This was one of my favorite shows! This was a great episode! Unfortunately, it was great because it was based on truth! I was happy to see them put it on screen.
So true and what is so funny is to see these so called educated "liberal elitist" lawyers try to sum up who she is by looking at her race and where she is from. They always assume that if you are black from the city you must've lived in the projects.
@@delirous8 yea man, I couldnt get into law school because my LSAT scores were high but my life story wasnt traumatic and even if it was I dont feel compelled to share it with people I dont know, likw Trauma Porn or a scars of.affliction
I remember I interviewed at a white law office shortly after I graduated. Dude told me I was the only person who applied that had a degree. Needless to say I didn’t hear back. 🤷🏽♀️
This makes me sort of... Ashamed (??) at how easily I got my first job after law school. I was offered work as a secretary for 2 months because one of the partners already knew me and then they simply decided to also offer me an internship. I never even had to properly apply...
Lmao, girl I was told I'm the most educated person to apply for the position and I was told I was the only one that had experience in the area because I'm a nurse. I went to the interview and they decided no.
"Where are you from?" "What are you?" "I like helping guys like _you_ out - guys who haven't had it easy in life." "You're very polished, you look great, & you're saying all the right things..but I don't know if you're lying to me." Yep. Heard it all.
The hiring process is anything but a meritocracy. From my experience hiring people, my preconceived ideas, limited worldview, intuition, and judgements based on appearances/ commonalities far outweighed the tests I administered for candidates. Employers as a whole need to be exposed and own up to how biased the entire process is. Once it's all out in the open, no one can hide.
the good wife was great at portraying the subtleties of white liberal racism. it's just a shame that the writers seemed to think these little insights excused their show's lack of diversity
Once a law school graduate successfully matriculates through three grueling years of law school and passes the bar exam, who really gives a damn about their LSAT score (there isn't even any law on the LSAT)? Answer: a hiring party who is fishing for any frivolous reason to weed out qualified, talented Black lawyers. Also, a lawyer putting his LSAT score on his resume after passing law school courses and bar exams is akin to a college student or recent college graduate putting their junior high GPA on their resume. It's wholly irrelevant after you've already proven that you can succeed at higher levels.
I went to an interview in a conference room with a large table. All of the people interviewing me were white men, there were 15 of them and they sat on the other side of the table while i sat alone on the other side. The senior guy started out by saying that their greatest strength was in how diverse the team was, because 2 of them were veterans. I laughed out loud but then realized he was serious.
This reminds me of so many experiences. One thing to note is that I'm so tired of scores and school selection being deciding factors in whether or not someone can handle the complexities of a job and life enough to be profitable for some organization. There is no way that a score tells all. I've seen so many people with high scores and nothing else substantive to help anyone in the end.
Right. There is so much that being a good lawyer entails that couldn't possibly be captured on any standardized test. The best lawyers possess a level of creativity, forethought, etc. that a test can't gauge. And if you're a trial lawyer, half the battle is being able to relate to and persuade a jury. Sometimes that's more of a theatrical feat than anything else; the LSAT doesn't test thespianism or charisma. The same can even be true of law school school grades' inability to gauge true prowess. My dad graduated from a top-tier law school in the 1970s, and he stated that a running joke (with elements of seriousness) around his law school is that the "A" students become law professors, "B" students become judges, and the "C" students become millionaires. The important thing is to graduate and pass the bar exam. But once you complete those things, you still have to learn how to practice law...and that's a whole undertaking in itself. Law school only teaches you how to think like a lawyer, but only practicing law (i.e experience) teaches you how to BE a competent lawyer. However, I think the powers that be are aware that all of your points and my points are true; they just need a way to weed out "undesirables" on the basis of a system that pretends to be a meritocracy.
@@taroman7100 Why are you lurking around videos like this? It's obviously not to learn anything. Do you like to sit and stew in your bitterness and rage?
Whoa - anybody notice when the camera goes to a closeup at 4:08 Monica is wearing an entirely different outfit than a few seconds earlier when she started her reply to Diane? I mean an entirely different outfit lol
In my opinion the qualifications of a person should matter more then diversity but if it's a perfect world where all the schools have the same opportunity with the same conditions which is not true unfortunately so some students might have lower scores but worked harder than the average guy.
Don't be blinded by the racial aspect. Employers naturally lean toward candidates that are more like them, or appeal to their narrow cultural experiences. At the end of the day it's not a meritocracy even when all the candidates are of the same race and sex.
You are dumb. It is hard to compete with people who had all the advantages due to the system. There is a systemic advantage enjoyed by some races. Hundreds of years of subjugation by white people cannot be erased overnight and has still an impact to this day. Do you think it is easy for black people to get into Harvard due to qualifications alone when they have a hard time getting into good prep schools because such prep schools favor their white descendants. That is why a proactive support for diversity is necessary. That is a the only way to level the playing field. That is the essence of affirmative action.
It made me upset too at the way she attacked the woman at the end as if her deficient LSAT scores and less prestigious school were not as big a factor as her race. Why did she feel entitled to the job? That is real question.
Omniscient 1 It’s not made clear that her scores were deficient, as it’s possible a similar candidate could have been hired for other reasons, She was upset that she was called in to the office to be told she wasn’t getting a job rather than receiving the standard form letter in the mail, only to be given a patronizing offer of help
@@abe8435 how is having a respected member of a prestigious law firm offer to put in a good word for you at all patronising though? Some people network for years for connections like that. She assumed it was all about her race when it wasn't and so many other people in the replies have done the same. That's not to say they weren't inappropriate with their questioning, but that's another matter entirely. She wasn't given the job because there were better applicants. That happens a lot, and as someone who didn't go to an Ivy school she should have expected it would happen to her more frequently. That's just the way business works, it isn't personal at all.
@@abe8435 getting into an Ivy means having better grades to begin with. You disagree that being smarter makes someone a better applicant? Or do you just not think that grades should be a consideration when assessing someone's competence?
I ve never seen this show but us how it has played out for me. Companies that use automated or computerized hiring procedures I always ace those platforms. But you NEVER get the job because the final in person interview with the HR Manager or Personnel Director goes awry and then I get a form letter saying they are going in another direction. But that young woman is lucky, luckier than most. She wants a job, she NEEDS a job. But with a JD, she can get a job with any agency in the State of NY, at the county, city, and town level. That, at least, would pay her a minimum of $90,000/yr to gain experience. Other college graduated people dont have those open ended resources.
It amazes me that someone can witness unjust hiring habits and still try to justify bad behavior and assumptions. ThHIS is the very reason why someone like this should NOT be in charge of hiring. It sounds like the respondent doesn’t understand the advantage, or global benefits, to a cultural, and racially diverse, not to mention gender diverse workplace. It gives you perspective and adds to the ability to attract a broader client base and investment. Sounds like the dog isn’t the only one who should “.eat puke”. Sadly, defending racist, biased, and disrespectful practices is how someone like this cretinous individual will survive.
She’s spitting in Diane’s face. Take the help! Maybe Diane would’ve been able to introduce her to someone else who’s hiring. A smaller less prominent firm sure. But a job.
No AmyX. It appears you are more fascinated with Diane trying to help her instead of what she truly wants. She is not spitting on anyone or anything. If anything, I think she is being assertive in the face of adversity. You, yourself, said it. Diane can and should help her get into a small, less prominent firm, which is why I asked why must she be the one to settle for less.
I've served on an admissions committee and diversity was the buzzword that couldn't be used enough. The school was in upstate New York, practically Canada, and mainly engineering focused. That meant the majority of well qualified applicants were white males from the surrounding high schools. The committee spent what seemed to me to be an unreasonable effort to advantage black students from NYC and foreign students. I wish I had piped up and asked how important diversity was to the other committee members. We could have had demographics that represented the general (national) population, but that would have meant compromising our standards. To be clear, that's not because there weren't high achieving minority students in the region; it was because the ivies and other top tier schools vacuumed up as many of them as they could (and probably also because rural NY is not what many of them are comfortable or familiar with). So the question in my mind was simply, how many grade/SAT/ACT points are we willing to sacrifice per percent increase in minority students. What is the ideal mix anyway? I would be very interested in hearing pro-diversity hiring perspectives on these two questions.
the pro-diversity point would be that a white-centric syllabus combined with socio-economic disadvantage combined with a lifetime of discrimination can often result in lower scores for minorities that don't necessarily reflect their worth or abilities and if you don't take that into account and give more opportunities to minorities then you are just perpetuating the cycle of disadvantage that contributed to skewing scores in the first place also "probably also because rural NY is not what many of them are comfortable or familiar with" lol you sound like the characters in the video
@@maxaustin3377 "probably also because rural NY is not what many of them are comfortable or familiar with" This wasn't me editorializing so much as paraphrasing the rest of the committee members' frustration at how hard it was to attract talented students from NYC to the North Country. I was of the opinion that if diversity weren't so overvalued by top-tier institutions, their demographics would swing (mostly Asian), freeing up high-achieving black and Latino students for second-tier schools. Since there was such competition, that left us overpaying, as it were, for the remaining minority students. I completely agree that factors out of the control of many minority students rob them of their potential to perform at the highest levels. That being said, a student, regardless of their race, whose abilities are best suited for a modestly ranked program is done no favors by being thrust into something they can't handle. Our resources and concern are better directed at making sure future underprivileged students aren't failed by the education system and letting their potential bear fruit. In the case of this video, if Diane had made the case that Monica had demonstrated an ability to overcome challenging circumstances (a quality useful to the firm), rather than coming out of the gate by accusing Cary of racial bias, she would have been a much more effective advocate for Monica.
Jessica P If you’re interested in changing minds you should engage with my position. Labeling me as privileged doesn’t explain your disagreement with my comments.
Jon Brassard not knowing or understanding that you have privilege is a key aspect of privilege. so pointing out you have privilege is an explanation. another key aspect of privilege is expecting marginalised people to educate you instead of doing the work yourself before you’ll even consider a different perspective
I must be really stupid, because I don't see how this is racist. She wasn't as qualified as the other applicants. Yes, some of the questions they asked her during interviews were inappropriate and based on presumptions relating to her race, but they're lawyers and she should expect that kind of interrogation from her peers as they'll often say anything to get their client off. Whilst she was irritated at being called in for an offer of help, having friends in high places can really jump start a career so it's strange that she would see that as offensive rather than someone offering an olive branch in spite of tedious bureaucracy that requires an applicant be somewhat over qualified before hiring them. But not hiring someone because they don't have the necessary experience or qualifications, especially when another applicant does have them, isn't racist. Having a diversity quota and making special allowances for people because of their skin colour is racist. Treating them like everyone else is equality. Is that not what equal rights are about?
I don't believe you're stupid, I believe you don't recognize the subtle implications being made about the applicants. The white male applicants are assumed qualified only because of where they went to school (all the applicants are recent graduates with no real world experience). The black female applicant has to jump hurdles due to her going to a good law school but not a great law school (may have applied to some great schools but didn't go do to the schools low acceptance rate). When she mentioned that one of her professors clerked for a supreme court justice (50 law students out of thousands get the pleasure each year and they tend not to work at shabby schools) the lawyer interviewing her didn't care due to him not knowing who that was. LSAT scores, like GMAT scores, only predict how likely one is to complete the program and nothing else. Since she invited to the initial interview I'll assume her LSAT score was high enough to warrant a look. Another thing that seemed to work against her was that she was black but didn't have the background of dysfunction that many assume all black people have. Sadly negative portrayals of black people make many non black people assume the worst. When they happen to meet a black person that is achieving the assumption is that they had to bootstrap their way from a rough start. When they discover that the black person had a solid middle class background as well as a happy upbringing they're almost seen as authentically black and disregarded. It was also cruel having her come in person only to tell her she wasn't hired. A phone call would've sufficed. This reminds me of how Facebook is in the news recently. They spent time and money to recruit black people to hire. The man who they hired to recruit would find black applicants with great resumes. The people would interview well and tested high for technical aptitude. Despite that no one got hired because the company said they wouldn't be a "culture fit" (Facebook's words) even though it was acknowledged that they could do the job.
@@DJAlisterCrane none of that is racist. Making an incorrect assumption isn't racism. Being "cruel" isn't racism. People are so quick to call anything they don't like some kind of bigotry that it has lost all meaning. Facebook seeking out black only applicants isn't racist against black people either, and not hiring them after interviewing them if we assume they never had any intention of doing so in the first place is bizarre and clearly playing some weird identity politics game, but racist? They would never have spent the time and money to interview them in the first place. Nobody is guaranteed a job just because they're qualified and can do the job. That isn't what interviewing is about. You don't get an interview in the first place if you're not qualified and competent. I can only assume everyone who has a problem with this is under 25 and still thinks the world owes them something, because real life isn't that simple, and race has almost nothing to do with it. Your attitude however relating to your own race and the entitlement that creates can absolutely get you rejected for a job, just as any entitlement from having gone to a certain school can get you rejected in a different environment. The employer knows what their environment is like. Should there be "white boys clubs?" Who knows, but there are, and bringing in a loud feminist or someone who never shuts up about race inequality even if they somehow get the exact same job with the exact same pay would rock the boat. Nobody wants to work in an environment that is constantly tense because someone doesn't fit. It isn't about the colour of someone's skin, it's about their ability to shut up and fit in. It's really no different to school in that regard, which most YT users should still be capable of remembering as if wasn't that long ago for them. It doesn't get better when you're an adult, there are just no grown ups to protect you from it anymore. That's life.
In my experience: Everyone invited to the interview is already qualified. At the interview its ultimately just about the personal, about whether people make a good impression. And whether the person hiring you wouldn't mind meeting you at the water cooler / riding in an elevator with you (or something similar).
@@leonamay8776 indeed. It would be a waste of everyone's time to interview someone who isn't qualified, although there are varying degrees and if someone else is more qualified then they would be "first choice" but someone is more than just their resume which is why they interview instead of just making offers based on what they see on the paper, so it is down to suitability and "fit" at that point and people could struggle to fit into a team for any number of reasons not clear from "I got these scores at this school and interned at this place." The colour of one's skin is not a factor, but their attitude relating to their identity (politics...) could easily make them a bad fit. I suppose it makes sense that people who see racism in every rejection would immediately assume the next person rejecting them is also racist, but there is no talking to people like that either way. The one sticking point for me is that calling her into the office for a discussion about helping her get in with another firm was seen as racist. Having a senior staff member personally offer to help you isn't an insult, it's a compliment! They know you'd do a great job but perhaps this company isn't the right fit. That isn't something you discuss over the phone, it's far too impersonal. But everyone solely focused on the fact that she wasn't being given a job, as though no offer means no longer giving the company any respect. If we only respect people when getting what we want then we don't actually respect them, and respect works both ways. I suspect many of the people screeching that this is racism are much too young to have experienced a job interview in the first place. It isn't just a formality before starting work, especially in roles that require education and experience such as being a lawyer. One bad egg can disrepute a whole firm and your reputation is very important in that line of work.
The thing is the lady being interviewed didn't know the candidates hired graduated from top tier school while she graduated from an average school... With the info she has at the time I understand why she thinks she was discriminated against...To her, she and those other three men have the same education but she doesn't get hired... Makes sense
I don't understand the comments claiming this was racist, do people expect them to hire her simply because of their skin evem though she's underqualified? Cuz that would be indeed racist
Thanks for the reminder, only reason I watched that show was because they at least had some gumption to surface these issues, even though no movies or shows go deep enough. and the kicker was the ending's truth - I don't need any of this BS - I Need A Job! Making and Earning money, good money, is the start of getting things right, only thing better would have been if it were a Black man instead of the Black girl. Don't get it twisted, men become fathers, responsible or not, and need money to be adequate if not good ones, and if you really want to 'help', give that Black man a good paying job.
I would have been impressed if she said Baltimore, MD. It has such a History in terms of Pop Culture. It was where The First Successful Songwriting Team of Jerry Lieber & Mike Stoller first met in 1950. They wrote songs for everyone from Willie Mae aka "Big Mama" Thornton (Hound Dog), The Coasters, Drifters, Robins, Wilbert Harris not to mention Co-Writing Stand By Me with the Late Ben E. King. It was where Tupac Shakur, Aliya (RIP) and Jada Pinkett Smith attended the Same Performing Arts High School. It is also home to NCIW (National Correctional Institute For Women) as seen on National Geographic. Also Baltimore, MD., was the State where two of my favorite Movies were filmed. And Justice For All & Diner.
What a rude character. So she doesn't get the competitive job and gets nasty with the interviewer who wants to extend other forms of help and advice? Good thing they didn't hire her. She's extremely short sighted and entitled.
Her directness is considered rude but you don't have an issue with the same assumption they all made about her. Dismissing her mentor with "I've never heard of him" as she is trying to talk about her experience was pretty unprofessional. I get why Diane thought it was a good idea but it was also self serving for Diane.
@@surgedeb Yea no other applicant would be called in and offered other help, therefore she's being given better treatment than other applicants. Perhaps Diane has some contacts that could help her a place at another firm, but she unnecessarily burned the bridge. Diane knows there's a problem in the industry and is seeking to fix it. Also, being "qualified" does not entitle anyone to the job. The reason they enquire about her background is because they're unfamiliar with it and clearly don't understand it. The reason they didn't do the same for the other white guy from harvard is because they already ARE familiar with his kind of background. Diane understands this problem and the need to increase diversity which is why she reached out. you think everyone gets a free one-on-one mentoring session with a partner?
