A government report has accused top law firms of requiring potential trainees to pass a
"poshness" test and says firms should stop using exam results to filter candidates.
The report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission says that despite efforts by firms to improve social inclusion, trainee intakes continue to be "heavily dominated" by the privileged. It found that at some firms trainees are more than five times more likely to have attended a fee-paying school than the population as a whole. Of the five firms in the top 15 by turnover whose data the researchers could obtain, Clifford Chance had the highest percentage of trainees who had been to private school, 39.8%, followed by Slaughter and May with 39% and Herbert Smith Freehills with 37.5%.
By recruiting from good universities, particularly the Russell Group, the study says that elite firms are more likely to attract students who have attended selective or fee-paying schools. And students from working-class backgrounds who have managed to battle into Russell Group unis may self-exclude, says the study, because "some of the activities conducted during campus visits may reinforce elite firms’ image of exclusivity", leading the students to feel that they will not fit in.
Themad bold solution offered by the report is for firms to think up a new definition of
talent. At the moment, says the study, firms look for candidates with good exam results and qualities
such as "drive, resilience, strong
communication skills and above all confidence
and ‘polish’", which, it says, favours middle-class girls and boys. The study leaves its egalitarian definition of talent tantalisingly unconfirmed, recommending instead that firms invent "methods with each other to
identify potential which do not rely on past perfomance".
Herbert Smith Freehills London head of Corporate Scott Cochrane, who attended state school, told RollOnFriday, "Clearly my firm has not systematically discriminated against me", and pointed out that, "we tend to look to the Russell Group as a starting point because they have a high proportion of the smartest students". Raising Herbie's involvement in the PRIME intitiative to provide fair access to work experience, he said "The problem at my school was a lack of information and belief that "kids like us" could aspire to work in big law firms", suggesting, "what we need to do more is find ways of engaging with school children at an earlier stage, before they get or don’t get to Russell Group universities".
Tip Off ROF
The report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission says that despite efforts by firms to improve social inclusion, trainee intakes continue to be "heavily dominated" by the privileged. It found that at some firms trainees are more than five times more likely to have attended a fee-paying school than the population as a whole. Of the five firms in the top 15 by turnover whose data the researchers could obtain, Clifford Chance had the highest percentage of trainees who had been to private school, 39.8%, followed by Slaughter and May with 39% and Herbert Smith Freehills with 37.5%.
By recruiting from good universities, particularly the Russell Group, the study says that elite firms are more likely to attract students who have attended selective or fee-paying schools. And students from working-class backgrounds who have managed to battle into Russell Group unis may self-exclude, says the study, because "some of the activities conducted during campus visits may reinforce elite firms’ image of exclusivity", leading the students to feel that they will not fit in.
A grad rec team spots a candidate with belt loops AND a shirt pocket |
The
Herbert Smith Freehills London head of Corporate Scott Cochrane, who attended state school, told RollOnFriday, "Clearly my firm has not systematically discriminated against me", and pointed out that, "we tend to look to the Russell Group as a starting point because they have a high proportion of the smartest students". Raising Herbie's involvement in the PRIME intitiative to provide fair access to work experience, he said "The problem at my school was a lack of information and belief that "kids like us" could aspire to work in big law firms", suggesting, "what we need to do more is find ways of engaging with school children at an earlier stage, before they get or don’t get to Russell Group universities".
Comments
206
242
206
221
233
223
214
233
193
221
Perhaps if trendy lefty teachers taught children proper diction, English, grammar and how to behave the talents of the less fortunate could shine through. I say this time and again when I give careers talks. Why is it that what is good enough for the children of lefty teachers is elitist rubbish for the poor children they oppress with their soft bigotry of low expectations and low standards?
240
209
237
203
But it's unfair to suggest that the big firms are not already trying hard to address the issues. We have PRIME (started by A&O and subscribed to by almost all the other big firms) to get proper work experience for those from less-privileged backgrounds. The City of London Law Society has a Social Mobility Forum (energetically headed by Dick Tyler, ex senior partner of CMS Cameron McKenna). Over a dozen City firms work with The Brokerage Citylink, an excellent charity which works to raise aspirations among students in underprivileged areas of London, especially on the "City fringe". Most firms could give other examples of significant efforts they are making (often behind the scenes) to help people of all backgrounds become commercial lawyers. We want to hire the best talent to be our firms' futures, we genuinely don't care about their accents or background.
But as a society, we also need to look at the root causes of lack of diversity, and Scott Cochrane's comments are spot on. To achieve social diversity in the professions, we need to begin with schools and universities. When an 18-year-old has to face a likely debt of £50k to go to university, is it any wonder this puts off those from less well-off backgrounds? Law firms are recruiting from a pool of talent which is itself lacking in diversity, and that's something we can't fix on our own.
HSF's head of corporate went to a state school; I'm a partner in a magic circle firm who grew up on a council estate in a single-parent family. And there are trainees joining my firm now (and I'm sure joining HSF, and others) who come from similar backgrounds and who deservedly have a bright future ahead of them, not out of charity but because they're brilliant, motivated and hardworking. There aren't enough of them, and we definitely need more social diversity, but credit should be given to the efforts which firms are already making to achieve this.
213
200
State schools could spend more time teaching children public speaking, received pronunciation and forcing the children out on runs and the like - none of that costs a penny.
241
216
219
222
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10728091/The-universities-with-the-most-and-least-state-school-students.html
Of the bottom 28 universities (excluding single subject Music, Drama and Agricultural colleges which are not relevant to law) for awarding places to state school pupils, 20 of them are Russell Group. And there are only 24 Russell Group Universities altogether - which rather suggests a cartel to exclude state-educated children.
227
213
226
213
213
181
200
237
228
206
206
227
227
223
I don't remember anyone ever asking me where I went to school (at least not in a way that could be disclosed as part of a survey). And if I were ever to be asked, I would almost certainly tick the "Prefer not to say" box... as I imagine most people other people would too.
214
226
In my five years there I was bombarded with social mobility issues, how Oxford (or Cambridge/UCL/Russell Group in general) should be more accessible (whatever this means), the disproportionate amount of public school kids compared to the state school ones etc... Few questions came naturally: is Oxford wrong in having high standard? Are state schools doing enough for their pupils? Would it be fair to lower standards for state school applicant? To me, the clear answer was a big NO for all three questions.
As someone said in previous comments, state schools are not exactly pushing students to their best. Are teachers lazy? Maybe some, like in every profession. However, it seems to me the issue does not relate to lefty teachers. More directly it is linked to inadequate budgets. I had an excellent state school education which was paid for general taxation. I did pay roughly 1000 euros per year for a fantastic university education and I have 0 debt. Why so many people, including those in government, keep missing the point? It is a shame it comes from people who should know (more, hopefully) about these issues.
The same exact reasoning applies to law firms. Are law firms big bad corporations who do not care about anybody but those who went to fee-paying school, or, perhaps, is the problem lying somewhere else?
217
217
the real problem is law firms deal with this "diversity" problem in a general way and preference people of colour over whites. a white male has his cards marked. there is also an active discrimination in favour of taking more women. women don't dominate the partnerships because city law is not a family friendly profession. poor mothers try to come back to work sometimes on a part-time arrangement and find out they're really squeezing a full time job into 3/4 days and are on call answering emails on their "off days". it can be done, but it's hard. asians don't dominate the partnerships because they are second generation immigrants and are also minorities - and as a minority should not necessarily have a statistically significant makeup on the board.
your gender and the colour of your skin should have absolutely nothing to do with an application process. nor should where you went to school. i went to a private school on a full scholarship. please do tell me the hardship i suffered educationally as a result of my poor parents who had trouble paying the bills.
211
203
230
226
224
230
1) Your A-level results and consequently which university you get into have a lot to do with whether you have the good luck to be born into privilege.
2) The idea that the best people can be found in private schools and the top Unis isn't necessarily true at all. There was a very interesting article in The Times a few years ago where the journo sat down with Oxbridge interviewers following the interviews. Again and again the interviewers would say, "this student is clearly bright and hard-working. Unfortunately she's been so badly let down by her school that she would struggle to keep up". They even acknowledged that students like these would have had to work a lot harder than some private school kid to gain their average grades. The idea that these state school students simply lack ambition and a work ethic is suspect. But now despite all her hard work, this student can't get into Oxbridge or other top Unis, immediately putting her at a disadvantage when applying for law.
3) That seems unfair when you consider that aspiring lawyers can have studied anything literally anything under the sun and still get into a top firm. So why should the firms care about A-levels? Surely it would be better to establish a level playing field when reviewing candidates that places less emphasis on results in exams taken by students who started at a significant disadvantage. It's not like this is a radical suggestion given that GLS already take the approach of using tests and interviews to select candidates rather than looking closely at grades.
4) I would bet that the candidates who have had to get jobs to support themselves while studying and who haven't been able to swan off to the south of France during summer or take gap years could run rings around the private-school kids.