I think there are some key reasons as to why people may take a position they would not "rationally" want. I think that students need to be aware of these temptations in order to avoid them.

John Albanese: I think there are some key reasons why people may take a position they would not "rationally" want. I think that students need to be aware of these temptations in order to avoid them.

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 career services pushes students to do EIP. The jobs are there and they are offered to students without the student 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 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.

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

David Garfinkel: 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.

Cecilia Wang: I'm curious about how one becomes trapped. It's not like the miserable associates (how true is this?) are bottom of the barrel people. Maybe you want to enter that work because you want the challenge and to become the difficulties to become who relishes being a biglaw lawyer. There seems to be plenty of people who love their work, and not for money.

To David's post above: Assuming 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 I do not protest the idea that working for monetary value and self-pleasure is valid. However, the reason we assume lawyers – people in general really – wish for justice is because most people wish for coherence and fairness. Plus, feeling valued makes them happy, so working in public interest or “for the people” is seen as good. The best of the best of the corporate litigation lawyers are happy probably not simply because they have a lot of money but because their clients sincerely respect and value and need them.

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.

Jessica Hallet: 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?

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.

Nona Farahnik: In response to David's statement about personal values: How far would you take that? What if while working for monetary value and personal pleasure, one ended up helping a client to do something really terrible? Such as using slave labor to harvest crops. Or maintaining an unsafe factory that eventually spills poison gas over thousands of people. Or just saddling people with mortgage debt they can never pay back and causing a recession and massive job losses. Companies do those things in real life and they have lawyers who help them. At some point, should one decide that the intrinsic value of what one does outweighs pay and pleasure?

Why do we confine our discussion to the pawning of law 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. Awareness of this unhappy cycle, combined with the gross inequalities that this system preserves is maddening.

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.

Glover Wright: 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.

Nona Farahnik: 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.

<--/commentPlugin-->