"The African American professionals stuck in doc review closets are not "top tier." Some of them may have gone to top schools, but they graduated near the bottom of their classes. Firms will bend over backwards to hire URM associates who actually perform at the required levels. This is what happens when law schools admit underqualified students because of their race. Stop expecting a free pass."

Law school admission measuring and grading criteria are like the poll tax, they are designed to keep whites in and blacks out. Really, what does "Harry sits two seats in front of Betty" logic games have to do with being an attorney? The system is biased in favor of upper middle class white kids who can afford pricey Kaplan prep courses.

and again, I was shoved into a tiny closet with two other professional upper tier African Americans in an ALL-WHITE mid-sized boutique NYC firm. The heat was oppressive, we weren't allowed to talk, were denied access to the internet, and weren't invited to any firm functions. If anyone complained, they were fired. JIM CROW!

2:52 -- that doesn't explain class rank once they get to the same law school.

I have to say that I've worked for Mintz for a number of years and have found them to be very flexible and good to work for. Very pro-family.

I don't believe any of these allegations.

Just like many African Americans couldn't afford the poll tax, many of them can't afford the pricey LSAT prep and 1L exam prep materials.

Can't afford exam prep materials, huh? Increase your student loan amount.

First of all, the LSATs would be like a literacy requirement, not a poll tax. The sky-high price of law school tuition would be like a poll tax. Let's get our terrible (and belittling to those who actually suffered from the reality of discrimination) historical analogies at least in the right hyperbolic ballpark.

And no, its not like a literacy requirement because those administering it aren't judging whether you "pass" based on your color. A black person in the South could read War & Peace cover to cover before the literacy judge and would still be found "illiterate", making them ineligible to vote (while, of course, a white who couldn't read his own name would be declared "literate" automatically). That's what a racist "literacy test" was all about. The LSAT folks actually grade these tests based on answers.

If your problem is that the tests are inherently unfair because African-Americans - you allege - just CANNOT be expected to answer LSAT-style questions correctly, what sort of test do you propose would be more fair?

Or are all tests unfair, and African-Americans with lower scores should just be assumed to be the intellectual (or test-taking, or whatever the heck the LSAT/SAT/GRE tests measure) equal (or superior) of white (presumably wealthy - we're presuming white = wealth and black = poor here, right? No trailer park rednecks or kids of black lawyers and CEOs considered, right?) counterparts with higher scores (while, of course, white counterparts with lower scores actually function at that lower level)?

How do we fix this so that we are comparing apples to apples?

BTW - how did this post come up on a story about Mintz Levin hating mommies?

Flunked the LSAT? -- Not my fault, I couldn't afford Kaplan.

Did poorly on exams? Not my fault, I couldn't afford textbooks.

Poor interviewing and interpersonal skills? Not my fault, I couldn't afford proper grammer...

Why don't we just get rid of any type of device designed to measure one's abilities, and give all good jobs to African Americans. Because it's clear that the nonsensical "poll tax" mentality applies to everything, and is a perpetual crutch upon which African Americans can continuously blame, in perpetuity, for the personal failures.

Oh, and remember there are more poor whites in the U.S. than any other demographic, so the really screwed are the poor whites, who can neither afford "poll taxes" nor can they benefit from the panopoly of internships/scholarship/affirmative action/hiring policies favoring minorities.

right, the LSAT is a perfect measure of intellectual ability. Deciphering if Sally can sit two seats behind Charlie in less than 30 seconds is a real mark of genius. The only people who can score high on these "exams" are upper class white nerds who have all the time and money in the world to study the intricacies of these silly games. Why don't we just admit people based upon how well they play chess?

3:15 is at least right about the 1L exam prep excuse. I went to law school penniless and took out loans for EVERYTHING (exam prep outlines, etc included). Its not like undergrad, once you're in banks, etc are itching to saddle you with as much debt (loans) as possible. The more you spend, the better for them. Afford had nothing to do with law school materials, just had to do with the huge oppressive debt I had afterwards. Any reason why I should be saddled with a huge debt in the quest for good grades but others should not?

256 - you are obviously lying. It would be impossible to staff a firm of any size with only whites in NYC - unless the firm is aggressively importing them.

2:52--I reconize you're trolling, but because there are morons out there who actually believe the truth of what you've thrown out: anyone can afford the $40 (less if second hand) Kaplan book. That's all you need: raw practice, not coaching.

Was any law firm NOT named to Working Mother's best places for women list? That list means zip.

Dunno- the honeymoon quip sounds like he was trying to be funny.

Why are all these comments about race? The entry is a gender discrimination suit?

"Any reason why I should be saddled with a huge debt in the quest for good grades but others should not?"

Yes: because you're poor and they aren't.

"The African American professionals stuck in doc review closets are not "top tier."

Yep--because it's impossible for black people to be "top tier," regardless of credentials are accomplishments. No amount of talent or intelligence can make them superior to a white person who graduated in the 50th percentile from the University of Kentucky.

It's not just money, it's time. I actually had to work in college and didn't have the time to study the intricacies of Byzantine logic games. What this has to do with being a lawyer, I have no idea.

"anyone can afford the $40 (less if second hand) Kaplan book. That's all you need: raw practice, not coaching."

So why do people pay for coaching?

"Why are all these comments about race? The entry is a gender discrimination suit?"

Because the plaintiff is white, her claims are per se credible. Thus, there is nothing about her post to argue about.

3:28--because nobody ever went broke by appealing to the fears of hypercompetitive people (and their parents).

3:22 - just ducking my question (and point), eh? Seems to me that I clearly stated that the LSATs don't necessarily measure intellect, but supposedly measure something, so this whole sarcasm, white nerd bashing rant isn't really responsive is it?

Now, let's try again. What test do we use so that nobody is disadvantaged? How do we avoid silly dork games and get to the answer of who should be in or out?

Oh, bs. It takes no time to "study the intracices of Byzantine logic games" if you're taking real college courses that require thinking rather than Feminist Postmodern Communist Analysis of Sociology. I studied a grand total of four hours for the LSAT and got a perfect score.

This conversation about Kaplan coaching versus doing the practice tests alone is amusing: I'm slightly more likely to hire the student who shows up well dressed, in a properly tailored $5000 suit, than I am to hire the student who wears an off the rack Mens' Wearhouse suit because that's all he could afford.

Should we start a program to make all law students dress alike for interviews?

3:26 - uh, dude, I'm NOT on your side. My point was, why should I feel bad for an African-American who did poorly on his exams because he didn't buy exam prep outlines while I did, when NEITHER of us could "afford" them (in the sense of having our own money to buy them), but I took out a bigger loan to buy them (hence saddling myself with a larger debt when law school was over) while he did not?

That is, he chose not to do what both of us had the same opportunity to do (with the same drawbacks), and suffered grade-wise for it.

3:23, you misunderstand me. I agree with the point you made; but I wasn't being sarcastic in my answer to your general question of "[a]ny reason why I should be saddled with a huge debt in the quest for good grades but others should not?" As a general matter, the reason is because you can't afford to strive without paying interest; tough shit, that's life.

http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Statistics/JULY2007STATS.pdf

That's the real issue. And the bar exmaniners give a good god d__n about what color you are.

And if you think issue spotting and substantive knowledge for the Multiple choice are irrelevant to being a lawyer - you don't think much.

This is a real problem: how about some meaningful discussion of solutions?

Here's a solution, 3:52--all academic selection (college, law school) is done blind. Incoming applications are stripped of name, age, sex, geographic region, etc. data and the people who review and assign a grade to personal statements are kept separate from those who review the rest of the file. Participation in groups that identify with a particular gender, race, sexual orientaion, etc. are all stripped down to responsibilities, time invested, etc.

Let the chips fall where they may.

"I suppose we have your honeymoon to blame for this?"

It sounds like he was just joking around with her. Hardly something to file a lawsuit over. Does the eggshell plaintiff rule apply to metaphorical as well as literal thin-skinnedness?

I am not sure what should be done with it. I just don't think that byzantine logic games that people play when they are 21 should lock in their entire career trajectory. If we want to create lawyers who are disproportionately white, upper middle class, and nerdy with no people skills, the current system is working quite well.

If you're really smarter than everyone else, despite poor LSAT scores, then you shouldn't have any problem being top of your class and transfering after your first year, right? I mean, that's what I did.

Pimply-faced nerds with no people skills make horrible lawyers. Just look at the autoadmit defendants. Is this the kind of legal system we want in this country?

Why are people saying Penn is Ivy League?

The disproportionately African American staff and contract attorney aren't going to take it anymore. They will rise out of their crammed basements and cause hell. Watch out pimply-faced biglaw nerds!

"byzantine logic games"

Yes, one must be white, upper middle class and nerdy to be able to understand byzantine logic games. Blacks are well-known to have no capacity for logical thought. And don't even get me started on east and south asians--they couldn't figure out even a two-step logic puzzle to save their lives.

Face it--UR DUM!

"Why are people saying Penn is Ivy League?"

Um, b/c it is? What do you think are the 8 Ivy League schools?

Right, the LSAT logic games are really great at testing logic! Parcheesi might as well be a truer test.

Getting back on topic: can someone explain why an associate who is getting married would need to take a cut in salary and status in order to keep her job?

The majority of the African Americans I've met at GULC have more of a Theo Huxtable background. As a blue collar white, I have more in common with the people (predominantly black) at the school pushing mops and slinging hash than those students who got a leg up for their "disadvantaged" status.

"Yep--because it's impossible for black people to be 'top tier,' regardless of credentials are accomplishments. No amount of talent or intelligence can make them superior to a white person who graduated in the 50th percentile from the University of Kentucky."

Poorly performing white attorneys don't get associate positions either. They're stuck in the doc review closets with the poorly performing black attorneys. High class rank is a necessary and often sufficient factor in biglaw hiring. Underqualified AA admits to top schools will rank at the bottom of their classes. Racism isn't responsible for these doc review ghettos, affirmative action is.

Technically, Penn St is in the Ivy League, and Penn is part of the Penn St system. It's the Philadelphia campus. Same law school, Joe Paterno, Warden school, etc. This was covered in the comments to another story. 4:20's confused.

3:52: Good question.

1. Conservatives should own up to the fact that the effect of centuries of slavery and decades of Jim Crow are not eliminated in 40 years.

2. Liberals should own up to the fact that remedial measures can't trump merit in all phases of life, and that affirmative action in grad school and the professional world is an ineffective red herring.

3. White people should (consistent with points 1 and 2) support substantial investment in black communities including: early education, health care, affordable housing, small business and home loans, and crime control.

4. Black people should recognize that, if they expect white people to see that social forces have incorporated the effects of past discrimination, making life worse for black people today, it is also fair to suggest that some of those social forces are now internal to the black community, and need to be equally criticized rather than defended as black "culture" (see ebonics, single motherhood, and the lack of emphasis on education).

1. Harvard
2. Yale
3. Stanford
4. Penn St.
5. Colgate (not Cornell - that's a state school)
6. Princeton
7. Dartmouth
8. Oxford

Not sure how any of this is relevant to the actual post, but since we're talking about it:

Do the LSATs not also have logical reasoning and reading comrehension sections, which *may* possibly measure skills that are relevant in law school and in practicing law? And do the logic games not measure one's ability to reach accurate conclusions based on a changing set of facts, which also *may* be relevant in a law school classroom?

3:22, could you explain why the color of one's skin has anything to do with this?

What is wrong with you people? Penn is in the Big Ten!

http://bigten.cstv.com/schools/psu/big10-schools-psu-body.html

"I suppose we have your honeymoon to blame for this?"

"It sounds like he was just joking around with her. Hardly something to file a lawsuit over. Does the eggshell plaintiff rule apply to metaphorical as well as literal thin-skinnedness?"

1. "Thin-skinnedness" is not a word, moron.

2. You obviously failed sensitivity training if you think a comment like that is acceptable in the workplace.

3. Her discrimination lawsuits is not based on one isolated comment. She alleges hostile work environment and cites specific examples of inappropriate, misogynistic comments and conduct. A woman should not have to take a cut in pay and hours because she had a baby.

4:32 for president. Why can't anyone say that stuff non-anonymously?

Duke is an Ivy League school. Well-settled that it's the "Ivy of the South"

Thank you Obama at 4:32(1).

@ 4:36 - Thanks! I didn't know naming them was such a big deal!

The LSAT can be gamed. If you practice enough stupid byzantine logic games questions, eventually you will get the hang of it. It's silly really.

Idiots.

University of Pennsylvania is an Ivy with a top 10 law school.

Penn State is not related to University of Pennsylvania. (Does Penn State even have a law school?)

I could not have afforded an LSAT prep course as an undergrad. Instead, I worked for a couple of years, saved some cash, paid for an LSAT course with my own money and raised my score accordingly. Also, my law school education is financed entirely by loans.

Please explain the bias there.

Thx.

Please start blocking the Penn/Penn State idiocy.

4:46- then you will run into the biglaw age bias thing. The system is really geared towards the young, upper middle class white crowd.

4:32(1) is a very sensible person capable of substantive and balanced reasoning. Therefore, 4:32(1) is neither a journalist nor a talk-radio host. It is also highly unlikely that 4:32(1) is a professor.

4:06 was clearly posted by a man who has no idea what it is like to work in a male-charged environment where partners frequently say things like "those shoes make your legs look amazing" or "you can't behave like a man in this business, then you're a bitch."

You fellas are all wrong on Penn. Everyone knows they're not part of Penn State. Rather, in the mid-nineties they signed an affiliation agreement with the University of Oregon since they already had a mascot similar to that of the Ducks - "Quackers."

4:55, why are you wearing those shoes in a profession enviroment? Heels like that aren't designed to do anything BUT make your legs look amazing, are they?

People sure love knocking the "byzantine" logic games. They're an easy target too, since deciding what 5 people order in a restaurant on an exam sounds funny. But seriously - can any of you LSAT haters back up your claims with anything substantial?

LSAT questions certainly seem to test logic and reasoning ability. The connection seems pretty straightforward to me and all of the law schools who require the test. Maybe those who do poorly on the test lack the logical/intellectual ability to understand the relevance of the questions?

People love to make excuses too. "The whole test is bullshit because it favors those who take prep courses." Hater, meet Reality. Reality, meet Hater. Yes, prep courses help. But many people take prep courses, and very few do well enough to get into a top school.

honeymoon comment sounds like an attempt to be funny, but i wasn't there and im a dude

I grew up poor in rural Texas, and now I'm Executive Editor for a top 10 law review.

Logic games are stupid. They have nothing to do with law practice and are about as useful of a measuring stick as a crossword puzzle or a game of Parcheesi.

Lat went to Yale, I believe. Consequentially, he must have scored well on the logic games. This is not to say however that he does or he doesn't possess superior reasoning skills, merely that he has years of experience in lining up, remembering the names of, and buying alcoholic drinks for his various young white boyfriends. Call that "logic" if you like, but I call it something else.

The LSAT is the strongest single indicator of law school grades, stronger than GPA (LSAT has a 0.4 correlation if I remember correctly). LSAT+GPA is a stronger predictor than LSAT alone.

4:47 PM: "Please start blocking the Penn/Penn State idiocy."

The Penn/Penn State merger was hardly idiocy. It paved the way for the subsequent takeover of NYU by the CUNY system.

5:37- I agree. The LSAT and law school exams are similar in that they measure nothing even remotely useful for the real world.

People who criticize the LSAT are missing the point. Imagine that you are charged with murder and face the death penalty. You get to pick between two public defenders. You know nothing about them except for the fact that one is black and one is white, and that one got a 180 on his LSAT and the other got a 155. Is there anybody who would not pick the person who got the 180, regardless of race. Obviously the LSAT is a ridiculously poor predictor of how well the person will represent you, *but it is mildly predictive whereas race is not predictive at all*

The fact is, it's hard to tell who will do well in law school, but that is no argument for relying on factors that have zero correlation with success.

(p.s. please don't feed the trolls by saying that you would pick the white lawyer because the black lawyer must have got there through affirmative action.)

Lots of things "have nothing to do with law practice," but still manage to do a great job of estimating raw reasoning ability. The LSAT happens to be one of those things.

You'll notice that the top law schools are neither trade schools nor apprentice shops.

The LSAT DOES NOT measure raw reasoning ability. Where's your evidence to back that claim up?

"Lat walks into a gay bar and sees six white twinks. The twink tops are Frank, Greg, and bottoms Harry, Jeff, Kyle, and Lewis. The three stools at the bar are labeled 1 to 3 from top to bottom. Any of the stools can remain empty.

Jeff and Lewis cannot be on the same stool.
Frank must be on the stool immediately next to the stool Lewis is on.
No single stool can hold all three twinks
Kyle cannot be on Stool 2.

Where can Lat sit and who can he bring home?"

What does this exactly measure? It is stupid.

5:41 (1) - They do a better job than other metrics. Firms or law schools are free to change their admissions/hiring practices if they choose. No system can/will be perfect.

I had a relatively low LSAT score (below 20%) for my top ten school, but finished Order of the Coif and am a COA clerk for an active judge. My top 5% performance in elite undergraduate was more indicative of my ability than that stupid test.

"No system can/will be perfect"

I guess we should have just kept Jim Crow then?

5:04 - believe me, there was nothing that spectacular about the shoes. It was a wanton lecherous comment.

5:56 - Really? Is that strawman the best you can do? Look - I'm not convinced admissions people are crazy about the LSAT either, but there is a reason it is weighted heavily in admissions.

5:56- evidence, then? You want to maintain a system that disproportionately excludes minorities and the poor/lower middle class. Where is your INDEPENDENT evidence that it is such a great tool?

What is the highest score anyone on here got on the LSAT that didn't take any sort of prep course, not even a prep book?

Strawman? We have partners who are compensated at stratostraphic levels and staff attorneys who are working in cramped, dirty, and dingy basements. Your silly test is propping up and providing validity to this lopsided caste structure. If your test is so great, provide independent evidence that justifies it; don't just provide bold assertions that it adequately measures logic and reasoning ability.

6:14--did the practice test on the LSAC site, got a 174

To clarify: only prep I did was taking the practice test off the LSAC site, got the 174 on the actual test.

6:20, there's independent evidence that the single strongest correlation between law school academic success and an admission factor is occurs with the LSAT score. Use combined LSAT + UG GPA to get the strongest correlation. What the Hell more do you want? An independent study correlating LSAT scores to IQ? Why not go ask Mensa why they admit based on LSAT score.

Um, 6:20, it was 2:52, a "doc review ghetto" loon, who even brought up the LSAT. I happen to think the LSAT is a measure of logical intelligence, but that belief isn't even necessary to my argument. My argument is that your staff attorneys made shitty grades in law school once they got there. THAT'S why they're staff attorneys. Your "the LSAT is a hegemonic reincarnation of Jim Crowe, WAAAAH!" argument is completely irrelevant.

Do LSAT's and law school exams really measure intelligence? Doubt it.

Staff attorneys are staff attorneys because they continue to be discriminated against by a legal profession that protects rich upper income white males, and selectively excludes anyone that is different. The LSAT and arbitrary law school exams assist in this process.

6:20 - Calling it "your test" belies your point about that "we" are the divisive ones. You're the only one using that rhetoric. Assuming that you are a member of the legal community, it is very much OUR test.

I'm a liberal, but the problem is not with the LSAT. The evidence has already been given on this thread that the test has meaning for law school performance.

Yeah, your exam grades say very little about your intelligence or your chances of performing well once you become a lawyer.

Which is why no employer, those people who make their money by choosing the best law school grads they can hire, gives two shits about your law school grades.

6:42 is having a troll field day with you idiots.

That study was put out by the company that administers the LSAT. The LSAT favors upper middle class students who have all the time in the world to study the intricacies of byzantine logic games, and who have rich mommy and daddys who can subsidize fancy LSAT prep courses.

I get the distinct feeling that the woman who wrote that C&B article for HuffPo has camped out in the comment section of ATL.

Why would she camp out on ATL? She has nothing to prove to you pimply-faced legal nerds. It's a DC or NYC jury that will decide her case. The jury will find that biglaw and the legal establishment are inherently biased, despite what they may say on the surface.

7:07, you've confused the plaintiff in Lat's post here with the HuffPo's featured moron. At least keep the trolling intelligent.

Or maybe the LSAT's reading comprehension was your bane.

"The LSAT favors upper middle class students who have all the time in the world to study the intricacies of byzantine logic games, and who have rich mommy and daddys who can subsidize fancy LSAT prep courses."

umm newsflash: the knowledge absorbing processes of the human brain favor "upper middle class students who have all the time in the world to study the intricacies of [stuff], and who have rich mommy and daddys who can subsidize fancy . . . courses."

you are either an irrestistible troll, or a great example of the negative implication of the above statement.

If all I did was play parcheesi in my senior of college and my mommy and daddy hired fancy consultants to make me a better a parcheesi player, I am sure I would eventually beat others in parcheesi. Too bad I had to work two jobs to pay for that skyrocketing state school tuition.

7:42 - I'm not sure what you think a better solution to law school admissions would be? A standardized test is the most efficient (ie cheapest) way to differentiate candidates. A more in depth analysis of each candidate, although ideal, would prove too time consuming and costly to be feasible.

What is your suggestion?

I suggest we create a system that doesn't unfairly discriminate against minorities and the poor/lower middle class. How about taking the stack of applications, throwing them down a stairwell, and picking out those that reach the bottom first. It would be just as fair as the current system, but would remove the inherent racial bias.

Why are you spending so much time furthering this trolling? How often are you refreshing/coming back to check this comment section?

Why do you care?

Ak47 get quit trolling on this board.

YOU WILL RESPECT MY RICH LATINO CULTURE!

The only pratice I did for the LSAT was taking the free practice exams on the website. I got a 172 on the real exam.

The only exam prep books I got 1L year (or any year after) were hand-me-downs from the school's free book exchange and older students. We don't have class rank, but I made law review and ended up graduating order of the coif.

Oh, and I also paid my way through law school, with a partial scholarship, and took out my own loans, which mommy and daddy couldn't even begin to help pay back even if they wanted to.

The LSAT is a very good indicator of law school grades. The real question is whether law school grades are a good indicator of success as an attorney.

Right, I am sure that all the upper middle class white kids who just happen to score higher on it somehow have brains that are biologically superior to everyone elses. Are you a disciple of Dr. Mengele?

Let's get back to the big issue facing the law firm world. Who gives a shit about LSAT scores. When can we expect news of the Cadwalader cuts to leak out into the mainstream media, and how big will they be? And what firms are next?

9:50 -- Neither LSAT scores nor law school grades are a reliable indicator of success as an attorney. True success in the pracitce of law requires a certain vigor and intrepidness not necessarily present in good test takers or even intelligent people. As a senior partner, I can tell you that some of the best people who have come down the pike at my firm were from non-elite law schools. It is also true that some of the best people came from the elite schools. But I've learned that there are no sure things in this field. I look for a highly intelligent person as a starting point -- but most people I interview have that characteristic (not Einsteinian but well above average). But that is not a reliable indicator no matter where they went to school. Intangibles are the key; and I've found that the only way to assess whether those intangibles are present is to actually work with the person. Assuming anything based on the law school a person attended is a crap shoot.

11:06 -- Yes, there are larger societal issues that give a lot of minorities a disadvantage. That does not mean the the LSAT is racially biased.

It also does not mean that the financial status of someone at the time of their life that they take the LSAT and attens law school is determinative of their success; the problems go back much further.

I know plenty of black students at my school who took LSAT practice courses and bought lots of exam prep materials in school, but did not get as high grades as I did.

This does not mean whites have better brains.

The bottom line is that there is a smaller pool of blacks applying to law school in proportion to the population. This is because of the larger issues that keep many blacks from even trying to achieve this type of success. Because so few blacks are even in the position to apply to law school, there will be very few blacks who achieve high scores on the LSAT.

Wouldn't byzantine logic games actually be culturally skewed in favour of Greeks?

11:31 -- I agree wholeheartedly and did not mean to imply otherwise.

The LSAT is a exclusionary poll tax, plain and simple. It tests nothing of substance, is filled with silly mumbo-jumbo child games, and can easily be "gamed" if one hires enough high priced consultants.

I believe the Penn St./Penn Law facts were settled in the previous Clifford Chance post by the Law School Historian. It follows:

"Being a Top 10 school, the Penn State Law school - Philadelphia campus once declared autonomy because it was ashamed to be part of a state school system.

[Penn Law] later joined forces with an independent Petoria and declared war on [Penns St.]. Needless to say, Penn Law school was once again annexed into the Penn State school system.

Little is known of what happened to Petoria."

11:24, that last "fact" is simply not true. I saw a special on Petoria a few weeks ago. Petoria was annexed by Rhode Island.

Wiley Rein (DC) has been known to suggest directly to the female associates that they take the mommy track. It should come from the associate if she wants it, not the other way around. It is ironic; when will lawyers ever learn how to behave at work to decrease the chance of getting sued?

11:31 --

"As a senior partner, I can tell you that..."

Come on now. If you were really a senior partner the last thing you'd be doing is wasting your time reading and adding to the comments on this blog.

I call BS on 11:31. Or was the BS so obvious to everyone else that they didn't even bother to call BS on it?

What on Earth do any of these comments have to do with the post? I find it fairly disturbing that so many posters here lately seem almost eager to disparage one another on race.

Timeo danaos: The Byzantine Empire was in Turkey and Iraq, not Greece.

I am white. I scored a 152 in the LSAT. Scoring on the single figures on logic games. I graduated in the top 20% of my class from a school ranked in the mid 40s.

Confused:

You may want to:

1. Consult a map of the Byzantine Empire referring to its territory over most of its history.

2. More importantly, it might be useful if you knew something of the language, religion and culture of the Byzantine Empire.

3. Your posting name is apt indeed.

http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Statistics/JULY2007STATS.pdf

A test in which whites outperform asians ! ! ! !

Wingnut--

Take it to Law School Numbers, m'kay?

I'm a black law student at a T14 and have a job with a Vault 10 this summer. I scored a 140 on the LSAT and earned straight C's through law school despite working very hard. I've never truly been able to compete with others in my classes (either in undergrad or law school), but I definitely earned my job so keep quiet, white folks.

8:47--

Take THAT CRAP to AutoAdmit, m'kay?

3:30 -- Do you disagree with 11:31? What 11:31 says seems like common sense. Why are you offended? And if you're not a senior partner yourself, how do you know whether a senior partner would post on this site or not? I don't see why discourse about the legal field should be limited to non-senior partners or others. After all, senior partners have made the law their lives; why wouldn't they want to offer their views. 11:31 simply stated his/her experience and didn't offend anyone. As a matter of fact, 11:31's post was written very respectfully of everyone. You, on the other hand, responded with a "BS" attack. It's clear you're not a senior anything and are not likely to ever be -- except maybe dope.

11:31/8:59

Come on, now. Don't be a child.

3:30

9:03 -- You still haven't said anything other than "come on, now" twice. What's your point? A Senior Managing Partner ought to be able to come up with something to backup a BS charge. I only hope you're one of my associates and you slip up and say "come on, now" repetitively in my presence. Wait a minute, I hire only competent people. Darn.

There are 1L exam prep materials? WTF? I guess I missed that.

When did AutoAdmit and ATL merge?

Lat,

Letting this site turn into AutoAdmit version 2.0 isn't going to keep people coming back. I don't want to read tons of comments about race all the time. Please exercise your ability to delete posts.

Anyone posting this nonsense about race, the LSAT, logic games and Penn St./Penn is an idiot.

Penn is a joke anyway. I can't stand these sore losers who get under 165 on the LSAT and then complain about not getting into top 10 places like Yale, Stanford, Michigan, NYU et al. You were never getting in anyway. It doesn't matter whether someone was admitted b/c of aff. action or not. You aren't getting into a top school with a 3.2 from Ohio State University, a 154 on the LSAT and some clown essay about farming, hillbillies and other redneck foolishness.

If I thought that 8:47 was actually a genuine post, I would be livid. I think you get 140 just for writing your name on your answer sheet. I really don't understand how anyone who scores in the 140s or 150s on the LSAT can even think they are deserving of a place in law school, regardless of race.

What the LSAT measures is your ability to think critically (and quickly) and identify well-reasoned and poorly reasoned arguments. I don't see how that isn't relevant to the study and practice of law.

I do employment law and have opposing counsel from TTT schools all of the time. I presume they went to TTT because their LSAT scores sucked ass.

They tend to have no concept of logic and make contradictory arguments without basis in law. With about 5 minutes or research and thought I can tear apart their arguments in a motion. When I win these motions, people congratulate me, but inside I feel bad, like I'm beating up retarded kids.

I love the distraction from the real debate. Here's the thing. This crap happens at law firms all the time. People chose to believe it does not happen.

I work at a firm on the Working Mothers list. And, my department has never seen a working mother. Their wifes don't work. And, our solo female partner will probably never be a mother. Things may be different in other groups, but that's not representative of my group and does not help me in my career.

So the real question seems to be - why would someone go part-time if she gets married? Do men? Of course not. At that point, it's unreasonable to think that marriage somehow negates her ability to work at least 12 hours a day.

If this guy was normally funny, then his comments may have been taken as funny. Unfortunately, most partners are socially inept, so they tend not to be funny or exhibit a sense of humor. So, even if these two comments were meant as a joke, they wouldn't be taken that way if that particular partner never jokes around.

Stop pretending discrimination and sexism don't exist in law firms. Sadly, they both do and I find it amusing that the partners for whom I work don't believe they have any issues or ever say anything actionable.

"When I win these motions, people congratulate me, but inside I feel bad, like I'm beating up retarded kids."

Best. Post. Ever.

The Working Mother award is a complete lie. No working mother at Mintz (or any firm) verified that it was a good place to work. It was based EXCLUSIVELY on a firm's own submission - essentially well-crafted marketing/public relations campaigns. Working Mother and Flex-time Lawyers did not interview a single working mother (associate or partner) at these firms before declaring them a "best" place to work. This is the epitome of irresponsible journalism - and I use the term journalism loosely as I suspect the real goal is to draw business and attention to the organizations that sponsor these "awards."

It is unforgivable that these two organizations have helped craft an award that is unsubstantiated and which Mintz (and others) can now use to cast doubt upon some serious, and, given my own experiences, likely true allegations. It is time we all paid more attention to these discriminatory practices and the steps firms take to conceal them. When we stand as individuals the firms have the power; as a group, firms need women to join them, giving us the power. We should all be supporting her. Imagine the guts it took to stand up while she is still working there. Not to mention that since she's an employment lawyer, I'd bet she must be pretty confident that she can satisfy the proof requirements for her claims or she wouldn't risk the public scrutiny.

Is no one really going to say "I suppose we have Spitzer to blame for this?"

When I returned to work after maternity leave, about 85% of the people I worked with just presumed I was part-time. I wasn't. Not really a huge deal in that I wasn't wrapped up in the job or anything, but I would've been pissed if I'd been angling for partnership.

Seconding 1:29AM. This place is overrun with xoxo douchebags. Lat, start moderating before it just becomes 7 or 8 people posting over and over like xoxo was.

It is too bad that law firms do not operate an effective market and take into account the need of procreation for law firms to continue. If no one had kids, we would all be SOL, and while child birth does cut into productivity it allows the species to continue. So which is better? More productivity and then eventual extermination or a couple of months off, reduced hours, and someone to continue this here law firm you created? Or the companies that you work for?

If the market were efficient, law firms would not be where they are now. Because they wouldn't be too busy discriminating to see a down turn in the economy and adjust accordingly!

4:32 is Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone knows Bret Cohen of Mintz is inappropriate towards all women!