| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="Main.RohanGrey" |
|---|
I found this series of interviews by Alain de Botton directly relevant to our recent discussions regarding our law school experience and the challenges faced during our 1L year and in choosing a career. In particular, I think the second video, with its discussion of the historical superiority of religious institutions over universities in offering genuinely valuable life advice, is particularly interesting in the way it relates education to the idea Eben discussed in class of law being a weak social force. Perhaps it is precisely because religious and cultural institutions provide more valuable life guidance than formal educational programs that they exert such a relatively strong influence over normative social discourse compared to, say, ethicists or political scientists. If that is the case, then De Botton's proposals can be seen as attempts to implant respect for formal education (and the law) in younger generations to the point that their formative influence eventually exceeds countervailing religious and cultural forces. If that is his goal, I believe achieving it requires a far broader review of the politicization of the schooling process beyond the moral/spiritual guidance he emphasizes. Current debates regarding charter schools, high-stakes testing and educational inequality tend to gloss over the surface of what appear to me to be more fundamental and pressing issues - lack of democratic student participation, inequity of access, and the poorly defined role of the state in child welfare. Unless those more fundamental institutional questions are addressed, how can we expect our education system to promote democratically active, tolerant citizens of a global community? | | | 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.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | - JohnBarker? - 16 April 2012
I think the emphasis on money as the next form of competition is a bit misplaced and not quite the issue the article was describing. Money becomes used because it is easy to compare and does have some tangible benefits, but in the absence of real differences in money law students and lawyers would still try to find ways to distinguish their success. Pretty much all big firms pay the same to associates, but there is still competition to work at the "elite" firms. Journals, clerkships, and nonfirm jobs, based on my impressions, also seem to be subject to competition based on perceptions of prestige rather than the skills they provide and what sort of fit they are for an individual.
The point I disagree with the authors of the article about is that this is necessarily unique to law school and the legal profession. Other professional schools, like medical school and business school, do seem to mitigate this by having more of an emphasis on teamwork. Perhaps this is an area where law school can better emulate these schools by changing the structure of the class to put more of an emphasis on collaborative learning. But med and business students still compete for the most prestigious and highest paying jobs and residencies and fellowships, often in conflict with what they feel is the best fit or what makes them most fulfilled.
I think that reflects a more fundamental social issue, which is that the professionals of our society have been brought up being taught to tie self-esteem to "achievement". From elementary school on, every year brings its grades and tests, praise for good numbers or letters, disapproval for bad ones. Most parents of professionals put pressure on them to get into and attend the "good" schools, sometimes in particularly ridiculous situations like NYC as early as elementary or middle school, and this continues with jobs and even other facets of life, like what neighborhood someone chooses to live in or the performance of their own children in the same absurd system. Professionals generally thrive in this system to get where they are and therefore tend to create an even further entanglement between achievement and self-esteem. While university and professional students may need life guidance the most urgently, it might also be too late at that point. What we are really in need of is an overhaul of our education system from the Prussian model of creating obedient industrial workers to one to create happier and more creative citizens.
It's unfortunate that most of the emphasis on education reform instead is focused on how to expand this structure to encompass the teachers as well instead of trying to eliminate it. Part of the problem might be the political influence of industry, which needs skilled and anxious workers a lot more than it needs creative and active citizens, but I think the bigger problem is that most parents would rather see the continuation of this system. They were brought up with the system and often to them the "success" of their children adds to their own success and consequently self-esteem, not to mention the inherent resistance to changing traditions. I'm not sure how one would go about trying to persuade the public of the need for change, but maybe a start would be reminding the world that neither the education system nor law school are in Lake Wobegon.
-- DanielKetani - 18 Apr 2012 | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|