I know a senior partner in a big law firm who isn’t particularly impressed with the graduates of “top-tier” law schools. He told me that he particularly cold-shouldered Yalies because they had their heads filled much more with legal theories than with practical understanding of our legal system.

That conversation came to mind when I read this USA Today piece about a New York firm that prefers graduates of non-Ivy League law schools. Firm founder Adam L. Bailey states, “We want lawyers who have competed for three years for the top grades and at the same time who have learned topics relevant to our real estate practice.” That gets at one problem with our “elite” schools (law and undergrad) — the diminution or even elimination of that nasty old relic called competition.

Bailey continues, “Our young lawyers have competed with their peers and have a ranking to show for it. They excelled at their classes and took classes relevant to our actual practice of law. While the top law schools take guaranteed jobs based on the name of their school, our fall, spring and summer associates compete with each other for one or two coveted spots.”

I hope that Bailey isn’t hit with a lawsuit over his admissions in the piece, which amount to a confession to that horrid practice, discrimination. Why should a law firm be allowed to have a preference for graduates who have been toughened by competition and have some knowledge about its field of practice? Could an inventive lawyer at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission find grounds for complaint here? It wouldn’t surprise me.