I'm not sure how the rewrite is supposed to be responsive to my comments. "Millennials" are people, and between them and the generations that preceded them the distinction is not the desirability of higher education. In a world where a billionaire advertises the importance of funding startups by college dropouts, your talk of the impossibility of getting any job at all without a college degree sounds, as I said last time, like the transplantation of the problems suffered by people without your cognitive endowments and social advantages onto your own situation. I got my first job at the onset of the 1973-74 recession, without a high school diploma, when I was 14. I had a skill. I was a good learner. So are you, and everyone around you. But acquiring a skill that would allow you to work advantageously to pay for your education was not a priority for you, or you would have done it. Borrowing money against future earnings in order to get an education isn't a requirement for people of your talents and privileges. It's a choice. Whether it is a good choice or a bad choice can be discussed, analyzed, written about. But it has to be faced as what it is. I asked you to revise this essay to consider the matter as choice. You have returned another draft that once again slips this rather significant aspect of the situation.

We are not talking about the mass of people: we are talking about you. How you, with your powers and your resources, can strategize your life. If we are to fall back immediately into assertions about the average in the society, and how in a world of inequality those on the wrong side of the divide are trapped, then we are ignoring both your advantages and your responsibilities. That, for at least one course in the early part of law school, I am trying not to do. Please help me.