Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

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.

There's no guarantee that the Governor's kid will bring more money, and I'm not sure whether either kid "deserves" it is at issue.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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?

That's a tough one. I tend to dislike privilege. And I'd probably pick the white kid who came from nowhere and kicked ass to get where he is over a black kid who was given every privilege. But I'll note that a super-privileged black kid is rare and will have all kinds of opportunities (the ones born of privilege and the ones that come with being what so many elite firms fight over--a black kid with rich white kid qualifications).

Seems a bit sad to take it out on the product of what black families have been striving for for generations, especially when it's so rare. But privilege is privilege. And he won't go lacking for opportunity.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/10-va...d-john-gardner

We once chose to interview someone almost exclusively on the basis that they won a state-wide beauty contest. It was before I chaired the committee, but I thought it was worth talking to her because beating all those bitches meant she had some game, but a few people thought the hiring committee was spending the firm's good money to fly in some babe to get oogled by old dudes.

But, I understand you have the best law firm marching band in the state in your office.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

That's a tough one. I tend to dislike privilege. And I'd probably pick the white kid who came from nowhere and kicked ass to get where he is over a black kid who was given every privilege. But I'll note that a super-privileged black kid is rare and will have all kinds of opportunities (the ones born of privilege and the ones that come with being what so many elite firms fight over--a black kid with rich white kid qualifications).

Seems a bit sad to take it out on the product of what black families have been striving for for generations, especially when it's so rare. But privilege is privilege. And he won't go lacking for opportunity.

TM

I don't have an answer for it in the abstract. It can become a sharper issue when you only have one position. When I was looking at hiring a first year class, there were always some white superprivileged guys you could bump for someone with almost any challenge in their background. It was just the nature of the beast.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

Let's start by challenging the assumption you are talking about a minority. If you go back to look at your fact pattern, you didn't say anything that expressly identified your other candidate as someone who had to work their way up. Wouldn't that just as easily be the case for a kid from a portuguese fishing family in Fall River or a kid from Southie?

The fact that someone has white skin gives them an edge, no doubt about it. But if we're talking about breaking the link between signifier and signified, don't you have to go all the way down to Level One?

I'm acknowledging that giving a minority kid has a benefit to society overall, in the sense that it will change the balance by a few basis points. But what if the black kid or the south asian kid lives in Swankytown and the white kid is this century's Horatio Alger? (I know I'm switching up somewhat here, but I really want to drill down on the very first choice you make, because it ripples through everything that happens after.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So, after all this discussion on racial discrimination in hiring, I'm about to go into the market for a young corporate associate. Should I intentionally be giving preference to candidates who are minorities? To women candidates?

Just go in with the idea that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Lots of people meet the qualifications of the job, and it's very unlikely that someone is "best qualified" (unless, maybe, you're poaching from another firm to work with a particular client that you also poached), and throw a wide net. And if you throw someone out because they're not a fit with your firm's culture, make sure that your firm's culture isn't skewed so it excludes people based on race, orientation, sex, ethnic background, etc.

Also, age discrimination is a thing too. There may be some older corporate associates out there who are super awesome but they graduated at the worst possible time to get meaningful experience.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There's no guarantee that the Governor's kid will bring more money, and I'm not sure whether either kid "deserves" it is at issue.

You're partly right on the first point you make. The fact that the Governor's daughter works there will bring some amount of new business, if only from people hedging their bets.

On the second issue, "deserving it" should have everything to do with it. I mean, everything objective is equal in the hypothetical: same grades, same school, same experience level. If you don't hire the one more deserving of the job by some criteria, be it quality of their suit, some unique evidence of hard work or sacrifice, what are you left with: Did they drool the soup?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Just go in with the idea that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Lots of people meet the qualifications of the job, and it's very unlikely that someone is "best qualified" (unless, maybe, you're poaching from another firm to work with a particular client that you also poached), and throw a wide net. And if you throw someone out because they're not a fit with your firm's culture, make sure that your firm's culture isn't skewed so it excludes people based on race, orientation, sex, ethnic background, etc.

Also, age discrimination is a thing too. There may be some older corporate associates out there who are super awesome but they graduated at the worst possible time to get meaningful experience.

As usual, you have the most cogent thing to say on practical application of ideas like these. It's almost as if your training and experience somehow give you a keen perspective or something.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

. Some asshole still sits at a desk somewhere and decides what each piece of data is worth.

This is what you keep getting wrong. Some asshole is going to sit at a desk somewhere and say, "computer tell me what factors are predicative of being likely to repay a mortage" or "gee, I wonder what dimensions of factor X are predictive of repaying a mortage."

Big data really not just the sum of small data. It's aggregation plus computerized analysis.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

This is what you keep getting wrong. Some asshole is going to sit at a desk somewhere and say, "computer tell me what factors are predicative of being likely to repay a mortage" or "gee, I wonder what dimensions of factor X are predictive of repaying a mortage."

Big data really not just the sum of small data. It's aggregation plus computerized analysis.

So what you are telling me is that it collects absolutely everything. Period. For every purpose.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

What does Al Qaeda want?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

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?

I don't know. I didn't like being involved in interviewing. Reminded me of fraternity selections -- all the biggest tools and meanest assholes involved in the process criticizing a candidate the most. And how do I truly judge a person based on a short meeting? (Because I was not going for drinks or lunch with the person unless forced to do so.)

I always gave everybody who seemed fun and lighthearted high marks. What did I care? Wasn't my money.

Hiring and firing when I ran my own business? Different thing entirely. "Personality" there was low cost/low maintenance, loyal and intelligent, but not too intelligent. The really smart ones are tough to manage.

I think all managers seek that balance, from the most complex work to the simplest rote toil... But man, finding that sweet spot is tough. It's rare to find a person just brainy enough to deliver at maximum capacity in a position, yet be easily retained. The brains always come with ambition, or an ability to game the organization.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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

Not just every law firm, but every business, period. You have to hire her. But it's only a temporary thing. When the governor loses, you can fire her.

PA being a cesspool of pay to play politics, there's probably a hundred million in legal contracts being doled out around the state to lawyers who supported a certain party, or certain candidates. When that party is out of power, or the candidate sending the business to the favored firm loses, the business immediately gets sent to the firm supporting the winner. People joke about it during election years ("Hey, don't go and settle that case... We'll be getting it back soon enough!")

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

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.

That hiring partner was either a liar, stupid, or never had the experience of interviewing a guy who got good grades but couldn't get through a 30-minute interview without either putting the interviewer to sleep or making several wildly inappropriate statements (or, in the really thrilling interviews I've had, both).

I've seem a lot of candidates who were just fine on paper, but had such shitty personalities, presence, or judgment that I would never want a client to see them -- which meant that they were not qualified.

This depends, of course, on the nature of the firm and the position. At some places, a book-smart guy who can work hard but neither has nor wants a personality might be a good thing, and he'll never see a client anyway. But that wouldn't work for me or, I would guess, GGG.

Just because someone gets an interview doesn't mean that they are qualified for the job or meet the hiring standards. It means that what they have on paper is good enough to get them an interview.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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

This is a good read. Thanks.

TM