Slaughter and May launches social mobility scheme

Slaughter and May has announced a new social mobility initiative with local state school, Central Foundation Boys' School, which aims to motivate and encourage bright students to get into top universities. But - slightly awkwardly - it's a social mobility scheme for boys only.

The Key Project, as it's known, is Slaughters' contribution to PRIME, the law firm initiative to give quality work experience to school-age students (rather than just to partners' offspring in the traditional manner). Initially open to 40 Year 9 boys aged 13 to 14, participants will benefit from weekly one-to-one tutorials with Slaughters' lawyers to help with school work, careers workshops and with soft skills events organised by the firm. So the firm is not just throwing money at the issue, it's committing its own time and resources.

Slaughter and May's Key Project yesterday

Slaughters will be funding the programme for three years at least, with the hope of doubling the number of participants to 80 by next year. That's a lot of students and a very big project. Although possibly rather naive for it to be focused solely on boys given that, technically, girls can go to university too (and possibly even become lawyers).

A spokesman for the firm explained that the Central Foundation School is very close to Slaughters' offices and that the firm has a long history of working with the school (where 70% of pupils are on free school meals). He also pointed to the gender gap in academic attainment especially at GCSE level, where boys tend to do notably worse.

Bearing in mind that poverty is probably the biggest single obstacle to social mobility, RollOnFriday did not on this occasion have the heart to point out the gender gap within partnerships at top law firms, where women tend to do notably worse.

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Although isn't the gender gap only at a senior level? Don't most top firms tend to take on more female trainees than male these days? Or did I make that up? Possibly, I don't have the stats to hand.

I for one would welcome the views of a lady lawyer who has worked at Slaughter and May and then gone on to do very nicely for herself, thanks.

Would that such a marvellous creature existed.

I have no involvement with Slaughters or with the charity but this seems an unnecessarily cynical slant on what surely is a worthy initiative. There may be issues surrounding women progressing in the profession, but it's right I think there is no evident gender bias on the award of training contracts or the retention of trainees. In other words, in terms of entry into the profession women are well represented. It's hard to believe you would have run this piece in this tone if Slaughters had been supporting a female only education initiative, though if I'm right about equal access to the profession on gender lines then the issue would have been the same.

What problem could anybody possibly have with this?

Even by RoF standards this is the bottom of the outrage barrel.

There's no suggestion of a gender bias on the award of training contracts. Although clearly this isn't reflected at partnership level - women make up only 16% of Magic Circle partnerships. The article is about the fact that, whilst clearly a really positive scheme, it's a shame that Slaughters couldn't offer the same kind of access to both boys and girls. And the firm is bound to get a bit of stick for that.

It was announced on International Women's Day, which is a bit of a PR error.

I think this is an extremely mean-spirited article. A few firms are working on similar schemes. They require a huge amount of effort from the participating lawyers and the organisers both at the law firm and the school. It's unrealistic and inefficient for a firm to work with more than one school. Should the school nearest to Slaughter's offices therefore be excluded because it happens to be single sex?

I'm sure any City lawyer who has participated in one of these schemes will tell you how rewarding and positive they are for all concerned and it's sad that rather than encouraging more firms and individuals to get involved in their community, RoF would rather engage in adolescent smirking from the peanut gallery. What a shame.

I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not intended to be mean spirited, in fact we do point out that it's a positive scheme and the firm is committed to putting in its own resources in rather than just cutting a cheque. It just looks like a bit of a PR blunder to restrict a potentially great scheme only to boys. Not to say Slaughters shouldn't have worked with the school, but maybe they could have given out half the 40 places to girls at another local school.

More women than men now enter the legal profession. Further, boys have fallen behind the girls in most public exams (for a variety of reasons). The initiative is therefore much needed and fully justified.

Definitely a bit desperate, this story.

More women than men at intake seems the City norm, which is surely just a reflection of girls outperforming boys at school and university, plus being better at project management (that's a personal opinion) and I suppose we might have to add a minor sleaze factor too.

But at partnership it is of course utterly different. Partly just women have the sense not to kill themselves for the sake of boarding school, two divorces and a Porsche. But also latent sexism, and the demands of motherhood if that's what they choose.

This is well off the mark, surely if you are going to criticise anyone it should be the school for only accepting male pupils!

Very interesting article, thank you for pointing out this type of discriminatory initiatives!

They haven't stated yet whether it will be both male and female employees at Slaughters that assist on the scheme but it would be unfortunate if there's yet another activity at Slaughters that favors men (since most but not all of the large funded clubs are male sports).

Since when is charity sport"? The problem with lack of female partners is a top level problem and doesn't need attention at school level as much as the problems concerning young boys. A perfectly justified action, it would be lovely if Slaughter and May included an all girl school in the programme, but that shouldn't be the slant taken by RoF here.

You may think that there is no link between school mentoring schemes and the ranks of partnership but role models are desperately important at every level, especially in inspiring young minds. I commend Slaughters for the initiative but think it looks absolutely terrible that they cannot also support a girl's school or co-ed school. It simply goes to reiterate the view I have always (rightly or wrongly) held of Slaughters from my student days that it is a predominantly white, male, English establishment in which I would never have felt at home which is precisely why it was the only magic circle firm I didn't apply to for a training contract.