To report friend to FB for photo of her blacked up?

[Greyhound]

I'm really shocked - cousin of mine has pic of herself on Facebook blacked up. She is white. The picture is of her at a fancy dress party - she has covered her face in dark brown stage make up and is wearing an "Afro" wig and Rastafarian style striped hat.

Her husband is also blacked up.

I think the whole day assessment thing you described earlier sounds fairer!

I'd be more comfortable with having a judgment made on my skills & performance under pressure, & over a relatively sustained period, than on my social graces at a brief drinky-poos.

Might be more fun for the recruiting panel if you added karaoke or a few It's A Knockout type games into the mix?

Except only a select few get offered such full assessments. Most candidates will never be seen. We get people who tell us they have not been called to other interviews. How dispiriting do you think rejection after rejection is? There are far more graduates than the profession needs.

All cvs are read by the assessors. It is part of an interview process. Those who make a good impression which is based on a combination of the cv and the initial meeting get called for an in depth interview.

Nope, that doesn't follow.

If, as you say, there's an overabundance of candidates who'd be worthy of being taken forward on their merits, then a lot of them are going to be rejected. Presumably anyone capable of doing the relevant degree is capable of understanding that they need to be in the top few deciles or be flexible about their employment plans.

I don't see that being rejected because 'you weren't impressive enough at a cocktail party' is magically less bruising than 'your CV wasn't impressive enough'.

Do you have any concept of just how important fitting in is in a law office? And before you climb on your high horse I do not mean being white , male and privately educated. I'm talking about being personable, articulate, showing an interest in the firm and current affairs, being capable of being part of a team, of engaging with clients, of listening and responding to what is said.

I have seen brilliant paper cvs from people who in reality failed miserably on those aspects. I've seen cvs which were on the face of it less impressive but in reality were far better candidates.

It is simply impossible to spend a full day in depth session with every applicant but the brilliant cv does not mean the best all round candidate.

I'm certainly grasping from your posts the concept that 'fitting in' is an important thing in getting hired by a law office.

If I were to retain a lawyer I'd definitely quite like them to be personable & articulate, although being fantastically knowledgable about legal stuff & shit hot at getting things done would be more important.

The knowledgable, shit hot people I know (I'm speaking generally - a couple of them are lawyers, though) aren't always the most obviously clubbable, socially confident types.

I'm not making any assumptions about race, gender or schooling, & how they might play out in your recruitment process. Interesting that you see those as potential 'high horse' triggers, though.

Op you aren't much of a friend are you if you go reporting supposed 'friends' to facebook. Why not confront her yourself directly if you feel so strongly about this?

Phaedra- you were talking about using the best CVs of recent graduates to undertake legal traineeships? I would have thought that what would make them the best CVs was where and what they studied at university no? I don't think that is a crazy assumption to make is it? How do you pick the best CVs then if you don't select on where they studied and what they achieved?

Anyway I was trying to explain a more general point about how structural discrimination might happen, be perpetuated or be addressed (using specific examples of recruitment processes) but as you don't believe any of this happens it doesn't really matter does it?

from Buffy earlier re the "fitting in" thing and how it might perpetuate established systems which exclude those who do not fit a certain profile or disadvantage candidates from certain backgrounds:

^I'm not so much judgemental about the cocktail party as critical of the way it sets people up against a particular, rather arbitrary standard. Going to a cocktail party and having a successful interaction with other lawyers sounds innocuous enough, but it's likely that people from a working class background (who won't have grown up with that sort of social interaction); a person from another country (who won't have grown up with that sort of social interaction); or a person who is perfectly nice and intellectually capable but who has a disability like ASD (who will find such interactions incredibly difficult and exhausting) may well be disadvantaged in a way that is hidden.

You might well argue that it is necessary for lawyers to have the social skills to negotiate cocktail parties. That the people I've described above aren't disadvantaged, they are unsuitable for the job.

To which I'd say perhaps it is, but why are those particular skills necessary? What reason is there for people who are no less competent at other things, even socialising in different ways, to be excluded? The answer to that question is likely to indicate whether structural discrimination is at play in the situation.

I can think of one reason, and it's this: people that law firms cultivate as their clients tend to possess educational, class and cultural privilege and in order to do business with them successfully, lawyers need to be culturally competent in that world. If you've got ASD and can't schmooze very well, then you are less valuable to the firm. And so the exclusion is reinforced.^

which articulates what I keep trying to say perfectly- four pages ago.

I opened this thread expecting to read about people blacking up (objectionable, odd but not I would have thought illegal or worth "reporting" unless you are a member of the Royal Family) and found something entirely different.

Just finished my traineeship in a large city law firm, being kept on. I think the cocktail party after screening cvs for the basics is a great idea. I wouldn't like to provide statistics, but there are certainly plenty of Asian trainees around. Personally speaking, I'm a white woman and I suspect being female gives me a bit of a boost from some male partners. I certainly haven't encountered any discrimination -that happened years ago. Its on merit, and that merit is measured, whether you like it or not, by how well you perform on a number of platforms. Its much harder to get into the better thought of universities, and anyone contemplating a career in law should already know this, as its a career that involves being savvy in business and the world in general.

Communication skills are vital and its astonishing how many people out there who struggle with basic manners and things like making contacts and a good impression on people, and who seem to assume everything will be done for them. Law is a career where communication skills are as vital as a sterling academic record, you have to be able to think on your feet and have a scary attention to detail, and you also have to be prepared to be quite tough and soak up a lot of criticism.

Its not a career for mummy's boys or girls who are too soft to take this. I meet so many non-white females that I find this talk of prejudice and discrimination a bit hard to believe. Maybe it happened 20 years ago. If someone tried to discriminate with us, say maybe a male partner making creepy remarks, he'd soon be the laughing stock of our young lawyer's group. I had to really think about whether some of the trainees and young lawyers I meet are black, white, Asian, male, female, Chinese, whatever (have I missed anyone out?), because I don't think about it at work, I think about their skills and how they are using them in relation to what work I am doing.

But a cocktail party is difficult for a lot of the younger, swotty type of graduate, and that type wouldn't necessarily do well in a city law firm. Its possible to be a shy person like I am and learn these skills, if you want to well, but you can't really get round not having them. Getting on with people you don't know over drinks is a skill that makes the world go round, not just the legal sector, and if you think it doesn't count in business or even if you go abroad to other countries, then think again. I'm sure the firm didn't expect its potential trainees to behave like international diplomats and took this into account.

Oh, and I went to a very ordinary school in a very ordinary town.

That's great that your experience has been positive footloose. But it is not the case for everyone as some of the other voices on here will attest too.

There was a poster up thread who was further on in her career who discussed her experience of exclusions from the business side of law (mens clubs, deals made on the gold course etc.) and wondered whether this may have been a factor in all of her female circle having left their law firms to pursue careers in related fields.

There have been several other voices here as well as links and other evidence that tell a different story. This whole discussion resulted from posters trying to point out the Phaedra that just because she hadn't experienced discrimination personally, doesn't mean that structural discrimination doesn't exist.

Personally speaking, I'm a white woman and I suspect being female gives me a bit of a boost from some male partners.

Can you elaborate on that a bit?

Thank you Faultless

Hissing I have said over and over my firm does not pick out the best cvs. We meet all applicants. I'm really surprised you even suggest looking at the best cvs /best universities as a way of increasing defeating "structural discrimination" rather than looking at all of them and all the candidates.

You also seem to be assuming that being brilliant academically will translate in to being brilliant at actually practising it. That does not necessarily follow.

OK Phaedra- we don't seem to be understanding each other lets leave it there shall we?

phaedra I suppose the proof of the pudding would be shown by the outcome of your hiring practices. I think you've said women are well-represented at partnership level (is it half?). What about social class, state school, race and disability?

Your recruitment practices may produce good results but the way you describe them ("cocktail party", "fitting in") sounds exactly like the problems that have made law firms so male, middle class and white for so long. They are still predominantly this way even though intake figures for women at traineeship and NQ level have been more than 50% for nearly 20 years.

FloraFox men generally like young women around them.

TheHissing women play golf too. If you don't want to put the extra hours in, then you don't get the extra business. This has been made clear to me from day one, and I'm glad some rather tough lawyers took the trouble to spell it out to me. I've been asked, and had friends be asked, not about their academic skills (in fact not that much about academic skills because everyone knows if you didn't put in the work to get at a 2:1 you won't get a look in) but whether you can bring business in. Its not as if this is some great secret that people should be acting surprised about. Being a good lawyer is all about being profitable, and you need to bring business in at some stage if you want to work in the private sector.

Its not really a career for people who want to have a lot of time off relaxing outwith standard office hours. That's why recruiters look for other stuff on your cv, such as voluntary work, or work experience. If you don't want to put in the hours there are good, but not as well paid jobs for lawyers in the public sector and some other areas.

Theres a high dropout rate I would say in the late thirties onwards because its just so stressful. And that affects men as well as women.

Theres always a lot of disgruntled people who don't do well because of basic lack of ability. They're quite probably the same people who as students, don't turn up to any classes, write a load of rubbish in the assignment, then complain that the marker was wrong. Do you know how many students just don't bother turning up and don't participate in tutorials and groupwork? How they expect that to translate to a sought after job and being an excellent lawyer I don't know, and that is something I think benefits women and ethnic minorities in that its based on hard work and not who you know.

There was a trainee in my intake who got sacked (asked to leave) who was from ahemH a very famous public school. He was very charming, good at talking, actually a lovely person. But essentially useless at his job, and a bit unreliable. He became very unpopular with the partners quite quickly, was given several warnings in quick succession and then he didn't turn up any more. White male, elite education. Didn't give him any favours.

You do all realise that most law students (along with medical students) are now female, and that young female graduates in a recent survey outearned male graduates of the same age?

Superb post, FaultlesslyFootloose

On the subject of CVs (and drinks parties for that matter!!) my own recruitment experience suggests that the key abilities which need to be demonstrated are roughly these: Enthusiasm and drive / Team player skills / Good communication / Attention to detail / Initiative and organisational skills / Time management skills / Flexibility and willingness to learn

With reasonable adjustments made where necessary, I've always found that these can be within the reach of anyone with genuine suitability for the job. I fully recognise the issues around exclusion, but also feel that a point comes where some candidates have to accept that they just don't have the innate qualities needed for a particular post

men generally like young women around them.

facepalm

backs out into the sunshine.

Maybe someone needs to explain you the facts of life Hissing.

Young male graduates might well claim they are discriminated against on that basis. Because discrimination doesn't only happen in nice little sacked for being pregnant cases. Indirect discrimination can be very insidious, and difficult to prove.

I haven't got time, in the pursuit of my career, to listen to negative views telling me I won't succeed. If it happens, I will deal with it.

men generally like young women around them.

So you are eye-candy and quite happy to be a dolly for senior men? Do you think that brings business in? What's your long term plan for when you are no longer eye candy?

This has been made clear to me from day one, and I'm glad some rather tough lawyers took the trouble to spell it out to me.

What they are preparing you for is when you might want to do something rather inconvenient (like having children) and you will be sufficiently indoctrinated to believe that it is not possible to be a successful lawyer and have children so you will go quietly.

Its not really a career for people who want to have a lot of time off relaxing outwith standard office hours. That's why recruiters look for other stuff on your cv, such as voluntary work, or work experience.

By your logic, recruiters should avoid people who are inclined to do voluntary work or "other stuff" as they will want drones people happy to chain themselves to a desk all hours. In fact, a lot of successful lawyers have outside interests such as charity / board work, cycling (golf is a bit passe), hiking to the North Pole or climbing Everest.

There has been parity of intake for women in law firms for nearly 20 years. You are young and eager to do well in your firm so it is easier to think all those male partners with wives at home taking care of all of their domestic and parental responsibilities are there because they are harder working or better lawyers and not because the structure of the firm makes it extremely difficult for a partner to manage a family life and be a lawyer and society tells us women should take that responsibility and men should succeed at work.

Being a lawyer is really not that special or different from many other jobs or industries, there's no special requirement to "fit in" or chain yourself to a desk to get the job done or bring the business in.

As for your colleague, if he was so useless it seems most likely that your recruitment process failed to identify that an elite education and charm do not make a good lawyer. I highly doubt any state school educated trainees have been kicked out during their training contract. So it seems it did him the favour of getting him a job he didn't deserve.

So you are eye-candy and quite happy to be a dolly for senior men? Do you think that brings business in? What's your long term plan for when you are no longer eye candy?

That's the worst, most sexually discriminatory comment I've ever had directed at me. I can only assume it comes from someone who would rather spend their time arguing and insulting other people, than actually going out and achieving stuff.

The answer is no, by the way.

I'm guessing by the use of the words "eye candy" and "dolly", you are in the over 50 age bracket. Things have changed. Try and keep up.

Imagine asking someone who has done a law degree, professional pg qualification, is doing a traineeship and is establishing a career what their long term plans are. Are you a bit dim or something?

There has been parity of intake for women in law firms for nearly 20 years. You are young and eager to do well in your firm so it is easier to think all those male partners with wives at home taking care of all of their domestic and parental responsibilities are there because they are harder working or better lawyers and not because the structure of the firm makes it extremely difficult for a partner to manage a family life and be a lawyer and society tells us women should take that responsibility and men should succeed at work

FFS. How bloody patronising. And how insulting to all the woman that have worked as lawyers for decades past. You would think it was unheard of before 1995 from the way you carry on. Do you actually find that talking down to people helps you? Or do you tend to get turned down for stuff and spend a long time wondering why?

Being a lawyer is really not that special or different from many other jobs or industries, there's no special requirement to "fit in" or chain yourself to a desk to get the job done or bring the business in

Well, go and invent an industry providing jobs which doesn't require to fit in, where you can annoy people, do little work and piss people off, and while you're doing it, I'll hopefully have paid off my mortgage.

What did you mean by the statement "men generally like young women around them" then?

BuffyBotRebooted But to answer your question, if you really wanted to address it I'd suggest going and talking to nearby schools and youth projects in deprived areas about mentoring, maybe scholarships even. This would involve talking to the passionate teachers and youth workers, the ones that care about the young people they work with, and doing things that they suggest

I'd say that was your job, as a non-profit making organisation set up to educate, motivate and inspire young people. Any effort from a private sector profit making entity is likely to be piecemeal and very specific or localised in nature, which in itself can be discriminatory. Its not that it never happens, obviously no business wants to miss out on talent, but the question was specifically about an alternative to the recruiting process, not about how to change society, so I would hope that you have better attention to detail without going off at a tangent when you are teaching those very youngers so as not to disadvantage them by exposure to dogma.

Buffy my firm has no input on university admissions criteria . If one wants to be a lawyer one needs a law degree.