Top Law Schools

Say a urm went to Duke or Berkeley, are they more likely to encounter bias vs a urm from CCN?

Curious if anyone's seeing this.

Are you talking about bias in terms of firms being less willing to hire URMs from lower in the T14 in general? Or do you mean "bias" in the sense that URMs at lower-ranked schools have to deal with bigger differences in hiring than their non-URM counterparts?

Generally, URM students (and students who may not have been considered URMs for purposes of law school admissions) are considered to have a leg up in biglaw hiring due to diversity initiatives. And there are various advantages to attending one of CCN vs. Duke/Berkeley when you're shooting for biglaw. But is your question whether URMs in particular see a more pronounced difference in hiring criteria between these schools as compared to non-URM students?

I’m not sure what the OP is asking. Firms prefer to hire people from higher ranked schools, regardless of race.

Firms also like to advertise their commitment to diversity, equality, etc. In my experience, URM is a slight boost when you are trying to land a job.

I doubt you will ever see over racism, but you might encounter some individual partners/associates who are jerks (because... you know... that’s life).

I have no doubt that racism still exists in BigLaw at every firm. Sooner or later, a URM in BigLaw will encounter at least covert racism, whether from a crusty senior partner or even a member of the support staff. (Overt racism tends to be rare, thankfully.) And URMs often find it harder to network and advance in BigLaw than their conventionally attractive straight white male peers.

At the same time, as other posters have noted ITT, URMs actually get a leg up over non-URMs in BigLaw hiring out of law school. Relative to non-URMs, BigLaw firms will take URMs with slightly lower law school GPAs or a less impressive journal. BigLaw firms are desperate to boost their diversity and even though few of them will expressly admit this, almost all of 'em, in practice, have some degree of de facto affirmative action going on.

There is zero specific bias against URMs from Duke vs. Columbia (putting aside the fact that BigLaw firms generally prefer students from higher-ranked law schools over lower-ranked law schools regardless of race or sexual orientation). Going to Duke isn't going to disproportionately open up a URM to bias, any more than going to Harvard would somehow make a URM immune to bias.

cavalier1138 wrote: ↑

Wed May 13, 2020 12:02 pm

Are you talking about bias in terms of firms being less willing to hire URMs from lower in the T14 in general? Or do you mean "bias" in the sense that URMs at lower-ranked schools have to deal with bigger differences in hiring than their non-URM counterparts?

Generally, URM students (and students who may not have been considered URMs for purposes of law school admissions) are considered to have a leg up in biglaw hiring due to diversity initiatives. And there are various advantages to attending one of CCN vs. Duke/Berkeley when you're shooting for biglaw. But is your question whether URMs in particular see a more pronounced difference in hiring criteria between these schools as compared to non-URM students?

Yes, the bolded is what I'm wondering.

modernoblomov wrote: ↑

Wed May 13, 2020 2:06 pm

cavalier1138 wrote: ↑

Wed May 13, 2020 12:02 pm

But is your question whether URMs in particular see a more pronounced difference in hiring criteria between these schools as compared to non-URM students?

Yes, the bolded is what I'm wondering.

URMs enjoy a boost no matter where they go to school. With respect to grades, the sliding scale still applies. My V50 was willing to hire URMs from the DC schools--Howard and American, for instance. But those grads had good grades. Cum laude or so. 3.5-3.6. CCN, 3.0ish; lower T14, 3.1 or 3.2ish.

The issue is classicism. UMC URMs tend to do very well. URMs from non-upper middle class backgrounds underperform.

modernoblomov wrote: ↑

Wed May 13, 2020 2:06 pm

cavalier1138 wrote: ↑

Wed May 13, 2020 12:02 pm

Are you talking about bias in terms of firms being less willing to hire URMs from lower in the T14 in general? Or do you mean "bias" in the sense that URMs at lower-ranked schools have to deal with bigger differences in hiring than their non-URM counterparts?

Generally, URM students (and students who may not have been considered URMs for purposes of law school admissions) are considered to have a leg up in biglaw hiring due to diversity initiatives. And there are various advantages to attending one of CCN vs. Duke/Berkeley when you're shooting for biglaw. But is your question whether URMs in particular see a more pronounced difference in hiring criteria between these schools as compared to non-URM students?

Yes, the bolded is what I'm wondering.

I've never heard of it being an issue.

As others have suggested, the racism you're likely to encounter in biglaw is going to be after getting hired. Firms really like to hire people from diverse backgrounds, but the work environment hasn't quite caught up.

Wild Card wrote: ↑

Wed May 13, 2020 5:24 pm

The issue is classicism. UMC URMs tend to do very well. URMs from non-upper middle class backgrounds underperform.

Classicists in the workplace are such a cancer. My Latin friend at a V20 felt ostracized because all of his colleagues insisted on chatting in Koine Greek.

The Lsat Airbender wrote: ↑

Thu May 14, 2020 11:08 am

Wild Card wrote: ↑

Wed May 13, 2020 5:24 pm

The issue is classicism. UMC URMs tend to do very well. URMs from non-upper middle class backgrounds underperform.

Classicists in the workplace are such a cancer. My Latin friend at a V20 felt ostracized because all of his colleagues insisted on chatting in Koine Greek.

I'm really disappointed I missed this opportunity. Well done.