Are you cut out for partnership?

  • Print
  • Comments (6)

Readers' comments (6)

  • This feature's intro does not lead to the conclusion that follows soon after. Which part of 'male, Oxbridge-educated, white' and 'eight or nine years qualified' justifies the conclusion that an 'average partner is... priviliged'? Oxford and Cambridge are not public schools.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Camford Oxbridge; the conclusion might not be supported, but are you genuinely saying its not accurate?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Here's a thought - female lawyers, being the smarter sex, realise that the life of being a partner is neither what they want nor what they need so they leave and have better lives as a result.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ Camford Oxbridge
    The argument could be made that those with a more privileged education (e.g. at private school) are more likely to be at the standard required for Oxbridge.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Interesting article.
    I would have been interested to see a report comparing what it took to be a partner 15 years ago compared to now.
    For example in 1997 it seemed partnership was an option at 5-6 years qualified. Now it's 9 - 10 years.
    It really seems like that generation pulled the ladder up after themselves.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dont agree with quotas. Only become partners based on performance.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory
  • Print
  • Comments (6)
Training+contract+comparison+tool