes you appear more competent helps; even if its an extra line in the education section of your resume.

This is absolutely true.

fliptrip wrote:jnwa, as he always does, captured what I was referring to perfectly.

As minorities, we face the pernicious effects of unconscious bias. This scourge is particularly troublesome because often people who are affected by it are those who consciously want to give minorities a chance and really do value things like diversity. In my experience, it's been the subtle shock of someone reading my writing (which despite the many offenses against good writing I commit daily on TLS, is actually a talent I have) and commenting to someone "you know, they don't always know how to write". It's also been just the general lack of surprise when a fellow minority fails or the constant "prove it to me" that I feel like I've had to face trying to make my way in various careers. So, it makes sense to me that since we are already starting out with a deficit in the expectations game, we might want to invest in things that tip that balance in the other direction just to give ourselves the best shot at something closer to an equal playing field. This is not the same thing as saying that a black HLS grad faces no diminished expectations. It's saying that the black HLS grad will likely benefit from a greater assumption of competence than a graduate of probably any other law school except for Yale and honestly, I don't even know about Yale. If that black person also had an HBS MBA, that just does all the more to counter it.

This is where the common TLS advice about Harvard vs. Columbia that centers around the idea that if you want to go into BigLaw, Columbia will get you anywhere Harvard can get you might not be nuanced enough to fully apply to minority applicants. Yes, you may be in the same room with HLS grads as a minority CLS grad, but I believe that those HLS grads are sitting there with an advantage that you don't have. I know a black former biglaw partner who just cashed out and became an equity holding GC at a start-up and his advice was always the same as I discussed law school choices. He said one thing...GO TO HARVARD if you can and he made this point about the expectations game. I managed to totally screw his advice up, but my failures to take good advice are not at issue here. If anyone's interested in a "What's Wrong with Flip" thread, let me know.

All of that being said, I think we are still fighting a losing battle anyway. Trying to climb the ladder at a biglaw firm as minority seems to me to be a row too tough to hoe and not really worth it. If you're heading this route, I think it probably makes the most sense to try and get 3-4 years in and go in house as soon as you possibly can. It seems odd to write, but I think corporate America in general is probably a little more hospitable to minority folks than big law firms. When you get a chance, take a peek at Cravath's or Wachtell's website. It is a sea of non-brown faces. You will be adrift in that sea and frankly, I think you can use whatever advantage you can get.

Now, we get back to my bete noire in these fora, the do you pay for prestige debate. I think for URMs the question is much closer to yes than it is for a non-URM and I think that any URM who looks at choosing a law school, law school itself, or practicing law through the same lens as a non-URM is making a very big mistake.

cdotson2 wrote: I think the data backs this up. Some data I collected for my thesis on the amount of AA partners, although of a specific niche of big law, is very telling.

I looked at appellate groups for ten firms, and coded the race for all of the partners, 317 in total. Six of the firms did not have a single AA partner, and no firm had more than one AA partner.

4 out of 317, I was shocked.

fliptrip wrote: Now, we get back to my bete noire in these fora, the do you pay for prestige debate. I think for URMs the question is much closer to yes than it is for a non-URM and I think that any URM who looks at choosing a law school, law school itself, or practicing law through the same lens as a non-URM is making a very big mistake.

sesto elemento wrote:

fliptrip wrote: Now, we get back to my bete noire in these fora, the do you pay for prestige debate. I think for URMs the question is much closer to yes than it is for a non-URM and I think that any URM who looks at choosing a law school, law school itself, or practicing law through the same lens as a non-URM is making a very big mistake.

This statement makes me uncomfortable. If I'm understanding correctly, you're arguing that a URM who's been admitted to say a T14 v. T6, consider attending the T6 even if that means accumulating $xx,000 more in debt. In other words, a URM should consider going into more debt than her white peers just so others doubt her a little less. JFC that's depressing.

sesto elemento wrote:

fliptrip wrote: Now, we get back to my bete noire in these fora, the do you pay for prestige debate. I think for URMs the question is much closer to yes than it is for a non-URM and I think that any URM who looks at choosing a law school, law school itself, or practicing law through the same lens as a non-URM is making a very big mistake.

This statement makes me uncomfortable. If I'm understanding correctly, you're arguing that a URM who's been admitted to say a T14 v. T6, consider attending the T6 even if that means accumulating $xx,000 more in debt. In other words, a URM should consider going into more debt than her white peers just so others doubt her a little less. JFC that's depressing.

Another1 wrote:

sesto elemento wrote:

fliptrip wrote:Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Black will always be black. Degrees, prestige, or money will never change that.

Phil Brooks wrote:

Another1 wrote:

sesto elemento wrote:

fliptrip wrote:Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Black will always be black. Degrees, prestige, or money will never change that.

Does this unconscious racial bias infect spouses too? In other words, if a white associate has a black spouse, will the partners notice this and unconsciously discriminate against the associate?

This is all very sad. I hope it changes when our generation becomes the employers/partners.

fliptrip wrote:

Phil Brooks wrote:

Another1 wrote:

sesto elemento wrote:

fliptrip wrote:Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Black will always be black. Degrees, prestige, or money will never change that.

Does this unconscious racial bias infect spouses too? In other words, if a white associate has a black spouse, will the partners notice this and unconsciously discriminate against the associate?

This is all very sad. I hope it changes when our generation becomes the employers/partners.

I'd think so. If a minority themselves has this bias, I find it unlikely that a non-minority would rid themselves of it just because they decided to marry a minority. It's safe to say there's a different decision process in choosing a mate than evaluating the work of an employee and besides, in close personal relationships you get so much more exposure that there's overwhelming information to potentially defeat even the most pernicious unconscious bias.

e: I want to believe in your last sentence, but a short visit to the TLS lounge makes it clear to me that isn't going to happen.

Phil Brooks wrote:

Another1 wrote:

sesto elemento wrote:

fliptrip wrote:Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Black will always be black. Degrees, prestige, or money will never change that.

Does this unconscious racial bias infect spouses too? In other words, if a white associate has a black spouse, will the partners notice this and unconsciously discriminate against the associate?

This is all very sad. I hope it changes when our generation becomes the employers/partners.