A major theme of the class seems to include that many, if not most, Columbia students will go out and pawn their licenses. This idea seems to strongly correlate with the vast percentage of students who go to work for a corporate law firm, though is not the only way this pawning occurs. What I want to ask is why do so many students choose this career path when most are aware of the consequences, for themselves and society, that result from that decision. This is something I am currently wrestling with, and will not deny that I am looking towards a possible career at a large law firm if I could get one. The dilemma I am facing is why do I want such a career, knowing that most associates seem to be miserable at their jobs, the ratio of pay/hours worked, and the chance of promotion is minimal within the firm so that will never have any real control and end up getting trapped in a certain lifestyle that becomes hard to escape from. From my perspective, it is hard to pinpoint the source, because I can't really believe that Columbia actively pushes it more so than other careers, and people find ways of paying of their loans one way or another, just the length of time it takes will differ. What I seem to question myself lately is do such large corporate firms actually give monetary rewards and prestige that is worth it and can actually be utilized towards a true career path. That I don't know. What seems to force so many students hands is that we are forced to choose a career after one year of law school, having taken no substantive course work or ability to explore different fields. This is a strange contrast to college where many of us took at least 2 years to figure out what major, and even longer to figure out what we want to do afterward. So why do so many of us choose to work for a large law firm?

-- DavidGarfinkel - 03 Feb 2010

It doesn't seem rational people would make such seemingly irrational decisions. There has to be a reason. First lets assume that man has a weighing mechanism when making decisions. In addition, lets break down all decisions to binary "to be or not to be" simplicity (I think this is possible, but that's another discussion). My first point is that we choose one thing over another in every situation for seemingly rational reasons. When I choose to do something, there is a totality of volition on my part. I take into account everything I know about the circumstances and make the "correct decision". So what pushes us to take these jobs over more fulfilling jobs? I think it has to do with what we value or fear: wealth, love, glory, societal approval vs. societal disapproval, failure, etc.-- any one of these perceived general values could push us over the top if we get it from being a successful, miserable, corporate lawyer.

Or, there could be such little incentive in the other option that the lawyer job seems much better. But Moglen believes, and he might be right, that all law students are naturally endowed with empathy, so lets consider what would make the irrational job seemingly better than a fulfilling, successful life. I think part of it has to do with societal values and what our culture most values. The power of groupthink, especially on a national scale, seems unbelievably powerful to me and I have to believe it is always an influence on our decisions.

When considering the typical American's societal values, I noticed its stark contrast to "Janteloven", a surprisingly pervasive Nordic social regime focused on the basic rule of "Don't think you're anyone special or that you're better than us". Under Janteloven, distinguishing one's self from the group is socially stigmatized-- think the exact opposite of how our law school operates.

No one is labeled for their accomplishments or wealth but only for how they function in the community, i.e. practicing modesty and treating every person with equal respect. When I lived in Denmark, I was struck by people's immediate acceptance of any individual's pursuits and the lack of division in social circles based on socioeconomic status. People just want others to be happy, and a garbageman could be best friends with the CEO of a multinational corporation. Money and professional accomplishment is not a factor in determining social status. Every graduate student is in school because of a genuine passion for the subject, not what it will offer.

Note that I think this is easier for them because they maintain homogeneity of race, although the composition is changing somewhat with immigration.

Moglen showed the economic inequality of our country through the distribution of wealth, and I agree with him that the graph is going to get worse, not better, when the new data comes out. Looking at which countries perform best on the Gini index (which measure of inequality of income or wealth), four of the five Nordic countries were in the top 5:

1) Sweden 2) Denmark 3) Slovenia 4) Iceland 4) Norway (Norway was listed lower on Wikipedia, but I checked out of curiosity and it was actually tied for fourth). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html

Granted these countries are semi-socialistic, but the cultural and societal vales embrace and maintain the status quo.

Cultural values play a role in our rational decision-making, and the American system puts a premium on wealth and socioeconomic status. Its contrast to the Nordic system may indicate a reason why so many people make such irrational career decisions.

-- MikeAbend - 03 Feb 2010

• "It doesn't seem rational people would make such seemingly irrational decisions."

It does to me. We do all the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

just a start. Rationality is often a myth.

-- MatthewZorn - 03 Feb 2010

• I agree with Matt's comment that people make irrational decisions all the time. I also to some extent understand the comments that suggest that there is some kind of societal or systemic explanation or "cultural values" that play a role in our decision-making. But I don't think those values contribute at all to "rational" decision-making. If cultural values play a role in our decision-making in a way that actually contradicts our own real values and wants (assuming we actually know what those are) isn't that actually inherently irrational? We go against what we might otherwise think to be a sensible, rational decision to pursue our own best interests, and instead fall prey to some culturally-imposed "value" that we don't even actually agree with. I think the takeaway is that we don't always think rationally, and that the "system" and "society" shape our decisions in a way that makes them irrational. For instance, to take Eben's basic example of going to work for a law firm, and assume it is in our best interest to be happy, comfortable, and fulfilled. The fact that taking a job at a firm deprives us of choice and the ability to even decide which side of a case we are on, and leaves us with a scary possibility of fighting for a side that we think is wrong doesn't actually make much sense, in that it could leave us woefully unfulfilled and unhappy. It is the societal influences that are mentioned above that might convince us that it does make sense. This seems pretty irrational to me. I think we should give ourselves more credit than being completely susceptible to the values that are imposed on us by culture- we are, after all, independent and able to form our own ideas and make our own calls about what makes sense and what doesn't. If we assess what is valuable to us, ourselves, and still choose a path that actually reflects the values of someone else, or society, we aren't being rational- we are either being afraid of something or being "insane" in that we are convincing ourselves of things that aren't true with some psychic rationalization in order to assuage our fears and anxiety.

I guess this begs the question- what about people who actually, rationally weigh the costs and benefits of working in a firm and societal values match up with their own? What do we say about a person who does value wealth above autonomy, choice, and justice? Maybe Eben's response would be that really no one is happy in that situation; but surely, for some, the money outweighs the other stuff? Can being a lawyer just be a job, and nothing more? Do we just ignore these people as beyond the scope of our conversation because we seem to be operating under and assumption that we all value justice? I'm just not sure where this kind of person fits in with our discussion, so any thoughts on this are appreciated! -- JessicaHallett - 03 Feb 2010

• I agree with the factors Mike listed that lead law students to make irrational choices, but I just want to add the simple possibility that students don't even know that other "rational" options even exist. Besides presenting the polar opposites of firm jobs and public interest work, Columbia does not make it a priority to help students really figure out the full spectrum of choices available to them. -- SamHershey - 03 Feb 2010

No wonder you're in such a hurry to reject my help, having determined after fourteen weeks that what I am making a priority isn't a priority around here.

* I want to reinforce two points from my earlier post. First, every decision has a reason, and we make that decision because it is our best option. At the time we make it, even though from outside perspective it may seem crazy, each decision has been compared to EVERY OTHER KNOWN OPTION (think "mens rea"). The factors I listed were just a few which may weigh on the decision, but like Sam said, not knowing of a better option often leads us to make an inefficient choice. I also disagree with Jessica-- I don't think we always know what we want, and whether consciously or unconsciously societal values to help fill these holes of uncertainty. Our culture, whether we like it or not, is part of our personality and helps define the schemas through which we organize information. This information is then used to make the "rational decisions" we are talking about. Our culture affects our behavior, which is essentially the manifestation of all of our decisions. Above I looked only at the Nordic culture, but there is also a ton of research on the eastern/western cultural value dichotomy. -- MikeAbend - 03 Feb 2010

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.

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 interview you. Career services pushes students to do EIP which is dominated by large firms. The jobs are there and they are offered to students without the students 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 you 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 at a firm 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. -- JohnAlbanese - 03 Feb 2010

• I’m curious about how one becomes trapped. It’s not like the miserable associates (and are most associates really as miserable as rumored or just a whiny, vocal few) are mentally challenged high school dropouts with felony convictions. Maybe you want to enter that world because you want the challenge and to become the difficulties to become who relishes being a biglaw lawyer. There seem to be plenty of people who love their work, and not for the 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. For instance, if you attended a church lead by a poor-trained pastor who taught you every weekend that you’re naturally evil and selfish but you have to act against your “true nature” or else you will end up in hell. To desire to live happily is selfish, but not all selfishness is bad if one assumes that humans are social animals, that each is better off after bettering his or her community. -- CeciliaWang - 03 Feb 2010

• 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? -- JessicaHallett - 03 Feb 2010

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.

• "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....it is irrelevant in terms of intrinsic value what one does."

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?

• "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....it is irrelevant in terms of intrinsic value what one does."

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. -- NonaFarahnik - 04 Feb 2010

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.

-- Main.Glover Wright - 04 Feb 2010