In response to Caroline's first question: sometimes I wonder if I'm deeply in denial when I can't make myself afraid. As a first year I know that's not good - the lack of fear first semester probably caused me to learn the law not as well as a lot of my classmates who did realize that law school regarding a whole different level of learning and commitment compared to uncurved undergraduate classes. I also miss being an English Lit. major and taking seminars on Imaginative Literature and 19th century novels (Austen, Dickens, Brontes) that encouraged us to write papers on whatever we wanted to write about.

I believe everything will turn out fine, and I (we) will find a job(s)/career(s) both meaningful and interesting. Well, there is fear - fear of not knowing what I would find wonderful and interesting and meaningful in the long run, but mitigated by the fact that really any subject or practice of law can interesting. At least that's what the career counselor said back in November, telling a story about her securities or tax attorney friend and I liked to believe that. Please understand that I only graduated from college in May 2009; I've only taken internships that interested me and never suffered unemployment, financial distress, or the boredom and anxiety associated in popular media (such as Office Space or The Office) with full-time work. This is probably a symptom of the entitlement attitude Mohit brought up in class: belief in our intelligence, in our potential, in the impossibility of us being unhappy (in the long term) and failing (as in, not being able to feed myself after graduation). I don't know what to do about that. Perhaps law school should require of all applicants a year of real work experience.

Like Erica, I am also frustrated that universities private and public can raise tuitions so much because the demand is so high. Like a hypothetical person in one of those economic problems, I did not want to be that person who chose to find a lesser-ranked law school to attend for free when so most people were choosing the best school that accepted them. If the United State government funded all the top universities (converting private to public and maintaining the top public ones) such that all admitted students could attend for free, and thus due to limited funding had to eliminate half the universities the government does fully-fund, we would benefit, but not the students testing below the 80th percentile. The more options available provide more opportunities for social mobility right?

Some homeowners have been walking away from their mortgages. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/business/03walk.html?hp One homeowner's question: “I took a loan on an asset that I didn’t see was overvalued,” he said. “As much as I would like my bank to pay for that mistake, why should it?” When I saw the headline I had the thought, “Good for them!” but not after reading the article. I know Eben spent an entire class explaining 1) banks are not being unduly punished when homeowners walk away and 2) if even they are paying for the mistakes of the assetless, they should. I am disappointed that the 80% of hopelessly in debt homeowners who persist in paying their mortgages are likely the ones who honestly thought they could pay for their homes.

-- CeciliaWang - 03 Feb 2010