Joshua, I found your essay extremely poignant. You mentioned that you did not wish to impute too many of your own feelings to your classmates, so I wish to lend another student’s experiences as support to your paper. I have been 100% addicted to external validation, and I did not fully recognize that until I read through your work. I distinctly remember ENJOYING studying for the LSAT. Thinking back, it is easy to see why. Everyone told me it was one of the most important tests for lawyers, and I was good at it. No wonder I enjoyed taking the practice tests; they told me I was bright and good even if I was not learning to the extent of my capabilities in my concurrent undergraduate courses.

That said, I do not necessarily agree with the notion implicit in your statement, “I do not want to impute too many of my own feelings to my classmates (I certainly know some who are entirely self-validated, unconcerned with grades, and passionate about becoming lawyers for specific, great reasons)…” I may be reading into too deeply, but I find it suggesting that (1) grades are unimportant if you are self-validated and (2) you need specific “great” (I love justice, I love law, etc) reasons for wanting to be a lawyer in order to be happy practicing as one.

1. Grades can be important tools for evaluating yourself even if you are internally validated. Among my aspirations as a lawyer, I hope to become an expert on a practical subject matter. My grades have helped indicate to me my relative success in the various law subjects. My constitutional law grade, for example, indicated that my preparation for that course did not lend itself to a nuanced understanding of constitutional caselaw. That grade let me know that there is something I can work on as I move forward. My grade, therefore, has helped me move closer to my internal goal of lawyerly expertise (even if it did not open the doors of Sullivan & Cromwell.)

2. With respect to requiring specific “great” reasons for wanting to be a lawyer, I may be imputing into your statement a theme of the class suggesting that we need a specific, humanitarian interest in the law in order to derive satisfaction as a lawyer. If that is what you were asserting, then I do not think it is true. Professor Moglen challenges us to be creative in order to both (1) do well and (2) do good. But what “good” means is subjective. Part of my “good” does not involve establishing world peace, ending hunger, and curing cancer. Part of it involves having a family while my parents are still healthy, and to be able to provide for it at a certain level. A ticket to Columbia Law, even with the oversupply of young lawyers throughout the country, is still a decent means to this end. My internal goals may not be as specific or humanitarian as has been suggested is necessary, but if I achieve them (and it may be easier to achieve mine then it may be for others to achieve theirs) then I will have a happy, successful professional career.

Again, LOVED your paper, and I enjoyed the brief time we knew each other. Best of luck, you’ll do both well and good with whatever is your next step.

-Alex Buonocore