| | A major theme of the class seems to include that many, if not most, Columbia students will go out and pawn their licenses. This idea seems to strongly correlate with the vast percentage of students who go to work for a corporate law firm, though is not the only way this pawning occurs. What I want to ask is why do so many students choose this career path when most are aware of the consequences, for themselves and society, that result from that decision. This is something I am currently wrestling with, and will not deny that I am looking towards a possible career at a large law firm if I could get one. The dilemma I am facing is why do I want such a career, knowing that most associates seem to be miserable at their jobs, the ratio of pay/hours worked, and the chance of promotion is minimal within the firm so that will never have any real control and end up getting trapped in a certain lifestyle that becomes hard to escape from. From my perspective, it is hard to pinpoint the source, because I can't really believe that Columbia actively pushes it more so than other careers, and people find ways of paying of their loans one way or another, just the length of time it takes will differ. What I seem to question myself lately is do such large corporate firms actually give monetary rewards and prestige that is worth it and can actually be utilized towards a true career path. That I don't know. What seems to force so many students hands is that we are forced to choose a career after one year of law school, having taken no substantive course work or ability to explore different fields. This is a strange contrast to college where many of us took at least 2 years to figure out what major, and even longer to figure out what we want to do afterward. So why do so many of us choose to work for a large law firm?
-- DavidGarfinkel - 03 Feb 2010 | | | I think that one of the benefits to Eben's provocative material is that we are ultimately the ones 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 with focus and determination. 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 | |
>
> | First, here's an article from The Awl -- which, if you don't read regularly, you should -- by Chris Lehmann in response to a Newsweek story on the "Recession Generation," i.e., us. It touches on a few topics covered above and in class on Tuesday.
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 |
|