Are there any women out there in law school land who want to climb to the top? Who want to be Editor in Chief not for the fancy title, but because it will get her a superb clerkship and unlimited job opportunities? Who understand that any position on Law Review will open a whole lot of doors? Who want to parlay a JD into a political career? Who want to become professors of tax or corporations or antitrust? Who want to win?
Do women in law school land understand that not getting to know professors means the professors won't know them when it's time to make calls for clerkships? Do they know that professors can and will make those calls? And not just for clerkships, but for jobs?
They know there's a game, but do the women want to play it? Do they think they can play a different one? Do they think they'll win the same prizes by playing a different one?
I am extremely interested in the answers to these questions.
I guess I just find your examples of what ambition and winning are pretty limited. Why be professors of tax or antitrust, because they're traditionally male? And when you say, " Who want to be Editor in Chief not for the fancy title, but because it will get her a superb clerkship and unlimited job opportunities" - what's the difference between those two things? I read that question and it sounds to me like "Who want to be EIC not for the signaling value, but for the signaling value?" I say that because, OK, you get a clerkship and unlimited opportunities....and then what? What's the POINT of it?
I admire women, and men, who decide what it is they want to climb to the top OF, and then go get there. Having a thousand doors open at once and not knowing which one's more interesting than another can be even more useless than just having one or two!
If the prizes you refer to are a lot of money and not a lot ot time with my family, then yes, PF and I want to play a different game and we don't want to win the same prizes. If the prizes are professional success, social influence, and happiness, I play that game and I plan to win.
Posted by: Andrea | October 31, 2007 at 07:19 AM
HMFPH.
Posted by: ckm | October 31, 2007 at 07:23 AM
Yes, definitely my examples were absurdly limited. But reading your reply helped me realize one thing--you and I know ourselves, know what we want out of what we're doing, and do what's necessary to get it. I think there are so many people (men and women, in and out of law school) who just have no idea. They're waiting for divine inspiration or destiny or are willing to drift into whatever it is they'll do with the rest of their life. I don't get that, but only because I've always known what I've wanted. Maybe it goes with being hyper-opinionated.
I used the examples in part because they're what occurred to me after a long day, in part because they're less traditional for women. Maybe it seems a little circular to say you want an editorship because of the doors it opens, but I think there's a profound difference between wanting the prestige--the key that opens those doors--and wanting the experience that lies behind those doors. Do you want people to ooh and ah when they hear what you do, or do you not care that they've never heard of your firm but you're doing amazing, fascinating, challenging work? Say winning is achieving some objective level of success in a given area of law: becoming a professor, judge, partner, head of a public interest group. (See? I broadened the categories!) I'm confused by women who don't want to play, or want to play but don't want to win. I'm not judging and I'm not expecting everyone to want what I want--in fact, I'm pretty happy they don't, if I'm going to be selfish about it!
You want to play a different game than I do, but you want to play and you want to win. I love that, not that it's any of my business. I suspect that most of our prizes will overlap by the end of our careers--professional success tends to bring some money regardless, lots of money tends to bring social influence if you use it wisely. (Or even if you don't, I suppose--hello, Paris Hilton!)
Besides all that, I fully expect to continue to put in many hours on pro bono asylum cases, and I expect you and several of my friends who are also going into public interest to hit me up for major donations.
Posted by: Citations | October 31, 2007 at 08:41 AM
Seems like both "kinds" of success may be achieved with similar efforts of connecting with those in a position to fulfill one of their own roles of assisting those they educate to a better life. The definition of which you may leave to Aristotle or better, see what your heart informs.
Having different ones is unsurprising. The unfortunate decision is to not have goals, or having them, not taking steps to reach them.
I sense Citations is frustrated with those who seem not to realize the efforts required to excel in the profession. Hopefully there is room for everyone in the profession. It is a very interesting topic.
Posted by: Chris | October 31, 2007 at 08:43 AM
**Do you want people to ooh and ah when they hear what you do, or do you not care that they've never heard of your firm but you're doing amazing, fascinating, challenging work?**
This is key, I think. And very few people have heard of the firm I worked for last summer, but I loved it and thought they were doing great work. But you know what? A lot of those not traditionally prestigious opportunities that are nevertheless awesome DON'T need law review or the fanciest clerkship so it seems weird to continue focusing on those when people have other equally good ways of obtaining what they want.
And I'd wager that one reason women are more inclined to take the alternate route is because society gives them more leeway to - men are taught that they must WIN AT ALL COSTS, in the way society wants them to win. (Women are given equally toxic messages, of course, but in this one case I think we come out ahead).
Posted by: KatieM | October 31, 2007 at 09:25 AM
Hmm, that's a very interesting point, Katie, about women feeling freer to take alternate routes. I think it might cut both ways--they feel freer to choose less obvious careers, but they also feel freer to not try at all. Men do get that toxic message of win or die trying.
Posted by: Citations | October 31, 2007 at 09:40 AM
I think there is a definite problem of people entering law school (or any graduate school) and expecting to be led. Sometimes it's hard to get answers, but that is why there are books and blogs and groups you can join. I think networking is the number one most important aspect of professional success. You just never know who you will meet who might be able to help you along the way. As for professors, I think you need to choose wisely and form relationships with those professors with whom you feel a connection. I'd have a hard time "faking it" in a meeting with my snore-inducing CivPro professor.
I will say that I don't think this is just a female problem, though. I see plenty of men who sit back and wait for things to come to them. I have heard and noticed, however, that some women are leery of self-promotion for fear of seeming boastful. I think that's something women need to work on. If you don't talk about your accomplishments, who will?
Posted by: PT-LawMom | October 31, 2007 at 10:38 AM
I know some ambitious women at school, but many more ambitious men. There must be plenty of ambitious women, but maybe they're quieter about it? Or are there really fewer?
As for me, I'm in the "different game" camp -- I have to admit, when I was accepted to law school, the idea that I COULD potentially do Law Review, clerkship, etc., appealed to me. Mostly because I had never really had any ambition other than wanting to be happy. After starting school, I quickly realized that I didn't actually want to do those things. But it was eye-opening to even think I had these options, that these paths weren't open to just rich and well-connected people whose parents were lawyers but could be open to me too.
Since then I have gone back to the "do whatever I feel like" camp, figuring that my success in life will come from doing what I do well, and not from following a particular path. But I selfishly hope there are some women who chase the prestige, to balance out the men.
Posted by: CM | October 31, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Interesting post (and comments). This is a topic I'm quite passionate about and yet I admittedly did not seek out law review, clerkships, moot court, or anything else more prestigious than a diploma while at law school. I know what I want and none of the above (besides the UChicago JD) are required to take me there. I want a firm job that I can maintain while being a mom. I want to be a great lawyer and colleague and go home for dinner. I think I'm abitious, but in a realistic, limited form. I don't want to gather credentials, work at a V10 firm, and then quit in 5 years when I realize how much I hate my job and lifestyle. I think the reason more men stay in firms is not because they like them more than women, but because they don't see leaving as an option the way we do. (This is not to say that there aren't both men and women who very much enjoy all the things you talked about, I just think more men dislike it than we'll see reflected in firm retention numbers.)
I remember having a minor panic attack when the deadline arrived for law review applications. It was the first time in my life I didn't chase after the Most Prestigious Option and I worried that I was lowering my standards. I also want law review to be at least half women, but then I bowed out without trying- does that make me a hypocrite? But the truth is, I didn't need law review (or clerkships or moot court) and I wouldn't have enjoyed them. Maybe the imbalance persists because women think more practically about their future (which usually involves plans for a family) and we don't feel the pressure to seek out credentials we don't want or need.
I admit to feeling disappointed with the lack of female law review board members or firm chairpersons and I heartily cheer on any woman who accomplishes those things, but I know taht I'm playing a different game with completely different prizes.
Posted by: LL | October 31, 2007 at 11:37 PM
I think you put your finger on two key points, LL. First, that men stay in their jobs longer and for different reasons than women do. And second, perhaps, that women think more practically about their future--not universally true, obviously, but often true. I waited to go to law school for what some might think was a quixotic reason but I thought it was entirely practical.
I don't think it's hypocritical not to try for Law Review or the other ribbons and bows. You assessed your goals and needs honestly and pragmatically and chose the path that's best for you. You would have made Law Review if you had tried, I'm willing to bet. I'm still confident that you'll be a managing partner one day, because you're too smart and organized and personable not to be.
Posted by: Citations | November 01, 2007 at 12:21 AM
I think that the reason that more women don't make partner is because making partner requires you to make hard choices on a consistent basis for such a long time. Anyone can do it a few times, or even for a few years, but after a while, the temptation to go to bed when it's 1 AM, or to sneak out on a Saturday to watch your nephew play soccer, or to go to your grandmother's 90th birthday party, just wins out. More so for women than for men, maybe because of some sort of feedback loop where it's less expected of women that they make partner (and more expected that they show up at grandma's) and so they live up to the (different/lower) expectations. And then there's the lifestyle that partners live, which is just going to be entirely undesirable to most people but perhaps to women in particular. Perhaps because women are less oriented towards the brass ring for its own sake they can more clearly see that both women and men partners subsist on less sleep than most people can sustain for even a few weeks, that they are perennially anxious, that they are desparate to spend more time with their kids, etcetera, etcetera.
Posted by: Kate | November 01, 2007 at 06:41 AM
No doubt there are plenty of unhappy lawyers, partners and associates both. Yet I have met many who were deeply happy with their work and enjoyed it thoroughly. For some it's a job, for some it's a vocation they love.
I expect to put in long hours, to work many weekends, to miss the occasional family event. My husband had to for his career too, but he absolutely loves it. Sometimes, it just goes with the territory--and especially in service industries, when clients are counting on you to pull them out of the fire on a moment's notice, no matter what it takes. Sometimes the clients cry wolf and don't really need you to skip that first grade play; sometimes lots of money, or jobs, or lives are on the line.
Posted by: Citations | November 01, 2007 at 02:39 PM
I don't disagree with you. There are obviously upsides to being a partner -- the most notable, to me at least, being the thrill of having the ear and becoming a trusted advisor to the captains of industry. I just think it's totally unsurprising that the percentage of women who want to be on law review or do a prestigious clerkship or be an associate at a big law firm is much, much higher than the percentage that want to hang in through the long midlevel and senior associate years to make partner. Because law review is fun, and clerking is even more fun, and working as an associate is fun too, for a time. All of it, in my opinion, is a lot more fun when you are not trying to balance it with taking care of young children. In the office in which I work, most of the women jump ship -- to an in-house position or the government -- before they get pregnant, or they don't get pregnant. Precious few have attempted to "do it all." (I can think of one). I haven't encountered any women who think that they can win without playing the game; just women have decided they don't want to do what it takes to win despite their love for the law.
Posted by: Kate | November 01, 2007 at 07:30 PM
I completely agree, and I think that balancing that life with little kids is insane. I've always thought so, which is why I (gasp) just stayed home with mine and didn't try to balance them simultaneously. Kids and a law career are each too demanding for me to try to do them together, so I opted for balancing by doing them serially. It was an option not without cost, but trying to do them both at once is not without cost either.
I made my choice of costs to pay and on balance I'm happy with it. I'll be a Wall Street lawyer with memories of people saying to me, "Oh, you're just a housewife?"
I am intensely irritated by society's attitude that this problem applies only to women, though. Why should it, in either reality or perception? My husband certainly struggled with it. He wanted to spend time with the kids and read them stories and he did. He also billed close to or even more than 3000 hours most of those years. No, he didn't sleep. But he had me at home keeping the rest of his life together, or he wouldn't have been able to do it. It's an issue for anyone who wants to have a family.
But the issue of women dropping out of the profession, or not even trying to make it to the top when we have such a shortage of female leaders, remains a puzzle to me aside from the issue of raising families. It's a big component, but I don't think the physiology and family dynamic is an issue coextensive with the seeming lack of, well, ambition. Old-fashioned ambition if you're a man, untraditional ambition if you're a woman. Why are women shrinking from saying they want to make [insert big title here]?
One day this summer I was in the elevator with a gentleman I didn't know personally, but I knew he was a partner and he knew I was a summer. He asked me, "So what's the plan? Are you going to come back here, work hard, make partner?"
"Yes," I replied, with a sunny smile and a matter-of-fact tone.
I exited the elevator with the sense that he was still trying to pick up his jaw.
Posted by: Citations | November 02, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Just to be contrarian, I'm going to say that sometimes the "obvious" standards of law school success (high GPA, law review, clerkship, etc.) are not always the key to the kind of job you really want. I have found that many employers think my desire to work for an unpopular cause or ridiculously low pay is insincere *because* I "succeeded" in law school. I have noticed that classmates who hovered around average (my school had a C+ curve) were able to secure jobs with high turnover (often public service-type jobs) more easily than someone like me. I know that sounds absolutely perverse, but maybe by going after those "prizes" early in your career can create something of a question mark to later employers. I get the impression they think I'm just biding my time until a bigger fish to fry comes along. So in a way, I feel that I'm being punished for playing the game and playing it well.
Of course, I don't mean all of this in a terribly bitter way (just mildly bitter that I put up with it all), I'm just saying that playing the game is overrated. Make your own prize and play your own game to win it. I'd rather win a year's worth of, say, cookie dough than a year's worth of gasoline, even though one seems like the more logical choice.
Posted by: E. McPan | November 02, 2007 at 07:35 AM
Oh, I don't know. Cookie dough seems the more logical choice to me.
It's interesting, I've had a somewhat similar experience. People not on journals have gotten clerkships, a couple have gotten jobs at a "better" firm (although they have the grades). A journal, with or without a board position, is no guarantee--I got shut out of clerkships, I didn't get offers at more than half the firms where I interviewed.
My understanding is that some public interest positions are as hard to get as any BIGLAW job. Fellowships and such can require amazing grades as well as a strong list of extracurriculars, as of course the DOJ honors program does. But yes, I can imagine going to a small operation somewhere, or a state's attorney's office, and having them suspect that I'm only looking for a job with them because I have some horrible skeleton in my closet or am just using that job as a stepping stone in my nefarious plan for world domination. (It's not clear to me why the plan would need that sort of stepping stone, but I'm just throwing it out there.) As it was, I was told that some firms assumed I was headed for academia.
To which I say, ha!! But I digress.
Yours is a very interesting perspective, McPan, and illustrates the value of contrarian opinions aside from their general charm. There are risks with every choice, and days when I wonder why the heck I'm slogging through another edit or sending out another email the staffers will ignore, when I could be slacking and watching movies instead and end up at exactly the same job. Then I remember that I undertook LR for its own sake as well as possible future benefits, and I only have so much tolerance for slacking off--a high tolerance, but not an endless one. One thing about making your own prize and playing your own game is that you can make sure that every step is worthwhile in its own right.
Enjoying the journey, even when your luggage gets lost, is the ultimate prize. Or cookie dough is. Yes, perhaps it's the cookie dough.
Posted by: Citations | November 02, 2007 at 08:37 AM
OK Citations, just so you don't miss ANY of your MOTHER's EVENTS!!!
Posted by: ckm | November 02, 2007 at 10:27 AM