Because, as Jon touched on very briefly, part of the value of a position after one's first year of law school is the training and exposure you get to real legal work. We now write memos, draft appellant briefs and shape moot court arguments, but in truth, none of it really counts. Even if Legal Writing was for a letter grade, it still doesn't really "count" for much. It's not affecting someone's life, determining where they will live or how they will support their families. It is probably the single ounce of our Columbia Law education that is practical rather than theoretical, and with a pass-pass system and student editors that are understandably not devoting all free time to legal writing issues, that's not saying much. An SPIO might be a good idea for a second or third year student (or perhaps a first year who is that confident in their abilities -- to whom I suggest, go for it), but for the general student body, I think it is a little early to be jumping into making independent decisions about individual lives. Yes, you could say that of course the students would be supervised by attorneys, but with attorneys legally having to provide the final word, what then makes your SPIO distinguishable from a general public interest firm? Wouldn't you feel more confident taking on these significant matters knowing that, as an upperclassmen, you have delved outside the prescribed 1L curriculum and given yourself the opportunity to develop your expertise so that it can be put towards most efficiently helping others in your public interest positions?

To add another point, I find it interesting that so often, the legal community is quick to assume public interest positions are inferior to or completed isolated from law firm positions. For one, we assume they are easy to come by (as evidenced by Jon's highlighting of the firms who so easily advise their associates to use the recession to spend a year in a secured job in the public interest field.)In reality, one should know these organizations and their staffs are just as affected by funding restrictions and failed fund-raising goals as anyone else. Secondly, it seems as though the prevailing idea is evidenced in the proposition for an SPIO. Putting aside the practical limitations, we would never suggest a group of rising 1Ls is mentally/intellectually ready to spend their first summer creating their own fully operable firm, so why is it ok to suggest the same group is ready to take the jobs of the "failing" PI organizations and tackle the issues of clients more vulnerable than that seen in the alternative context?