The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
More details on the McDermott Debacle (racist?)
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 3rd, 2005 10:54 AM Author: exciting crimson crackhouse From the Greedy Chicago board (please excuse the use of "em"--they're a bunch a weird fags over there):
"One of the Michigan SAs that did not get an offer is my best friend at the law school. She wanted to avoid this message board because apparently she and the other minority SAs are being blamed for a blog that disparages McDermott. McDermott called our career services to complain about the blog and mentioned the name of my friend as a possible suspect.
At least five people did not get offers. Three were minorities (the two Indian girls from Michigan and a Hispanic girl from U of Chic.). The other two were white students from Michigan. One of them summered for McDermott during em's 1L summer. Em was told that em's work was great and that they look forward to working with em again. At the beginning of em's 2L summer, they told em that em's 1L summer work was terrible.
Additionally, my friend found out that none of the minority SA's were taken out to lunch like the other SAs were during their rotations. She found this out from the white Michigan SAs at the end of the summer.
Also, my friend's advisor informed her that no one had any problems with her work. She later heard that the tax department didn't think she looked "professional" enough. My friend does not straighten her hair or wear makeup."
http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002pG4 |
 |
Date: September 3rd, 2005 10:57 AM Author: Iridescent indian lodge legal warrant I hate the use of "em." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735590) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 10:59 AM Author: exciting crimson crackhouse It makes me want to break shit. Lawyers, of all people, should care about using language correctly.
EDIT: If you don't want to say "he" or "she," just use "they." It's still ungrammatical, but at least it's a fucking word. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:00 AM Author: Iridescent indian lodge legal warrant I agree. If you don't want to reveal someone's gender, default to the masculine. Stop being such politically correct pussies. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735592) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:02 AM Author: exciting crimson crackhouse Yeah, that works too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735597) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:03 AM Author: Iridescent indian lodge legal warrant I expect "they" to become the default accepted term within our lifetimes, even though the grammar is improper. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735601) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:10 AM Author: Tantric Marvelous Field Degenerate there's nothing intrinsically "improper" about it. if necessity causes it to evolve into the default usage, then it's by definition proper. there really isn't even a distinctly decisive authority for this. prevailing use tends to be the confirmation of a new rule, or an old one having become obsolete. these things tend to be self-correcting, an efficient market. recently, there has for some reason been widespread misuse of both "reticent" and "differential." the impression that reticent is a synonym for "reluctant" will likely not be adopted, as reluctant doesn't need a synonym just like it. and as much as i am rooting for differential to go back to calculus, where it belongs, it appears that the puffery of sportscasters, not content to just say "a three run difference" will be adopted, as there is the hint of a nuanced difference, in some uses. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735623) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:20 AM Author: odious hideous station fortuitous meteor No, it's improper. There's a simple rule: singular (pro)nouns go with singular verbs, plural (pro)nouns go with plural verbs, singular pronouns stand for singular antecedents, and plural pronouns stand for plural antecedents. Using "they" to mean "he or she" is inexcusable.
Shifts in meanings of words are very different from this misuse of "they," which violates plain and important grammatical rules. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:39 AM Author: Chest-beating striped hyena I don't agree with you here. The problem is that a shift in thought no longer allows us to use "he" because to do so is supposedly sexist. Therefore, we need a replacement for the word "he." Almost everybody uses the word "they" as a replacement. Why not allow "they" to be used as a gender-neutral singular pronoun? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735689) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:46 AM Author: exciting crimson crackhouse Yeah, I don't see why adding another use to an existing word (something we do all the time in the english language) is worse than inventing a new word. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735717) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 12:13 PM Author: odious hideous station fortuitous meteor "I don't see why adding another use to an existing word (something we do all the time in the english language) is worse than inventing a new word."
Really? Imagine I invent a new machine, say the Segway or something. I can choose to call it a made-up or semi-made-up name, like "Segway." Or I can call it a "bicycle" or a "donut" or something. Don't you think that the made-up word makes more sense? Would you want to say "oh, I'm going to buy a donut," and not have people know what you mean?
Same with "they." "They" means more than one person. When people use it to mean one person, their writing becomes confused and harder to follow. There's no good reason to use "they" instead of "he," "he or she," or alternating uses of "he" and "she." |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 12:35 PM Author: exciting crimson crackhouse I don't think that's a legitimate objection in this case. People use "they" as a singular term all the time in everyday conversation, and I can't think of a single time in my own experience when it has ever led to confusion.
"There's no good reason to use "they" instead of "he," "he or she," or alternating uses of "he" and "she.""
To the extent that this is true, it's also true of "em". |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 1:54 PM Author: Tantric Marvelous Field Degenerate all good points. yet there are plenty of words that have entirely disparate meanings without causing impossible confusion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3736231) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 9:10 PM Author: Mauve Dragon The case is the same with "you." 'You" can mean the second person, or it can mean people in general, as in "you don't change horses in mid-stream."
People are more than capable of understanding the difference based on context, and it is accepted practice among the majority of English speakers.
What's the basis of your prescriptive grammar devotion? |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 9:36 PM Author: Adventurous awkward gas station weed whacker who gives a fuck, it's possibly the most annoying use of a word that I have ever encountered. it sounds so fucking stupid when I read posts with that word in it |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 9:41 PM Author: Mauve Dragon Are you talking about "they" or "em"?
Anyway, at least that's a valid basis for criticism. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 2:48 PM Author: Well-lubricated senate simple rules, including grammatical ones, are amended or abolished all the time by popular usage. i grant that this is not strictly semantic shift but syntactic or grammatical shift, but i don't see what's wrong with that. it's not like the only difference between old english and modern english is the meanings of the words; the entire structure of the language, composed of thousands of simple rules, changed dramatically over the centuries. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#6369602) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 9:08 PM Author: Mauve Dragon Wrong.
I think this is the first time I've ever outright disagreed with you.
Grammar rules are only "rules" to the extent they are followed.
|
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 9:07 PM Author: Mauve Dragon Bingo.
I hate fucking slavish grammar monkeys |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 3:19 PM Author: Puce Slimy Sweet Tailpipe Yes, I also expect it, even though I hate it for no reason. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3736886) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 2:49 PM Author: Well-lubricated senate this is where i am as well. "they" to refer to gender-nonspecific individuals is like fingernails on a chalkboard, but there're no legitimate grounds on which to oppose its informal usage in this day and age. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#6369612) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:03 AM Author: Tantric Marvelous Field Degenerate there's that, and the inane content of the entire post. maybe "em" was just an incompetent douchebag? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735600) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:04 AM Author: Iridescent indian lodge legal warrant But the only reason firms don't give offers is because of racism! Don't you know that? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735605) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:06 AM Author: exciting crimson crackhouse That's a lot of incompetent douchebags for one summer class. Maybe McDermott should fire its hiring partner. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735614) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:17 AM Author: Tantric Marvelous Field Degenerate competence is a function of need. when they make the initial, provisional, hiring decision, they are estimating needs for two years down the line. sometimes they miss it.
it's not quite clear to me why people would want to effectively compel a firm that doesn't want them to hire them anyway. even if law students' fantasy of 100% offers to summer associates were accommodated, whatever the reason is that the firm doesn't want you will surface sooner or later.
and the idea that law firms are to any significant degree not hiring people who would be useful to them on the margin is absurd. not firm assigns a value to exercising a collective racist instinct equal to about 1/4-million dollars in net income. plus, non-racists massively outnumber the racists at any law firm. always favor the simpler solution: some combination of not being liked, for whatever reason, and not projecting to be economically viable. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:28 AM Author: exciting crimson crackhouse I think it's more a matter of wanting to compel firms not to blackball them from getting work elsewhere. As I understand it, these people got actual dings, not "soft" or "cold" offers.
Like it or not, there's a serious stigma attached to not getting a summer offer, and I think law students are right to be wary of going to work at a firm that has a history of fucking over people it has decided it doesn't need. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:40 AM Author: Tantric Marvelous Field Degenerate without a single exception, in my experience, the "stigma" is always well-earned. this is the market telling some people that they belong in a different stratum of law firms. so there's no reason to repeat, in what is essentially code, that law students are pathologically obsessed with certainty and reputation. sooner or later they will gravitate to their proper place. the law firms are hardly blameworthy in wanting to accelerate that process, and not grant everyone the illusion that they are "first-tier," prestigious, or however it is that so many of them mistakenly conceive themselves.
moreover, as a consequence of affirmative action in admissions decisions, this is entirely unsurprising. i imagine there's quite a plunge in quality at places like penn and michigan after the non-AA admits are exhausted. there are some law firms that will do people who can't handle the work the favor of protecting them, even to the point of sliding them into some sort of of counsel sinecure when partnership time rolls around. and i'd probably do my part to that end if i were running a law firm. but in that demanding that that be the universal policy would expose unpleasant truths, i don't see it happening. at the same time, though, people feigning that their failure to get an offer should connect up with notions of "injustice" will never be taken seriously. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 2:55 PM Author: Well-lubricated senate "without a single exception, in my experience, the 'stigma' is always well-earned."
perhaps this is because your experience has encompassed the traditional practice of soft-offering the vast majority of people the firm can't or won't take and outright dinging only the most flagrantly useless of summer associates. it's conceivable that this latter possibility was at play here; but you imply that you doubt it by suggesting the mistake might be on the firm's part for misjudging its demand for associates two years in the future. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:14 AM Author: odious hideous station fortuitous meteor Em is terrible, but it's much better than using they. Making up words is far better than being intentionally ungrammatical. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735628) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:29 AM Author: Tantric Marvelous Field Degenerate there's something to that; any neo-logism will sound awkward initially. and as using they flagrantly violates a rule that has broad application and is useful (as opposed to, e.g., the split infinitive "rule"), it is probably short-sighted to make an exception to such a rule when the option of a new word is always available. even so, those who ignore what comes to be a dominant use often do so under the erroneous assumption that language is organic and static. in an emergency situation, for instance, you wouldn't want to lose time insisting that "flamable" isn't a word, and waiting for someone to "properly" use "inflammable." we've come to the point where flamable can declare victory, and inflammable should just be retired. there's no reason to keep dead words around, and it is usually only insisted upon in the belief that the "language" arrived in a proper and pristine state only to be defiled by non-conforming use, when it's in fact usage that is the ultimate test of whether a word or rule has what it takes in utility relative to alternatives to survive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735660) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:42 AM Author: Misanthropic Spot Wagecucks People should just say "she" or "her" if they don't like the use of the male pronoun. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735697) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:52 AM Author: Chest-beating striped hyena My solution at the moment is to randomly switch between "she" and "he." Sometimes this is awkward though, and I'd prefer to use "they." Using "she" throughout is a sure way to look like you're a sarcastic jackass. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735741) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:55 AM Author: exciting crimson crackhouse Or a feminist.
I read a torts hornbook last year where all the tortfeasors were referred to as "he" and all the victims were referred to as "she." |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 11:55 AM Author: Chest-beating striped hyena That's hilarious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735754) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 12:48 PM Author: bateful massive knife whorehouse I know who these people are based on the description (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3735935) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 1:15 PM Author: Brindle range I did some writing for school (I think including my writing competition) where I minimized use of pronouns but used "she" when I couldn't avoid it. It was interesting -- it did make me think about about biases and assumptions every time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3736045) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 2:32 PM Author: Olive demanding principal's office I agree that it really makes you think. I read a book for a philosophy class in college, and every pronoun in there was "she" or "her." I had to check the authors' names to make sure they really were guys, because I was convinced that the book was written by (female) feminists. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#6369456) |
Date: September 3rd, 2005 3:27 PM Author: Pink Dog Poop Business Firm How did a thread with bot RACE and BIGLAW hooks devolve into a discussion of non-standard pronouns? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3736962) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2005 4:16 PM Author: bateful massive knife whorehouse Amazing how that happens (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#3737555) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 11:06 AM Author: wild thriller meetinghouse Ridiculous. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#6367995) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 11:07 AM Author: erotic gold deer antler home Why is that Greedy post gone now? And can we find the blog referenced? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#6368000) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 11:08 AM Author: wild thriller meetinghouse I would love to see it. I will most certainly cancel my slot with them if I get it.
|
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 2:50 PM Author: contagious thirsty orchestra pit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#6369618) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 2:26 PM Author: burgundy round eye *This* is the "blog" referenced. Somebody linked the xoxo thread to greedy. The greedy post is gone apparently because it contained outable information. To quote from a downstream post: "3. However, Tgify is a f-ing inconsideration idiot for identifying 3 of the people who didnt get offers by a) gender, b) school, and c) race. What the hell were you thinking? You go to Michigan so I am pretty sure that your info on how many people got dinged from there is correct. However, I would love love love to know, did the 2 Indian females who got dinged give you permission to completely identify them? I'm willing to bet a big NO. Maybe one of them did, but I'm doubtful. It is so easy to determine who these people were based on your description and that is so not ok without their explicit permission. Further, since you go to Michigan, your info on the Univ Chicago summer is possibly inaccurate. But even if it IS accurate, I'm willing to bet that this person most certainly DID NOT give you permission to "out" them on this board.
4. Tgify, you should most definitely apologize for the potential embarassment you caused these 3 women from McDermott. You should also think a little more before you decide to ID people on a board like this in the future. " |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 2:27 PM Author: burgundy round eye Subject: Original Greedy post on "McDermott Summer Offer Scandal" Interesting rumor is flying around the XO board
"Folks,
I got it on substantial authority that MWE decided to not make offers to a significant number of summers this year, for arguably dubious reasons-- in a time of economic expansion, this behavior is quite repugnable. I think this betrays a lack of commitment to the summer program, and a lack of commitment to the development of young lawyers generally. Talk to Joe Vaj for more info on McDermoTTT.
Just doing my service to the board...
EDIT: the above was not worded as carefully as it should have been. i had no idea this thread would hit 250-- i thought maybe 1 or 2 people would just respond "thanks". please see the posts below for a better idea.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=247539&forum_id=2#3686573)"
|
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 2:41 PM Author: Khaki cracking piazza It would be nice if xoxo could have a law firm blacklist, i.e. firms that fuck over their SAs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#6369543) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 2:57 PM Author: Well-lubricated senate there is an xoxo wiki; i'm sure you could make your dream a reality (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#6369670) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 2:59 PM Author: Well-lubricated senate it probably has something to do with how jarring and obnoxious this "em" thing is (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#6369686) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 3:01 PM Author: burgundy round eye I prefer to think of "em" as "ambisextrous". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#6369699) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2006 9:37 PM Author: Adventurous awkward gas station weed whacker any schmuck who uses that word consistently does not deserve an offer anyway (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=251790&forum_id=2#6372198) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 2:11 AM Author: milky boltzmann Looks like an update to this saga:
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486430&mc=48&forum_id=2 |