| | 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 | | | What I wanted to explore is why do students choose to go to such jobs knowing full well the negative consequences. I find the idea of stating that we are being simply irrational baseless and some hypocritical. I do not believe that come August students suddenly become irrational, or that the choice itself is necessary irrational. I may be wrong, but what is needed is more concrete ideas of what the consequences are for pursuing such career paths. One common talking point we hear is that taking such jobs is temporary, so as to pay our loans and gain valuable experience so as to pursue our true goals. This begs the question of what actually happens, do some succeed in escaping or do we end up getting trapped. One problem I have is assuming that every lawyer truly cares about being able to choose his or her own clients and doing justice. 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. Unless you believe in some moral or religious order, which includes a higher being and probably an afterlife, then it is irrelevant in terms of intrinsic value what one does. So what I want to learn is what are the reasons people pursue such careers, the thoughts that such students, including most of us have, when we are thinking about which firm to apply to and where we want to be 5 years from now. | |
<
< | | >
> | | | |
- 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
CONFLICT original 18:
- "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."
| | | 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 | |
>
> | 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.
|
|