There are no jobs for lawyers, period. My son worked full time and went to law school at night. It took him four years. He is $200,000 in debt (including his undergraduate school). He passed the Massachusetts Bar on his first try. He has been unable to find a job--any job--in the law in Massachusetts, mostly because he is competing with people who attended top-tier law schools, which do not have "night school" for lawyers. Also, because he worked full-time while attending law school, he was unable to do any clerkships or internships, unlike those who attend law school during the day. Just before I retired from my final job, we had more female attorneys at the office in which I worked than male attorneys. It was a state job, and, although the pay was no where nearly what attorneys could make in the private sector, the benefits and prospects for growth are exceptional. My son might have been able to apply for a job, except his bar membership was from a different state. My advice: Don't go to law school. If you do decide to do that, specialize in health care compliance. That's where most of the job growth is these days.
13
yes, those numbers do seem a bit off. especially that 4 percent more male applicants get in to law school than female. i can see where that would be considered a problem.
that said, i can't help but notice this sentence and statistic that is thrown out, but completely glossed over and ignored: "Even though women earn 57 percent of college degrees..."
so wait, why is it a crisis that there are 4 percent more men than women in law school, but not a crisis that there are 14 percent more women than men graduating college?
if that number were reversed, that would have been THE issue of at least the dem primaries, maybe even the general. but instead it is completely ignored.
by the way, men without college degrees voted in huge numbers for Trump. perhaps addressing that whole men-dropping-out thing could have made a difference...
that said, i can't help but notice this sentence and statistic that is thrown out, but completely glossed over and ignored: "Even though women earn 57 percent of college degrees..."
so wait, why is it a crisis that there are 4 percent more men than women in law school, but not a crisis that there are 14 percent more women than men graduating college?
if that number were reversed, that would have been THE issue of at least the dem primaries, maybe even the general. but instead it is completely ignored.
by the way, men without college degrees voted in huge numbers for Trump. perhaps addressing that whole men-dropping-out thing could have made a difference...
7
Was there any control for LSAT scores? This article states that:
"women... have lower LSAT scores (on average) than men"
An male/female enrollment discrepancy of approximately 5% at top law schools cannot possibly account for the wide divergence in the representation of men and women in roles as partners, judges, general counsel, etc. where, for instance, women hold under 20% of law firm partnerships at big NY law firms (as discussed in the article linked below). The numbers discussed in this article are negligible, and would at best indicate merely a slight preference or aptitude of men for the practice of law; nothing more.
I don't find anything discussed in this article problematic - there are many worse statistics that one can find that attest to discrepancies between men and women in the practice of law.
"women... have lower LSAT scores (on average) than men"
An male/female enrollment discrepancy of approximately 5% at top law schools cannot possibly account for the wide divergence in the representation of men and women in roles as partners, judges, general counsel, etc. where, for instance, women hold under 20% of law firm partnerships at big NY law firms (as discussed in the article linked below). The numbers discussed in this article are negligible, and would at best indicate merely a slight preference or aptitude of men for the practice of law; nothing more.
I don't find anything discussed in this article problematic - there are many worse statistics that one can find that attest to discrepancies between men and women in the practice of law.
8
Looking at the numbers cited in this article, the differences in almost every comparison are quite small, not deserving of such trumpeting as evidence of discrimination.
The bias towards finding fault starts early in this piece: "New research indicates that female law students are clustered in lower-ranked schools . . ." Notice that this implies outside forces are "clustering" women, rather than it being the direct result of their individual choices and scores attained in the various gender-neutral tests including the LSAT.
I see little statistical justification for that implication, nor for the overall tenor of the arguments put forth to support it.
The bias towards finding fault starts early in this piece: "New research indicates that female law students are clustered in lower-ranked schools . . ." Notice that this implies outside forces are "clustering" women, rather than it being the direct result of their individual choices and scores attained in the various gender-neutral tests including the LSAT.
I see little statistical justification for that implication, nor for the overall tenor of the arguments put forth to support it.
11
Firms are offering fewer high paid starting positions, except for the very top firms they just don't have the high value work they used to have. Talk to a lawyer about filing a lawsuit and if there is not at least a half million in controversy he will say forget it. If you insist on suing he might say ok but give me a 50,000 retainer and expect your costs to be at least 100,000. Normal people can't use lawyers any more except for contingency fee cases or criminal cases where the states pay for defense counsel. Tasks that used to be the work of lawyers are now the work of computers, or accountants. Lawsuits against big business now are subject to mandatory arbitration, which means for the vast majority of cases you can't get a big pay out and it does not pay an attorney to pursue them. (Actually that is one of the main purposes of mandatory arbitration clauses.)
4
Talk about splitting hairs. Variations of only 1-3% mean almost nothing. The application data maintained by the LSAC is tremendously flawed as well. It does not account for the fact that many people apply to multiple schools simultaneously. I wonder why the author did not reference the fact that males who have lower LSAT scores, also have the same challenges getting into top tier schools, and then also have the same challenges getting jobs out of those mid tier schools. Maybe the author should compare the prospects of people with similar LSAT scores. As is - this study is a tremendous over reach and silly manipulation of statistics.
Besides, anyone who graduates from law school, can take the bar exam, and start their own law practice. Nothing stopping female law grads from doing that. The idea that jobs are crackers that should be handed out to anyone with degree is folly. There are law schools from coast to coast who will take the money of just about anybody. A law degree is a piece of paper - and not a right to a job.
Besides, anyone who graduates from law school, can take the bar exam, and start their own law practice. Nothing stopping female law grads from doing that. The idea that jobs are crackers that should be handed out to anyone with degree is folly. There are law schools from coast to coast who will take the money of just about anybody. A law degree is a piece of paper - and not a right to a job.
4
With the exception of Legal Aid, does this society really have a pressing need for more lawyers? Of any gender?
17
How is it that of all the lawyers that I've dealt with over the years, only one was a fair-minded person? I can't remember a question on the LSAT about legal ethics...
5
I went to a well thought of state law school more than 30 years ago. Our class was just under 50 per cent female. The women and men did about the same and were equally represented on law review. I think the men did better in obtaining the first job, if better is the bigger law firms. But, now it does seem that women are at least equally represented on the bench, as law school professors and deans, as corporate counsel and in the big firms. Women are in senior management at the firm where I practice. The problems described in the article are not evident in Arizona. But, I do think there is an over supply of law school graduates, and I believe this does limit opportunities for both women and men.
7
So why do women score - on average - two points lower on the LSAT than men? This is clearly the key to why there are fewer women in these top 50 law schools. As the LSAT is an objective standard and is close to everything when it comes to gaining entrance to law schools, the article should have delved into this aspect of law school selection.
Instead we are left rather dangling in the wind when to comes "Why" though we certainly are treated to a lot of the "What".
Instead we are left rather dangling in the wind when to comes "Why" though we certainly are treated to a lot of the "What".
7
Very, too, much emphasis on LSAT scores. Graduates of prestigious law schools are entitled to first consideration but there are many graduates from 2nd tier schools with bar examination scores in the top 4-5%. These are usually goal orientated achievers who have no problem with providing discretionary effort regardless of their gender.
3
It does a disservice to women to discount the single most important objective measure of a law school applicant's likelihood of success in law school -- the LSAT test, just as it would do a disservice to women for a law school to choose a male applicant with a lower LSAT score than a female applicant with a higher LSAT score or for a law firm to hire a male applicant with a lower law school GPA than a female applicant with a higher law school GPA from the same law school. Instead of complaining about how the best objective measures of readiness are used, work harder to do better relative to those objective measures. "Everyone gets a trophy" is cold comfort to a criminal defendant facing the loss of his or her liberty, or an immigrant facing deportation.
4
Someone needs to tell these women that the jobs available to anyone (male or female) in high powered law firms are becoming fewer and fewer. I read just a week ago here in the NY times (I think) that some of these law firms are actually downgrading the number lawyers who had previously made partner. Couple that with computers (mergers and acquisitions used to hire hundreds of lawyers and now let computers do the grunt work which has whittled hundreds down to about 10) and there is simply not the demand that used to exist.
If you love the law then by all means study it but go to law school with the full knowledge that the big law firms jobs are going by the wayside and have been disrupted like everything else. Arguing over the carcass of the legal profession male versus female serves little purpose.
If you love the law then by all means study it but go to law school with the full knowledge that the big law firms jobs are going by the wayside and have been disrupted like everything else. Arguing over the carcass of the legal profession male versus female serves little purpose.
34
The NYT neglects a key fact in this article regarding its enrollment stats that leads me conclude that its definition of "women" refers to only white women. Just looking at the stats at Harvard, Yale, and Stanford (interchangeably the best law schools in the country), minority women significantly outnumber minority men while white women are outnumbered by white men (significantly at Harvard and less so at Yale/Stanford).
1
What about trans women and gender fluid individual, they might be even more oppressed by this unhealthy obsession with analytical skills as captured by LSAT.
1
There are fewer "good" jobs for anyone in the legal profession, period. It has nothing to do with gender, though the Times would like it to be so.
15
Exactly.
5
How is the LSAT biased against women again?
Can we get out of this knee jerk reaction of assuming every standardized test that you don't do well in is automatically somehow biased against you?
Can we get out of this knee jerk reaction of assuming every standardized test that you don't do well in is automatically somehow biased against you?
7
more like, more law degrees for white women, just like everything else in the white women's liberation movement--shuts out all non-white women and takes all of the opportunities for white people only. thus they are no different than white men.
4
The research design seems to assume that high-achieving women would want the same career as high achieving men and so you would expect them applying to LS in equal numbers. Given the notoriously un-family-friendly demands of "BigLaw," not to mention other areas of unpleasantness, I think that assumption is doubtful.
5
I went to Ohio State Law School. Then I went on for the Ph.D at Ohio State. I was doing so well, that Sorbonne transferred me... that's the top Ph.D program: Thought. What I want to say is: don't get "psyched-out" by attending a supposedly low tier law school. It depends on what you do when you get there! There is even more weed-out for World Level jobs. Individual accomplishments count. The President of the USA has only a National Level job. World Level is the highest in The Workplace. People can move-up. I went to the Columbus Ohio Public Schools K-12, and for 2 years a NYC Public School in Queens (not even a famous public school like Stuyvesant or The Arts). You can rise from lower middle class to the extremely wealthy. Sometimes The World doesn't pass you by, IT HAPPENS !! I have a World Class Job now! Don't be psyched-out! And remember, The Personal is Professional.
Another puff piece in my opinion. Nothing remarkable in the statistics except the complete lack of economic and other demographics. Maybe, to the consternation of the authors (who are lawyers), woman are smart enough to realize that getting a law degree does very little to boost their economic standing. In fact it will decrease due to the debt they will have saddled themselves with.
5
I am amazed that anybody wants to be a lawyer as I have never met one who seemed to be happy. Money is the driver I would guess. Same thing is true for a lot of MDs. They tell their kids not to go into medicine.
5
Law schools are no different than any other graduate ( or undergarduate) schools which chrurn out grads, regardless of employment prospects.
As long as someone is willing to pay them ( via a student loan or in other ways) these schools will continue to thrive. This is America! And make no mistake, schools are big business, there are countless ways to spend your money. It is the responsibility of each individual to evaluate their ROI.
As long as someone is willing to pay them ( via a student loan or in other ways) these schools will continue to thrive. This is America! And make no mistake, schools are big business, there are countless ways to spend your money. It is the responsibility of each individual to evaluate their ROI.
13
Articles like this are meaningless. Over the last 40 years, I've seen women succeed in law school and big firms. In the 1970s, 45% of my law school class (UPENN) were women. When I started my first legal job at a big Wall Street law firm, 50% of the starting class were women. Yes, I observed lots of sexism from older partners. But I also watched as women became partners in the firm. And I watched as men and women from "lesser" law schools like Fordham, St. Johns, and NY Law became partners. The men and women who succeeded had one thing in common; they were excellent lawyers who proved themselves.
I also watched the cycles in the legal profession that saw lawyers losing their jobs, culminating in the bursting of the big law firm bubble in 2007-2009. Lots of good lawyers left on the street after all the high paying jobs supporting the financial machinations of Wall Street dried up. Unfortunately, too many compliance jobs that companies must fill but which are not valued by the companies have become the resting place for too many lawyers. Too many lawyers chasing ambulances and torturing people with law suits designed only to generate income for lawyers. Maybe an article investigating where women find themselves years after graduating law school (and why they find themselves there) would be more interesting. Alas, anecdotes of several people may be interesting, but really does not pass for investigative journalism.
I also watched the cycles in the legal profession that saw lawyers losing their jobs, culminating in the bursting of the big law firm bubble in 2007-2009. Lots of good lawyers left on the street after all the high paying jobs supporting the financial machinations of Wall Street dried up. Unfortunately, too many compliance jobs that companies must fill but which are not valued by the companies have become the resting place for too many lawyers. Too many lawyers chasing ambulances and torturing people with law suits designed only to generate income for lawyers. Maybe an article investigating where women find themselves years after graduating law school (and why they find themselves there) would be more interesting. Alas, anecdotes of several people may be interesting, but really does not pass for investigative journalism.
8
My earlier comment supporting your position did not pass the NY TImes *approval*.
The actual experiences of lawyers with experience practicing law is irrelevant to this kind of *woe is me* article.
Too many women find practicing law too difficult. Law school never has and never will prepare anyone for the demands of real life law practice. I am the third in a five generation series of lawyers. The highest tier of lawyers is those who are out there solving problems for human beings, not judges or law school professors or corporate counsel. Those are all *cushy*, time demand limited jobs. (Remember the old adage: *A students become law professors, B students become judges and C students become rich.*
It is a strange sort of ranking that places being a law professor or law dean or judge or corporate counsel ahead of those who actually help people solve their legal problems.
My observations is that many judges in lower courts are women, corporation legal offices are highly staffed with women, as are government job of all sorts.
The actual experiences of lawyers with experience practicing law is irrelevant to this kind of *woe is me* article.
Too many women find practicing law too difficult. Law school never has and never will prepare anyone for the demands of real life law practice. I am the third in a five generation series of lawyers. The highest tier of lawyers is those who are out there solving problems for human beings, not judges or law school professors or corporate counsel. Those are all *cushy*, time demand limited jobs. (Remember the old adage: *A students become law professors, B students become judges and C students become rich.*
It is a strange sort of ranking that places being a law professor or law dean or judge or corporate counsel ahead of those who actually help people solve their legal problems.
My observations is that many judges in lower courts are women, corporation legal offices are highly staffed with women, as are government job of all sorts.
5
Three brief questions/comments: It's national news that the statistic gap between one gender and another in elite colleges is 47% v. 53% (+/-3), without any indication of a 3-, 5-, 10-year trend? Also, if the percentages were reversed, would that be considered newsworthy (and by whom)? Finally, can't Siri with a little coaxing turn out these "statistics oh gosh!" articles and save the Times some serious money?
3
The openly sexist LSAT should be banned, it is obviously disadvantaging cis-women compared to cis-men. NIH should now fund extensions of this highly important study to study the disparity between trans-women with cis-men, and trans-men with cis-men, who may be even more disadvantaged by the ridiculous stress LSAT places on reasoning and analytical skills.
1
Maybe we ought to call it the cis-male LSAT. Then we could develop tests for all the other genders.
1
The notion that one should even seek a high paying job with a powerful firm as the norm by which our lives are guided bothers me. It places the monetary about the legal/ethical; the gold above above the truth of what advocacy and counsel are supposed to be about. Why is being a solo practititioner scraping out a living for people who cannot afford the "good jobs" not actually what people should be shooting for in life. Well people go into medicine for the money and prestige as well I guess. However I suggest Tolstoy's Death of Ivan Illyich - http://web.stanford.edu/~jsabol/existentialism/materials/tolstoy_death_i... should be required reading before one becomes a part of this accursed field.
4
Also, Charles Dickens' " Bleak House " and Shakespeare's " Merchant of Venice ".
1
I've practiced 33 years now, and the headline is deceiving. What some people might describe as "good job" to me is not. It's wasting valuable legal talent on pushing papers and rearranging zeros on a balance sheet in a polluted city. That is hardly the reason I went into law.
I help ordinary, average working families and juveniles. I help these folks through the toughest times in their lives, death, divorce, crime. It's my pleasure, I sleep well at night, my kid is in college, and I am getting all my bills paid, though not vacationing in Italy or sailing the Caribbean. Anyway, it's better to see the bald eagles on my way to work, near the lake, enjoy Cub Scouts and small town life.
I help ordinary, average working families and juveniles. I help these folks through the toughest times in their lives, death, divorce, crime. It's my pleasure, I sleep well at night, my kid is in college, and I am getting all my bills paid, though not vacationing in Italy or sailing the Caribbean. Anyway, it's better to see the bald eagles on my way to work, near the lake, enjoy Cub Scouts and small town life.
24
You mean the toughest times in their lives when they split up from their spouse and want to retain the maximum amount of assets and/or custody of the kids, which they perceive as a zero sum gain and they retain you to make sure they aren't the ones who end up with the zero? Or the toughest times in their lives when they commit crimes and have to figure out how to best to avoid the consequences? Yes, I can see that this would make for a rich and fulfilling life.
That's the point. You do not describe my work, nor a "good" job. Falsely accused individuals need representation the most. That is why Jefferson insisted on several Constitutional Amendments regarding the rights of accused. And you'd agree that abused spouses need to get out.
You wouldn't want to hear the details of some of their situations, nor even imagine their lives of suffering, which I help to alleviate.
A person can be forever warped by childhood turmoil, physical and mental disability, abandonment, drug addiction, alcoholism, and abject poverty. The real world isn't nearly as nice as you'd imagine.
You wouldn't want to hear the details of some of their situations, nor even imagine their lives of suffering, which I help to alleviate.
A person can be forever warped by childhood turmoil, physical and mental disability, abandonment, drug addiction, alcoholism, and abject poverty. The real world isn't nearly as nice as you'd imagine.
7
I think you are describing social work, not paid, adversarial legal representation. I am aware of the un-niceness of the real world, much of which is caused by lawyers.
If you double the supply, the price will drop. Are you surprised?
13
There is nothing remarkable in these statistics. In other words, due to the differentials discussed, the equality of the system should not be in question.
10
A "good job" in law is one in which you spend 80 hours per week while billing for 100 defending white collar criminals against the government, figuring out how to separate honest people from their money through unreadable legal documents, and basically being a bag man for America's oligarchs.
Pity the poor female law students.
Pity the poor female law students.
21
Don't you think that going from 51% of applicants to 49.4% of students doesn't really scream "disadvantage" to most people?
18
The author is trying to make a point that women are being discriminated against in the legal field but none of the arguments put forth in the article point to that conclusion. The differences in enrollment rate is such a small percentage point that it might not represent anything statistically significant.
Also, LSAT scores are not subjective and a clear indicator into successful test taking which is of significant importance when the student will be expected to pass the Bar exam. If women are consistently getting lower scores than the question should be why and how can we address that, not how can we lower the standards. That will only set women up for failure.
Also, the legal market has changed. There are far few jobs, with historically lower pay rates, yet the number of candidates remains the same. The market is very competitive leaving most of the employment opportunity to the cream of the crop.
Also, LSAT scores are not subjective and a clear indicator into successful test taking which is of significant importance when the student will be expected to pass the Bar exam. If women are consistently getting lower scores than the question should be why and how can we address that, not how can we lower the standards. That will only set women up for failure.
Also, the legal market has changed. There are far few jobs, with historically lower pay rates, yet the number of candidates remains the same. The market is very competitive leaving most of the employment opportunity to the cream of the crop.
20
From my perspective as a long-time advocate for advancement of women and minorities in the legal profession, the stats reported are par for the course. The law business has not done enough to effectively use its surplus of talent for the unmet legal needs of the vast majority of people in the US. There is an opportunity here for large law firms to come on board in a major way beyond limited pro bono programs to champion new models of delivering legal services for people who can't afford hourly rates of $400-$1,000+. It would be one step in turning around public disdain for the law profession. This effort has leaders in our bar associations, law schools and judiciary, but not enough followers among law firms and lawyers making huge amounts of money supporting global businesses.
1
Surely you are joking, unmet needs in this most litigious nation on planet earth. In fact the number of lawyer might be halved tomorrow, and the GDP will rise a couple of points, and healthcare costs come down.
1
This is not a problem for the amorphous "big law" - any qualified lawyer can hang out her sign and practice law while billing whatever she wants.
The fact that few female graduates choose to do so may reflect a flaw in your thesis that there is a growing market for "new models of delivering legal services for people who can't afford hourly rates of $400-$1,000+. "
What they / you want is big law to offer up millions of dollars of professional representation work that is absolutely free delivered by lawyers who were at the top of their class at some of the best school in the country.
The fact that few female graduates choose to do so may reflect a flaw in your thesis that there is a growing market for "new models of delivering legal services for people who can't afford hourly rates of $400-$1,000+. "
What they / you want is big law to offer up millions of dollars of professional representation work that is absolutely free delivered by lawyers who were at the top of their class at some of the best school in the country.
1
This is a bogus issue. When I was in law school 30 years ago, you could count the number of women law students on one hand. Today my law school has probably 60% women. My first job was with the DA's office in Houston. At that time the office had around 100 attorneys and exactly 3 were women. Today that same office has over 60% women.
The only advantage to going to an upper tier law school is if you want to work for one of those huge upper tier law firms that will pay you a good starting salary but expects you to sell your soul to them in return. No thanks. I have my own law firm, make as much as I want, take only cases I want, and take off whenever I want. You can do this whether you're a women or a man. I realize women faced discrimination in the law in the past, but not anymore. The problem, as I see it, is that women are less inclined to take the chance to go out on their own. They feel that they need the stability of a good paying job. Statistics bare this out. But this is changing as more and more women realize that they can do better on their own than depending on an uncertain job market. Just like they are realizing they may be better off not depending on their husband for all of their support. The TV show "The Good Wife" depicted this very dilemma.
The only advantage to going to an upper tier law school is if you want to work for one of those huge upper tier law firms that will pay you a good starting salary but expects you to sell your soul to them in return. No thanks. I have my own law firm, make as much as I want, take only cases I want, and take off whenever I want. You can do this whether you're a women or a man. I realize women faced discrimination in the law in the past, but not anymore. The problem, as I see it, is that women are less inclined to take the chance to go out on their own. They feel that they need the stability of a good paying job. Statistics bare this out. But this is changing as more and more women realize that they can do better on their own than depending on an uncertain job market. Just like they are realizing they may be better off not depending on their husband for all of their support. The TV show "The Good Wife" depicted this very dilemma.
8
I attend a top 10 law school and my class is 37% women. Top law firms only recruit from top law schools, so having fewer women in our class means there will be less women at top law firms. So long as top law firms continue to be 'boys clubs,' there will be no change in the culture across the legal profession in the private sector. I consider this article a call to top law schools to admit more women.
3
In spite of the title, the piece doesn't really address employment obstacles for female attorneys. Indeed, prestige of one's law school, costs of attendance, and test scores all affect success in the profession. But it's the difficulty in overcoming gender bias that keeps many law firms predominantly male. Change doesn't happen without a concerted effort by management to widen the circle, become more inclusive. This goes for any traditionally excluded group: women, people of color, and older people. Those who hire must be prepared to accept colleagues who are not all cut from familiar cloth. This, as with all growth, is a challenge some do not want to confront.
6
Don't forget that that most large law firms and corporations have set up offshore teams of lawyers, mostly in India, to perform the work of paralegals and lawyers at half the US cost or less. Like IT, customer support, and other functions, legal work is being set abroad on a large scale. The women interviewed for the this article might consider plumbing or electrical - these are two trades that will not get outsourced anytime soon.
13
Maybe women in general are smarter than men in deciding not to go to law school. Maybe those women applying to law schools are skewed toward lower achievers with the higher achievers realizing there are better careers out there.
4
This is an old, old story by now. It has a solution, but not one that most women, in my experience want to hear. Men make more money because that's what society rewards. Particularly when it comes to sex, men understand that women want men who have successful careers (the reverse is mostly NOT true). This is why the top ranks of law firms are male. Because that's what both men and women reward in our society. We can choose to change that, but in order to do so we must start penalizing high-status men (both economically and romantically). This sounds hard, even impossible, but it's not. I get how hard this is and perhaps how impractical this is in the short term, but women (and gay men) need to start choosing the artist over the lawyer, the teacher over the CEO. When status and money are less appealing for men this problem will get better. Until then, well, I think you're just blowing in the wind.
3
Missing the real point: The legal profession in America is over-saturated. There is no need for the number of lawyers being pumped out of the law school "machine". A law degree once meant a guaranteed career. Today, a law degree is just another route to under-employment, over-qualification (scores of people with law degrees working in non-legal positions) and even unemployment. Work backwards from this issue and the topic of the article is greatly elucidated.
14
Say, 4 people graduate from the same school with the same grades: One each - black, white - male and female.
They are interviewed by the same firm for a job, and one of them gets hired.
How would the other 3 explain why they did not get the job? Do this by giving the job to each in turn.
It is complicated! While data reveals patterns, each decision is individual and personal - and there is no universal way to achieve equality of outcome other than random quotas, which may not produce the best results for the employer. The is NO "app" for this and folly to think there can or should be.
They are interviewed by the same firm for a job, and one of them gets hired.
How would the other 3 explain why they did not get the job? Do this by giving the job to each in turn.
It is complicated! While data reveals patterns, each decision is individual and personal - and there is no universal way to achieve equality of outcome other than random quotas, which may not produce the best results for the employer. The is NO "app" for this and folly to think there can or should be.
2
Clustering? Really, a 6% difference between the percentage of women (47% V. 53%) at the two categories of law schools means women are "clustering" at the less elite schools?
8
I agree. I read this article, shaking my head, and saying, "That's not such a big spread." And, "That's a tremendous amount of progress in a decade." The statistics just don't match the implications/conclusion of 'disadvantaged, gap, and significant difference'.
3
This is so hardly the issue. Having been a big law attorney, on the coasts and the Midwest, I have seen very highly credentialed - top schools, law review, federal clerkship - very hard working and very good women attorneys shown the door - subtly and not so, after ten or so years or when the going gets tough because they are not generating business and bringing in the clients. Meanwhile, Mr. Second Tier - still has got a very good gig because his golf buddies, college roommate, entrepreneurial neighbor etc. is throwing him business. No one cares about your Harvard degree if you are not bringing in the bucks.
22
Women are as smart as men, but men have been analytical and reasoning skills. This is because men need to be smooth talkers to seduce women. Not joking. Men practice convincing women to do things. Women do not practice this. Men actually study persuasive speech.
Also, more men study Philosophy and Torah/Talmud. This teaches analytical reasoning. I know almost no female Philosophy majors. I mean Wittgenstein and Russell. A lot of male Law students majored in Philosophy and studied Torah/Talmud.
If you want to do well on standardized tests, spend a year reading Wittgenstein, Davidson, Quine, Kripke, Russell, and Searle. Your test scores will improve. Conversely, the logic in The Hunger Games trilogy is very soggy. A steady diet of novels like that will destroy anybodys ability to construct logical arguments.
Also, more men study Philosophy and Torah/Talmud. This teaches analytical reasoning. I know almost no female Philosophy majors. I mean Wittgenstein and Russell. A lot of male Law students majored in Philosophy and studied Torah/Talmud.
If you want to do well on standardized tests, spend a year reading Wittgenstein, Davidson, Quine, Kripke, Russell, and Searle. Your test scores will improve. Conversely, the logic in The Hunger Games trilogy is very soggy. A steady diet of novels like that will destroy anybodys ability to construct logical arguments.
2
The real reason that many female lawyers don't make it to the higher echelons of law is too politically incorrect to admit: they don't want to. If you interview the typical female Harvard Law School Class of 2000 graduate who is now a stay at home mom, she'll tell you that her husband is a hedge fund manager or executive or physician who makes plenty of money, and that she could have continued with her career but preferred not to. After all, why work 60 hours a week only to have more than half of it taxed away when you can stay home with the kids and have time for lunch and tennis? This is an option open to upper class women in our society, but not to men. Hence the gender imbalance It is a waste of a professional degree, unfortunately.
13
On the plus side, the women not represented in the "higher echelons of law" avoid poisoning themselves in the malignant normality (a phrase from a recent NYT letter writer) of the atmosphere of self-serving duplicity that passes for the societal duties and professional ethics such higher-placed lawyers claim to be governed by. As a result those not so represented are probably better, more satisfied human beings. I hate to say it, but in my 20 years of experience in that milieu, that sort of air is being breathed all across America at those elevations.
I'm not denying sexism or any of the other proffered explanations. I am just saying, be careful what you wish for.
Not to get too off-topic, but trust me, I know what I'm talking about: I'm an ex-Skadden Arps, ex-Lehman Brothers lawyer who, three days after 9/11/01, had Lehman's CEO Dick Fuld order me to draw up director resolutions to authorize the expenditure of tens of millions of shareholder dollars so he could fly about everywhere--as required by the resolutions I wrote to do so for both business and pleasure--on a shiny new Gulfstream jet. This is how the Fulds of America roll; windows of opportunity open up, and you either cash in or you don't. 'Hey, a bunch of Americans just got killed in the most heinous way imaginable and the country is now scared witless; what's in it for me?' And that sort of higher echelon activity leaves a scum on the legal man-servants and handmaidens involved that does not wash off easily.
I'm not denying sexism or any of the other proffered explanations. I am just saying, be careful what you wish for.
Not to get too off-topic, but trust me, I know what I'm talking about: I'm an ex-Skadden Arps, ex-Lehman Brothers lawyer who, three days after 9/11/01, had Lehman's CEO Dick Fuld order me to draw up director resolutions to authorize the expenditure of tens of millions of shareholder dollars so he could fly about everywhere--as required by the resolutions I wrote to do so for both business and pleasure--on a shiny new Gulfstream jet. This is how the Fulds of America roll; windows of opportunity open up, and you either cash in or you don't. 'Hey, a bunch of Americans just got killed in the most heinous way imaginable and the country is now scared witless; what's in it for me?' And that sort of higher echelon activity leaves a scum on the legal man-servants and handmaidens involved that does not wash off easily.
16
Yeah, but "better,more satisfied human beings," does not pay rent, utilities, nor student loans.
You must have a disdain for the attorney-client privilege to reveal those details about your former client? Stunning breach of appropriateness
2
share client confidential info much?
3
"This disadvantages women, who have lower LSAT scores (on average) than men. Women score an average of two points lower than men on the LSAT.”
The SATs are racist and now the LSAT is sexist?!
The SATs are racist and now the LSAT is sexist?!
10
success is racist and sexist.
2
Just yesterday there was an article in the Daily Journal (the legal profession newspaper) here in Los Angeles about how much the economics of the legal profession have changed in the last 10-15 years, and the main thrust was how so many corporations and clients can no longer justify paying top dollar to "name" firms when they are perfectly aware they can get the same quality work done for much less by people charging hundreds of dollars an hour less. There is less money in the pot now, folks, and more people then ever are fighting to get their share of it. The big firms, still trying to milk to old model for everything they can, try to get around this by charging astronomical rates for their top partners..but the private sector is wising up. Bottom line is there just aren't as many high-paying jobs in this field as there used to be and that's going to continue for the foreseeable future. It's got nothing to do with some imaginary gender prejudice.
11
The article's points about women in the law may be well-taken, but the author overlooks the sorry state of the legal market generally. There are fewer legal jobs as a whole as well as fewer good jobs (in the sense of high-paying ones, though one might question whether that's what makes a "good" legal job). Meanwhile, too many law schools are pumping too many young lawyers, male and female, into society. So it's not only about women and their prospects. Women just happen to make up an increasing percentage of law students at a particularly bad time.
15
Many of the lawyers who make the most money are not Ivy League legal scholars who work 80 hours a week at the "BigLaw" firms on Wall Street, but rather great actors (usually from middling schools) with common sense and a good understanding of the evidence code. These are trial lawyers who usually work in small firms and can make tens of millions of dollars by taking select cases on contingency and, in some cases, adding a dash of creativity. That's not the average trial lawyer, but the point is that a successful lawyer doesn't need to have gone to Yale Law School.
13
That's an interesting point. My cousin is a partner in a successful small law firm, and does most of the hiring. He told me he is actually LEAST impressed with Ivy League graduates, citing head-in-the-clouds attitudes and a lack of roll-up-the-sleeves action.
Anecdotal, of course, but it aligns with your commentary.
Anecdotal, of course, but it aligns with your commentary.
8
Surely the lesson we can learn from Trump was that his election was a complete repudiation of this modern politically correct identity politics. The majority of white women voted for Trump, let's remember.
If men are obtaining higher scores on average than women, you will expect to see them in higher numbers at the top end of the profession. This is just logical.
The idea that there should be equal outcomes in every segment of society is not just infantile, it is exactly the type of thinking that Trumps voters rebelled against and rejected.
If men are obtaining higher scores on average than women, you will expect to see them in higher numbers at the top end of the profession. This is just logical.
The idea that there should be equal outcomes in every segment of society is not just infantile, it is exactly the type of thinking that Trumps voters rebelled against and rejected.
9
Admissions is heavily weighted towards the LSAT - and for good reason.
It's highly predictive of how you do on exams.
If girls were scoring 2 points higher on the exam , then this would be a story about male underperformance.
To give perspective - a schools LSAT 75th and 25th percentile differ by lesss then 5 points on the exam.
It's highly predictive of how you do on exams.
If girls were scoring 2 points higher on the exam , then this would be a story about male underperformance.
To give perspective - a schools LSAT 75th and 25th percentile differ by lesss then 5 points on the exam.
4
I got a near-perfect score on the LSAT, but I went to a lower-tier law school near my home because it gave me a scholarship and because I risked losing custody of my son if I moved outside a 3-county radius. I ranked at the top of my class and got interviews and a job in biglaw, where I still work. But I will never be a partner - though they say I'm on partner track - I have seen the way it works. Male associates are nurtured and given opportunities to develop client relationships. Female associates are given lots of work and very little client face-time and virtually no mentoring, probably because those who do the mentoring are all men. Females tend to move out while males move up. Some of us hang on for our own reasons, but we are seen and treated as workhorses, while the males are groomed for better things.
73
TFreePree's law firm experience is far different from my own. I'm a male at an AmLaw 100 firm and feel as much like a workhorse as she does. At my firm, workhorses that stick around, stay cordial, and make real efforts to build a book of business tend to make partner. Sensible associates that "burn out" -- meaning that conclude that the pay isn't worth the incredible stress Big Law partners regularly face -- leave. It turns out that a high percentage of sensible associates are women.
4
law degrees from non-prestigious degrees have become, de facto, basically worthless. There is a very serious glut of both attorneys and law schools. And the consequences for BOTH female and male graduates is a disaster. perhaps the NY Times should concentrate on this issue instead of the issue of "identity".
39
Yoda, they have reported in this newspaper on the situation you describe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/business/dealbook/an-expensive-law-deg...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/business/dealbook/an-expensive-law-deg...
1
Let us be more concerned with the welfare of men and women at the lower socioeconomic levels of society than the welfare of those at the most advantaged levels.
10
JoeJohn, historically we've had to get women into positions of power in order to change things for women at the lower socioeconomic levels of society.
1
JoeJohn:
Not all law students are from well-off backgrounds. Some are economically disadvantaged as well as minorities. Some seek to enter the legal profession for upward mobility -- they hope to be successful in a prestigious, well-paying field that will be offer a better life for themselves and their families and present other opportunities.
If they are making emotional and financial sacrifices that are unlikely to be rewarded they should be informed of the odds. Broader societal changes are always difficult and slow-coming, but these articles and readers' comments help inform the discussion.
Not all law students are from well-off backgrounds. Some are economically disadvantaged as well as minorities. Some seek to enter the legal profession for upward mobility -- they hope to be successful in a prestigious, well-paying field that will be offer a better life for themselves and their families and present other opportunities.
If they are making emotional and financial sacrifices that are unlikely to be rewarded they should be informed of the odds. Broader societal changes are always difficult and slow-coming, but these articles and readers' comments help inform the discussion.
3
A friend's daughter graduated from Emory, which I assume is top-ranked, but hasn't been able to find a job with a law firm. She is essentially working as a paralegal for a legal aid society until she passes the bar in the state to which she had to move.
5
Emory is terrific, but ranked outside of the top 20. In fields like Philosophy, History, and English, you pretty much need to be top 10-15 to get a good job. You can do it top 40, but it involves some luck.
Also, someone with a JD from Emory might not stoop to take a so-so job that would be gobbled up by a graduate of a much lower school.
I got a PhD from a top 40 university and would have turned my nose up at a job at a community college or low ranked state school. I have friends from Harvard who would rather not take a job than take one at a low-ranked school.
Some unemployment is self-inflicted. Not all, but some. A super smart IP lawyer from Emory or similar might not accept a low-paying job in traffic law that pays 40 grand a year. S/he may be holding out for a job in IP law in NYC or Atlanta for six figures.
Also, someone with a JD from Emory might not stoop to take a so-so job that would be gobbled up by a graduate of a much lower school.
I got a PhD from a top 40 university and would have turned my nose up at a job at a community college or low ranked state school. I have friends from Harvard who would rather not take a job than take one at a low-ranked school.
Some unemployment is self-inflicted. Not all, but some. A super smart IP lawyer from Emory or similar might not accept a low-paying job in traffic law that pays 40 grand a year. S/he may be holding out for a job in IP law in NYC or Atlanta for six figures.
9
Bottom of the class is still the bottom, Emory or not
One word explains this: children. Nothing constrains a woman's time, energy, and career-focus like childrearing. And make no mistake, whatever legal talent a woman may possess, if she has children, her skill at mothering will be society's barometer of success for her. Short of skipping parenthood altogether or outsourcing nearly 100% of childrearing, for which the career-minded mother will be positively skewered for in polite society, there are no better options.
36
Having children leads to lower LSAT scores?
1
Great observation, but I can't tell the sentiment behind it. I know scores of women who understand this, accept it, and embrace it -- they willingly sacrifice career achievement for time with the kids, and they seem genuinely content for it. On that note, I also know a lot of men who have sacrificed career achievement for more time with the kids and are also more content for it. Fact is that there is little monetary reward in spending time with kids.
Boo hoo hoo. Welcome to the real world.
We have way too many lawyers creating way too many deadweight losses for our economy and society anyway.
We have way too many lawyers creating way too many deadweight losses for our economy and society anyway.
19
Wrong. Lawyers reduce transaction costs by promoting predictable commercial results.
Do you realize how chaotic and inefficient the economy will be if the markets are unpredictable? That's the Trump way!
Do you realize how chaotic and inefficient the economy will be if the markets are unpredictable? That's the Trump way!
5
The problem isn't too many lawyers. The problem is that there is a glut in some places and a dearth in others. People in rural areas desperately need legal representation, but few highly educated people want to live there (lower-quality schools, lack of career opportunities for spouses, etc.). Legal aid offices are an option, but they are poorly funded and thus don't have the capacity to serve all who need them. Innovation in technology and the legal business are required to help both sides (attorneys and potential clients) get what they need.
1
Too many lawyers as well as too many politicians and bureaucrats.
2
Is it somehow news that attending a lower-ranked law school will not land anyone a "top legal job"?
This has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with researching employment and salary prospects *before* attending college, as did millions of people long before the internet even existed at this thing called "the library".
This has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with researching employment and salary prospects *before* attending college, as did millions of people long before the internet even existed at this thing called "the library".
16
I have recently had occasion to hire 3 different attorneys for 3 different real estate closings. Two were men; the third, a woman. The third closing went smoothly (the seller's attorney also a woman) and quickly with all details ironed out in a timely fashion and communication between her and us was excellent. The first dragged on and on as the (male) attorney left the details to his (not too competent) assistant. The second attorney actually quit mid-deal as he couldn't be bothered answering our questions or obtaining additional requested documentation. I will take a woman any day when it comes to competency and efficiency!
10
great sample size there karen - one transaction!
4
Gerry, small(er) sample size but you just illustrated Karen L.'s point. Reading carefully, you'd have noticed she was citing "3 DIFFERENT (my emphasis) real estate closings".
Yes, but a sample of one woman. Maybe, other characteristics (which were not held constant) accounted for the different perceived quality of representation. Her conclusion was that women were better--hardly supported by the sample size and data available to render such a judgement.
2
It seems that the suggestion of this article is too allow those with lower test scores to move ahead of those with higher ones based on gender. LSATs have a proven correlation to Bar passage rates and that is why law schools emphasize them in addition to the fact that they are the one common denominator among all applicants to the top schools who receive thousands of applications for limited spots. This idea that everything be judged fairly based on criteria other than performance is getting old and likely success in the chosen profession is getting old.
8
@Mind boggling: "This idea that everything be judged fairly based on criteria other than performance is getting old and likely success in the chosen profession is getting old." Not quite sure what you mean here, but I gather that you think that the practice of law has only to do with passing the bar. While it's true that LSATs do correlate to passing the bar, what happens to a person who passes the bar but has no "people skills?" I think we've seen quite a few people like that in the practice of law, to society's detriment.
3
As a female person who was always in the 99th percentile on tests like the SAT and GRE and spent some time a couple years ago trying to help a much younger person prep (it isn't really studying) for the LSAT, I am of the firm opinion that these exams measure the ability to actively resist overthinking, aware that one is being asked to answer questions put by non-geniuses. Perhaps the same skills help with the Bar exam. That would explain the correlation you cite without necessarily implying greater ability to do legal work.
1
Could it be possible that there are differences between men and women?
And if there are differences might it also be possible that males may be better suited to the practice of law than females?
And if there are differences might it also be possible that males may be better suited to the practice of law than females?
4
@Alan Phoenix: You seem to think that "the practice of law" is a monolithic entity. In fact, if you know something about it, you will see that there are many, many ways to practice law, some of which never involve courtrooms. Being confrontative is a trait much more often praised in men, which probably leads more of them to think they would be good lawyers. But a very high percentage of lawyers do transactional work where the ability to speak authoritatively to a judge, for instance, is worth little. I'm glad you phrased your contribution above as a question. My answer to your "could it be?" is "no."
1
I am retired after more that 30 years as an attorney. I learned early that there are only two types of attorneys: those that work hard and those that don't. I've worked with or against many female attorneys. Some were awful, most were competent and hard working and some were brilliant. But so were the same percentage of each who were male.
4
Although probably not politically correct to say so, it is a well known fact that men have a wider IQ range than women. Although the average woman may well be smarter than the average man, there are far more really smart men than really smart women and more really stupid men than really stupid women.
There will always be room at the top of these professions and plenty of opportunity for the best and brightest. Others need to consider whether it makes sense for them to spend a lot of time and money if they have poor prospects to compete well and succeed in a merit based system. Unfortunately the message from our government and society for so many years is "everyone is equal", which is wrong in the real world.
9
The vast majority of attorneys in this country do not work for the few prestigious firms. They are in the trenches every day helping everyday people and businesses. It is sad that it seems that many people go to law school, not to become good attorneys but as a path to great wealth.
3
"Unfortunately the message from our government and society for so many years is "everyone is equal", which is wrong in the real world."
But as in Animal Farm, some (blacks, women, hispanics) are more equal than others due to "affirmative action".
But as in Animal Farm, some (blacks, women, hispanics) are more equal than others due to "affirmative action".
4
Fewer good jobs is really the operative phrase here. Yes, women have endured discrimination in the business of law, that is a fact. But the real issue now is jobs in the legal field. They are shrinking each year at an astronomical pace. For anyone who still wants to become a lawyer, such an individual must go to one of the so-called "top tier" schools in order to have a chance at any decent job. And even graduation from these schools does not guarantee employment. Maybe the ABA or the various law schools will one day wake up and see what is really happening to job prospects for lawyers and stop allowing hordes of graduates to be pushed through the schools with their mountains of debt only to find the reality of employment as an attorney.
12
No one is forcing anyone to go to law school, especially since the oversupply of lawyers has been going on for more than eight years.
4
If a "decent" job is a high paid job at a top civil firm, then very few attorneys have a "decent" job. I am a retired Public Defender. it was the greatest job I've ever had. It even beats being a design engineer on an artificial heart project. But the work was horrendously hard and exhausting and the pay wan't that great. But I) an=m proud of being able to help a lot of people. No one should go to law school med school for the money.
3
Actually, more than 50 years. However, the ability of lawyers to create their own demand (the Say's law of the legal guild) has (at least temporarily) is now failing to work as well as lawyers would like it to. Of course, foreign supply has also impinged upon domestic production.
My father works with a lawyer who went to law school at night at an unaccredited law school. He started his own firm in an office a little bit larger than a closet. He built it up to a firm with 25 employees. He made $500,000 last year. I'm not saying that going to a top 15 law school doesn't help but the law is a business. There is money to be mad by anyone who wants to work hard. I go to a top 50 law school. Personally, I wish they took fewer women, because if they had not accepted me I would not be so miserable.
15
Personally, I wish they took fewer women, because if they had not accepted me I would not be so miserable.
Thats cute and clever. It exhibits skill at paradoxical reasoning. Thats usually a male skill.
Thats cute and clever. It exhibits skill at paradoxical reasoning. Thats usually a male skill.
The reality is that there just too many lawyers out there. The public knows this and the days of attorneys charging what the "traffic will bear" are over in most places. In our CPA practice it is common for our small business clients to shop around for attorneys. There is any discrimination between female or male attorneys with our clients. I do not think the clients really care whether the attorney went to Yale or to the University of Illinois law school or the University of Toledo law school. They are looking for experience and reasonable fees.
9
Omitted from the article is what the trend has been over time, particularly the last 5 to 10 years. Is the gap narrowing or increasing? If it is increasing, then this is a much more significant story.
5
We have too many lawyers. Yet, we knew this 20 years ago. Now it's the law schools' fault? Be serious.
23
It's not just law school that prevents women from rising in the legal field; it's gender discrimination in the workplace. Firms, particularly the big firms, will deny that such discrimination exists. Don't believe them. The attitudes toward women are deeply ingrained, insidious and lethal.
I did not score 2 points below most men on the LSATs; I scored above the 99th percentile. With that score, and a graduate degree from an ivy league school (as well as an undergraduate degree from a respected public university), I was accepted by Harvard, Columbia and NYU. I attended Columbia because my spouse could not move to Boston.
My experiences in the workplace have been disappointing. Because I could not, due to family responsibilities, travel or do an 80-hour work week, I was mommy-tracked. That was doable; I recognized that the partnership track was for those who put work before family. (Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.) Yet, although my strategies were successful and my legal theories generally prevailed- i.e., I won - I was sidelined and obstructed. Condescension was rampant. My blue-collar background did not help.
I think of 3 younger partners at a firm where I worked for 15 years as "Huey, Dewey and Louie." A lead partner, a detail-obsessed snob and consistent loser, would have made a fine librarian. The senior partner made Trump look like Lucretia Mott or MLK.
I now run my own firm. It's difficult, but liberating. Law remains a male-dominated field.
I did not score 2 points below most men on the LSATs; I scored above the 99th percentile. With that score, and a graduate degree from an ivy league school (as well as an undergraduate degree from a respected public university), I was accepted by Harvard, Columbia and NYU. I attended Columbia because my spouse could not move to Boston.
My experiences in the workplace have been disappointing. Because I could not, due to family responsibilities, travel or do an 80-hour work week, I was mommy-tracked. That was doable; I recognized that the partnership track was for those who put work before family. (Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.) Yet, although my strategies were successful and my legal theories generally prevailed- i.e., I won - I was sidelined and obstructed. Condescension was rampant. My blue-collar background did not help.
I think of 3 younger partners at a firm where I worked for 15 years as "Huey, Dewey and Louie." A lead partner, a detail-obsessed snob and consistent loser, would have made a fine librarian. The senior partner made Trump look like Lucretia Mott or MLK.
I now run my own firm. It's difficult, but liberating. Law remains a male-dominated field.
119
As a former librarian and current lawyer, I have to ask, why the swipe at librarians?
17
Hi RMC 99th%, but I suppose, not quite 100%. I scored 98%. I went on for the Ph.D after JD. Also, Post-Doctorate. Oh yeah, and then there is above Mensa. I assume you joined Mensa, since your LSAT score qualifies you to belong. Why didn't you go on for the Ph.D which qualifies you for higher-ranked and salaried jobs than those with JDs only? Then you would never have landed in that awful workplace you described. Were you encouraged by your Columbia University Advisor? Go on for the Ph.D. Your IQ number will rise also. Plus, you might even become over-qualified to be the next President of the USA!! (as well as work for). I might be moving to Manhattan, maybe later I will look at your Resume. Do you have other JD friends like you? Sincerely.
1
Unlike RMC, I wasn't mommy-track. But I went to Yale, got top scores on my LSAT and worked at large NY firms. From day one, it was obvious women of color from top-5 schools weren't "in" the club, and would still have to fight to overcome the presumed superiority of white guys from lower-ranked schools. I was a "superstar" who worked 18-hour days 6 days per week, never said no to a project, was liked by clients, did not have kids and was fluent in sports. It didn't matter. Per my mentor, I was perceived as "arrogant." My crime was missing a summer mixer due to competing assignments. (Imagine what would have been said had I skipped the assignments instead.)
My second firm had different hazing rituals and gauntlets to the always-receding partnership quest. I routinely had opportunities to "prove" I was a "team player" -- which often seemed to mean covering for lawyers with kids who had "real responsibilities". So what if I too might want a social life and was already working over 90 hours per week. When the firm decided to do layoffs, mostly women and minorities were cut first and perhaps partners didn't even notice the pattern. The last one standing from my class was the mediocre angry white guy from a lower-ranked school, whose chronic yelling got the firm fired by a major client. Somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, the firm still perceived him as the better gamble. I wonder why.
I'm glad I was freed.
My second firm had different hazing rituals and gauntlets to the always-receding partnership quest. I routinely had opportunities to "prove" I was a "team player" -- which often seemed to mean covering for lawyers with kids who had "real responsibilities". So what if I too might want a social life and was already working over 90 hours per week. When the firm decided to do layoffs, mostly women and minorities were cut first and perhaps partners didn't even notice the pattern. The last one standing from my class was the mediocre angry white guy from a lower-ranked school, whose chronic yelling got the firm fired by a major client. Somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, the firm still perceived him as the better gamble. I wonder why.
I'm glad I was freed.
5
Too many lawyers. A capitalist system cannot support too many well educated people, because the wealthy want to keep their wealth. The great "American" expectation is a myth. No matter how hard you work the wealthy come first. That's why the wealthy want the capitalist system, and why they indoctrinate the lower economic strata to believe their lies. Critical thinking, at the university level, has been replaced by trade schools like Lawyers, Doctors, MBA's, etc;.
7
Capitalism is like democracy. A terrible system, with only one redeeming feature- its better than all of the alternatives.
2
the soviet bloc was not capitalist and yet it did not abound with critical thinkers.
1
In a rational world, students would apply to the most prestigious school that would accept them.
There are of course reasons why some don't make that choice, e.g., family obligations, tuition costs, geography.
But in general, an average Harvard student has a better LSAT, and probably is instructed by a better faculty than does his/her counterpart at Podunk College of Law.
The students know that, the professors at both schools know that and prepare their instructional level accordingly, and employers know that.
I would say the statistics cited show remarkable equality. And, given the recent polling fiasco in the presidential election, suggest that not much can be read into the small difference cited.
There are of course reasons why some don't make that choice, e.g., family obligations, tuition costs, geography.
But in general, an average Harvard student has a better LSAT, and probably is instructed by a better faculty than does his/her counterpart at Podunk College of Law.
The students know that, the professors at both schools know that and prepare their instructional level accordingly, and employers know that.
I would say the statistics cited show remarkable equality. And, given the recent polling fiasco in the presidential election, suggest that not much can be read into the small difference cited.
6
Only two kinds of lawyers: The very rich and the very unhappy.
8
exactly. No bell shaped distribution in law. It is skewed on two sides, with one being those who make a lot (i.e., usually graduates of the prestigious schools) and those who cannot even pay their loans (graduates of non-prestigious schools). Those thinking of going to law school need to seriously consider this fact.
2
Wrong. I'm a retired Public Defender. I never got rich but I loved what I was doing and am very proud of what I did. It is foolish to divide the world into the happy rich and the unhappy rest of us. Perhaps you have been reading too much of Ayn Rand's silly fiction.
2
In my experience, most of the very rich ones are also very unhappy.
3
A couple of thoughts from the column and the posts:
- This "gender gap" seems to have nothing to do with any bias in law school practices, and possibly nothing to do with law firm practices. As the column notes, women applicants score, on average, lower on the LSATs than male applicants. Everything else seems to flow from this. So the question should be *why* do women in college who want to go to law school score lower on the test? This is before law schools or law firms are involved, so they can't be the cause. Is the test gender-biased, is there a self-selection bias in the applicant pool, etc.? Are there similar phenomena for the MCAT or the GRE? That would be an interesting comparison.
- The absolute statistical differences are pretty small, and no discussion of whether they are statistically significant or not. Seems a pretty slim hook for a boldly-written column (and commentary)
- A lot of posters complain that when historically "male" professions become gender-neutral, pay tends to go down because they are somehow then "undervalued" by society. Maybe, just maybe, it's because there are now twice as many people competing for the same number of jobs. That would tend to drive down pay too. And it's based on straightforward economic theory--it doesn't depend on some new hypothesized psychological effect subconsciously driving large segment of the population and economy.
- This "gender gap" seems to have nothing to do with any bias in law school practices, and possibly nothing to do with law firm practices. As the column notes, women applicants score, on average, lower on the LSATs than male applicants. Everything else seems to flow from this. So the question should be *why* do women in college who want to go to law school score lower on the test? This is before law schools or law firms are involved, so they can't be the cause. Is the test gender-biased, is there a self-selection bias in the applicant pool, etc.? Are there similar phenomena for the MCAT or the GRE? That would be an interesting comparison.
- The absolute statistical differences are pretty small, and no discussion of whether they are statistically significant or not. Seems a pretty slim hook for a boldly-written column (and commentary)
- A lot of posters complain that when historically "male" professions become gender-neutral, pay tends to go down because they are somehow then "undervalued" by society. Maybe, just maybe, it's because there are now twice as many people competing for the same number of jobs. That would tend to drive down pay too. And it's based on straightforward economic theory--it doesn't depend on some new hypothesized psychological effect subconsciously driving large segment of the population and economy.
21
Excellent points. I believe the real issue behind the article is the competency of journalists. Did Ms. Olson consult with a statistics expert to determine whether these small variations are significant? If not why not? Did Ms Olson look beyond the raw stats for the impact of lower LSAT scores by females? If not why not? Did Ms Olson look at job success for females as a function of LSAT score - perhaps showing high scores correlate to job success independent of law school? If not why not? As an engineer/lawyer (graduate of Georgetown Law) I find the lack of critical thinking in journalism extremely disappointing. Where are the NYT editors?
2
Who cares? Law is a peculiar profession to say the least.
and three percentage points is hardly a blizzard -- sort of like the polls that said Hillary would win! I am in favor of a free online law school: let all who would take the bar exam. (TV program Suits.) This is not a profession that requires any particular expertise like surgery, e.g. The emphasis on often bad education gets ridiculous. (esp. in the days of WikiP -- thank you Jimmy Wales -- a true American hero.) Yes, kiddies teacher can be wrong.
Maybe people need courses in how to behave in a decent way towards their fellow human beings... and fewer courses in law... PS define dead end career -- bus driver?? someone has to do it. R-E-S-P-E-C-T, already. PS too many administrators... what do they TEACH anyone ?in most cases.
and three percentage points is hardly a blizzard -- sort of like the polls that said Hillary would win! I am in favor of a free online law school: let all who would take the bar exam. (TV program Suits.) This is not a profession that requires any particular expertise like surgery, e.g. The emphasis on often bad education gets ridiculous. (esp. in the days of WikiP -- thank you Jimmy Wales -- a true American hero.) Yes, kiddies teacher can be wrong.
Maybe people need courses in how to behave in a decent way towards their fellow human beings... and fewer courses in law... PS define dead end career -- bus driver?? someone has to do it. R-E-S-P-E-C-T, already. PS too many administrators... what do they TEACH anyone ?in most cases.
3
"This is not a profession that requires any particular expertise like surgery, e.g."
It doesn't? You're obviously not a lawyer. Try defending yourself in a complex matter of importance to yourself. Or ask an actual lawyer, a Trusts and Estates specialist, for example, to represent you in a criminal case. They'd laugh you out of the room.
I love that we Americans are encouraged freely to give our opinions. But they should be marginally informed.
It doesn't? You're obviously not a lawyer. Try defending yourself in a complex matter of importance to yourself. Or ask an actual lawyer, a Trusts and Estates specialist, for example, to represent you in a criminal case. They'd laugh you out of the room.
I love that we Americans are encouraged freely to give our opinions. But they should be marginally informed.
17
Ah, Jimmy. Perhaps you should sit in on a few classes in your local law school. The law is complex because people, society and life are complex. At one time I was an aerospace engineer. Being an attorney was many times more complicated. Do you take over a hundred hours a year of educational courses in your job just to keep up?
5
Give credit where credit is due. Today's female college graduates who do not apply to law school have it figured out. The legal profession (except for services to the poor) is overpopulated. And, of course, service to the poor pays little, if anything.
29
My rationale, speaking as an attorney? Women are more intuitive than men. Perhaps they realize that, unless you are an equity partner at the best of firms (and even then...) or you are lucky enough to establish a tiny niche practice as I did, law can be a soul-sucking and financially unrewarding career. This is only compounded when you throw in the inflated cost of law school these days compared to 25 years ago when I started school.
In short? I'm not fretting. There are so many more things for talented women (and men) to do.
In short? I'm not fretting. There are so many more things for talented women (and men) to do.
41
David S.:
How terribly magnanimous of you. I'm reminded of Trump's son saying that if Ivanka experienced sexual harassment she could just find another job. That's not an option for all women and the attitude simply accepts unfairness without any attempt to change it. Discrimination, both direct and structurally based, is pervasive.
The practice of law at many places can indeed be soul-sucking. But some women, like men, might choose that life for the money and prestige. And even if they want to improve it, no one has any hope of that without being an insider.
How terribly magnanimous of you. I'm reminded of Trump's son saying that if Ivanka experienced sexual harassment she could just find another job. That's not an option for all women and the attitude simply accepts unfairness without any attempt to change it. Discrimination, both direct and structurally based, is pervasive.
The practice of law at many places can indeed be soul-sucking. But some women, like men, might choose that life for the money and prestige. And even if they want to improve it, no one has any hope of that without being an insider.
4
This is not a problem unique to women. Minorities, people from economically less-advantaged backgrounds, and first-generation lawyers are also affected. A great deal of the problem is a lack of awareness when applying to schools of exactly how much difference a "prestige" school makes. Applicants widely assume that accreditation means accreditation and passing the bar means passing the bar, a reasonable assumption if one does not realize how very elitist the profession of law not only is, but even prides itself on being. Law schools are grouped into tiers in national rankings, and the derisive term "third tier trash", a dismissive, offensive, and somehow, indefensibly, socially acceptable descriptor of persons with diplomas from lower-ranked schools, is not heard uncommonly among the top ranks of the profession. The solution starts within the profession itself: legal elites in hiring positions need to be willing to consider talent without a prestige diploma. Otherwise, the multifaceted glass ceiling of the legal profession will never be breached.
9
We sadly live in a nation where legacy carries more weight than capability. This is why there's only a 4% chance of moving from one quintile to the next. Poor and minorities unfortunately start out very low on the proverbial totem pole. While working hard is important, hard work, intelligence, education, etc. are meaningless if you're not lucky enough to be in the right place or the right time, and being born above a certain level significantly changes those odds.
As Napoleon once said "Capability without Opportunity is meaningless."
As Napoleon once said "Capability without Opportunity is meaningless."
7
Whenever Ive said to people that school name matters, they have been FURIOUS, as if I am saying something unAmerican. They get FURIOUS. If I ay that Princeton has more sway than Seton Hall, people get very angry. But where I grew up, all prep school kids, everybody knew and accepted the value of prestige. I knew kids who wept when getting rejected from Harvard or Stanford. For them, going to Boston College instead of UPenn was like dying.
7
It is extremely unlikely that the elite will consider talented JDs without a prestige diploma when there is an overabundance of talented JDs with a prestige diploma. The far more likely remedy is to get the talented, but historically disadvantaged, onto the track that lead to a prestige diploma.
3
"That indicates women who graduate from less prestigious schools have fewer opportunities to be hired for their first full-fledged legal job, which can be decisive in shaping a career, Ms. Merritt said."
What about the men who graduate from these third-tier schools? Their career prospects are very likely equally grim, though sexism being what it is, they probably still have better returns on their investment, regrettably.
In any case, at last we have an article that exposes the sorry truth about legal education in the United States. The legal profession is a caste system with unconscionable differences in outcome depending on the standing of one's law school.
The lesser ranked law schools that continue to churn out newly minted J.D.s who can't break into the profession need to shut their doors or radically change their programs.
For example, the school could place the bottom two-thirds of the class into a program specifically tailored to "J.D. advantaged" students., "J.D. advantaged" being the euphemism for law graduates unable to find work that requires bar membership. With that would come reduced tuition and a different type of degree.
Of course, this will never happen until the American Bar Association, which controls law school accreditation, wakes up to the fact that low-ranked law schools are engaged in what many observes consider fraud by taking tuition money from students who are unlikely ever to use the degree they spent three years earning.
What about the men who graduate from these third-tier schools? Their career prospects are very likely equally grim, though sexism being what it is, they probably still have better returns on their investment, regrettably.
In any case, at last we have an article that exposes the sorry truth about legal education in the United States. The legal profession is a caste system with unconscionable differences in outcome depending on the standing of one's law school.
The lesser ranked law schools that continue to churn out newly minted J.D.s who can't break into the profession need to shut their doors or radically change their programs.
For example, the school could place the bottom two-thirds of the class into a program specifically tailored to "J.D. advantaged" students., "J.D. advantaged" being the euphemism for law graduates unable to find work that requires bar membership. With that would come reduced tuition and a different type of degree.
Of course, this will never happen until the American Bar Association, which controls law school accreditation, wakes up to the fact that low-ranked law schools are engaged in what many observes consider fraud by taking tuition money from students who are unlikely ever to use the degree they spent three years earning.
8
I think the point that however 'disadvantaged' a man might be from the various schools, women are even more so, and in the 21st Century, that should not be the case. Face it - women make up 53% of the U.S. population and thus have over half the country's brain power, yet consistently come up short in the workplace. Reverse that; if men were placed in similar positions, would it be right? I would seriously doubt you'd think so. It's time this garbage stopped.
1
It's the same in any profession. What do you call the person who graduates at the bottom of his or her law school class? "Lawyer."
Ditto, doctor. And while lawyers certainly do harm, and have done so, countless times, by destroying trust in so many avenues of life (everyone now sues everyone -- just as the President-Elect, who has sued everyone he meets), a doctor graduating at the bottom of the class better turn to a specialty that will do less harm should s/he screw up. And by less harm, I mean, "cause no mortality as a result of misdiagnosing, or mistreating a patient."
Ditto, doctor. And while lawyers certainly do harm, and have done so, countless times, by destroying trust in so many avenues of life (everyone now sues everyone -- just as the President-Elect, who has sued everyone he meets), a doctor graduating at the bottom of the class better turn to a specialty that will do less harm should s/he screw up. And by less harm, I mean, "cause no mortality as a result of misdiagnosing, or mistreating a patient."
4
"women make up 53% of the U.S. population and thus have over half the country's brain power"
NOT True. it is now known that men have a much wider IQ range than women so that there are more really smart men than really smart women and more really dumb men than really dumb women.
NOT True. it is now known that men have a much wider IQ range than women so that there are more really smart men than really smart women and more really dumb men than really dumb women.
The designers of the LSAT need to re-examine their test. Why is it easier for men? Looking at college admittance and performance, the women should be out-performing the men. Moreover, performance on one day on one test shouldn't carry so much weight in law school admissions. When it comes to actually practicing law successfully, it is all about an ability to win the trust of clients, diligence and attention to detail. These are not skills measured by the test.
All of that said, law schools need to join together and partner with forward thinking law firms to root out gender discrimination in the legal profession once and for all. Is it ethical to put these women out into a career where it is known they will earn 44% less than their male peers? Without a concerted effort to force change, very bright young women will continue to give up on their legal careers mid-way after realizing how the deck is stacked against them within their white male run law firms.
All of that said, law schools need to join together and partner with forward thinking law firms to root out gender discrimination in the legal profession once and for all. Is it ethical to put these women out into a career where it is known they will earn 44% less than their male peers? Without a concerted effort to force change, very bright young women will continue to give up on their legal careers mid-way after realizing how the deck is stacked against them within their white male run law firms.
3
Maybe it's cultural. Eliminate the baseball questions on the LSAT and women may score higher.
6
Have you taken the LSAT? Then how do you know the test is biased?
1) 53%/47% seems more like a statistical error, rather than a headline-worthy case of discrimination.
2) No explanation for "Women score an average of two points lower than men on the LSAT"? Seems like that covers most of the gap at the top schools.
3) There are few good jobs for anyone graduating law school right now. The market is flooded.
Maybe you should encourage women to go to engineering instead, where 11% of electrical engineering and 8% of mechanical engineering graduates are women - and that is before we deal with the retention issue. [1]
[1] https://ngcproject.org/statistics
2) No explanation for "Women score an average of two points lower than men on the LSAT"? Seems like that covers most of the gap at the top schools.
3) There are few good jobs for anyone graduating law school right now. The market is flooded.
Maybe you should encourage women to go to engineering instead, where 11% of electrical engineering and 8% of mechanical engineering graduates are women - and that is before we deal with the retention issue. [1]
[1] https://ngcproject.org/statistics
6
or even going into Nursing. Good pay with flexibile hours. Perfect for women considering families. Engineering, like law, required vicious hrs and is not an an atmosphere conducive to many women (i.e., more sexual discrimination there than even law firms).
1
That's assuming that the types of students who would do well in law would excel or at least succeed in engineering. Many law students are generalists, with liberal arts or political science backgrounds. While they may be bright, they haven't necessarily done the work required of STEM majors. And, as a profession and academic discipline, engineering is not all that welcoming to women.
3
Women are going to need to be more entrepreneurial, and better by far at ferreting out the new opportunities their wit and credentials from law school afford. If only state legislatures would forgive the law school debt of those who give three years of public service in our public courts.
We thought we had made progress from the good ole days when the frat boys would jeer as you walked down the street in the 70s. Tufts it looks like we may have to relive that era.
K
We thought we had made progress from the good ole days when the frat boys would jeer as you walked down the street in the 70s. Tufts it looks like we may have to relive that era.
K
4
Women are going to need to be more entrepreneurial, and better by far at ferreting out the new opportunities their wit and credentials from law school afford. If only state legislatures would forgive the law school debt of those who give three years of public service in our public courts.
if the fools who entered law school thought about the financial value of their degree this would not be a problem. They entered into a glutted field expecting to rake huge $ (instead of the poorly paying public sector). why should law graduates get a break just about no other type of graduate gets?
if the fools who entered law school thought about the financial value of their degree this would not be a problem. They entered into a glutted field expecting to rake huge $ (instead of the poorly paying public sector). why should law graduates get a break just about no other type of graduate gets?
2
@Yoda: How do you know that law students "entered into a glutted field expecting to rake huge $ (instead of the poorly paying public sector)?" Personally, I hoped to get a job in the public sector. Many of us did. Those jobs are actually even less plentiful than the well-paying ones.
1
We have more lawyers in this country than perhaps any other country in the world. Yet,our citizens have less access to quality and affordable legal representation. Some people go without representation at all. The ABA is a big part of the problem. They are a wholly self-regulating body and do a poor job of it. Many of the lawyers graduating from 2nd and 3rd tier law schools can't even pass the bar. It's time to shut down many of these schools.
9
a good 2/3 need to be shut down. But remember, law schools are cash cows for universities. hence a large part of the problem. All one needs to do is hire a few law professors (considering the glut of law graduates not a problem) and watch the cash role in.
4
Having graduated from one of the top tier law schools over 25 years ago, not a single one of my female friends is a partner in a prestigious firm. This, despite the fact that we all started our careers there. To succeed in this environment is all consuming... you must work incredibly long hours, for many women this often means at the expense of having a family, battle a misogynist culture that gives plum assignments to male colleagues, figure out how to survive without any meaningful mentoring and, if you make it to partnership you still make less than your male partners because law firm compensation is based upon " eat what you kill." This means that women must be able to bring in clients, a difficult feat to accomplish because relationships are cemented on the golf course, at the football game or at a strip club and through an old boys network dating back to days spent together at prep school or in the Ivy league. Given these obstacles, I am surprised that the number of females partners is as high as 20%!
92
Sadly, this has been true of every profession. Conversely, when males enter traditionally-female professions (nursing, public school teaching), the pay goes up. Having been married to two lawyers (not at the same time) who set up their own law practices shortly after passing the bar exam, I highly recommend this approach for female attorneys, rather than signing on with a firm.
9
I highly recommend this approach for female attorneys, rather than signing on with a firm.
setting up one's own law firm is not a very wise move considering the glut of such firms. More logical would be to just not enter this field.
setting up one's own law firm is not a very wise move considering the glut of such firms. More logical would be to just not enter this field.
3
One should choose the profession which rings one's chimes, then do all possible to make it a go. The lawyers I know, male and female, went into law out of a passion, not to make a lot of $. It's not about logic; it's about following your star. There are many kinds of law practice....environmental, family, tax, criminal, real estate, etc......
6
The numbers here don't add up. It mostly sounds like small differences and the major factor is that people at low ranked law schools, who are slightly more likely to be women, aren't getting jobs. Some low ranking schools are old night school law schools that used to turn out private practitioners in low status niches, and in some places, politicians. Now there are too many people in law school for that to work. Other places are just factories that saw law school as the next cash cow, once MBA programs proved to be incapable of getting graduates jobs. Programs in public health, a small niche area in the best of times, are the new cash cow for universities and I suspect the outcome will be similar. It was apparent that law schools were turning out too many lawyers even a few decades ago, but no one bothered to tell the students.
10
Law school attended may help get a first job. Performance, regardless of gender, dictates the quality of a career thereafter. I've been a successful attorney more than forty one years. To my recollection, no client has ever asked where I attended school.
13
I don't know anything about your practice, but every law firm with a website, every legal directory, lists where a lawyer went to law school, along with dates of bar admission. Many lawyers have framed diplomas in their offices, just like doctors. Sophisticated clients are usually aware of where their attorneys went to school.
Of course, over time results matter more than where you went to law school. But if getting a good job after graduation depends on having a degree from a good law school where you went obviously matters and the effect can be cumulative.
Of course, over time results matter more than where you went to law school. But if getting a good job after graduation depends on having a degree from a good law school where you went obviously matters and the effect can be cumulative.
7
Dennis OBrien said: "To my recollection, no client has ever asked where I attended school."
I was routinely asked where I went to law school, but then I'm a woman of color.
I was routinely asked where I went to law school, but then I'm a woman of color.
1
This is a silly article. The differences are a few, really a few, percentage points. Yet the article implies that it is somehow a sexist plot. Talk about a house of straw. When various groups stop whining about their supposed disadvantages ( in a profession that is highly advantaged) and implying it must be some unfair reason, rather than merit( even though the article admits there is also a small difference in LSAT scores), maybe we can focus on more more important problems.
17
The statistical innumeracy of journalists who fancy themselves as smart and educated reveals itself all too often.
"Women score an average of two points lower than men on the LSAT, which is still the key admissions number. Since law school rankings are weighted heavily on this number, that discrepancy gives elite law schools a greater reason — all other things being equal — to accept a man over a woman."
I graduated from a very elite law school -- it's usually ranked first or second in the nation. When I was there, another student requested data from the admission department in order to study acceptance trends. (Even though the information was released confidentially, I thought that was a breach of privacy, but that's neither here nor there.) He said that the students with the highest scores tended to be white women.
As for the rest of the article, there's no doubt that attending a less-prestigious school reduces a graduate's chance of obtaining a good job purely on merit in a glutted market. But there are many reasons why women and minorities are not doing as well as they should in the profession. Even graduates of top schools don't find it easy.
I graduated from a very elite law school -- it's usually ranked first or second in the nation. When I was there, another student requested data from the admission department in order to study acceptance trends. (Even though the information was released confidentially, I thought that was a breach of privacy, but that's neither here nor there.) He said that the students with the highest scores tended to be white women.
As for the rest of the article, there's no doubt that attending a less-prestigious school reduces a graduate's chance of obtaining a good job purely on merit in a glutted market. But there are many reasons why women and minorities are not doing as well as they should in the profession. Even graduates of top schools don't find it easy.
7
As a mathematician, I noticed the one thing the article didn't mention, and should have, was what were the median and standard deviation of the LSAT scores, broken down by gender. This would tell a lot more than the average, which lumps in outliers and skews the results. The median is a much better indicator of performance.
As a practical example, when average income rises over a period of years, but the median income drops (as was the case in the 1980s and 2000s) how can one logically say that things are better when half the population did worse? If women score below the average in LSAT, but they consistently score above the median, then something is seriously wrong, and those women are experiencing career issues for reasons other than performance.
As a practical example, when average income rises over a period of years, but the median income drops (as was the case in the 1980s and 2000s) how can one logically say that things are better when half the population did worse? If women score below the average in LSAT, but they consistently score above the median, then something is seriously wrong, and those women are experiencing career issues for reasons other than performance.
5
Students taking the LSAT are not drawn randomly from the pool of undergraduates. The gender difference in scores could be greatly influenced if there is a gender difference in whether the students capable of high LSAT scores take the test. The top women may be taking GRE, GMAT or MCAT in greater proportion and going into professions with better prospects.
You possess statistical innumeracy for more reasons than I can sate here. But one will suffice: The median does not indicate that half of those in the distribution experienced a fall in income. The median can fall even when 99% of those in the the bottom half of the distribution have gained.
Moreover, in any longitudinal study of "incomes", both the definition (measured metric) changes and those within the sample changes.
As related point, some say that a fall in the median income of USA households indicates that folks are worse off. In fact, with 10-20 million lower-skilled, less English language proficient immigrant households now included in such a longitudinal study, one can conclude nothing meaningful as per the positive or negative fortunes of the household that actually existed in the USA 30-40 years ago.
Moreover, in any longitudinal study of "incomes", both the definition (measured metric) changes and those within the sample changes.
As related point, some say that a fall in the median income of USA households indicates that folks are worse off. In fact, with 10-20 million lower-skilled, less English language proficient immigrant households now included in such a longitudinal study, one can conclude nothing meaningful as per the positive or negative fortunes of the household that actually existed in the USA 30-40 years ago.
Query why women generally score lower on the LSAT than men. The article offers no explanation, or even speculation as to why this is so, which seems to me unusual given that (1) it is the crucial metric, and (2) a difference of two points is so trivial as to be a rounding error.
Nor does the article propose an alternative metric that might be fairer.
I'm a woman. (One who chose not to go to law school, though it was suggested to me more than once.) But I wouldn't choose my attorney based on genitalia and/or gender identity, but on competence and experience. It seems to me not every discrepancy is prima facie evidence of unfair discrimination, much less requiring an active remedy.
Maybe we need fewer lawyers, period. A JD or LL.D is no longer an automatic ticket to big money. The starter jobs are going overseas; often paralegals, or lawyers in India, can do scutwork like pasting contracts together from a collection of boilerplate paragraphs and tweaking them, or sweating away hours on due diligence. Econ 101, the value of a commodity is determined not only by demand but by scarcity; lawyers used to make a lot of money because there were so few of them, but now there's a desperate wolfpack chasing every ambulance, scrambling to gin up work. Even given that lawyers make the laws and therefore are very good at multiplying complexities to keep themselves and colleagues busy, the field is just too crowded.
Nor does the article propose an alternative metric that might be fairer.
I'm a woman. (One who chose not to go to law school, though it was suggested to me more than once.) But I wouldn't choose my attorney based on genitalia and/or gender identity, but on competence and experience. It seems to me not every discrepancy is prima facie evidence of unfair discrimination, much less requiring an active remedy.
Maybe we need fewer lawyers, period. A JD or LL.D is no longer an automatic ticket to big money. The starter jobs are going overseas; often paralegals, or lawyers in India, can do scutwork like pasting contracts together from a collection of boilerplate paragraphs and tweaking them, or sweating away hours on due diligence. Econ 101, the value of a commodity is determined not only by demand but by scarcity; lawyers used to make a lot of money because there were so few of them, but now there's a desperate wolfpack chasing every ambulance, scrambling to gin up work. Even given that lawyers make the laws and therefore are very good at multiplying complexities to keep themselves and colleagues busy, the field is just too crowded.
10
women (or men) going into a field like nursing can actually make more $, work fewer hrs and have greater flexibility. this is especially the case for those who do not graduate from top notch schools. Food for thought for those considering law school.
3
This has been the case for years. Women enter a field in greater numbers and all of a sudden it doesn't pay as well. Why? It's seen as "women's work". Women go to college and major in the sciences but they aren't mentored as often or as extensively as men. What they are told, and I know from firsthand experience, is to "behave" in so many words. Don't be pushy, aggressive, have children, arrogant, angry, or too smart. It's not feminine. Be contented with fewer promotions, lower pay, no real recognition, or prizes (which can and often does bring in more money). Just be a good little woman. And that's how women wind up with less in every sense of the word.
33
"Women enter a field in greater numbers and all of a sudden it doesn't pay as well. Why?"
Because men are smart and, anticipating that the field would eventually bloat, they stopped going and that is why the numbers of women increased.
So much for misandrist logic, huh?
And you are correct: I do not like "pushy" graduate students.
Because men are smart and, anticipating that the field would eventually bloat, they stopped going and that is why the numbers of women increased.
So much for misandrist logic, huh?
And you are correct: I do not like "pushy" graduate students.
1
There is no issue of discrimination here. The LSAT is an objective test. Those with a higher score are accepted into a higher-ranked law school, regardless of gender. And that gives them a better chance of a successful career.
The article actually speaks for itself.
What I object to is an underlying implication that there is gender discrimination even though, ironically, the facts presented contradict the implication of discrimination.
The article actually speaks for itself.
What I object to is an underlying implication that there is gender discrimination even though, ironically, the facts presented contradict the implication of discrimination.
70
What I object to is an underlying implication that there is gender discrimination even though, ironically, the facts presented contradict the implication of discrimination.
it fits the pattern of the Time's narrative of identity. So it is Ok (despite being baseless as y ou point out).
it fits the pattern of the Time's narrative of identity. So it is Ok (despite being baseless as y ou point out).
3
The issue is whether that actually lines up with effective performance as a lawyer. If someone with a lower LSAT score is ultimately able to represent their clients just as well as someone who had a higher LSAT score years before, then that score shouldn't be the primary criteria giving or denying them access to the opportunity to attend a law school ranked highly enough to allow them to practice law, especially if it ends up making some groups (like men) more likely to have opportunities than others (women).
2
An objective test of what exactly? Assume of the ability to understand, interpret and apply law and related matters to the ends of earning a law degree and obtaining a state license to offer legal services. As a person who attained those ends 50 years ago, and provided them since, and whose own experience is admittedly - for some purposes - merely "anecdotal," in my opinion, those ends accomplish, perhaps, 10% of what is required for providing legal services competently and productively for clients, and the LSAT signifies little, if anything, about acquiring the other 90%.
1
Whenever and where ever women show up for a particular career, automatically it is devalued. I'm an artist. It happened to me too..same level of work, but wrong gender, equals less opportunity and money. The stats show it over an over. There are very few exceptions.
96
Or maybe there are just more lawyers than there is work. The job market is like a sinking ship: it lists to one side, dragged down by a pile of desperate bodies, and then someone shouts to run to the other side because nobody's there. Everyone runs to the other side and the ship tilts and starts sinking in the other direction.
1
Exactly right. A typical example is what happened to the position of "secretary." Originally, it was a respected job occupied by a man assisting a senior man. When women began to work as secretaries in large numbers the job became low-paying and low-status.
And in fields that remain male-dominated, prestigious, and well-paying, at first, the excuse usually is a shallow pool of applicants. There simply isn't enough qualified talent. But when women (and minorities such as blacks) obtain the education, training, or experience necessary and put in the work, suddenly there's a new excuse.
And in fields that remain male-dominated, prestigious, and well-paying, at first, the excuse usually is a shallow pool of applicants. There simply isn't enough qualified talent. But when women (and minorities such as blacks) obtain the education, training, or experience necessary and put in the work, suddenly there's a new excuse.
6
Assuming what you report is true, what or who is causing this devaluation?
Law school, with its bloated student loans, is now a business in itself, leaving the student to suck up the pain when they graduate. It did not use to be. The lucky ones have firms to go to, the pioneers are on their own. This is true for women, and men. How many lawyers are unemployed in Chicago? Being a lawyer requires no small amount of masochism, or, an exceptional support network.
16
I might also add that unemployed lawyers also take jobs that other educated people could do because employers believe that anyone who goes to law school is more skilled at whatever position they have open. Employers can ask for anything they want. Today, law degrees or PhDs for jobs that only require a BA and some experience.
3
Margaret:
Lawyers from good schools are good employees: They tend to be generally well-educated, smart, hard-working, very precise, detail-oriented people. Many law students were told that a law degree and legal work provide transferable skills for other fields. Unfortunately, many employers don't believe that.
But I agree that employers often require ridiculous credentials today for jobs that don't require them. They do it because it helps them screen out people and makes their jobs easier.
As James Carville said decades ago, "It's the economy, stupid."
Lawyers from good schools are good employees: They tend to be generally well-educated, smart, hard-working, very precise, detail-oriented people. Many law students were told that a law degree and legal work provide transferable skills for other fields. Unfortunately, many employers don't believe that.
But I agree that employers often require ridiculous credentials today for jobs that don't require them. They do it because it helps them screen out people and makes their jobs easier.
As James Carville said decades ago, "It's the economy, stupid."
3
These seem like pretty slim differentials on which to advocate for social change. The difference between 47 and 49% among top schools and overall seems more like a minor statistical variance than a major issue. I went to a top ten law school in 1975 and even then women constituted nearly half the school. Too law firms now have just as many female associates as males at the start and many of the factors of gender differences in partnerships relate to a combination of economic, and personal choice issues rather than systemic bias. This whole line of concern is simply fueled by plaintiff employment lawyers and a very silly uninformed media.
71
@Mitchell: I missed where "plaintiff employment lawyers" were involved here. Also, hasn't "disparate impact" been a pretty slim reed on which to base an employment suit of late? Perhaps you specialize in a different field and missed that?
1
Isn't a top law school needed for everyone these days? A lower tier school is a set up for a dead end career, to my understanding.
13
That's been clear for at least 30 years; that is, if you want to have a shot at an excellent job upon graduation based purely on your education you have to go to a top-tier law school. And it's just a shot.
But as has been the case in many other areas of the economy (home acquisition), people are anxious, fearful, or frustrated, they want to better their lot, American optimism kicks in, and they see only what they want to see. Having been susceptible to this myself at times, I'm describing, not judging.
But as has been the case in many other areas of the economy (home acquisition), people are anxious, fearful, or frustrated, they want to better their lot, American optimism kicks in, and they see only what they want to see. Having been susceptible to this myself at times, I'm describing, not judging.
1
lifelong, it just not American optimism but the optimism of youth. The young typically feel that they will always beat the averages. But for the overwhelming majority this is not the weigh it works.
2
@Lifelong Reader: Sadly, there was no Internet 30 years ago for prospective students to get the personal opinions of those who knew this. Only in the last 5-10 years has the ABA done its job about making sure that schools report useful numbers.
3
I am a female who attended a 2nd tier law school after 10 years of rich and diverse work experience. I took out considerable debt and had high expectations of a biglaw job. Had I known at the time that my work experience would count for nothing at recruitment time - that recruiters looked only to your LSAT score, school attended, and class ranking - I might have chosen another profession.
80
When making such a large investment of your time and money, perhaps more due diligence was required. Live and learn. Maturity usually brings more wisdom.
4
Stacey, I hate to sound like evil, but anyone with experience in the field or having done some serious research would have known this for the last 40 years. I was considering law school when I graduated in the early 1980s but concluded, based on research (and the facts you mentioned), that it would not be worth it. And this was in a job market for attorneys that was better (albeit marginally) than what it is today.
5
And are you trying to blame someone else for this or taking responsibility for your lack of due diligence?
4
Those percentage differences seem very small. Looks to me like the same people who did polling in the recent Presidential election may be interpreting the data. After decades of equal opportunity, the fact is that over half law school students are women, and an increasing percentage of partners at prestige firms are women. The Ohio State professor, perhaps emboldened by a triple overtime win over Michigan, is pursuing miniscule percentage points that don't make a difference in the real world. She should go back to torts or contracts or whatever her course load is.
7
> Even though women earn 57 percent of college degrees, they account for just under 51 percent of law school applicants. And when they do apply, they are less likely to be accepted. For 2015, for example, 75.8 percent of applications from women were accepted compared with 79.5 percent of applications by men
And women, for whatever reason also score slightly lower on LSAT tests. Do you think that means anything?
> Even though women earn 57 percent of college degrees, they account for just under 51 percent of law school applicants.
And if we are picking things apart by gender, Ms. Olson seems to have breezed past the fact that 'women earn 57 percent of college degrees'. Presumably she is 'okay' with that as in 'Hey, no problem here. If men earn only 43% of the degrees, they need to pull up their socks and try harder.'
Maybe all this shows is that men are less likely to apply to lower ranked law schools knowing their degree won't be quite the guaranteed job ticket?
And given all the stuff in the news recently about 'polls' and 'confidence intervals' and such, it would be nice if Ms. Olson had provided some details as to whether the statistics she quotes are 'statistically significant'.
But I suppose when you are writing from an 'advocate's' POV, you don't include details that would dilute your message.
And women, for whatever reason also score slightly lower on LSAT tests. Do you think that means anything?
> Even though women earn 57 percent of college degrees, they account for just under 51 percent of law school applicants.
And if we are picking things apart by gender, Ms. Olson seems to have breezed past the fact that 'women earn 57 percent of college degrees'. Presumably she is 'okay' with that as in 'Hey, no problem here. If men earn only 43% of the degrees, they need to pull up their socks and try harder.'
Maybe all this shows is that men are less likely to apply to lower ranked law schools knowing their degree won't be quite the guaranteed job ticket?
And given all the stuff in the news recently about 'polls' and 'confidence intervals' and such, it would be nice if Ms. Olson had provided some details as to whether the statistics she quotes are 'statistically significant'.
But I suppose when you are writing from an 'advocate's' POV, you don't include details that would dilute your message.
15
Harvard Law School is more than 50% women, so it really depends on the school.
But the gist of this article, that women are more likely to go to lower ranked law schools, is an ominous sign that women may incur more law school debt. Going to a low ranked law school is a bad idea for anyone, especially if you're paying the bill.
But the gist of this article, that women are more likely to go to lower ranked law schools, is an ominous sign that women may incur more law school debt. Going to a low ranked law school is a bad idea for anyone, especially if you're paying the bill.
23
Where you go to law school matters. But where you graduate in your class matters much more. Making Law Review or Order of the Coif signals to employers that you have legal mojo.
The article assumes that graduates from top ranked law schools are doing well, finding jobs in the legal profession. This is not universally the case, and tends to be the exception in lower-ranked schools.
It also notes that top-ranked schools are expensive. Well, some very low-ranked schools are shockingly expensive, and have miserable placement numbers for graduates of both genders.
In my law school, there were plenty of women, including our top graduate, a 48 year old mother of two.
The article assumes that graduates from top ranked law schools are doing well, finding jobs in the legal profession. This is not universally the case, and tends to be the exception in lower-ranked schools.
It also notes that top-ranked schools are expensive. Well, some very low-ranked schools are shockingly expensive, and have miserable placement numbers for graduates of both genders.
In my law school, there were plenty of women, including our top graduate, a 48 year old mother of two.
4
So a group of women law school graduates get together and form their own law firm. And before you know it, they're cutting each other up and knocking each other down. It's why people hate lawyers.
2
The article buried the lead as the real crux is not an inherent sexism in the application process but the fact that women have lower LSAT scores on average. Now we has a society have to ask whether we should weight the LSAT as much or give women with lower scores places ahead of men with higher scores. Also we need to find out what is driving the discrepancy in scores
4
We don't need to add yet another layer of affirmative action.
So women have lower LSAT scores and go to lower ranked schools.
Could that be possible evidence that women, as a group, aren't as good as men at law?
Could that be possible evidence that women, as a group, aren't as good as men at law?
4
Or could it be possible evidence that there is gender discrimination baked into the LSAT? Not mentioned in this article is the fact that, on average, women LSAT takers and law school applicants have higher undergraduate GPAs then do men, and that this discrepancy holds across all majors. (So, no, women's higher GPAs don't result from opting for a French Medieval Poetry major versus mathematics, biology, or engineering.) Law schools that weight LSAT scores so out of proportion to an applicant's record of success in academia are in essence finding a reason, consciously or not, to reject women.
Regarding your second point: The relegation to lower-ranked schools is not an indication of ability -- it is a consequence of doors closing elsewhere.
Regarding your second point: The relegation to lower-ranked schools is not an indication of ability -- it is a consequence of doors closing elsewhere.
1
There are a number of factors at play. One major factor in the dearth of women in top jobs is the limited number of top job. I worked for a female partner. She made partner at a time when putting in the time, and being smart, and capable were major factors in determining law firm partnership. That changed by time I came to firm some 15-20 years later. A book of business was crucial to equity partnership (non-equity partners are partners in name only). How did most equity partners get business? They inherited it from senior partners, developed it through business, personal and social relationship or some combination therein. Most law school associates, male or female, don't walk with business, personal or social relationship they can cultivate. Are affluent white males more likely to have these kinds of relationships? Absolutely. That leaves inheriting or being "gifted" clients as the likely path to equity partnership for most. Senior people in business tend to cultivate relationships with junior people who remind them most of themselves. As a junior associate working for men, I had male partners treat as if I came from another planet, but I worked hard to follow sports in effort to speak their language. The well-respected female partner I spent the bulk of my law firm career working for had no clients of her own. If there was a reasonable path to equity partnership for me, I couldn't see it.
62
I am not a lawyer. I am male. I drive a Porsche sports car. I love cars. I connect with lots of rich men by talking about expensive cars. Also, I lift weights seriously. I talk with lots of rich men about lifting. I ski. I talk with a lot of rich men about skiing. I LOVE steak. I talk with lots of rich men about steak. I drink single malt neat. Rich men seem very impressed that I drink good scotch neat.
If you want to connect with rich men potential clients), get into sports cars, steak, skiing, weight lifting, and scotch. Very few women are into those things. I guess some guys love golf. Maybe add golf to that list.
If you want to connect with rich men potential clients), get into sports cars, steak, skiing, weight lifting, and scotch. Very few women are into those things. I guess some guys love golf. Maybe add golf to that list.
3
What this writer says is true: "Senior people in business tend to cultivate relationships with junior people who remind them most of themselves." This perpetuates the boys' club within the profession. This is a problem not only for women but for men who are not "one of the boys" - gay men, for example, or men who do not display whatever sorts of traits and interests are valued within the dominant group.
When it comes to having a book of business, the situation is even worse than the dismal picture the author paints in her comment.
A relative of mine is a superstar equity partner in biglaw. His firm has established a selection process for associates (no doubt with the help of expensive consultants) that weeds out anyone who isn't going to be a rainmaker.
Simply having the potential to put in the time and "being smart, and capable" won't result in a job offer, no matter the prestige of one's law school or one's class standing. The firm does not want lawyers whose practice consists only of providing services to other lawyers' clients, no matter how smart or capable they might be.
The well-respected female partner described above, who had no clients of her own, never would have gotten a foot in the door. I suspect that the criteria for selecting future rainmakers are biased in some way, most likely towards overly assertive young white men with some measure of social and cultural capital that will help them fit into the boys' club.
When it comes to having a book of business, the situation is even worse than the dismal picture the author paints in her comment.
A relative of mine is a superstar equity partner in biglaw. His firm has established a selection process for associates (no doubt with the help of expensive consultants) that weeds out anyone who isn't going to be a rainmaker.
Simply having the potential to put in the time and "being smart, and capable" won't result in a job offer, no matter the prestige of one's law school or one's class standing. The firm does not want lawyers whose practice consists only of providing services to other lawyers' clients, no matter how smart or capable they might be.
The well-respected female partner described above, who had no clients of her own, never would have gotten a foot in the door. I suspect that the criteria for selecting future rainmakers are biased in some way, most likely towards overly assertive young white men with some measure of social and cultural capital that will help them fit into the boys' club.
2
My wife has a low degree from a prestigious school.
She has discovered that staying home with the children is more fulfilling in many levels.
She bakes great cookies.
She has discovered that staying home with the children is more fulfilling in many levels.
She bakes great cookies.
8
It's not just lower tier law schools that account for wage discrimination against women lawyers. There are plenty of male graduates of these same schools earning a good living. As traditionally male careers become more gender balanced, wages tend to slump in those fields. Witness the many female doctors who also earn less than their male counterparts. It's gender, not substandard bonafides, that account for the pay gap. Quit blaming women for the discrimination we face. You're part of the problem. Thank you.
32
The wage gap doesn't exist everywhere. For example, consider real estate.
When, over the course of a year, a woman sells $5 million in real estate transactions, and earns 3% commission, her income for this work is $150K
When, over the course of a year, a man sells $5 million in real estate transactions, and earns 3% commission, his income for this work is $150K
In this apples to apples comparison, there is no wage gap. Income is directly tied to performance and value offered to customers.
What causes a compensation gap to form in other industries?
When, over the course of a year, a woman sells $5 million in real estate transactions, and earns 3% commission, her income for this work is $150K
When, over the course of a year, a man sells $5 million in real estate transactions, and earns 3% commission, his income for this work is $150K
In this apples to apples comparison, there is no wage gap. Income is directly tied to performance and value offered to customers.
What causes a compensation gap to form in other industries?
1
The question is why don't women score as well on LSAT if that is the primary measure of getting into a top school?
22
If these women are so brilliant why didn't they attend a top law school in the beginning? Because they scored lower on the SAT they should enjoy the same advantages as someone who scored higher? Many people will not be sympathetic.
14
Things have not changed, there are just more women in law school.
When Sandra Day O'Connor graduated, she could only get a job as a legal secretary. Her husband got a job as a lawyer.
When I graduated, at interviews men would ask me out but would not give me a job. Even after I was a federal law clerk. Finally I got a job with the only good prosecutor's office in my state, I was able to get into court thanks to some men in my office who told my boss I could do it. Then over 20 years of trial work in Atlanta, trying rapists and murderers and robbers. And I was made "an honorary man" by the men in my office.
So times do not change. I was lucky to have been considered good looking and smart, otherwise I'd be at legal aid or trying divorces as other women had to do when big law firms and prosecutors would not hire them then.......or now.
When Sandra Day O'Connor graduated, she could only get a job as a legal secretary. Her husband got a job as a lawyer.
When I graduated, at interviews men would ask me out but would not give me a job. Even after I was a federal law clerk. Finally I got a job with the only good prosecutor's office in my state, I was able to get into court thanks to some men in my office who told my boss I could do it. Then over 20 years of trial work in Atlanta, trying rapists and murderers and robbers. And I was made "an honorary man" by the men in my office.
So times do not change. I was lucky to have been considered good looking and smart, otherwise I'd be at legal aid or trying divorces as other women had to do when big law firms and prosecutors would not hire them then.......or now.
58
Excuse me, partlycloudy, but you are exhibiting your own prejudice with your comment about "trying divorces". There are excellent lawyers, both men and woman, who are Matrimonial lawyers, and we are in that area pf practice not because we couldn't do anything else in the legal profession, but because we understand that people going through divorce are going through one of the most difficult times in their lives and need our help. Divorce cases include representing the interest of children, complex tax issues, complicated business valuations. You need excellent negotiation skills as well a trial skills. Family Law is not a dumping ground for woman who cannot find more prestigious work.
2
knewman:
Although Family Law, especially for individuals with great wealth and the means to fight, requires a lot of expertise and for some people can be lucrative, it has long been considered a women's ghetto.
Although Family Law, especially for individuals with great wealth and the means to fight, requires a lot of expertise and for some people can be lucrative, it has long been considered a women's ghetto.
2
the statistics presented in this article do not support the argument. The differences are small in relation to the margin of error involved. Law school admission is a very straightforward process, you can predict someone's success very accurately from their LSAT scores. It is a dramatically objective process. Even small differences in the desires of males and females would produce these results. The best description would be "much ado about nothing" in support of a very ideologically driven agenda
13
@RG: Seriously? "You can predict someone's success very accurately from their LSAT scores?" Nothing objective about it. If people with higher LSAT scores always get hired over people with lower ones, that doesn't prove that LSAT scores correlate with success. It proves that people doing hiring BELIEVE that LSAT scores correlate with success. Is their belief correct or not? This article does not attempt to address that.
2
"... and thus the sort of student that might be attracted to you,”
There's your problem, right there.
In logic it would be referred to as "Begging the Question" you are using your own conclusion to support your reasoning. "these people are going to be the most successful in the legal field, so they're the ones we want in our school." Why are they the most likely to be successful in the legal field? "Because they went to our school, of course."
The result being that, instead of a true meritocracy, the top of the legal profession resembles an aristocracy. One with firms competing to have the School's name represented on their mast head.
This point was brought home by Megyn Kelly giving the commencement address, and (after dropping the F bomb) saying to graduates, get over yourselves "...it's only Albany Law." Weather she exemplifies the rule or the exception (she is an Albany Law Alum) I will leave to you to determine.
There's your problem, right there.
In logic it would be referred to as "Begging the Question" you are using your own conclusion to support your reasoning. "these people are going to be the most successful in the legal field, so they're the ones we want in our school." Why are they the most likely to be successful in the legal field? "Because they went to our school, of course."
The result being that, instead of a true meritocracy, the top of the legal profession resembles an aristocracy. One with firms competing to have the School's name represented on their mast head.
This point was brought home by Megyn Kelly giving the commencement address, and (after dropping the F bomb) saying to graduates, get over yourselves "...it's only Albany Law." Weather she exemplifies the rule or the exception (she is an Albany Law Alum) I will leave to you to determine.
4
The idea that people who work in the field wouldn't have a good idea of what kind of person succeeds in that field is kind of silly.*
A law school is a professional school. It trains people to enter the profession of law and the good ones have strong relationships with alumni, law firms, public interest legal groups, governmental entities who provide feedback in the form of hiring decisions or sometimes more directly. If employers have had bad experiences with the performance of a law school's graduates, they won't recruit at the law school. I've heard lawyers say that they will never hire anyone from __ law school because the students can't write, or that the firm has never had a good experience with someone from __ [4th-tier] law school.
No assessment process is perfect, but law schools, like other professional schools, admit people who they believe will succeed in the field as it exists. They also throw in some courses about the future of the field and how it might be improved.
*I am assuming employers who assess students on merit only, and are not hampered by racial, gender, etc., biases, which is still a problem in the legal field.
A law school is a professional school. It trains people to enter the profession of law and the good ones have strong relationships with alumni, law firms, public interest legal groups, governmental entities who provide feedback in the form of hiring decisions or sometimes more directly. If employers have had bad experiences with the performance of a law school's graduates, they won't recruit at the law school. I've heard lawyers say that they will never hire anyone from __ law school because the students can't write, or that the firm has never had a good experience with someone from __ [4th-tier] law school.
No assessment process is perfect, but law schools, like other professional schools, admit people who they believe will succeed in the field as it exists. They also throw in some courses about the future of the field and how it might be improved.
*I am assuming employers who assess students on merit only, and are not hampered by racial, gender, etc., biases, which is still a problem in the legal field.
2
I always know what to expect in the comments (many seeming to be male) about stories on discrimination against women in the various professions.
Invariably a good number will assert that
a) There's really no discrimination.
b) There's no story here. Why are you writing one?
You can count on it.
In countless ways women are not equal to men in the United States of America, from salaries to professional opportunities. This affects many areas of their lives, including how they can support their children and the quality of the neighborhoods where they can live.
There is also much male violence against women.
There is significant discrimination based on appearance or tone of voice that men do not face.
In this era of Trump I find the dismissal of sexism especially troubling in a publication like the New York Times with what one assumes is a highly-educated readership.
Women are very much in the minority when it comes to political power at the state and federal level. This is a vulnerable position. It means many of the gains women have made in the last 35 years can be legislated away.
We are going to need solidarity among all people of goodwill in the next four years. We are going to need to support anyone different from us who is suffering from discrimination. We are going to need all of our care, concern and empathy for "the other" if we are going to preserve a civilized society that looks anything like the best vision of America.
Invariably a good number will assert that
a) There's really no discrimination.
b) There's no story here. Why are you writing one?
You can count on it.
In countless ways women are not equal to men in the United States of America, from salaries to professional opportunities. This affects many areas of their lives, including how they can support their children and the quality of the neighborhoods where they can live.
There is also much male violence against women.
There is significant discrimination based on appearance or tone of voice that men do not face.
In this era of Trump I find the dismissal of sexism especially troubling in a publication like the New York Times with what one assumes is a highly-educated readership.
Women are very much in the minority when it comes to political power at the state and federal level. This is a vulnerable position. It means many of the gains women have made in the last 35 years can be legislated away.
We are going to need solidarity among all people of goodwill in the next four years. We are going to need to support anyone different from us who is suffering from discrimination. We are going to need all of our care, concern and empathy for "the other" if we are going to preserve a civilized society that looks anything like the best vision of America.
88
Jesus. Look at the women commentators whining when men disagree but fail to rebut the arguments put forth. What do they do? They respond with an ad hominem attack- they point out the gender of the person making the argument rather than deal with the argument. Grow up
5
"We are going to need to support anyone different from us who is suffering from discrimination." In my experience, this will never ring true: persons with disabilities have always been ignored by the SJW elite. Just as America rightly disavowed "trickle-down" economics, we need to throw "trickle-down social justice" in the ash heap of history. Whenever calls for social justice arise, they are always focused on a limited segment of society such as women with the idea that the benefits will "trickle down" to the truly disadvantaged classes (e.g., POC, persons with disabilities) by magic. The gains of social justice movements have not been shared equally: since passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act 25 years ago, PWD have seen rising unemployment and rising poverty rates.
Perhaps it's as significant among lawyers, especially the ones priced out of our mediocre incomes, as among physicians that it's a good bet that the "best" medical treatment comes from the work not of the "best" doctors, who often spend far fewer available hours for most needy patients, but from newer doctors who likely have the energy, commitment, and fresh training in the latest techniques and technologies.
It's my perspective, perhaps misled, that the lawyer who is willing and able to see her client's problems from those persons' points of view, and is willing to sweat more than a little on their behalf is the advocate we who are largely underrepresented on the plaintiff/defendant side of the bar need on their side. I find that women are as sharp and dynamic intellectually as anyone. By the bye, what backwoods wisdom does that comment about "IQ" originate, especially that men have some innate superiority in a marginally important last century standard for separating the bell curve, as if even that representation is anything but a temporary indicator like the stock market ups and downs.
A mother panther knows what it's like to nurture and protect her cubs and is to be respected.
It's my perspective, perhaps misled, that the lawyer who is willing and able to see her client's problems from those persons' points of view, and is willing to sweat more than a little on their behalf is the advocate we who are largely underrepresented on the plaintiff/defendant side of the bar need on their side. I find that women are as sharp and dynamic intellectually as anyone. By the bye, what backwoods wisdom does that comment about "IQ" originate, especially that men have some innate superiority in a marginally important last century standard for separating the bell curve, as if even that representation is anything but a temporary indicator like the stock market ups and downs.
A mother panther knows what it's like to nurture and protect her cubs and is to be respected.
4
Frank wrote:
"A mother panther knows what it's like to nurture and protect her cubs and is to be respected."
Frank, I know you're trying to be supportive, but linking a woman's ability to a stereotyped sex role (actually that of an animal) is part of the problem.
There's no recipe for what makes a good lawyer, but it's silly to think that top law schools admit, and firms and other organizations hire, stupid, lazy people over whom it's easy to vault over. The top schools admit extremely driven individuals who have excelled in the areas that the profession believes are important to success. After graduation, good lawyers, work very hard, often ridiculous hours. It's hard to beat someone by working harder when everyone is working 80-hour works, sometimes with all-nighters. All lawyers are trained to analyze different aspects of a problem, that starts on the first day.
We aren't living in the age of Lincoln, where a smart person can apprentice under a lawyer and pass an exam (at least not in most states). To get a job, and to get the training you need a law school degree is required. When there are far more applicants than jobs, legal employers place a great deal of emphasis on where someone went to law school.
A lawyer who handles smaller matters for ordinary people (as opposed to corporations) must charge less and thus just to make a living must take more cases, which means s/he has to be extremely efficient and may end up spending less time with clients.
"A mother panther knows what it's like to nurture and protect her cubs and is to be respected."
Frank, I know you're trying to be supportive, but linking a woman's ability to a stereotyped sex role (actually that of an animal) is part of the problem.
There's no recipe for what makes a good lawyer, but it's silly to think that top law schools admit, and firms and other organizations hire, stupid, lazy people over whom it's easy to vault over. The top schools admit extremely driven individuals who have excelled in the areas that the profession believes are important to success. After graduation, good lawyers, work very hard, often ridiculous hours. It's hard to beat someone by working harder when everyone is working 80-hour works, sometimes with all-nighters. All lawyers are trained to analyze different aspects of a problem, that starts on the first day.
We aren't living in the age of Lincoln, where a smart person can apprentice under a lawyer and pass an exam (at least not in most states). To get a job, and to get the training you need a law school degree is required. When there are far more applicants than jobs, legal employers place a great deal of emphasis on where someone went to law school.
A lawyer who handles smaller matters for ordinary people (as opposed to corporations) must charge less and thus just to make a living must take more cases, which means s/he has to be extremely efficient and may end up spending less time with clients.
1
Another article on how it's "somebody" else's fault that one cannot achieve. The best legal minds need not come from high LSAT and Ivy stock. In my experience, the primary component to being a successful lawyer is the stomach and heart to fight. Getting up every morning and fighting for your client or cause creates winners.
When you get this reputation, the business and success will follow. Regardless of gender.
When you get this reputation, the business and success will follow. Regardless of gender.
6
Are you a lawyer, because these days that's not how things work. As a second year law student at decent lower ranked school almost everyone in my school has the fight to help clients. However, the jobs to do this just don't exist.
And yes women do have a harder time. There are a lot of domineering men in law school as well and women do not speak out as much in class which can lead to lower GPAs and lower job prospects. By empowering women at a young age we can overcome some of this, but women are still facing an uphill battle in this profession.
And yes women do have a harder time. There are a lot of domineering men in law school as well and women do not speak out as much in class which can lead to lower GPAs and lower job prospects. By empowering women at a young age we can overcome some of this, but women are still facing an uphill battle in this profession.
6
Your perspective as a student reinforces how little you know about how many ways success can be achieved with a Law Degree.
Prove you can generate revenue, success will follow.
Prove you can generate revenue, success will follow.
2
The best legal minds need not come from high LSAT and Ivy stock.
true but employers do not hire that way.
true but employers do not hire that way.
3
I find it very interesting that the people who usually post negative comments about equality for women are always men. And that shows why this problem exists to begin with.
70
See, e.g., Mitchell.
1
Bonaventure:
No, you've got the order reversed. Men reasonably fear that they might become a diversity casualty. That is to say, even if they are better qualified for admission to a top school, their place will go to a less qualified women, all in the name of "equality for women." No surprise that they see this article as a precursor of a campaign to impose "equality" on law schools.
Don't you get it that inequality for women (or inequality for men, like the 60-40 ratio of women to men college graduates) is perfectly fair so long as it is based on merit?
If brilliant women are less interested in the "gold standard" track, or even law school, than brilliant men, then why should that be a matter for all this hand-wringing? Why can't some people leave other people alone?
No, you've got the order reversed. Men reasonably fear that they might become a diversity casualty. That is to say, even if they are better qualified for admission to a top school, their place will go to a less qualified women, all in the name of "equality for women." No surprise that they see this article as a precursor of a campaign to impose "equality" on law schools.
Don't you get it that inequality for women (or inequality for men, like the 60-40 ratio of women to men college graduates) is perfectly fair so long as it is based on merit?
If brilliant women are less interested in the "gold standard" track, or even law school, than brilliant men, then why should that be a matter for all this hand-wringing? Why can't some people leave other people alone?
4
I am a disabled attorney. If you want to hear about how fair the legal profession treats minorities, ask one of us. The unemployment rate for persons with disabilities who also have a law degree is sky-high. The differential isn't a trifling 5%--a rounding error. Commenters to this article must remember: equality of opportunity does not equate to equality of result. Factor such as the desire to be near one's family likely account for the decreased amount of women attending top-tier law schools (which would likely demand a move to a different city). I echo of other commenters: "silly, uninformed media."
Being a law student myself, I feel that more women should come forward to study law. Than any other degree, a Law degree gives more strength to a person to face any situation. Women will feel more secured when they are a student of law.
Though graduating from a prestigious institution carries some weight, it is only individual talent which matters most while conducting a case in Court. Therefore, it is not mere fancy institution which would come to the rescue of a lawyer. Rather than depending on any law firm, it would be better to start individual practice.
Though graduating from a prestigious institution carries some weight, it is only individual talent which matters most while conducting a case in Court. Therefore, it is not mere fancy institution which would come to the rescue of a lawyer. Rather than depending on any law firm, it would be better to start individual practice.
1
There are several problems with this article: It fails to address the number of women who drop out of law after obtaining a degree. At my children's private school there were enough non practicing women lawyers to have a bar association. There were very few physician mother's who were not practicing.
Second, I do not agree that that the higher echelons of law constitute Judges,( other than a few on the Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court) corporate counsel ( unless you mean the individual who is THE corporate counsel of one of the top 100 corporations), or law school deans or professors.
The most prestigious jobs in law are the trial and appellate lawyers who command large fees and can chose their clients. In firms the top lawyers are those who are regarded as experts. Being a law school dean or a law professor usually means you like school and don't want to work all that hard. Sadly, even the once great Harvard and Yale have some lightweights.
Law practice is demanding intellectually and physically and men are better suited to the life than women. No woman with children can reach the top without 100% reliable child care. And preferably a stay at home spouse.
Great lawyers work long hours as do great achievers in any profession. There are too many law schools and lets not lower the standards any further.
I have practiced law for over 40 years. More men are driven to work harder than women. And with some notable exceptions, they make better lawyers.
Second, I do not agree that that the higher echelons of law constitute Judges,( other than a few on the Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court) corporate counsel ( unless you mean the individual who is THE corporate counsel of one of the top 100 corporations), or law school deans or professors.
The most prestigious jobs in law are the trial and appellate lawyers who command large fees and can chose their clients. In firms the top lawyers are those who are regarded as experts. Being a law school dean or a law professor usually means you like school and don't want to work all that hard. Sadly, even the once great Harvard and Yale have some lightweights.
Law practice is demanding intellectually and physically and men are better suited to the life than women. No woman with children can reach the top without 100% reliable child care. And preferably a stay at home spouse.
Great lawyers work long hours as do great achievers in any profession. There are too many law schools and lets not lower the standards any further.
I have practiced law for over 40 years. More men are driven to work harder than women. And with some notable exceptions, they make better lawyers.
6
The article attempts to imply law school admissions are biased against women, but the author buried the far less sexy lead: women need to improve their LSAT scores.
3
First this article speaks to the way that rankings are having a very negative impact on education. Very few good graduate schools in the humanities take the GRE seriously, just as many good colleges (Berkley, for instance) do not require the SAT. The chance that the LSAT measures aptitude or ability better than college grades is practically nil. But as long as it is used for the rankings, it will remain. Second, this article shows how elite institutions tend to reproduce their own power structure. They almost certainly also have lower numbers of female faculty, and a generation or two of admitting women in substantial, if not equal, numbers has not changed the profession to the degree that it should have, in part because the law schools themselves do not necessarily reward female performance equally. Are there 50% female deans at this level, as there should be considering the profile of law school students already twenty-five years ago, when most deans graduated? Are women being paid equally to men? But law does better than some other professions, such as architecture, while those, such as the humanities at university level, that have largely solved these problems have suffered by being rendered irrelevant, as the discriminatory STEM subjects are privileged.
1
@kate: "The chance that the LSAT measures aptitude or ability better than college grades is practically nil." I agree. I think the reason why it's used, though, is that it DOES correlate well with ability to pass the bar exam. Schools can lose their accreditation if not enough students pass the bar. The ABA has only recently required schools to give reasonably accurate statistics on whether their students are employed at jobs requiring a law degree, though, so schools have traditionally ignored that. As to whether their students make partner, or even are able to support themselves and pay back their loans? At that we can only guess.
2
I would like this statistic explained, as there may not be a law school in the country with an 80 percent acceptance rate.
"For 2015, for example, 75.8 percent of applications from women were accepted compared with 79.5 percent of applications by men, according to figures from the Law School Admission Council, which collects data on the gender and ethnicity of applicants."
"For 2015, for example, 75.8 percent of applications from women were accepted compared with 79.5 percent of applications by men, according to figures from the Law School Admission Council, which collects data on the gender and ethnicity of applicants."
1
Ms. Olson is quite right to focus on the increasingly murky world of ad hoc scholarship "bargaining" in admissions -- something that Professor Merritt and Director McEntee do not stress in their research. http://www.lstradio.com/women/documents/MerrittAndMcEnteeResearchSummary...,. That's an an issue that warrants more scrutiny and goes beyond gender From what I see as a law professor, law deans are getting their hands on admissions in ways that applicants, students, faculty, and alumni might find unprincipled or even plain stupid. The deans defend their interventions as necessary for institutional stewardship, but the deans too often find themselves acting not like masterminds, but pawns of U.S. News, their budgets, or both -- leaving traditional concerns like gender, racial and socioeconomic equity in the profession as relatively marginal afterthoughts. One can fairly debate the extent to which such statuses should be considered at all as plus factors in admissions, but that debate requires that the decisions be made more transparently. Ironically, the drive for more transparency under the U.S. News reporting regime has led in many cases to less transparency and gaming.
3
The LSAT is biased against women and people of color. It stresses mathematical skills, even though actual law practice involves very little math, if at all. Law instead involves interpersonal skills. Law schools should emphasize interpersonal skills, as that would lead to better lawyers, and more women in law. A win-win.
What version of the LSAT did you take?
1
Mathematical skills are the skills of logic, Luke. And, logic is at the base of every case, civil OR criminal.
2
Even if the LSAT stresses logic how can you call that biased against women.
Higher mathematics is hard and most people are not good it.
Higher math isn't jut bout numbers and equations.
You need the ability to conceptualize and use logic.
Are you saying women can't do these things as well as men.
If you are right then they deserve a lower grade and if you are wrong then the test would not be biased
You can call this a catch 22.
Either way you are wrong.
Higher mathematics is hard and most people are not good it.
Higher math isn't jut bout numbers and equations.
You need the ability to conceptualize and use logic.
Are you saying women can't do these things as well as men.
If you are right then they deserve a lower grade and if you are wrong then the test would not be biased
You can call this a catch 22.
Either way you are wrong.
The new Democratic cause: gender equality for lawyers. That should be a big hit in the 2018 elections.
17
Males make up approximately 98% of all combat deaths in OIF/OND (Iraq), and OEF (Afghanistan).
http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/RS22452.pdf
Why is this not being reported on, NY Times? Does it not fit the narrative?
I grew up believing that the Times is THE gold standard. I have been let down.
http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/RS22452.pdf
Why is this not being reported on, NY Times? Does it not fit the narrative?
I grew up believing that the Times is THE gold standard. I have been let down.
7
I don't see the issue.
The article states most women who are currently in law school, are not in the top schools and there will not get great jobs.
The article seems to be saying this is wrong but never make the argument that woman are being discriminated against.
If they do not go to these top schools it's either they don't want to or they are academically not qualified.
If this is so then there is nothing wrong.
These woman are not being paid less because they are woman which this article is implying
The article states most women who are currently in law school, are not in the top schools and there will not get great jobs.
The article seems to be saying this is wrong but never make the argument that woman are being discriminated against.
If they do not go to these top schools it's either they don't want to or they are academically not qualified.
If this is so then there is nothing wrong.
These woman are not being paid less because they are woman which this article is implying
7
The fact of the matter is that there are far too many lawyers - period. Anyway, 47% vs. 53%? Hardly a troubling difference. Fewer jobs for law school grads, male or female, means fewer people will seek to enter law school and that's a good thing. The fewer lawyers we have the better.
5
As practicing attorney for 20 years please believe me there are better, more pleasant ways to make a living.
30
Everyone says that about every profession.
1
Law school is a scam for everyone. Let me walk you through the journey—
You have to take the LSAT to get into a law school. $175. But the legal market is garbage, so you need to get into a good school. The test has absolutely nothing to do with actually doing well in law school, but it's a standardized test one must take. So you take it. You take a course to take it. Princeton review, kaplan or something. Add $1,000. Maybe you're pragmatic—you opt for self test books. Cost: $250-1,175. You haven't even walked in the door yet.
Then you get to school, and it's insulting. You don't actually learn anything. Get this: in a class called contracts it just so happens to be you never manage to either read nor write one. The ABA only recently required attendance. Now for some math: If you are at a lower school, you need to have finished with a 3.7 GPA by the end of your first year in order to secure a job that renders probable the security of a job that makes the $200,000 worth it. If you didn't hit that number, you just got boxed out of a GPA that provides the opportunity. I say box because there is a curve in law school—and the lower ranked schools have TERRIBLE curves. Imagine 60 percent of the class being forced to receive a B, this for 90 hours of reading a week. Some schools, it's a C+. You're in a class of 25.... and only 4 A-range grades get handed out.
You have to take the LSAT to get into a law school. $175. But the legal market is garbage, so you need to get into a good school. The test has absolutely nothing to do with actually doing well in law school, but it's a standardized test one must take. So you take it. You take a course to take it. Princeton review, kaplan or something. Add $1,000. Maybe you're pragmatic—you opt for self test books. Cost: $250-1,175. You haven't even walked in the door yet.
Then you get to school, and it's insulting. You don't actually learn anything. Get this: in a class called contracts it just so happens to be you never manage to either read nor write one. The ABA only recently required attendance. Now for some math: If you are at a lower school, you need to have finished with a 3.7 GPA by the end of your first year in order to secure a job that renders probable the security of a job that makes the $200,000 worth it. If you didn't hit that number, you just got boxed out of a GPA that provides the opportunity. I say box because there is a curve in law school—and the lower ranked schools have TERRIBLE curves. Imagine 60 percent of the class being forced to receive a B, this for 90 hours of reading a week. Some schools, it's a C+. You're in a class of 25.... and only 4 A-range grades get handed out.
5
This story is way off base. Yes, it is disturbing that the percentages of female and male students are not precisely equal--especially at schools with respectable job placement rates. And yes, something needs to be done to fix that problem (in particular, the small but important difference in LSAT scores ought to be addressed).
But does anyone really think that these relatively small discrepancies are to blame for the 80/20 distribution of law firm partnerships (often regarded, rightly or wrongly, as the standard measure of success for a career in law)? Women have been earning well over 20% of JDs at virtually every law school for decades now. But the partnership track at most law firms is typically not more than 10-15 years, so the pipeline is clearly not the main problem here.
The many sexist aspects of law firm culture, American work culture generally, and the unconscionable proliferation of poorly-ranked ABA-accredited schools are chiefly to blame for the appalling differences in career outcomes. Law school admissions are part of the problem, to be sure, but they don't really deserve to be singled out in this way.
But does anyone really think that these relatively small discrepancies are to blame for the 80/20 distribution of law firm partnerships (often regarded, rightly or wrongly, as the standard measure of success for a career in law)? Women have been earning well over 20% of JDs at virtually every law school for decades now. But the partnership track at most law firms is typically not more than 10-15 years, so the pipeline is clearly not the main problem here.
The many sexist aspects of law firm culture, American work culture generally, and the unconscionable proliferation of poorly-ranked ABA-accredited schools are chiefly to blame for the appalling differences in career outcomes. Law school admissions are part of the problem, to be sure, but they don't really deserve to be singled out in this way.
6
I have known more than a few women -- often paralegals -- who decided to become lawyers mid-career. The best of them are virtually guaranteed lawyer's jobs at their firms as soon as they pass the bar. They merely need a degree, prestige doesn't matter. From a practical standpoint, they're pretty much capable to do lawyer's work in their area of specialty right away, and just need the credential. Other mid-career women may have other arrangements -- a friend a husband or a small firm that promises to hire them once they pass the bar, a present job where they could earn much more with a degree, or a teaching position for which they want or need the credential. I don't find it at all unusual when a woman in her 40's tells me she is getting her law degree. But I have never known a man that age in the same position. I was in my early 30's at law school and I was the old man. I suspect that second career women don't need or want prestigious universities which are expensive and will disrupt their lives. And I would think that if these women were included in the study you'd get a better picture of males and females in the law.
8
Takeaways (from this article):
1. There are two many law school graduates from too many law schools that produce too many fledgling lawyers for too few jobs.
2. There is a gender gap. Girls on average score significantly lower on the LSATs than boys -- EVEN AFTER FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE!
OTOH, my lawyer friends tell me that the women interns tend to be much better prepared and harder working than the menfolk.
1. There are two many law school graduates from too many law schools that produce too many fledgling lawyers for too few jobs.
2. There is a gender gap. Girls on average score significantly lower on the LSATs than boys -- EVEN AFTER FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE!
OTOH, my lawyer friends tell me that the women interns tend to be much better prepared and harder working than the menfolk.
3
I see the NYT has learned nothing from the Trump debacle. There is no plot here it's just the way things are in the "real world". Law schools want students with the best LSAT scores, men do better on LSAT, top schools have students with the highest scores, companies that offer the best paying jobs recruit at the top law schools.
I also chuckle at complaining about a 3.7 admissions gap I mean wow you think everything in life should have equal outcomes?
I also chuckle at complaining about a 3.7 admissions gap I mean wow you think everything in life should have equal outcomes?
71
Ed,
If you think everything is so straightforward in the "real word," I hope you pressed for Trump disclose his test scores and academic transcripts as he did with Obama.
If you think everything is so straightforward in the "real word," I hope you pressed for Trump disclose his test scores and academic transcripts as he did with Obama.
2
There there has been a huge decline in overall applications to law schools because the high paying job opportunities have declined in the last 15 years. It does not make sense to incur the kind of debt most students do in going to prestige private schools unless you are in the top 20 percent of even elite school students. This article does not address the effect this has on women applying. I don't believe that there was this gender disparity 20 years ago in elite law schools.
1
And then, after many years of successful employment, slugging through the disrespect and hard core misogyny, women are told they don't have a sufficient background, or they don't have leadership qualities, or they don't bring in enough revenue, or they don't have the proper client relationships, or, or, or...
Anything to keep the white male hegemony going.
Anything to keep the white male hegemony going.
137
Amen! Your comment represents my personal experience, and I attended a top 25 law school. I never recommend to bright young women that they attend law school.
4
You are so right. I wanted to be a plaintiff's personal injury lawyer but I couldn't get a job in a firm.
Just as a woman cannot be president.
All my defendants respected me more than did the white males in court.
Just as a woman cannot be president.
All my defendants respected me more than did the white males in court.
6
@Shiloh - there are many belief systems that will enable success in the USA. But buying into the "I am a victim" or "it's somebody else's fault" defaults aren't among them.
You denigrate the success of women across this profession and the business world in general with this thesis. Toughen up, it's a competition and not everyone gets a trophy.
HRC did more damage to women's causes by adopting this loser mentality and not standing up and taking loss on her own. Americas loves winners and absolutely hates a sore loser.
You denigrate the success of women across this profession and the business world in general with this thesis. Toughen up, it's a competition and not everyone gets a trophy.
HRC did more damage to women's causes by adopting this loser mentality and not standing up and taking loss on her own. Americas loves winners and absolutely hates a sore loser.
4
Fewer women get the top LSAT scores, ergo fewer women are admitted to top law schools, ergo fewer women get the most competitive jobs. I'm all for women having equal opportunities to succeed as men, but please explain to me why this particular topic should be the subject of a story.
113
The stats reported in this article aren't significant enough to spit at.
4
This assumes the test is fair, and equitable. It may or may not be. In addition, the article stated that women on average scored two points lower on the LSAT. Two points is a statistically insignificant number.
Underlying assumptions need to be challenged from time to time.
Underlying assumptions need to be challenged from time to time.
5
Why is the LSAT the deciding factor for getting into law school? Did you ever think about that? It was likely first designed by, and chosen as a proxy for law school by, white men. Ergo it likely measures skills found desireable by those same men, i.e. The skills that they themselves excel at. Had women been in power 100 years ago and established the first school admissions procedures, perhaps they would have chosen a mechanism that was more reflective of their skill sets- say, a test that tests emotional intelligence, or a test that tests team building skills (both skills that are surely as relevant or more than the LSAT to success as a lawyer). When the system was set up to perpetuate the succcess of a certain group, is it any wonder that other groups don't succeed as much in that system?
5
"Women score an average of two points lower than men on the LSAT"
It's like Larry Summers said that eventually got him fired as president of Harvard: the male IQ bell curve is flatter but broader, with more males at the low and high ends than the female bell curve, which is clustered toward the middle.
Low IQ people don't take the Law School Admissions Test, so there are more males who score very high on the LSAT.
It's like Larry Summers said that eventually got him fired as president of Harvard: the male IQ bell curve is flatter but broader, with more males at the low and high ends than the female bell curve, which is clustered toward the middle.
Low IQ people don't take the Law School Admissions Test, so there are more males who score very high on the LSAT.
59
Such a sexist, bigoted statement. Women have been hearing such prejudiced remarks for some 40,000 years...do you think that might have something to do with the slightly lower score???
3
The LSAT is not a measure of IQ.
4
My experience with the LSAT exam is dated – I took the exam in 1975. But I have one observation that could explain lower scores for women, assuming the exam still includes a section on three dimensional graphs.
I have read that researchers have determined that women have difficulty with spacial concepts. Based on my experience, I agree. When I took the LSAT, I had such difficulty with the three dimensional concepts I just guessed the answers to the questions in that section. Spacial concepts have always been a challenge for me. I got straight As in high school except for the B I received in solid geometry, and I had to work hard for that B.
But my IQ isn’t low. I had time to go through all the LSAT exam sections twice while most only made it through once, and some didn’t finish the test in the allotted time. According to my pre-law adviser, my score was very high relative to those who took the exam that year – mostly men.
Years later I learned my female partner had the same difficulty with the three dimensional graphs when she took the LSAT exam.
I have read that researchers have determined that women have difficulty with spacial concepts. Based on my experience, I agree. When I took the LSAT, I had such difficulty with the three dimensional concepts I just guessed the answers to the questions in that section. Spacial concepts have always been a challenge for me. I got straight As in high school except for the B I received in solid geometry, and I had to work hard for that B.
But my IQ isn’t low. I had time to go through all the LSAT exam sections twice while most only made it through once, and some didn’t finish the test in the allotted time. According to my pre-law adviser, my score was very high relative to those who took the exam that year – mostly men.
Years later I learned my female partner had the same difficulty with the three dimensional graphs when she took the LSAT exam.
4
This is at best a secondary issue
It is nice that the upper echelon schools take a look at it
but it is diverting from the real issue which is we still live in a society where we have an expectation that women bear responsibility for child care. Unles they have great child care resources they end up reducing their commitment ether in hours or the amount they travel and this results in it either taking them longer to make partner or not making it at all. I have found that the most successful women lawyers I know either don't have children or have a mother or mother-in-law or an extremely flexible husband who they can rely on.
It is nice that the upper echelon schools take a look at it
but it is diverting from the real issue which is we still live in a society where we have an expectation that women bear responsibility for child care. Unles they have great child care resources they end up reducing their commitment ether in hours or the amount they travel and this results in it either taking them longer to make partner or not making it at all. I have found that the most successful women lawyers I know either don't have children or have a mother or mother-in-law or an extremely flexible husband who they can rely on.
158
This is true for any competitive profession that requires high-intensity commitment on a more or less 24/7 basis. Also, women with children, even those with superb child-care arrangements, are less likely to reach for the "gold ring" if it involves frequent travel, out-of-town commitments, or family upheaval (ie...moving) and such.
4
In my anecdotal experience talking with new working mothers is that many would actually prefer staying home with the kids at least while they're young. I've seen it play out many times at work, new mother comes back from maternity leave and within a few weeks quits. Her mind really wasn't on the job.
Many women really don't conform to the wants of feminist agenda.
Many women really don't conform to the wants of feminist agenda.
5
Agree with this comment. As I've always said, when there are children involved, even in dual career couples, someone's always got to have the mommy job. And that person probably is not going to make partner.
1