So who's got that hiring spreadsheet that Gibson leaked Forum

[Anonymous User]

The idea that Jews suffer discrimination in BIGLAW is so laughable I can't imagine saying it with a straight face. Let's calculate how many Jews are in BIGLAW and compare it to their 2% of the population and see what numbers we get

"We have too many of those Jews already so it's okay to discriminate against them" is not the defense you think it is!

[Anonymous User]

(no one has ever thanked me for covering on those days. Nor has anyone ever wished me a happy Easter or offered to cover for Easter or any other Christian non-Christmas holiday. I’ve worked every single Easter since I started here...

I honestly don't know where to start with this, do you think our religion is optional or something? The entire calendar is designed around the Christian holidays, we can't take even just our high holidays without getting side-eye from people like you. If you need to take Easter off, go ahead. But really, this doesn't deserve a detailed response and should just stand as an example of the kind of thing Jews still have to deal with.

[cisscum]

The idea that Jews suffer discrimination in BIGLAW is so laughable I can't imagine saying it with a straight face. Let's calculate how many Jews are in BIGLAW and compare it to their 2% of the population and see what numbers we get

"We have too many of those Jews already so it's okay to discriminate against them" is not the defense you think it is!

Isn't that basically what people say about white people?

[Anonymous User]

Do you think my religion is optional? Why should you get to take days off for the high holidays but I don’t get to take off for Easter? Please explain. You honestly are trolling, right? Being Jewish at my firm is THE NORM so I’m not sure what you’re referring to as an “example of what Jews have to deal with.”

[beepboopbeep]

Too much engaging with some guy named cisscum's obvious bad faith posting, and not enough posting the Gibson spreadsheet.

[Joachim2017]

I don't understand what posting the GDC spreadsheet would actually reveal. I would hope that PII would be redacted. What would be left would just be the stuff we already know is factored into hiring decisions: grades, activities, ethnicities, etc. So what would the spreadsheet tell you or show you that you don't already know? Even GDC's specific cut-offs and requirements for this sort of stuff can be accessed through the standard channels.

[cisscum]

Do you think my religion is optional? Why should you get to take days off for the high holidays but I don’t get to take off for Easter? Please explain. You honestly are trolling, right? Being Jewish at my firm is THE NORM so I’m not sure what you’re referring to as an “example of what Jews have to deal with.”

If something comes up that needs to get done on our respective holidays, who has to work and who doesn't?

Btw I'm fully in support of observing religious holidays, i just want standards to be the same.

[Anonymous User]

I don't understand what posting the GDC spreadsheet would actually reveal. I would hope that PII would be redacted. What would be left would just be the stuff we already know is factored into hiring decisions: grades, activities, ethnicities, etc. So what would the spreadsheet tell you or show you that you don't already know? Even GDC's specific cut-offs and requirements for this sort of stuff can be accessed through the standard channels.

We know it factors, but exactly how would be interesting. School provided GPA info is pretty inaccurate, so seeing the exact number would be useful.

[cavalier1138]

Cisscum is on a three-day vacation until they learn not to pop into threads with anti-semitic nonsense.

Same thing will happen to anyone who wants to share their spicy-hot takes about how [insert minority population here] people don't face discrimination in biglaw because they once saw a black person get a promotion.

[Anonymous User]

If something comes up that needs to get done on our respective holidays, who has to work and who doesn't?
[/quote]

Its not about "having to" its about "able to" According to jewish law as it's followed by orthodox jews, one is not allowed to actively use any form of technology on Shabbat or the Holidays. We are not simply chilling at the beach choosing not to work. We don't use our phones at all, even for personal use, we don't use our cars, don't watch TV, nothing. We are completely "off the grid" for the day(s). We are not able to do any work without violating our religion. It's honestly frustrating for me personally knowing that I can't pull my weight during those days, regardless of how you view me not being there. I want to do good work and contribute to my team at all times, and not being able to due to Holidays/Shabbat can be very frustrating for an associate like myself thats really trying to climb the ladder and be there for my team.

As for the previous poster that said the jews in their group never thank them and never cover for them for Easter/their holidays, I'm sorry that this is happening to you. I can only speak for myself but I ALWAYS make sure to thank anyone and everyone in my group for covering for me during the Holidays or Shabbat. Always. And I offer to cover for others in my group for any and all non-Jewish Holidays. If your experience with the jews in your group isn't the same I'm sorry, they should 100% be more considerate and appreciative of you and what you do for them.

[nixy]

I don't understand what posting the GDC spreadsheet would actually reveal. I would hope that PII would be redacted. What would be left would just be the stuff we already know is factored into hiring decisions: grades, activities, ethnicities, etc. So what would the spreadsheet tell you or show you that you don't already know? Even GDC's specific cut-offs and requirements for this sort of stuff can be accessed through the standard channels.

I would love to see interview notes. Not sure they'd be particularly revealing and I doubt it's going to tell anyone anything they don't already know about hiring, but I'm nosy and seeing what actually gets written down would be interesting.

I have no need for or entitlement to this information whatsoever, just really curious.

[LBJ's Hair]

I genuinely think you could get fired at my, or my s/o's, firms for even suggesting that someone wasn't being a "team player" for observing.

Neither of us are at places with reputations for good work-life balance or particular sensitivity to diversity or w/e. Maybe we're at places with partnerships that skew particularly Jewish, but I don't even know about that. This is just NY BigLaw---folks observe, everyone plans for that.

Would encourage the poster(s?) getting pushback on Shabbat, the holidays, etc to lateral. Never heard of this happening, and you don't have to put up with it.

[Anonymous User]

Should I advise my 1L mentee to not put the Jewish law student group on his resume? Serious question. Anon because sensitive topic and revealing prior posts

I'm being completely genuine here, but I was told by someone to take it off my resume. This person is actually Jewish, but said there is still inherently a bias against Jewish people. I took it off. Nonetheless, if a firm/government org/etc. doesn't take you because you're Jewish, would you really want to work at that place? I thought about that afterward, so that could also be a consideration for your mentee.

This all depends on the way in which they evaluate candidates, no? If certain groups receive a boost, and others don’t, then the resume decisions doesn’t matter. Without “Jewish law group” on resume, many Jews pass for white, who don’t get any boost. Now, if they look at Jews and whites differently, which might make sense in their twisted system, it would matter.

Would love to hear from a hiring attorney how “diversity” factors into these decisions.

Agree with the above posters about the importance of firm flexibility towards observance, but we’re getting away from the point. How do firms evaluate candidates? If in the eyes of GDC, Jews are white, then the decision to list a Jewish group on resume is moot. If not, are they docking Jews? That would likely be in line with their stated diversity rationale (To them and some posters here, Jews are “overrepresented”).

[soft blue]

One thing I'm very curious about re: the spreadsheet is how much detail interviewers put down. Did kids get one-two sentences ("She seemed nice and has good grades. Would take, but not really invested." / "He was very rude and tried to name drop. Hard pass.") or more detailed notes? My take on this has always been that BL recruiting is super half-assed by partners / associates who will devote no more than 2% of their working time to the recruiting committee but I'd be curious to see if I was right.

[Anonymous User]

One thing I'm very curious about re: the spreadsheet is how much detail interviewers put down. Did kids get one-two sentences ("She seemed nice and has good grades. Would take, but not really invested." / "He was very rude and tried to name drop. Hard pass.") or more detailed notes? My take on this has always been that BL recruiting is super half-assed by partners / associates who will devote no more than 2% of their working time to the recruiting committee but I'd be curious to see if I was right.

I'm not at Gibson, but have done OCI recruiting and callbacks at two firms as a midlevel/senior. Typically screeners would get anywhere from a sentence (obvious yeses and nos -- "great grades, has done her research on us, interested in [lit/corp/investigations/etc]") to a paragraph (closer call, someone I wanted to fight for, or someone i thought the committee would otherwise interview but i thought needed more consideration/should go below someone who was worse on paper). We generally had a target number of callbacks from each school and my/my co-interviewers rankings would get the most weight on who those were, but not dispositive weight; I was always sad when we didn't give a callback to someone who was amazing but had a worse paper record. Callbacks got much more extensive reviews ranging from 1-3 paragraphs typically focusing less on the paper record unless some part of it continued to affect my thinking in either direction, but neither of my firms made same-day offers for callbacks (generally); I suspect at firms where that's the norm, callback interviewers are giving much more "yes/no"-type reviews. Screeners outside the OCI process (clerkship candidates, laterals) got closer to a callback-type review.

FWIW, my experience is very much not that recruiting is half-assed. Bad hires are expensive. But neither of my firms have been super traditional pyramid-model biglaw; based on my own interview experiences way back when, I suspect you're right as to the churn-and-burn practices.

[Joachim2017]

Cisscum is on a three-day vacation until they learn not to pop into threads with anti-semitic nonsense.

Same thing will happen to anyone who wants to share their spicy-hot takes about how [insert minority population here] people don't face discrimination in biglaw because they once saw a black person get a promotion.

Meh, apparently the powers-that-be on TLS gave this person the ability to ban other people, but in my view, voicing your personal opinion about who does/does not face discrimination in Big Law is, while maybe uncouth, not "abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws," and so doesn't warrant a ban. People should be free to disagree, or even mock or laugh at, others' opinions, but a 3 day ban seems excessive. (And the fact that a particular person is just tired of reading certain content or hearing certain types of opinions that go against their own views/politics doesn't warrant it either.)

[Anonymous User]

Agree, dissenting viewpoints shouldn’t be silenced but countered with more speech. In any event it is in fact laughable to have overwhelming representation in a field and claim discrimination. If anything there is positive discrimination.

[Anonymous User]

Agree, dissenting viewpoints shouldn’t be silenced but countered with more speech. In any event it is in fact laughable to have overwhelming representation in a field and claim discrimination. If anything there is positive discrimination.

Ok - so how is GDC using race/ethnicity in hiring?

[ProbablyWaitListed]

Cisscum is on a three-day vacation until they learn not to pop into threads with anti-semitic nonsense.

Same thing will happen to anyone who wants to share their spicy-hot takes about how [insert minority population here] people don't face discrimination in biglaw because they once saw a black person get a promotion.

Trying to ask this in the least inflammatory way possible but why was what they said bad? I agreed that the notion of anti-semitism in, of all things, high-level NYC Big Law seemed a little absurd given the extreme success and quantity of Jewish individuals there.

[Anonymous User]

Cisscum is on a three-day vacation until they learn not to pop into threads with anti-semitic nonsense.

Same thing will happen to anyone who wants to share their spicy-hot takes about how [insert minority population here] people don't face discrimination in biglaw because they once saw a black person get a promotion.

Trying to ask this in the least inflammatory way possible but why was what they said bad? I agreed that the notion of anti-semitism in, of all things, high-level NYC Big Law seemed a little absurd given the extreme success and quantity of Jewish individuals there.

Just interesting as one of the hallmarks of anti-Semitism has always been the trope of Jews having all the power and therefore are unable to be discriminated against. Perhaps their success is despite it? Would you argue that Wachtell is evidence of a lack of anti-Semitism is the field?

[Anonymous User]

Cisscum is on a three-day vacation until they learn not to pop into threads with anti-semitic nonsense.

Same thing will happen to anyone who wants to share their spicy-hot takes about how [insert minority population here] people don't face discrimination in biglaw because they once saw a black person get a promotion.

Trying to ask this in the least inflammatory way possible but why was what they said bad? I agreed that the notion of anti-semitism in, of all things, high-level NYC Big Law seemed a little absurd given the extreme success and quantity of Jewish individuals there.

Just interesting as one of the hallmarks of anti-Semitism has always been the trope of Jews having all the power and therefore are unable to be discriminated against. Perhaps their success is despite it? Would you argue that Wachtell is evidence of a lack of anti-Semitism is the field?

I mean, after all wasn’t Wachtell specifically created BECAUSE CSM wouldn’t hire Jews…

[almostperfectt]

Cisscum is on a three-day vacation until they learn not to pop into threads with anti-semitic nonsense.

Same thing will happen to anyone who wants to share their spicy-hot takes about how [insert minority population here] people don't face discrimination in biglaw because they once saw a black person get a promotion.

Meh, apparently the powers-that-be on TLS gave this person the ability to ban other people, but in my view, voicing your personal opinion about who does/does not face discrimination in Big Law is, while maybe uncouth, not "abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws," and so doesn't warrant a ban. People should be free to disagree, or even mock or laugh at, others' opinions, but a 3 day ban seems excessive. (And the fact that a particular person is just tired of reading certain content or hearing certain types of opinions that go against their own views/politics doesn't warrant it either.)

Agreed, policing dissent seems a bit over the top. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're 'abusive' or 'hateful'

[ExpOriental]

Cisscum is on a three-day vacation until they learn not to pop into threads with anti-semitic nonsense.

Same thing will happen to anyone who wants to share their spicy-hot takes about how [insert minority population here] people don't face discrimination in biglaw because they once saw a black person get a promotion.

Meh, apparently the powers-that-be on TLS gave this person the ability to ban other people, but in my view, voicing your personal opinion about who does/does not face discrimination in Big Law is, while maybe uncouth, not "abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws," and so doesn't warrant a ban. People should be free to disagree, or even mock or laugh at, others' opinions, but a 3 day ban seems excessive. (And the fact that a particular person is just tired of reading certain content or hearing certain types of opinions that go against their own views/politics doesn't warrant it either.)

Agreed, policing dissent seems a bit over the top. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're 'abusive' or 'hateful'

The banned poster has repeatedly derailed threads with off topic culture war bullshit, so I'm guessing they were already on thin ice with the mods, who jumped in before it spiraled into complete absurdity. I'm honestly surprised they aren't already perma banned.

Case in point - this thread! Yet again, another potentially interesting thread on TLS has 1. nothing interesting yet contributed, and 2. has devolved into the same bickering over diversity that has been pointlessly rehashed a hundred times already (but this time, with a Jewish twist!).

[Anonymous User]

So...no leaking the spreadsheet? I'd like to know why I got dinged from Gibson.

[mardash]

Cisscum is on a three-day vacation until they learn not to pop into threads with anti-semitic nonsense.

Same thing will happen to anyone who wants to share their spicy-hot takes about how [insert minority population here] people don't face discrimination in biglaw because they once saw a black person get a promotion.

Meh, apparently the powers-that-be on TLS gave this person the ability to ban other people, but in my view, voicing your personal opinion about who does/does not face discrimination in Big Law is, while maybe uncouth, not "abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws," and so doesn't warrant a ban. People should be free to disagree, or even mock or laugh at, others' opinions, but a 3 day ban seems excessive. (And the fact that a particular person is just tired of reading certain content or hearing certain types of opinions that go against their own views/politics doesn't warrant it either.)

Agreed, policing dissent seems a bit over the top. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're 'abusive' or 'hateful'

The banned poster has repeatedly derailed threads with off topic culture war bullshit, so I'm guessing they were already on thin ice with the mods, who jumped in before it spiraled into complete absurdity. I'm honestly surprised they aren't already perma banned.

Case in point - this thread! Yet again, another potentially interesting thread on TLS has 1. nothing interesting yet contributed, and 2. has devolved into the same bickering over diversity that has been pointlessly rehashed a hundred times already (but this time, with a Jewish twist!).

Biggest gap between expectations and reality of a thread based on its title since that "offer girls" thread.