The lawcon assumes Columbia persuades students and firms persuade associates to do something or become something. What is that something? To think like a lawyer? Does the proffered idea of a lawyer permit variance or is it monolithic? If not to think like a lawyer, then what? To appear to be a good profit maximizer? To effectively and efficiently marshal law and facts to get the resolution that leaves me feeling I did the right/just thing? What if this feeling is at odds with being persuaded to be a good profit maximizer?

What's the solution? 1) Making affirmative choices during law school or law practice that are directed by my own quest to enjoy what I do? 2) In a sense freeing myself from the lawcon doesn't necessarily require eliminating the broker, as I concluded in my godcon experience. It requires freeing myself from its power to dictate the type of work I must do and the way I must feel about doing it. It's akin to becoming unafraid to be fired or unafraid to seek ways to get exposure to practice specializations that inspire me although those classes aren't part of the curriculum. 3) In practical terms, I've come to realize that freedom means talking to profs about their work in my area of interest, private international law, seeking research positions within and without Columbia that can buttress my theoretical understanding with exposure to real world practice. That also means ensuring, wherever I practice, that I develop my niche so that no external force can dictate the work I do or define makes it valuable with various "carrots" or "sticks." Freeing my self from the notion of the lawcon means determining the terms of my relationships within the CLS or legal practice setting and ultimately being secure in knowing I can walk away and be happy elsewhere... thoughts.