Grades for me have served to stand-in for concerted thought as to what I'm actually doing here. I have convinced myself that if my grades are good enough, I'll have options because a strong transcript resonates across different realms of employment (this is essentially the point Ben made today about the fear of having paths foreclosed). No matter what it is actually decide I want to do with my practice, I consoled myself that having a strong strong transcript wouldn't be a detriment. Probably that's true, at least in bureaucratic employment fields where such factors matter, but focusing on grades has meant that I've spent little time thinking about my purpose in earning this license. This makes it more likely that I'll funnel into EIP, because it's easy and because I haven't really thought about what I would do instead. Grades aren't the only reason I haven't set about designing an alternative, but they are a part of it.

-- JessicaWirth - 17 Apr 2012

-- AgnesPetrucione - 17 Apr 2012

Grades are our security blankets, especially for the younger ones of us. For the past twenty-something years, we’ve pushed to get the top grade, because that’s what mattered to the admissions committee of a college or law school. And suddenly, in our first year of law school, Eben suggests that we abandon this familiar system, so well engrained in our synaptic configurations. Of course we’re going to be afraid.

The school does not really provide any way for us to evaluate our ability to cover the costs of our loans outside the context of a large firm or the LRAP umbrella (does it?). Any evaluation that does not circle around the secure, familiar concept of grades seems risky and unfamiliar. So I guess the question I have is, how do you go about finding out how you would cover your loans if you don’t pawn off your license to someone?

-- KirillLevashov - 17 Apr 2012

Agnes, I really appreciate your points. I came into law school with generally the same mindset.

I think a lot of the power of grades, EIP, and Firm work (Capital F firm, meaning large corporate law firm) stems from the familiarity of the system. As Kirill mentioned, grades are part of that system that supposedly creates access to "prestige" or monetary security.

In my discussions with other students, I've been surprised by two common sentiments: Firm work as a means to pay back loans, and firm work as a way to get training. I've thought about both a lot and the more I consider how I'm going to go about making a practice - and a life, really - outside of the EIP/Firm structure is frankly, terrifying. Part of this is based on personal fear, but also how I perceive the barriers to creating that practice. For example, if I wanted to work at a smaller public interest law firm, I run into two issues.

One, the LRAP program is easier to access through non-profit or governmental work. Private work is covered if it services largely the same community as a non-profit or governmental organization (ie, indigent defense). But, that determination is made on a case by case basis. This really only adds more uncertainty to the mix. If you take on certain unrelated cases just to cover the rent/overhead, it's not clear how that will affect your eligibility for LRAP.

At the same time, I have to consider that working with lawyers in those smaller civil rights firms is itself an exercise in gaining access. Many people in those firms have varied backgrounds in non-profit and private sector work, but they don't hire new graduates at nearly the same rates and gigantic firms. Probably, because I would have no idea what the hell I was doing. So, I can understand the catch-22 of experience. At first glance, it seems like I either need to set aside my convictions and pawn my license or hope, pray, and scrap for a chance to get into the (cash-strapped, hiring freeze prone) non-profit/government world just so I can pay my loans under LRAP. Either way, it's not exactly a direct route to the practice I envisioned.

I know that it can't be that simple, and I know I need to use creativity to somehow make it all work out. At the moment however, it seems a bit daunting. r4 - 17 Apr 2012 - 20:38:07 - JacquelineRios?

Jessica- Thanks for the link. It is interesting to hear how students at other law schools are handling EIP, and that they are facing some of the same issues Columbia students are struggling with.

Agnes- Coming to law school, I wasn't aware of the prevalence of firms and actually thought that most students did not end up working at firms upon graduation. Although I hear your first point about people selling out at a firm for the training and then trying to transition to public interest, I question how far fetched this thinking is. Early in this course we talked about where the belief of needing to go to a firm first comes from. Some may say, the fact that students do not receive the training they need while in law school makes students take up work at a firm. Unfortunately, I do not think this idea is completely far-flung. There is the practical standpoint that many public interest employers take in regards to limited resources. To train a budding lawyer often requires time and money. Time and money are often limited resources for public interest employers. The few public interest attorneys that I have spoken with have actually suggested going to a firm first to gain experience and skills. But perhaps this is also a question of being able to cover one's nut? Similar to Jacqueline's point, perhaps it is possible to find a lesser known public interest gig that will pay less but is willing to invest in you- but I'd imagine those are hard extremely hard to come by.

Are our institutions of higher education cognizant of this disconnect? I believe they are well aware. Professor Moglen's comment today about the nonsensical structure of our curriculum perhaps gives credence to this point. By structuring the curriculum in a way in which courses build off of one another, and by providing students with opportunities to perfect the art of lawyering (rather than perfecting the arbitrary art of taking a law school exam), law schools would be producing lawyers who are better equipped to practice soon after graduation (which I assumed was what we were paying for). But by not providing or limiting these opportunities and basing the curriculum on the convenience of the faculty (ie torts in the second semester, property in the first), students continue to need to sell their time to the private sector so that law schools have a packaged product to offer firms and US World News Report- canned meat balls if you prefer. -- AbiolaFasehun - 17 Apr 2012