[How much self pleasure can you gain from working at a large corporate law firm? Why do all personal definitions of justice necessarily rely on an external, set moral order that has been submitted to? Each of these "moral orders" themselves had to historically be created by an individual.---- Rob Laser - 17 Feb 2010]

[Do you really wish for fairness? If injustice cannot be eliminated entirely, don't you want you and your family to be the ones who gain benefits unjustly rather than detriments? Their relationship to you hardly seems a "fair" way to determine such a thing. There will always be inequities, and when absolute fairness is a myth the best you can do is help those you for some reason choose to care about. (can be anyone not just family or people you know, impoverished etc.)-- RobLaser - 17 Feb 2010]

[I think this is absolutely correct, choosing a big firm job seems to have a lot do to with laziness. -- RobLaser - 17 Feb 2010]

A counter to above is that we can assume that lawyers ultimately desire to do justice and to be able to choose their own clients is not so faulty. It makes sense to assume that people want to contribute to their society, because they want to be valued. The goal of every life is to live happily, so we do not need to protest that working for monetary value and self-pleasure is valid. However, the reason we assume lawyers wish for justice is because most people wish for coherence and fairness. Plus, feeling valued makes them happy, so working for the public interest or "for the people" is seen as good. A source of external morality is likely not the driving force behind people's altruism. People are meant to want to be altruist to a degree. Religion might even in some cases be detrimental to instilling morality and responsibility towards humanity because that sense of morality and rightness, so strong when developed independently and internally, is externalized, when you are taught to act a certain way for fear of the threat of punishment or that other's told you to do it.(Cecilia Wang)

Another set of values that can contribute is respect by the clients and the clients dependency. (Cecilia Want)

Benefits/Temptations/Reasons to Join Law Firms

+ It is easier to get a job with a big firm. The law school is designed to funnel you into a firm job. The firms come here to recruit, and we are pushed to do EIP. The jobs are there and they are offered to students without the student having to do much work. (John Albanese)

+ Firms will make the job seem really enticing. The representatives that you will meet from law firms are people that are paid to convince you to come to the firm. These people are the ones who will profit off of your labor. Unless you do some research on your own, you will not meet an associate or partner who hates their job. The summer that you spend will be filled with light work days, nice dinners, and lavish events. Your paycheck will be ridiculous. It will be very tempting to say that you can work for one or two years to pay off your loans and then leave. (John Albanese)

+ Everybody you know will be taking these jobs. Never underestimate the power of peer pressure and group think. (John Albanese)

+ Do we necessarily become trapped. The associates who may be miserable are probably not an unrepresentative minority. It is very possible that people enter such work because they want the challenge and difficulties that come with being a biglaw lawyer. There seems plenty of people who love their work, and not for money. (Cecilia Wang)

This is my first attempt at refactoring, which has been quite an informative but imperfect process. I have tried to preserve the overall discussion that occurred while eliminating repetition, superfluity, and discussion that went completely off topic. I do not believe this discussion is finished, and there will most likely be future attempts to further refactor the page. So discussion is invited on any of the major subheadings. I believe that this thread would benefit from more discussion about the actual/supposed benefits/temptations of working for a firm. I realize there may be a limit to the utility of such a discussion without empirical data, but it is worth a try nonetheless. And the concept of personal values and rationality can be further fleshed out. In addition, feel free to correct or expand on comments already made here if you believe I made a mistake in my editing.

<--/commentPlugin-->

2) Firms will make the job seem really enticing. The representatives that you will meet from law firms are people that are paid to convince you to come to the firm. These people are the ones who will profit off of your labor. Unless you do some research on your own, you will not meet the associates and partners who hate their jobs. The summer that you spend will be filled with light work days, nice dinners, and lavish events. Your paycheck will be ridiculous. It will be very tempting to say that you can work for one or two years to pay off your loans and then leave.

Glover: I do not think that mores are restricted to one sphere of society. I view law as part of the responsive element I am speaking to.

-- NonaFarahnik - 04 Feb 2010

Okay, David, you've got a bunch of talk here, and it's time to refactor it, summarizing what has been said and determining whether the conversation is complete or how to start it off in a new direction. Do it soon, please.

<--/commentPlugin-->

• To respond to you, Mike: I think you're right that we don't always know what we want. I think my point was more that sometimes there are certain best interests or values that we hold that can be overshadowed or obscured by external pressures. I might not, for example, know exactly what I want to do with my law degree, but I might know that I want to work for justice. So while we don't always know exactly what we want, there are certain things that are going to be in our best interest and might conflict with the choices we actually make because of other factors. And you're also right that perhaps I presented too negative a treatment of cultural influence in general (if I read your comment correctly)- I think it may be a bit naive of me to suggest there is some essential thing within us that can be wholly separated from cultural influence. Of course, cultural influence is inescapable and often shapes all of our behavior, from the very basic ways we operate to the more complex interactions we have and institutions we are a part of. But that said, I think there is a difference between the influence of culture and the imposition of cultural values on our own. It's when we start to believe that other values or interests are really our "own" and forget that they're imposed on us or captured from somewhere else that our best interest could be compromised. -- JessicaHallett - 04 Feb 2010

Second, I'm not sure that it's helpful to frame the decision between corporate/private and public interest work in terms of rationality, because already it's too easy to slip into rationalization. Thinking through what we've talked about in class, it's probably more useful to approach the decision via consilience. That said, I don't think we need to spend much time working through the thought process leading towards such jobs, because I assume that it's intuitively familiar to all of us regardless of what area of law we'd like to pursue. More interesting, I think, and more productive, are conversations about the ways that we might be able to actually do other things with our licenses.

Third, Nona: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by saying that there's some responsive nature to our national mores, but I don't think that I agree. If you mean that we're prone to responding to the struggles of various groups by changing our minds about them, it seems that we do so too grudgingly for much optimism. In many cases, rather, the mores tend to be the problem, and the law is often best used in opposition to them. The upside is that this leaves plenty of room for legal maneuvering.

-- Main.Glover Wright - 04 Feb 2010

• "In reality, I believe that working simply for monetary value and self pleasure (whatever form that takes) is as valid as working for justice and the public good. This is based on the proposition that value in the end is completely personal....it is irrelevant in terms of intrinsic value what one does."

• "In reality, I believe that working simply for monetary value and self pleasure (whatever form that takes) is as valid as working for justice and the public good. This is based on the proposition that value in the end is completely personal....it is irrelevant in terms of intrinsic value what one does."

• Sometimes I wonder why we confine our discussion to the pawning of licenses and the firm job. Is there something about our decision to study law that distinguishes us from everyone else? I see my friends everywhere-- in fashion, marketing, banking, entertainment-- generally unhappy with what they do and the amount of hours they put into doing it. The problem of pawning skill for work and dissatisfaction is rampant. To a certain extent, it might reflect the status premium we place on different types of jobs that Mike referred to above--Lloyd Blankfein is not hanging out with his doorman. My sense is also that so many people are running--hard--on this corporate debt-laden hamster wheel, and nobody is stopping to think about the life part of it. Compounded with the gross inequalities that this system preserves, the situation is almost maddeningly upsetting.

I think that one of the benefits to Eben's provocative material is that ultimately, we are the ones who are empowered to do something about it. The courts are imperfect. Situations are unique as to prevent legal rules from really being as uniform as our decision-making supposes. Law is politics. People with power want to keep it for themselves. We shun The Other. All of this can be morbid and handicapping, or we can revel in the benign indifference of the universe and assert ourselves as we please. Perhaps this is along the lines of Eben's Thurgood Marshall is Not God notion, which is very attractive to me. In response to the class discussion on Tuesday, I think things have changed and it is possible for them to keep changing. I don't subscribe to the argument that gross inequality is justifiable because America is at least better than other shittier places, but I do believe in the fundamental notion that as a society, we have and will affect change with respect to the (maybe unreachable) goal of equality. The fact that we have a black president does not erase a history of purposeful and disgusting institutional terror, but it certainly informs that history. Blacks, hispanics, women, gay people, the disabled and others continue to be discriminated against. These problems (and many others) have multiple potential legal solutions and that should inspire us to act. For me, that inspiration is be buoyed by the expectation that there is some responsive nature to our national mores. -- NonaFarahnik - 04 Feb 2010

• I want to reinforce two points from my earlier post. First, every decision has a reason, and we make that decision because it is our best option. At the time we make it, even though from outside perspective it may seem crazy, each decision has been compared to EVERY OTHER KNOWN OPTION (think "mens rea"). The factors I listed were just a few which may weigh on the decision, but like Sam said, not knowing of a better option often leads us to make an inefficient choice. I also disagree with Jessica-- I don't think we always know what we want; We often face choices where we really don't know which one will have the better outcome, and whether knowingly or unknowingly we rely on societal values to help fill these holes of uncertainty. Our culture, whether we like it or not, is part of our personality and helps define the schemas through which we organize information. This information is then used to make the "rational decisions" we are talking about. While I looked only at the Nordic culture, there is also a ton of research on the eastern/western cultural value dichotomy. -- MikeAbend - 03 Feb 2010

No wonder you're in such a hurry to reject my help, having determined after fourteen weeks that what I am making a priority isn't a priority around here.

1) It is easier to get a job with a big firm. The law school is designed to funnel you into a firm job. The firms come here to recruit and interview you. Career services pushes students to do EIP which is dominated by large firms. The jobs are there and they are offered to students without the students having to do much work.

2) Firms will make the job seem really enticing. The representatives that you will meet from law firms are people that are paid to convince you to come to the firm. These people are the ones you will profit off of your labor. Unless you do some research on your own, you will not meet the associates and partners who hate their jobs. The summer that you spend at a firm will be filled with light work days, nice dinners and lavish events. Your paycheck will be ridiculous. It will be very tempting to say that you can work for one or two years to pay off your loans and then leave.

3) Everybody you know will be taking these jobs. Never underestimate the power of peer pressure and group think. -- JohnAlbanese - 03 Feb 2010

• I’m curious about how one becomes trapped. It’s not like the miserable associates (and are most associates really as miserable as rumored or just a whiny, vocal few) are mentally challenged high school dropouts with felony convictions. Maybe you want to enter that world because you want the challenge and to become the difficulties to become who relishes being a biglaw lawyer. There seem to be plenty of people who love their work, and not for the money.

About religion: a source of external morality is likely not the driving force behind people’s altruism. People are meant to want to be altruist to a degree. Religion might even in some cases be detrimental to instilling morality and responsibility towards humanity because that sense of morality and rightness, so strong when developed independently and internally, is externalized, when you’re taught to act a certain way for fear of the threat of punishment or that other’s told you to do it, it could be very easy to rebel against that and decide that the natural state of man is to be utterly selfish and amoral. For instance, if you attended a church lead by a poor-trained pastor who taught you every weekend that you’re naturally evil and selfish but you have to act against your “true nature” or else you will end up in hell. To desire to live happily is selfish, but not all selfishness is bad if one assumes that humans are social animals, that each is better off after bettering his or her community. -- CeciliaWang - 03 Feb 2010

• I also want to address Sam's comment that students might not be aware of certain "rational" options. Sure, Columbia seems to fit jobs into two neat little categories of public interest and firm jobs- but don't we, as students and people, need to take some responsibility in figuring out what those choices are? That said, I do agree with your basic premise- I certainly get the impression at CLS that there is very much a "one or the other" situation, and I wonder what would be a better approach? The idea that many of us talk about having money OR being fulfilled, as mentioned by Eben on the first day of class, speaks to this- and if we don't try particularly hard to look further, it's easy to believe that the two are mutually exclusive. What do you think would be a better way of educating students to approach careers with that in mind? -- JessicaHallett - 03 Feb 2010

-- MatthewZorn - 03 Feb 2010

• I agree with Matt's comment that people make irrational decisions all the time. I also to some extent understand the comments that suggest that there is some kind of societal or systemic explanation or "cultural values" that play a role in our decision-making. But I don't think those values contribute at all to "rational" decision-making. If cultural values play a role in our decision-making in a way that actually contradicts our own real values and wants (assuming we actually know what those are) isn't that actually inherently irrational? We go against what we might otherwise think to be a sensible, rational decision to pursue our own best interests, and instead fall prey to some culturally-imposed "value" that we don't even actually agree with. I think the takeaway is that we don't always think rationally, and that the "system" and "society" shape our decisions in a way that makes them irrational. For instance, to take Eben's basic example of going to work for a law firm, and assume it is in our best interest to be happy, comfortable, and fulfilled. The fact that taking a job at a firm deprives us of choice and the ability to even decide which side of a case we are on, and leaves us with a scary possibility of fighting for a side that we think is wrong doesn't actually make much sense, in that it could leave us woefully unfulfilled and unhappy. It is the societal influences that are mentioned above that might convince us that it does make sense. This seems pretty irrational to me. I think we should give ourselves more credit than being completely susceptible to the values that are imposed on us by culture- we are, after all, independent and able to form our own ideas and make our own calls about what makes sense and what doesn't. If we assess what is valuable to us, ourselves, and still choose a path that actually reflects the values of someone else, or society, we aren't being rational- we are either being afraid of something or being "insane" in that we are convincing ourselves of things that aren't true with some psychic rationalization in order to assuage our fears and anxiety.

I guess this begs the question- what about people who actually, rationally weigh the costs and benefits of working in a firm and societal values match up with their own? What do we say about a person who does value wealth above autonomy, choice, and justice? Maybe Eben's response would be that really no one is happy in that situation; but surely, for some, the money outweighs the other stuff? Can being a lawyer just be a job, and nothing more? Do we just ignore these people as beyond the scope of our conversation because we seem to be operating under and assumption that we all value justice? I'm just not sure where this kind of person fits in with our discussion, so any thoughts on this are appreciated! -- JessicaHallett - 03 Feb 2010

• I agree with Matt's comment that people make irrational decisions all the time. I also to some extent understand the comments that suggest that there is some kind of societal or systemic explanation or "cultural values" that play a role in our decision-making. But I don't think those values contribute at all to "rational" decision-making. If cultural values play a role in our decision-making in a way that actually contradicts our own real values and wants (assuming we actually know what those are) isn't that actually inherently irrational? We go against what we might otherwise think to be a sensible, rational decision to pursue our own best interests, and instead fall prey to some culturally-imposed "value" that we don't even actually agree with. I think the takeaway is that we don't always think rationally, and that the "system" and "society" shape our decisions in a way that makes them irrational. For instance, to take Eben's basic example of going to work for a law firm, and assume it is in our best interest to be happy, comfortable, and fulfilled. The fact that taking a job at a firm deprives us of choice and the ability to even decide which side of a case we are on, and leaves us with a scary possibility of fighting for a side that we think is wrong doesn't actually make much sense, in that it could leave us woefully unfulfilled and unhappy. It is the societal influences that are mentioned above that might convince us that it does make sense. This seems pretty irrational to me. I think we should give ourselves more credit than being completely susceptible to the values that are imposed on us by culture- we are, after all, independent and able to form our own ideas and make our own calls about what makes sense and what doesn't. If we assess what is valuable to us, ourselves, and still choose a path that actually reflects the values of someone else, or society, we aren't being rational- we are either being afraid of something or being "insane" in that we are convincing ourselves of things that aren't true with some psychic rationalization in order to assuage our fears and anxiety.

I guess this begs the question- what about people who actually, rationally weigh the costs and benefits of working in a firm and societal values match up with their own? What do we say about a person who does value wealth above autonomy, choice, and justice? Maybe Eben's response would be that really no one is happy in that situation; but surely, for some, the money outweighs the other stuff? Can being a lawyer just be a job, and nothing more? Do we just ignore these people as beyond the scope of our conversation because we seem to be operating under and assumption that we all value justice? I'm just not sure where this kind of person fits in with our discussion, so any thoughts on this are appreciated! -- JessicaHallett - 03 Feb 2010

• "It doesn't seem rational people would make such seemingly irrational decisions."

It does to me. We do all the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

just a start. Rationality is often a myth. -- MatthewZorn - 03 Feb 2010

<--/commentPlugin-->

• I agree with the factors Mike listed that lead law students to make irrational choices, but I just want to add the simple possibility that students don't even know that other "rational" options even exist. Besides presenting the polar opposites of firm jobs and public interest work, Columbia does not make it a priority to help students really figure out the full spectrum of choices available to them. -- SamHershey - 03 Feb 2010

Cultural values play a role in our rational decision-making, and the American system puts a premium on wealth and socioeconomic status. Its contrast to the Nordic system may indicate a reason why so many people make such irrational career decisions.

%comment%

It doesn't seem rational people would make such seemingly irrational decisions. There has to be a reason. First lets assume that man has a weighing mechanism when making decisions. In addition, lets break down all decisions to binary "to be or not to be" simplicity (I think this is possible, but that's another discussion). My first point is that we choose one thing over another in every situation for seemingly rational reasons. When I choose to do something, there is a totality of volition on my part. I take into account everything I know about the circumstances and make the "correct decision". So what pushes us to take these jobs over more fulfilling jobs? I think it has to do with what we value: wealth, love, glory, approval, societal expectations.-- any one of these perceived general values could push us over the top if we get it from being a successful, miserable, corporate lawyer.

Or, there could be such little incentive in the other option that the lawyer job seems much better. But Moglen believes, and he might be right, that all law students are naturally endowed with empathy, so lets consider what would make the irrational job seemingly better than a fulfilling, successful life. I think part of it has to do with societal values and what our culture most values. The power of groupthink, especially on a national scale, seems unbelievably powerful to me and I have to believe it is always an influence on our decisions.

A few years ago I learned about "Janteloven", a surprisingly pervasive Nordic social regime focused on the basic rule of "Don't think you're anyone special or that you're better than us". Under Janteloven, distinguishing one's self from the group is socially stigmatized-- think the exact opposite of how our law school operates.

No one is labeled for their accomplishments or wealth but only for how they function in the community, i.e. practicing modesty and treating every person with equal respect. When I lived in Denmark, I was struck by people's immediate acceptance of any individual's pursuits and the lack of division in social circles based on socioeconomic status. People just want others to be happy, and a garbageman could be best friends with the CEO of a multinational corporation. Money and professional accomplishment is not a factor in determining social status. Every graduate student is in school because of a genuine passion for the subject, not what it will offer.

Note that I think this is easier for them because they maintain homogeneity of race, although the composition is changing somewhat with immigration.

Moglen showed the economic inequality of our country through the distribution of wealth, and I agree with him that the graph is going to get worse, not better, when the new data comes out. Looking at which countries perform best on the Gini index (which measure of inequality of income or wealth), four of the five Nordic countries were in the top 5:

1) Sweden 2) Denmark 3) Slovenia 4) Iceland 5) Norway (Norway was listed lower on Wikipedia, but I checked out of curiosity and it was actually tied for fifth). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html

Cultural values play a role in our rational decision-making, and the American system puts a premium on wealth and socioeconomic status. Its contrast to the Nordic system may indicate a reason why so many people make such irrational career decisions..

Why should you assume? I have explained what I mean and this isn't it.

So for the goal of this topic, as well as possibly my own mental well being, is to discuss why so many students "pawn their license" to a large law firm and what are the consequences, both positive and negative, of doing so. Before embarking on the substantive portion of this topic, I do want to try to lay out some stipulations or rules that should hopefully help our conversation for the betterment of the class. This is by no means an agreement with the professor or a judgment upon the industry or the decisions students make. I personally am considering going to one of these firms, though I am frankly to be honest not completely sure what I want to do. I imagine many of you have very similar feelings, especially as we are searching for summer jobs and looking at our first semester grades. So no one should be afraid to be honest about their view or ideas about the system and career, and no one should condemn anyone for it. This conversation will involve an element of conjecture, which the professor may need to help clear, but what this should not turn into is a bashfest of the firm system that is deeply entwined in our education and decisions, or a dumping ground for articles solely on how bad, evil, or tortuous such "pawn shops" are.

You can decide here what you want to say and what you want to edit, but I don't think you can reasonably decide what other people ought to say.

So everyone should feel free to give their opinion, which can be supported by articles they find, whether from firm rankings to career guides to recent NY Times articles as well as quotes from speakers or representatives that we may hear from at special panels or receptions. The following discussion should follow two main threads. First, why do so many students choose to go to a large law firm and spend at least a significant portion (subjective, from 1 year to 5 years to a lifetime) of their life there? Second, what are the positives and negatives, in a variety of contexts, to going to working at these firms? In the following, I will give my own preliminary thoughts about these questions, that will hopefully be added onto later.

What does "just as good" mean?

Some mathematics may help flesh out some of the rewards here. At this point, I am not fully sure what the consequences will be beyond what we are told by those working in the firm and the horror stories I have heard. Right now I am a bit tired of writing and would like to leave this thread of discussion more open.

Way too long. At 1300 words, this piece is at least three times longer than it can afford to be. Substantive discussion is almost pointless, though I've made some remarks above. But you can't write blowsy prose like this around here. Tighten up by dropping unnecessary sentences first. Then go back and begin simplifying the ones that do have to be there until they say exactly what they mean in the fewest possible words.

To guide the revision, you might ask "What was the message I intended to convey here? What idea had I that I wanted to communicate?" At present, the idea most evident is that there are positive things to be said about pawning your license. This is self-evidently true. Also that it is naive and over-generalizing to demand that the work of lawyers be about pursuing justice, because doing things just for the money is just as good as doing them for the public good. This idea is not self-evidently true, and in fact I begin by thinking that it is balderdash, but perhaps if the unnecessary material were cut away and a hundred or so words devoted to showing why you believe this proposition to be true, we could understand where the issues really are and others could more effectively join in.

-- DavidGarfinkel - 03 Feb 2010 This is the first topic I am starting here outside my introduction, so bear with any trial and error that goes into it. One of the major themes or bullet points of the class is how the vast majority of law students go through law school to pawn their license they receive upon passing the bar. For the purposes of this topic, I assuming that the pawn shop refers mostly, if not entirely, to the large NY law firms, many of which have been visiting our campus lately. So for the goal of this topic, as well as possibly my own mental well being, is to discuss why so many students "pawn their license" to a large law firm and what are the consequences, both positive and negative, of doing so. Before embarking on the substantive portion of this topic, I do want to try to lay out some stipulations or rules that should hopefully help our conversation for the betterment of the class. This is by no means an agreement with the professor or a judgment upon the industry or the decisions students make. I personally am considering going to one of these firms, though I am frankly to be honest not completely sure what I want to do. I imagine many of you have very similar feelings, especially as we are searching for summer jobs and looking at our first semester grades. So no one should be afraid to be honest about their view or ideas about the system and career, and no one should condemn anyone for it. This conversation will involve an element of conjecture, which the professor may need to help clear, but what this should not turn into is a bashfest of the firm system that is deeply entwined in our education and decisions, or a dumping ground for articles solely on how bad, evil, or tortuous such "pawn shops" are. So everyone should feel free to give their opinion, which can be supported by articles they find, whether from firm rankings to career guides to recent NY Times articles as well as quotes from speakers or representatives that we may hear from at special panels or receptions. The following discussion should follow two main threads. First, why do so many students choose to go to a large law firm and spend at least a significant portion (subjective, from 1 year to 5 years to a lifetime) of their life there? Second, what are the positives and negatives, in a variety of contexts, to going to working at these firms? In the following, I will give my own preliminary thoughts about these questions, that will hopefully be added onto later.

First, why do so many students choose to go to such pawn shops. Part of it may be the underlying structure of law school. Many do feel and argue that law schools like Columbia tend to orient their students towards going to a large corporate firm. We can see this by the presence firms have at our school, from guest speaker to career panels and events, such as OCI. However, I believe it is safe to say that students are fully aware that there are other career paths that can be taken. Before entering law school, most students have some contact with "Law and Order," and thus should be aware of potential jobs in government and defense. The increasing presence of advocacy and public interest work in college present other career paths. I believe I heard more about public interest, discussed explicitly so by I believe Professor Shaw, at orientation than about the traditional route taken by student. So do students enter law school with the path in mind, or does the school orient them toward it. How much does finances play into it? It is true that most of us will be burdened with large student loans, so do we choose that path simply to pay them off, especially when we can pay them off other ways. Is the route we take proportionate to the amount of burden we have? A consideration to take is that the loans we have now may seem like nothing compared to loans we take out for cars, mortgages, and our children. What is the validity to such thinking. Do students go to such firms simply for the prospect of making a large amount of money, unaware of the actual earnings per hour, or that they could have similar wealth in government (through benefits and stability) or working is a smaller firm or running their own firm. I do not believe we are a greedy generation as many try to make us out to be, nor are we naive to believe that we should be satisfied with just the simple things. So how much does the prospect of wealth play into such decisions. Do many students choose to go to such shops with career goals in mind, but end up getting trapped. These I hope will be difficult questions that will elicit an informative debate and commentary. Do students choose such paths b/c they are ill informed. I don't mean that they are stupid or blind. What I want to say is that we are forced to choose a career after only a year of law school, having not really taken any of the substantive classes that demonstrate what type of field we want to practice, and maybe have worked one summer in an extremely limited market that probably is not really representative of any career. So is the career process, where we are in a way forced to choose at EIP, contribute to such a mindset. I can only give some of my own initial beliefs and reasons that I am considering such a career. I think it may be the best route toward what I want to do, which I am not fully sure about, and a means of wealth and prestige, and I have not really found a cause out there that so burns my passion to devote myself to.

Second, what are the consequences of going to such firms. I believe that it is very hard to get an objective view in class. We have read the NY Times article and hear stories. This is the place to share such articles and anecdotes we hear from relatives, friends, and people we talk to while at Columbia. Moglen has told us some of the negatives of working at such places. I think it would be equally instructive and meaningful to continue to list and elaborate on such negatives, but also list what are the potential positives. Here we do not make judgments or attack people for their remarks. Believing that everyone must always pursue and care about justice I think is naive and an over generalization. Doing something just for the money is just as good as doing something just for the good it causes. Some mathematics may help flesh out some of the rewards here. At this point, I am not fully sure what the consequences will be beyond what we are told by those working in the firm and the horror stories I have heard. Right now I am a bit tired of writing and would like to leave this thread of discussion more open.

Hopefully students, including myself, will be able to add to this and come back and edit so that by the end of the semester, and before our true job search, we have a collaborative effort that helps us understand the ideas and though processes that make us and fellow students want to follow certain career paths and what is the true consequences of those choices.

<--/commentPlugin-->