law: who you know

It’s about who you know: an analysis of the correlation between wealthy families and law schools to the detriment of young female lawyers.

Private school students typically come from wealthy families - parents that have well-established careers such as lawyers, doctors, accountants. Such parents are paying for their children to get a pristine education and get into the most reputable universities, but does any of this matter? These young adults will get their degrees, but put them to no use because they will get a job in “mummy and daddy’s” company anyway - this is the path laid out for them from the beginning. Personal bias belongs in this piece, but not for a spectacle of disregard, but rather an observation on why not me. The current predicament demands scrutiny and some form of academic challenge. In a just world, a practicing solicitor trainee must pay a significant amount of money to be considered for the job. This fundamentally changes how said applicant dares to have a different orientation in a hugely male-dominated field. Many exemplar cases would come to the forefront. Still, it’s time to recognise those with no say, those with money, to point out that a lawyering job is inherently gambling, except the cash offered is circumstantial. 

Becoming a lawyer is not as simple as gaining a degree and being qualified for the job afterwards. A diploma is required - one which costs money. This means that rich people and those with family members already in the field already have an advantage. That begs the question: Is law as a principle not meant to include all, disregard social standings, and give to everyone, regardless of culture, background, or ethnicity? How can you deliver this general principle when it is not even applicable for those dictating the law? In a civil, democratic society like ours, lawmakers see fit where the law can be appropriate and enforceable, mostly born out of political scope and whoever runs the office. Does this not suggest that the law and the rule thereof is neither definitive nor thereafter politicised. 

The point is academic journal or rather “peer-reviewed” sources seem limited and it fails to account for the harsh reality that several law students are systematically forced out of the idea of challenging the law based on their circumstances