I like this article because it so comprehensively lays out a lot of the reasons why the law school/biglaw culture isn't what it should be. It scares me to a little bit to see that money becomes the next extrinsic, competition-based reward for continuing to play the game. I am not a terribly creative person, but I still want to feel like i have some autonomy, and this article reinforces the somewhat obvious idea that if you just follow the path you're "supposed" to take, you lack autonomy. Still, my own lack of creativity is worrisome, because I like having things and I have some anxiety that I don't have what it takes to have lots of things if I don't follow the path laid out for me. I'm skeptical about doing well while doing good.

Anyway, my personal feelings about the issues the authors discuss aside, this article is indeed an interesting look at the problems of curricular reform. Adding classes doesn't really change a lot independently of changing the culture and incentive structure of law school because within the confines of the competitive framework it's still very difficult to escape the narrow path. I agreed with the importance of the questions you asked in your original post, but considering them again in light of this new article I think they're especially compelling. If curricular reform doesn't accomplish what reformers wish it to accomplish in law school, perhaps it wouldn't in college either, suggesting that de Botton's emphasis might be misguided.