For the last few days, I have found myself cheerleading for Columbia at various admitted student events. Young recently commented in class that he found himself robotically spouting pro-law school sales pitches to admitted students at the last of these programs, and he had to stop himself from perpetuating “the con.” I don’t know if I’ve just completely guzzled the law school Kool-Aid, but I find myself very happy to be here at this point in my life. It doesn’t FEEL like I’m conning anyone, but Young’s point has been running through my head all day, and one girl mentioned to me this morning that my happiness made her want to come here.

Our discussions on this wiki and in class have made me curious to know whether being happy in law school puts me in the minority, and whether any of us are having internal conflicts when interacting with admits for this admitted students program.

-- MolissaFarber - 26 Mar 2009

My thoughts on this are a bit sequential, in that first of all, I'm not totally sure I buy into the notion of "the con" being present here. The bottom line is that people in law school generally want to begin a legal career, and law schools facilitate that in a way that must consider a multitude of other factors. Are there things we could do better? Sure, absolutely. But in general, I don't think for most people the negativity is at a sufficient level to discourage others from going here.

Secondly, if you want to be pragmatic about the actual admitted students program, there is no reason to believe that the other schools these students are looking at are any different than us in terms of 'conning.' I suspect virtually all of those visiting are going to attend some law school, so why not encourage them to join our community, or at least show them what we have to offer? There is no reason not to be honest, and admit problems if asked. But the real 'con' in my opinion would be to give the admitted student a negative report about the school, without disclosing that most of the issues are system-wide. I am not trying to come off as a schil or lackey, but with regard to the issues we have discussed, I don't think it's reasonable to tell someone who is going to law school anyways that CLS has unique flaws in such regards.

-- AaronShepard - 26 Mar 2009

This is a really interesting topic, thanks to Molissa for posting. It makes me wonder what Veblen would say about the Admitted Students Program. I would venture to say that Columbia could care less whether its enrollment decreased by 5-10% because it displayed its acoustically sub-standard rooms (such as 106, where we will be having class today). So the program probably isn't based on a display of strict pecuniary prowess. I think what scares everyone in this "community" - ourselves included - is that people would cease to think of Columbia as quite so prestigious law school, especially in comparison to other top law schools. We would all be affected by such a change in people's mindsets, and as such we all have an interest in keeping up appearances.

One other thing worth mulling over: Moglen's class is not listed on the program as a class that admits can attend, and it wasn't listed when we were admits. Quite the coincidence, huh?

-- HelenMayer - 26 Mar 2009

I'm really glad this point was touched upon in class today. I didn't mean to suggest that Admitted Students Day WAS a con, as Eben and Aaron pointed out, but I agree that we do seem to focus more on the con aspect of Leff's piece than the sale aspect (or on the possibility of distinguishing the two). I hope we can still continue the discussion, kool-aide or not.

In my notes for today, I have this comment by Eben: The image of who you might be becoming is more important than the reality. You will become something you can envision rather than something you want to be. I wrote this down because it sounded profound at the time, but now I realize I don't fully understand it. (Did I miss the explanation while typing?) Does this mean that we lose our true selves in the act of the sale/the con?

-- MolissaFarber - 26 Mar 2009

Regarding being scared about losing 'prestige', this has pragmatic consequences for everyone associated with CLS, whether we like it or not. I don't think that that is necessarily something to scoff at. Furthermore, I would prefer to get really intelligent people at Columbia that also really want to be here, and so 'keeping up appearances' by putting a good face on things seems to be a reasonable thing to do.

Regarding the class not being on the list of ones to attend, I think there are a few other reasons than the one you subtly hint at. The first is that quite frankly, even for many people in the class (myself included), the material is sometimes over our heads. Additionally, we can all agree that this class is not representative of what most classes here are (whether this is a good thing is another topic). Clearly though, the actual content is a bit inflammatory, and could draw reactions; this is likely not something the admissions staff wants to risk. I for one find the class enjoyable and stimulating, but I don't think it warrants criticism of the admitted students program that our class wasn't included. Overall, I feel like perhaps there is a small amount of 'con' by not discussing the relative problems of the school, but in the end this seems harmless compared to the relative merits of the sale.

-- AaronShepard - 26 Mar 2009

Did others attend Admitted Students Day last year? In my experience the program is strictly tailored to selling students deciding between Columbia and NYU (to the point where the programs are scheduled on subsequent days).

Prof. Moglen today discussed California residents deciding between Columbia and public universities. I don't recall anyone asking or discussing this. Did anyone have this experience? As I remember it was heavily focused on promoting public interest work, to combat the widely held view that NYU is public-interest oriented and Columbia is Wall Street oriented.

I certainly don't remember anyone discussing the relative merits of going to law school at all or not.

Do others want to discuss or share their experiences from last year? For those this year -- what are you telling people to whom you are talking?

-- AndrewCase - 26 Mar 2009

I’ve been reading over the two sentences Molissa italicized and trying to make sense of them. I’m not sure that I can distinguish between the two ideas very easily (i.e., becoming something I can envision versus my true self). I think we define ourselves in part by what we can envision. And to a certain extent then, our “true selves” inherently include the idea that what we show to the world matters, as I think Veblen would agree. Instead, therefore, I propose that we talk about the ways in which we wish we could act, and then discuss the ways we actually act, and attempt to understand why they don’t overlap more often. Likewise, in thinking about law school generally, we can distinguish between the CLS experience that we’d hoped for and the one we’re experiencing.

On that note, like Helen I noticed that Eben’s class was not listed in the Admitted Students program. I found it interesting because when I visited classes at different schools last year, I found some of them to be excruciatingly bad, and noted the professor to myself as one to avoid if I attended that school. I wondered why the Admissions Offices would bother to list classes that would not depict the school in the best light in a program for Admitted Students. They certainly weren’t a selling point for the school. Looking down the list of classes that CLS did advertise to Admitted Students, I saw one elective in particular for which I’ve yet to hear a good review on the substance or style of the class.

I wish CLS would advertise our class instead of the other. I agree with what Aaron said about why it likely was not included, but I’m still disappointed. The fact that it was not walks the line for me between sale and con. While I don’t always agree with what Eben says, I value the fact that he says it and that I have the opportunity to hear it alongside my other, more typical classes, and I think that would be a selling point for CLS. I remember talking with other admitted students last year at various schools about whether or not the professors were open to different ideas and perspectives. I think it says something about Columbia that taking a class like ours is an option in our first year. I told a few students yesterday about Eben and our class, and gave one student the information to attend today. Unfortunately, I didn’t see her in the room.

-- CarolineElkin - 26 Mar 2009

I would like to address the issue regarding the following inquiry:

"Prof. Moglen today discussed California residents deciding between Columbia and public universities. I don't recall anyone asking or discussing this. Did anyone have this experience?"

Well, that was me (along with a few other members of the class, I'm aware of). I believe Professor Moglen's statement is an oversimplification of the situation when deciding to choose between law schools. Columbia does not need to "con" people into thinking that it is somehow "superior" or "better" than these so called "public schools" to get them to pay extra tuition to come here. The reasons are as follows:

1. It is not necessarily true that a public CA school would be cheaper than Columbia Law School. Each school has different methodologies for awarding financial aid, and each school has different capabilities and priorities when choosing to award financial aid. In-state tuition will not necessarily compensate for a Columbia grant. Simply put, the main premise, that we are paying more for basically the same, is quite flawed.

2. Columbia itself is not fungible. Columbia is a unique law school. It is located in Upper West Side, NYC. I don't know of any public CA schools that are located in NYC. Columbia has people from all walks of the world. Public CA schools typically have an overwhelming majority of CA residents. There is definitely a different "diversity of thought" felt here than at many CA schools. Columbia has a unique alumni network, tradition, etc. that simply cannot be replicated in a CA public school (separate but equal...not.) Some people choose to attend because they enjoy the particulars of the law school, and not necessarily because they believe the cons perpetuated by the admins.

3. Columbia's students are similarly not fungible. This extends from point 2, but grows a bit beyond that. At most public CA schools, one will not find as many high LSAT/GPA students. What does this actually mean when it comes to student interaction? The real answer is, as much as law schools want it to mean. However, if law schools are correct in believing that these two numbers correlate with intelligence and success in the practice and learning of law (which is debatable and may be flawed), then here you will find a greater concentration of "intelligence." I agree this statement may be controversial, and I don't honestly subscribe to it, but it can easily be perceived as such by the similarly conflicted admit student.

I believe there are more reasons than the few enumerated ones I have provided above. But, I hope that I have addressed my thoughts on this point adequately.

-- AlexHu - 27 Mar 2009

I believe that your response is a bit misplaced as to what Eben said in class. Each of your reasons, while true in the narrow sense, doesn't really respond to the general proposition that, in Veblen's terms, many law students conspicuously waste large amounts of money by attending CLS when a public institution would provide a comparable education.

Sure, some students may receive grants from Columbia. But pointing out the exception doesn't help much; it might, in fact, strengthen the opposing position by admitting the general applicability of the initial proposition.

Indeed, there are no California schools in New York. But there are no New York schools in California either. UC-Boalt has its own unique alumni network and traditions as well. If we define admitted students' needs to be (1) attend an Upper West Side law school and (2) have connections to Columbia alumni, then yes they are getting exactly what they require. But the initial proposition indicates that future law students only need a good legal education. By purchasing a CLS degree, therefore, they conspicuously waste. I suppose there is room for argument as to whether attending school in NYC and being with over-achievers provides a better legal education than at Boalt.

But more importantly, assuming that students want to have powerful alumni connections, be in NYC, etc., I believe you actually validate Eben's comment. The reason that students want those features, originally, is that they demonstrate prowess and superiority over peers. In time, Veblen would say, the features themselves become highly valued, even though they do not meet the original need (receiving an adequate legal education).

-- KeithEdelman - 28 Mar 2009

A word of warning - I'm aware that what follows is both a personal interpretation and hyperbolic and is therefore not applicable to everyone.

Here's how I understood Eben's cryptic aphorism: The image of who you might be becoming is more important than the reality. You will become something you can envision rather than something you want to be. I think the key word here is "envision". It's as if we're striving for some ideal that isn't our own and we don't really understand but we can kind of visualize. Some sort of life where we wear the perfect suit and do big important things for big important clients. Perhaps Prof. Bobbit (for those of us that had him for Legal Methods) will introduce us to his class some day in the future: "Here is Patrick Cronin. He went to Columbia Law School. He was editor of the Law Review and graduated at the top of his class. He then went to work for... where he did really smart and important things". Perhaps this fuzzy image of what we could be is what Eben's mantra - "You have to know what you want, and how to get it" - is supposed to dispel. By coming here, we expose ourselves to the risk that we'll follow this mirage to god-knows-where, but if we went somewhere less prestigious we wouldn't have that opportunity and we could concentrate on what we want and how to get it.

The fuzzy image is certainly appealing to me - but from a purely practical perspective, I don't think that it does me any good. In fact, it mostly produces despair. I didn't go to Yale or Princeton, nor will I ever. My thesis was not directed by Richard Rorty. Charles Black was not my mentor. I'm already lagging far behind the image. But, if we do away with this image, then maybe we'll actually get down to doing something that has value in the world and is satisfying to us. I suppose that's why we need to clear ground before we can figure out what we each want to do.

On another topic, I too think that its a mistake for Columbia not to alert admitted students to the possibility of attending this course. When I came to the admitted students day I was already pretty sold on Columbia, but if I had sat in on this class I think I would have been even more sold on the idea. Sure, its not for everyone, and I think it would be a mistake to only offer this class as representative of most of the classes here - but there's no danger of that happening. As is it, I think that the fact that this class exists says something about Columbia that would be appealing to some admitted students. At the very least it shows that we are confident enough to criticize ourselves and that part of the 1L year is conducted in a healthy and vibrant intellectual environment. [Perhaps some of us would take issue with the "healthy" part of that last sentence, but it would be hard to argue that the class isn't "vibrant"].

-- PatrickCronin - 28 Mar 2009

Sidenote - I have created a new topic for discussing Eben's quote of on Reality and Image, as my comments would be off-topic here.

-- TheodorBruening - 28 Mar 2009

The thread seems to be fracturing into different topics but I'll leave the re-org to someone else more wiki-competent than I.

As I understand Eben's message, he's cautioning us against complacency and adopting career goals that have been enticingly laid out before us (prestigious firm job, SCOTUS clerkship), as opposed to those borne out of serious introspection and innovation. In some sense, I believe Eben's asking us to drown out the 'job-recruiting noise' and think seriously about who we want to be (an image that is personal to us) and pursue it with passion, as opposed to embracing the blueprint that law school imposes on us. Doing otherwise will only lead to conformity and disappointment:

You will become something you can envision as opposed to something you want to be.

Responding to Molissa's original post, I certainly am happy to be at Columbia Law, but the comment I made a few weeks ago arose from a specific instance at a reception event in which I observed a fellow 1L glorifying Columbia's public interest focus to an admit. Hyperbole and pandering aside, what bothered me most about the whole sequence was that the admit knew exactly what answer to expect and the student knew exactly what answer to give - the whole thing reeked of a con. Realizing that I myself, first as an admit and later as a student, was perpetuating the same script made me feel a bit disturbed, so I generally try to avoid such inquiries when talking to admits. Instead of telling the admits about things (in other words, PUBLIC INTEREST) they probably can't understand or be interested in until they actually interface with the law, I generally try to let my happiness with Columbia shine through. If anything, the approach makes me feel less like a conman.

-- YoungKim - 30 Mar 2009

Responding to both Alex and Keith’s comments above I would have to say that Keith is closer to the mark considering “the initial proposition indicates that future law students only need a good legal education.” Given that, it is largely true that the education you would receive for in-state tuition at a public law school, especially one like Boalt or Michigan, would rival that at Columbia. Moglen’s point follows from that assumption. The most relevant part of Keith’s post, however, is where he mentions that Veblen would probably say that over time the features (prestige, alumni networks, etc.) one conspicuously wastes to purchase become valued themselves. Now, no rational applicant (much less one from a state like CA with tempting in-state tuition options) really applies to law school with the stated goal of simply “an adequate legal education”. While it may have been useful to discuss it in these terms for Veblen’s argument, it is absolutely pointless in reality. The fact that the goal of an adequate legal education could be achieved at so many different schools means it is likely the other criteria that come to the fore in selecting a law school. [Responding to the original question and on a purely practical/realistic note, many of us who were considering CA schools for the in-state tuition have spent all of our lives in CA and many also chose to attend undergrad at CA public schools for much the same reason. So I wouldn’t underestimate the sheer draw of a new city/coast/people in people’s decisions to come to Columbia. (I was extremely close to going back to Berkeley for law school, but I considered it a kind of copout route, having already spent 4 years there, and with the knowledge that I was likely to end up back in CA. It was pretty much NYC now or probably never.)

-- EldonWright - 30 Mar 2009