Re: It was HAL 9000!
 

Yes, which also happens to be the best business decision.

Re: It was HAL 9000!
 

I'd like to take a moment to speak in support of the elderly white male....

Re: It was HAL 9000!
 

The most honest thing a hiring partner ever said to me was "if you're sitting here, you already know you're qualified for the job. The interview is only to see how well you fit in." There are whole universes of meaning in that sentence.

Re: It was HAL 9000!
 

Cost is equal. Either way, you're hiring a junior associate. Same for skill.

So you're saying that personality is the sole factor? Tell us more about how you assess personality. I think this is the point Thurgreed was focusing on: Ceteris paribus (sp?) how do you decide?

Re: It was HAL 9000!
 

Does it matter whether I'm dealing with the Governor's daughter, who started on 3rd base, or some kid from the Bronx who started someplace far from the stadium?

Re: It was HAL 9000!
 

One of my criteria is a firm that doesn't look like an advertisement in a 1969 issue of GQ. Or like the average Silicon Valley social media startup.

That's a good business issue to consider, right, idiotic S.Ct. university admissions decisions aside, right?

Re: It was HAL 9000!
 

Know one of those who wants a 2nd or 3rd year corporate associate position billing north of 2000 hours a year?

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Oy. Testilying by police officers -- a how-to guide.

Re: It was HAL 9000!
 

Agree with your last observation. One reaction that I have to this is that it shows how broken law firms are, in how they think about what they need from their lawyers and how they're going to try to serve their clients. Most businesses understand that different applicants for a job will bring a range of different skills to it. It takes a peculiarly insulated view of your organization's business to think that beyond a certain minimum set of qualifications, the only thing that really matters is whether you mesh with the current employees.

Re: It was HAL 9000!
 

Yeah, I disagree violently with the hiring officer. My rule has always been to interview broadly, because we shouldn't be thinking that a certain GPA, or any other paper credential, qualifies you to become a good lawyer. And we shouldn't want people who fit too well.

By the way, once upon a time I thought much more deeply about these issues than I have had to in a long time. I was head of the hiring committee at another firm about a dozen years ago, and took a very aggressive approach along the lines Sidd suggested - I wanted people not born on 3rd base and I doubled the number of interviews we did at each school (while not increasing the number of hires - but this meant the high GPA folks didn't dominate the interviews the same way).

The classes I hired were each almost 50% minority and were majority women. The first year, my partners thought it was great, they were surprised at how many "good" candidates I found who were minorities. The second year, one law school complained, saying that we were "hostile" to a candidate who I had basically asked "you were born on third base; tell me how you overcome that?" (we got no complaints about questions about how people overcame all sorts of much tougher shit), and no one commented at all on all the great minorities we were hiring. That was my last year; they got someone else to run the process after that.

Looking back years later, the minorities were the ones, for the most part, who made partner. Though a couple of them then left for really sweet in-house jobs.

Now I just have to hire one person, and we'll see what the resumes look like. I've also recently been put in charge of hiring paralegals. First one hired was a woman and a minority; we'll see when people figure out my general philosophy.

Re: It was HAL 9000!
 

Of course it matters. That's silly question. There are reasons to favor either one, as there are risks inherent in hiring either one. The real question is, does the extra money having the Governor's kid will bring to the office more important than giving a conscious chance to somebody who saw a way and worked at it until they got to where they are? I don't really think anybody could blame you for either choice. But we both know who is more deserving of the chance, and we also know that what makes them deserving of the benefit of the doubt is that they have already shown a strong propensity to dig in when the shit got deep and do what needed doing.

Re: It was HAL 9000!
 

See. Now, when you've known him as long as I have, you get to call him John.

Re: It was HAL 9000!
 

But, assuming you are giving preference to someone who is a minority, do you give it to all minorities, even ones who are privileged in other ways?

Yeah, you're right, almost every law firm in America probably finds room for the governor's kid, regardless.

Re: It was HAL 9000!
 

This question is impossible to answer.

Look, if you feel like the candidate with impressive resume credentials built up through their parents' network means that they will be better for the job or make your life easier, then hire them.

If you feel like the candidate that clawed their way up from nothing to be sitting in front of you will be at a disadvantage that can't be overcome making it more difficult for you to do your job, don't hire them.

Here's how I think about it: If I choose the candidate who had to overcome a lot of shit to get in front of me, I will enjoy bringing that person along. However, if I do not think, after meeting that person, that they can overcome the learning curve and be in a position to thrive, it is not worth my or their time. If I choose a candidate who looks awesome on paper, but who is clearly full of themselves such that they're going to find junior associate work beneath them, it is not worth my time.

TM

Re: It was HAL 9000!