5 ms·
Since when are 32-year-olds "so inexperienced"? Maybe she's got different experience from prior appointees but 10+ years of high quality experience is IMO, more
by arcticfox 5y ago
Since when are 32-year-olds "so inexperienced"? Maybe she's got different experience from prior appointees but 10+ years of high quality experience is IMO, more than enough. Most people are at the top of their game at that age.
- bgorman 5y agoShe has been out of law school for 4 years.
- akomtu 5y agoTo play the DEI's advocate I'll call this sexism.
- vitus 5y agoAdditionally: while 32 might set a new record, it's not by _that_ much -- Collier became chairman at 34 in 1976.
- lupire 5y agoFor better or for worse, the law is much more complicated now than in 1976.
- rpdillon 5y agoI get where you're coming from, "so inexperienced" is probably overstating it. But she's been out of law school for four years, and I feel like saying most folks are at their best then discounts all the experience and learning that come from working another 30 years in the field (for, say, a 62-year old).
- elefanten 5y ago4 years out of law school is what I was referencing. I stand by my phrasing. She had (presuming usual timelines) 3 years of work between undergrad and law school. She went from law school student to law school associate professor (on the strength of her viral rewview article). She has 0 non-academic work experience and will now be regulating entire industries. In context, that's "so inexperienced".
- getlawgdon 5y agoMost people are at the top of their game at 31? Uh, no. No. Maybe in startup lala land, but in this kind of role, 31 is "learning the ropes" territory.