Law Firm 'Aggressive Racial Preferences'

[cui bono?]

LOL.  will def have to respond to this after I come back from my "outing"- hehe Miss P, wish me luck!

[shaz]

how many slave masters have 'half-black sons?'

didn't strom thurmond have a half-black daughter?  

i bet there have been quite a few klan members that have sired half-black children. (just because you raped the mother, doesn't mean you're not the father.)  

[cui bono?]

LOL.  will def have to respond to this after I come back from my "outing"- hehe Miss P, wish me luck!

You got it, my friend!

New person!  damn I gotta get ready instead of procrastinating on here  Loook @ the time- haha i'm gonna b late.   

how many slave masters have 'half-black sons?'

didn't strom thurmond have a half-black daughter?  

i bet there have been quite a few klan members that have sired half-black children. (just because you raped the mother, doesn't mean you're not the father.)  

Dang, you kinda came a little hard on that one, dont u think?  I feel u tho.  Alright lemme get out of here.  BTW- the OP delted his account   

[shaz]

i thought my comment was well measured.  just wait until i get into a court room. 

[Miss P]

i thought my comment was well measured.  just wait until i get into a court room. 

I didn't think it was too harsh.  People need to realize that what a man does with his male private part has very little to do with what he thinks and does in the world at large.  The man has made narrowly construing questions so that they make black people look bad his mission in life.  I think that's racist, and I really don't say that lightly.

[Lurking Third Year]

I don't know why I am deciding to take this flame seriously, but here are a few initial thoughts on Sander's new study.  (It's hard to make deeper arguments without reading the article, which isn't released yet.)

1. Where does Sander get the idea that LS grades are the best predictor -- or even a single very good predictor -- of performance as an attorney?  While I'm sure this is possible, I haven't ever read a study that suggests that grades alone account for law firm performance, and I think a lot of the things that make a good firm lawyer (networking, client relations, negotiation skills, relationships with superiors, grooming and etiquette), etc. have nothing to do with getting good grades.  (For the sake of this argument, I'm assuming that everyone who graduates in the top 2/3 or so of an elite LS class has the minimum requisite writing skills and legal know-how to push paper around correctly.)

I don't think anyone would seriously argue that grades are the sole predictor of law firm performance.  But, similarly, there's no question that large firm place huge emphasis on grades, and so they must have some predictive power.  Unless big firms are acting entirely irrationally, which is possible, but it seems unlikely.

[Miss P]

I don't know why I am deciding to take this flame seriously, but here are a few initial thoughts on Sander's new study.  (It's hard to make deeper arguments without reading the article, which isn't released yet.)

1. Where does Sander get the idea that LS grades are the best predictor -- or even a single very good predictor -- of performance as an attorney?  While I'm sure this is possible, I haven't ever read a study that suggests that grades alone account for law firm performance, and I think a lot of the things that make a good firm lawyer (networking, client relations, negotiation skills, relationships with superiors, grooming and etiquette), etc. have nothing to do with getting good grades.  (For the sake of this argument, I'm assuming that everyone who graduates in the top 2/3 or so of an elite LS class has the minimum requisite writing skills and legal know-how to push paper around correctly.)

I don't think anyone would seriously argue that grades are the sole predictor of law firm performance.  But, similarly, there's no question that large firm place huge emphasis on grades, and so they must have some predictive power.  Unless big firms are acting entirely irrationally, which is possible, but it seems unlikely.

It seems quite likely that law firms use grades as an index of certain qualities (dependability, timeliness, ability to prioritize/juggle responsibilities, etc.) that make good employees.  I would be interested, however, in knowing whether those with lower grades are actually less developed in these areas.  We are talking about people who scored just below the middle of the curve at T14 law schools.  I assume they are all generally functional people.

[Miss P]

I assume they are all generally functional people.

Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz: We're all generally functional people

LOL.  I meant that these baseline, "good worker" qualities -- the ones that probably have the most to do with grades --- are about their general functioning.  The other things -- their creativity, insight, client relationships, networking ability, communication skills, etc. -- that make them brilliant lawyers are less easily captured by grades.  I would assume.  Remember, my comments were very speculative, and I am open to hearing more ideas and/or evidence about the relationship between LS grades and performance at law firms.

[Miss P]

i thought my comment was well measured.  just wait until i get into a court room. 

I didn't think it was too harsh.  People need to realize that what a man does with his male private part has very little to do with what he thinks and does in the world at large.  The man has made narrowly construing questions so that they make black people look bad his mission in life.  I think that's racist, and I really don't say that lightly.

I think his comments are as silly as those calling black republicans "uncle toms." The very idea that you’ve jumped to racism because you don't agree with his policy preferences and, in your view, "the man has made narrowly construing questions so that they make black people look bad his mission in life,” says something about your ability to understand the ideas of people you disagree with. “Fascist,” “racist,” “nazi,” and “bigot,” all have definite means. Stop using them to bludgeon others with the liberal equivalent of “evil.”

What does this tirade say about your "ability to understand the ideas of people you disagree with," Breadboy?  I am always respectful of you and I try to engage you in rational debate when we meet up, so I really don't know what you are talking about.

The notion that Sander is not racist because he sired a black child is ridiculous.  I was mostly responding to Shaz's explication of how stupid that is. 

It may have been more politic for me to say that I have been following Sander's work for a long time, and I find his studies so flawed and convoluted that my only explanation is that he has determined their outcome -- that affirmative action is unacceptable -- before really giving a hard look at the evidence.  Either that, or he's not very smart.  I would guess it's more the former.  I think that makes him guilty of having an anti-black bias.  Perhaps you disagree.  We can discuss that, but only if you drop the hysteria.

Before tonight, I have never called anyone (or their work) racist, fascist, evil, or Nazi on the boards.  Don't tell me to "stop" doing something I have never done.  I reserve this term for people and behaviors that I think are really consciously working to advance or perpetuate systemic racial inequality, and Sander is one of the few people I would ever use it on.  Thanks.

p.s. I didn't call him racist; I called his work racist. I think there's a difference.

[Lurking Third Year]

I don't know why I am deciding to take this flame seriously, but here are a few initial thoughts on Sander's new study.  (It's hard to make deeper arguments without reading the article, which isn't released yet.)

1. Where does Sander get the idea that LS grades are the best predictor -- or even a single very good predictor -- of performance as an attorney?  While I'm sure this is possible, I haven't ever read a study that suggests that grades alone account for law firm performance, and I think a lot of the things that make a good firm lawyer (networking, client relations, negotiation skills, relationships with superiors, grooming and etiquette), etc. have nothing to do with getting good grades.  (For the sake of this argument, I'm assuming that everyone who graduates in the top 2/3 or so of an elite LS class has the minimum requisite writing skills and legal know-how to push paper around correctly.)

I don't think anyone would seriously argue that grades are the sole predictor of law firm performance.  But, similarly, there's no question that large firm place huge emphasis on grades, and so they must have some predictive power.  Unless big firms are acting entirely irrationally, which is possible, but it seems unlikely.

It seems quite likely that law firms use grades as an index of certain qualities (dependability, timeliness, ability to prioritize/juggle responsibilities, etc.) that make good employees.  I would be interested, however, in knowing whether those with lower grades are actually less developed in these areas.  We are talking about people who scored just below the middle of the curve at T14 law schools.  I assume they are all generally functional people.

I think the idea is that there probably ARE students who, despite not doing as well, would perform just as well, if not better, than the students at the top of the class. But there's no easy way for firms to tell those students from the others who didn't perform well because they lack teh qualities firms are looking for.  Firms are generally very risk adverse in their hiring.  Between the fall recruiting process and of coruse the second year summer, firms spend a huge amount of money on recruiting, and they are just not willing to take any chances.