False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
J3987
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:54 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby J3987 » Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:56 pm

BL, Shiller is pretty spot on in that interview, he balances his message of inclusion w/ a disdain for current Government regulation very well.

Smaug, do you not acknowledge the possibility of a top law school grad entering a non-legal field post graduation or at an early stage of his/her career?

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby Businesslady » Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:57 pm

MarkinKansasCity wrote:It seems like this criticism applies to mass production (and hyper-specialization) rather than something specific to the proletariat/working class. Having worked in an industry where the products of my labor (houses) were immediately and permanently visible, I can certainly understand the psychological rewards that come with a connection to the product of your labor. This type of craftsmanship is generally horribly inefficient compared to mass production, and if implemented broadly would certainly lead to a huge decrease in the standard of living for everyone. De-skilling work may be somewhat dehumanizing, in that it treats a man as a machine, but it is also incredibly efficient. I'm not sure how you can have your cake and eat it too here.

The idea has evolved in the "post-Fordist" era. Arendt on the banality of evil is the Godwin of how I can have my cake and eat it.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby utahraptor » Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:06 pm

J3987 wrote:Smaug, do you not acknowledge the possibility of a top law school grad entering a non-legal field post graduation or at an early stage of his/her career?


What's the value-add of the law degree here?

Businesslady wrote:@Smaug On one level - fatality. On another - is it worth thinking about why Yale / RTK / Georgetown alternative curriculum are compartmentalized? Is it the demand of "employers," what students actually want out of law school, what schools think students want, some combination of that and something else I'm oblivious to? I can't shake the 40% of Duke debt-free figure and the "entrepreneurial" fixation at HSW. I guess there's the whole "easier access to pools of capital thing" going on in that community.


re: Yale/RTK, (1) odd programs are expensive, (2) I don't think there are enough positions to place people into if you were to expand them broadly

re: Duke: that 40% number is what it is because parents pay for the degree, right? The parents paying for the degree do so because they know that their kid is going into biglaw just like they wanted, blah blah blah. I don't think they're actually able to do something miraculous now that they're a debt-free Duke grad. They have the same (limited) job opportunities as everyone else.

There's no real "entrepreneurship" for law.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby Businesslady » Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:25 pm

utahraptor wrote:
J3987 wrote:Smaug, do you not acknowledge the possibility of a top law school grad entering a non-legal field post graduation or at an early stage of his/her career?


What's the value-add of the law degree here?

See, that's the thing - it's totally individualized, and totally "special snowflake" by definition. You could be interested in designing structured products in the way Shiller described for social benefit. You could be interested in distressed debt and the JD with a focus on bankruptcy could be similar to the PhD in biology at a biotech VC/PE firm. I'm kind of taking the piss suggesting people need to be rich or financially suicidal and committed to doing social practice; it's mostly just an absurdist response to the idea that I would have an answer for everyone.

Businesslady wrote:@Smaug On one level - fatality. On another - is it worth thinking about why Yale / RTK / Georgetown alternative curriculum are compartmentalized? Is it the demand of "employers," what students actually want out of law school, what schools think students want, some combination of that and something else I'm oblivious to? I can't shake the 40% of Duke debt-free figure and the "entrepreneurial" fixation at HSW. I guess there's the whole "easier access to pools of capital thing" going on in that community.


re: Yale/RTK, (1) odd programs are expensive, (2) I don't think there are enough positions to place people into if you were to expand them broadly

re: Duke: that 40% number is what it is because parents pay for the degree, right? The parents paying for the degree do so because they know that their kid is going into biglaw just like they wanted, blah blah blah. I don't think they're actually able to do something miraculous now that they're a debt-free Duke grad. They have the same (limited) job opportunities as everyone else.

There's no real "entrepreneurship" for law.

I am going to have to think about this and I really do appreciate your post on the current market realities but my special snowflake gut reaction is that you are speaking in the present tense for the masses, and I already kind of noted that the scamblog paradigm suits the masses in present tense. I think there needs to be more deference to the idea of "the crazy ones," and an understanding that some will crash and burn trying to use law school this way and some will live full lives. That's risk appetite. And yes, the 40% is about people with generational wealth or other independent means who chose to study law. That's the unfortunate reality of this system, and moreover, the tax bomb. I don't disagree with you that "jobs" are mostly equally flame and law is not special in that regard as a profession. I do know that there are T14s that feed a handful into, e.g., McKinsey (which is as close to an *actual* proxy for career optionality as you're going to get) and tell stories about their futures as institutions that seem interesting.

Here is an article I like by a Stanford Law grad, by the way.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/mahbod-moghad ... ole-foods/

User avatar
UnicornHunter
Posts: 13507
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby UnicornHunter » Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:31 pm

Nowhere near enough time to go through this thread, but I feel like this might be relevant:

There was a period in my life (about 6 weeks) where every time I spoke I had to begin the sentence with "roster #232 requesting permission to speak." At first it felt unnecessarily dehumanizing and offensive, but that -obviously- was the point. We're all just tools in the machine, might as well embrace it.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby Businesslady » Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:38 pm

This is such neoliberal Bay Area yuppie trash, and I'm so sorry, but:

Image

And again, I think this should be an institutional concern analogous to HBS on the gender makeup of business:

Image

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/educa ... wanted=all

I think law schools put more verbally-adept people in a better position to do harder institutional critique of government and society in general. What the "market" is shouldn't define what education is. I work backward from utopia as a rule. If that looks like talking about things that are only possible in real time for rich kids, that's a shitty American reality, and it starts to look pretty circular to talk about why things won't change because they can't, and the whole Chomsky "can't stand still on a moving train" image comes to mind. Again, crisis in capitalism / democracy, etc.

If this sounds simplistic and delusional, note that it's hard to tell Galileos from psychotics. Something something faster horses.

(ETA link on "faster horses")
Last edited by Businesslady on Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby utahraptor » Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:46 pm

Businesslady wrote:
utahraptor wrote:What's the value-add of the law degree here?

See, that's the thing - it's totally individualized, and totally "special snowflake" by definition. You could be interested in designing structured products in the way Shiller described for social benefit. You could be interested in distressed debt and the JD with a focus on bankruptcy could be similar to the PhD in biology at a biotech VC/PE firm. I'm kind of taking the piss suggesting people need to be rich or financially suicidal and committed to doing social practice; it's mostly just an absurdist response to the idea that I would have an answer for everyone.


Yeah, I get the impression that you don't understand what law school classes are like/what legal scholarship is. (no offense)

You literally cannot learn anything close to that in law school, and there's no way to pay the people who would (theoretically) be able to teach the sorts of things you're talking about enough to leave the private sector.

When you're talking about actual legal invention of things, that's like, literally a handful of people in the world. Even at successful law firms, there's only a couple of real "ideas guys" who sit there and come up with/understand the new things. You can't special snowflake yourself a job into something that doesn't exist. You can't special snowflake yourself into being Martin Lipton or Mark Robinson.

It's also not really what lawyers are. Lawyers shouldn't want to be the creator. We're facilitators/advocates by design. People who actually want to do things themselves probably shouldn't go to law school.

If you want people to be better social commentators, rebuild journalism. Rebuild politics. I know I've been saying this in every post, but I guess I need to keep saying it: lawyers aren't Atlases.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby Businesslady » Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:06 pm

Not to be a bitch, but you're using "literally" for emphasis in places where you're making statements limited in perspective or imagination. You have a limited if realistic-in-present-tense view of the scope of a doctrinal education shaped by a professional world (and admittedly, the tenured old guard that loves to cite to precedent, stare decisis motherfucker, our hands are tied and so are yours) that shouldn't be calling the shots on how universities teach. You're overlooking the increasing diversity of the legal side of capital formation, which is huge and massively important (e: and crucially, increasingly distributed).

I am posting on a messageboard of people thinking about whether they are going to go to law school and what they want out of it.

Businesslady wrote:
utahraptor wrote:It's not like different law schools are providing meaningfully different experiences or producing different kinds of lawyers. In fact, if they were to do so, it would damage the academic bloodsport element of law school and end up breaking the system.

This sounds cool to me. Why is it a foregone conclusion that this won't happen? I mean, I get "vested interests" but like

So right now I'm MAF about the conclusory "this is how it is and has to be" mentality, but let's keep talking about the specific faculties who hold this back, the specific organizations who make rules, and the specific adminstrators who add frictions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.


For now, some areas that warrant a bit of optimism as a counterpoint to the post I'm responding to:

Shiller again, on a large-scale societal project inseparable from legal education:
Image
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... er-2014-11

Some maybe flame, maybe not flame from Michigan Law about risk:
Image
http://www.law.umich.edu/centersandprog ... sobel.aspx

The dean of Northwestern Law straight up telling some "powers that be" he wants $150 million to give mostly in scholarships so students can do what they want to do without golden handcuffs, and describing a worldview that is more Bay Area/HBS than downtown MFH trust fund art freak for my liking (but I guess I'm not the audience), but still about a future:
https://northwesternlaw.wistia.com/medias/eolxss85qm
Last edited by Businesslady on Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
J3987
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:54 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby J3987 » Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:12 pm

utahraptor wrote:
Businesslady wrote:
utahraptor wrote:What's the value-add of the law degree here?

See, that's the thing - it's totally individualized, and totally "special snowflake" by definition. You could be interested in designing structured products in the way Shiller described for social benefit. You could be interested in distressed debt and the JD with a focus on bankruptcy could be similar to the PhD in biology at a biotech VC/PE firm. I'm kind of taking the piss suggesting people need to be rich or financially suicidal and committed to doing social practice; it's mostly just an absurdist response to the idea that I would have an answer for everyone.


Yeah, I get the impression that you don't understand what law school classes are like/what legal scholarship is. (no offense)

You literally cannot learn anything close to that in law school, and there's no way to pay the people who would (theoretically) be able to teach the sorts of things you're talking about enough to leave the private sector.

When you're talking about actual legal invention of things, that's like, literally a handful of people in the world. Even at successful law firms, there's only a couple of real "ideas guys" who sit there and come up with/understand the new things. You can't special snowflake yourself a job into something that doesn't exist. You can't special snowflake yourself into being Martin Lipton or Mark Robinson.

It's also not really what lawyers are. Lawyers shouldn't want to be the creator. We're facilitators/advocates by design. People who actually want to do things themselves probably shouldn't go to law school.

If you want people to be better social commentators, rebuild journalism. Rebuild politics. I know I've been saying this in every post, but I guess I need to keep saying it: lawyers aren't Atlases.


Your question was a bit of a dodge and BL made good points. I'm not saying law school is a good investment from a cost-benefit perspective for someone who wants to go into PE/VC/Fixed-Income/Banking if that's what they want to do before LS, just that it is an option. In all of those fields, understanding securities and transactional law would be useful, probably most of all wrt distressed debt. There are a fair number of people in banking, buyside, corp finance, and CIO types with law degrees.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby Businesslady » Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:20 pm

Smaug, are you K-JD?

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby utahraptor » Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:31 pm

I'm using "literally" to indicate that what I'm talking about isn't overstatement/understatement. If you have greater perspective and can point to people actually learning those things in law school or more people creating the things you're talking about, point me to it. I truly don't think that there's much room for "innovation" in the law, and think that the few examples we have (Lipton and the poison pill, plaintiffs' bar resurrecting the qui tam action) are exceptional. You keep talking about theory and I'm saying your theory has no application. You can't point to it in application now because nothing like it exists, and you can't describe it in detail because it can't exist.

What do you imagine your Atlas lawyers doing? Are they drafting new laws? (Legislatures do that.) Are they creating new companies? (Business people do that.) Are they supporting more entrepreneurs? (They already do that, but the lawyers themselves aren't entrepreneurial.)

It's not conclusory/accepting things for what they are—it's recognizing that you're talking about an empty set.

For example, what would "different kinds of lawyers" do? Are they still representing the legal rights of others in court? (Can't be fixed.) Are they still facilitating transactions designed by other people. (Can't be fixed.)

This isn't just about what lawyers don't do now. It's about what you imagine the role of lawyers to be. To the extent that your posts point to problems in the structures of law firms, I totally agree. They're set up in exploitative ways. But, thems the breaks if you want to work with those people.

To the extent your posts envision some alternative role for lawyers, I'm totally befuddled. Not just in a "this is a lot of theory that I disagree with" way, but in a "why the hell do you want lawyers to be involved with this, and how the hell do you imagine lawyers to be involved with this" way.

For example:
J3987 wrote:Your question was a bit of a dodge and BL made good points. I'm not saying law school is a good investment from a cost-benefit perspective for someone who wants to go into PE/VC/Fixed-Income/Banking if that's what they want to do before LS, just that it is an option. In all of those fields, understanding securities and transactional law would be useful, probably most of all wrt distressed debt. There are a fair number of people in banking, buyside, corp finance, and CIO types with law degrees.

This is kinda dumb. (no offense). My question was not a dodge—what's the value-add of a law degree there. Do you need a law degree, part of the credential-conferring process to become a lawyer, to understand those things? No. Are the people you're talking about working as attorneys? No. Moreover, you're talking about a minuscule portion of job outcomes (not something that anyone in law school could count on) for positions that people can reach without the legal education. Long before the scam-blogs exploded, the one first questions people would ask re: law school was "do you want to be a lawyer?" or "why do you want to be a lawyer?" Both then and now, if you don't want to be a lawyer, you probably shouldn't go to law school, and the special addendum for this thread, we shouldn't design law schools to be education centers for non-lawyers. Why? We already have education programs for that. Do math/econ at an Ivy and prosper. Work for a while and become an MBA. There's no value added from getting a JD.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby utahraptor » Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:32 pm

Businesslady wrote:Smaug, are you K-JD?

Nope.

User avatar
J3987
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:54 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby J3987 » Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:50 pm

J3987 wrote:Your question was a bit of a dodge and BL made good points. I'm not saying law school is a good investment from a cost-benefit perspective for someone who wants to go into PE/VC/Fixed-Income/Banking if that's what they want to do before LS, just that it is an option. In all of those fields, understanding securities and transactional law would be useful, probably most of all wrt distressed debt. There are a fair number of people in banking, buyside, corp finance, and CIO types with law degrees.

This is kinda dumb. (no offense). My question was not a dodge—what's the value-add of a law degree there. Do you need a law degree, part of the credential-conferring process to become a lawyer, to understand those things? No. Are the people you're talking about working as attorneys? No.


I am not a lawyer, law student, and I have no desire to go to law school. I just recognize the real-world value of a legal education, which you don't seem to fully appreciate. Again, I'm not saying it makes sense from a cost-benefit perspective if you KNOW that you're not going to become a lawyer. It's not the easiest path to get to the aforementioned fields, either. What I'm saying is, in a Bayesian sense, once you have already made the leap and are in law school, you can leverage that in different ways to get a job outside the legal field. And it is the case that a fair number of influential people in non-legal positions went to law school. Of course, it was their talent and not their legal background that got them there. I'm just saying that your defeatist assumption is false, and your denial of other options out of hand is a pretty clear indication of a pessimistic bias.

Moreover, you're talking about a minuscule portion of job outcomes (not something that anyone in law school could count on) for positions that people can reach without the legal education. Long before the scam-blogs exploded, the one first questions people would ask re: law school was "do you want to be a lawyer?" or "why do you want to be a lawyer?" Both then and now, if you don't want to be a lawyer, you probably shouldn't go to law school, and the special addendum for this thread, we shouldn't design law schools to be education centers for non-lawyers. Why? We already have education programs for that.


Already dealt with this above. But, I mean, isn't it obvious that having legal knowledge is useful more than just a directly legal/lawfirm context? If someone is advising me to buy mezzanine debt out of bankruptcy/special situation for pennies on the dollar, it would be great if he was an expert in the relevant covenants and precedents that could affect my ROI. Etc Etc.

Do math/econ at an Ivy and prosper. Work for a while and become an MBA.


Agreed.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby Businesslady » Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:51 pm

utahraptor wrote:Both then and now, if you don't want to be a lawyer, you probably shouldn't go to law school, and the special addendum for this thread, we shouldn't design law schools to be education centers for non-lawyers. Why? We already have education programs for that. Do math/econ at an Ivy and prosper. Work for a while and become an MBA. There's no value added from getting a JD.

The mechanisms of the state are inextricable from the "private sector" in contemporary life. Straight-up vocational law should maybe be an undergraduate course of study (don't know really), but that's a discussion to be had about the fuckedness of the ABA too, right? My impression, which may be wrong, is that the ABA comprises in large part, if not mostly, JDs who have never been in practice.

Anyway, by proposing to limit the education for non-lawyers concerned with the law to 1) HYPSM and 2) MBAs, you are in effect asking 1) teenagers, and 2) professionals who have to demonstrate a level of numeracy and skin in the game with respect to the existing economic structure, respectively, to decide that they want to play the game, and them alone. I recognize LL.B would still entail the former, and that the latter is not necessarily a bad thing depending on your level of conservatism.

I'm still fascinated by and fixated on your statement that offering different experiences would "end up breaking the system."

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22865
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:07 pm

Businesslady wrote:I think law schools put more verbally-adept people in a better position to do harder institutional critique of government and society in general. What the "market" is shouldn't define what education is. I work backward from utopia as a rule. If that looks like talking about things that are only possible in real time for rich kids, that's a shitty American reality, and it starts to look pretty circular to talk about why things won't change because they can't, and the whole Chomsky "can't stand still on a moving train" image comes to mind. Again, crisis in capitalism / democracy, etc.

My gut reaction to the bolded is honestly no, it really doesn't. That said, there's a shitload of stuff I understand about law from going to law school that I didn't understand even as a very educated person before law school, and it's valuable information. But I don't think law school teaches anyone to critique anything. In fact, knowing how the legal system works make me tend to dismiss a lot of the critiques out there as uninformed - I'm complicit in a way I wasn't before. Again, that's me and may say more about my potential for critique than anything else, and it may just show the need for more legal education to underlie the critiques. But I think smaug has a point about whether law school can ever accomplish what's being discussed here, as opposed to other kinds of graduate education.

Edit to add: actually, most of my knowledge pertinent to critiquing anything has come through practice, not law school itself.
Businesslady wrote:Here is an article I like by a Stanford Law grad, by the way.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/mahbod-moghad ... ole-foods/

To be honest, when I read that I think the guy is an asshole. But then, my lens is criminal law.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby utahraptor » Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:12 pm

J3987 wrote:I am not a lawyer, law student, and I have no desire to go to law school. I just recognize the real-world value of a legal education


I just should quote this as a QED on its own.

J3987 wrote:What I'm saying is, in a Bayesian sense, once you have already made the leap and are in law school, you can leverage that in different ways to get a job outside the legal field. And it is the case that a fair number of influential people in non-legal positions went to law school.


Issue here is, as you note, that most of those people either did start as lawyers and learned the valuable things while working, or are one of the very very small number who go directly into business. The Voyager thread is a great explanation as to why that's pretty much a flame. The short story is that either you need to participate in the law firm hell thing, or you have no reason to finish the degree. You'd be better off dropping out and finding work directly if it's ABSOLUTELY not tied to your legal education.

J3987 wrote:But, I mean, isn't it obvious that having legal knowledge is useful more than just a directly legal/lawfirm context? If someone is advising me to buy the debt out of bankruptcy/special situation for pennies on the dollar, it would be great if he was an expert in the relevant covenants and precedents that could affect my ROI.


The issue is that the only way you become an expert/have real working knowledge of those things is through years of work. Unless you made law school into med school, you'd never have the time or ability to teach someone what they need to know. Taking Bankruptcy with random professor X isn't going to teach you what you'd need to know, and you couldn't teach that course. The only people capable of teaching actually useful classes are adjuncts who are practitioners on the side. I don't think it's feasible to imagine law school as existing only in that state. The most useful thing to push law into that direction would be the solution that's already been discussed elsewhere: recognize that the whole thing is a farce and drop the third year so people can get actual experience more quickly. And, frankly, even now, you can take Bankruptcy with Harvey Miller (of Weil) and not know the sort of thing you're talking about.

Businesslady wrote:My impression, which may be wrong, is that the ABA comprises in large part, if not mostly, JDs who have never been in practice.

I may be wrong, but this is not my impression at all.

For those other jobs, I'm not saying that's desirable (limiting it to HYPSM/MBAs) but that's a discussion outside the law, I think. To be generous to you, maybe you could create a law school that would produce students such that people in finance and business would actually want to hire law grads, but I don't know anything about that world as I never had access to it. My gut tells me that it wouldn't be changing as much as you think—a large part of the T14 already went to schools where they had an opportunity to pursue those fields, and I think many people in law school do want to be lawyers. I have zero desire to be on the business side of things. It wouldn't be "fixing" law school to give people like me the ability to pursue those fields (if it could be done, which I kinda doubt, due to the value structures existing outside of law, but again, not my field, so I'll defer.).

Businesslady wrote:I'm still fascinated by and fixated on your statement that offering different experiences would "end up breaking the system."

It would break the academic bloodsport aspect, which is one of the few things that works about law school. People are actually given as close to a fair shake at proving they have some sort of specialized mental horsepower as I can imagine. I'm not going to pretend the exams test a skill that's actually useful, but I've always thought that the purpose of the system was so that law firms could watch us race/try to kill each other and take that into consideration when they make hiring decisions. As I'm sure you're aware, some good firms place a lot of weight on academic success, some place relatively little. But, when the inputs into (and desired outputs from) law school look so similar, you need to create some sort of sorting mechanism. If you allowed for too much of a differentiated process, law school grades would become (more) meaningless, and employers wouldn't have the ability to sort people out.

User avatar
los blancos
Posts: 7119
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby los blancos » Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:14 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Businesslady wrote:Here is an article I like by a Stanford Law grad, by the way.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/mahbod-moghad ... ole-foods/

To be honest, when I read that I think the guy is an asshole.

User avatar
los blancos
Posts: 7119
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby los blancos » Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:19 pm

utahraptor wrote:
J3987 wrote:I am not a lawyer, law student, and I have no desire to go to law school. I just recognize the real-world value of a legal education


I just should quote this as a QED on its own.


Smaug with the perpetual inability to resist being an asshole.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby Businesslady » Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:37 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't think law school teaches anyone to critique anything. In fact, knowing how the legal system works make me tend to dismiss a lot of the critiques out there as uninformed - I'm complicit in a way I wasn't before. Again, that's me and may say more about my potential for critique than anything else, and it may just show the need for more legal education to underlie the critiques. But I think smaug has a point about whether law school can ever accomplish what's being discussed here, as opposed to other kinds of graduate education.

I grayed the second sentence because it complicates the syllogism (and I think ITT generally I'm arguing, admittedly and maybe unapologetically naively, that "more" should be substituted by "more heterogeneous and critique-oriented"). I appreciate full well that a philosophy of law school as a soulcrushing-industrial complex as I have advanced it is equally circular/conclusory, but again I just think it is a shitty vector of suppressive conservatism.

I am not as convinced that the "lawyer" as a functionary archetype should be the sole product of American legal education. This idea of law as strictly a "service profession" seems to have been extrapolated to what amounts in many cases to cronyism and abuse by rentier partners in firms relative to a more humane past. With respect to society in general, however:

los blancos wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Businesslady wrote:Here is an article I like by a Stanford Law grad, by the way.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/mahbod-moghad ... ole-foods/

To be honest, when I read that I think the guy is an asshole.

And I just think, man, rules are stupid sometimes, and people who apply them need more exposure to critique before becoming prosecutors and judges. We're all assholes, just not on purpose, and I don't know that "stealing" food really violates the categorical imperative under a totality of the circumstances test.

Businesslady wrote:Image

Why? Bullshit pedantry. "Efficiency" divorced from distributional justice. Artificial scarcity. Constructive slavery. Fuck it up.

It's doctrine.

hill1334
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:31 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby hill1334 » Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:54 pm

utahraptor wrote:I'm using "literally" to indicate that what I'm talking about isn't overstatement/understatement. If you have greater perspective and can point to people actually learning those things in law school or more people creating the things you're talking about, point me to it. I truly don't think that there's much room for "innovation" in the law, and think that the few examples we have (Lipton and the poison pill, plaintiffs' bar resurrecting the qui tam action) are exceptional. You keep talking about theory and I'm saying your theory has no application. You can't point to it in application now because nothing like it exists, and you can't describe it in detail because it can't exist.

What do you imagine your Atlas lawyers doing? Are they drafting new laws? (Legislatures do that.) Are they creating new companies? (Business people do that.) Are they supporting more entrepreneurs? (They already do that, but the lawyers themselves aren't entrepreneurial.)

It's not conclusory/accepting things for what they are—it's recognizing that you're talking about an empty set.

For example, what would "different kinds of lawyers" do? Are they still representing the legal rights of others in court? (Can't be fixed.) Are they still facilitating transactions designed by other people. (Can't be fixed.)

This isn't just about what lawyers don't do now. It's about what you imagine the role of lawyers to be. To the extent that your posts point to problems in the structures of law firms, I totally agree. They're set up in exploitative ways. But, thems the breaks if you want to work with those people.

To the extent your posts envision some alternative role for lawyers, I'm totally befuddled. Not just in a "this is a lot of theory that I disagree with" way, but in a "why the hell do you want lawyers to be involved with this, and how the hell do you imagine lawyers to be involved with this" way.

For example:
J3987 wrote:Your question was a bit of a dodge and BL made good points. I'm not saying law school is a good investment from a cost-benefit perspective for someone who wants to go into PE/VC/Fixed-Income/Banking if that's what they want to do before LS, just that it is an option. In all of those fields, understanding securities and transactional law would be useful, probably most of all wrt distressed debt. There are a fair number of people in banking, buyside, corp finance, and CIO types with law degrees.

This is kinda dumb. (no offense). My question was not a dodge—what's the value-add of a law degree there. Do you need a law degree, part of the credential-conferring process to become a lawyer, to understand those things? No. Are the people you're talking about working as attorneys? No. Moreover, you're talking about a minuscule portion of job outcomes (not something that anyone in law school could count on) for positions that people can reach without the legal education. Long before the scam-blogs exploded, the one first questions people would ask re: law school was "do you want to be a lawyer?" or "why do you want to be a lawyer?" Both then and now, if you don't want to be a lawyer, you probably shouldn't go to law school, and the special addendum for this thread, we shouldn't design law schools to be education centers for non-lawyers. Why? We already have education programs for that. Do math/econ at an Ivy and prosper. Work for a while and become an MBA. There's no value added from getting a JD.


I'll admit right upfront that I am an 0L, so I may just be delusional, but I am not sure I buy into your argument in its entirety. For one, I think that there is lots of evidence that law school does help people improve their writing and their ability to make well thought out and articulated arguments. Also, just furthering your education has a benefit in itself, as by engaging with other intellectually motived and intelligent individuals one is likely going to have some of their ideas challenge and, in turn, they are going to have consider their beliefs and learn how to articulate those beliefs to other people. These are skills that will assist individuals in a variety of fields. That is not to say that if someone is going to be going into business that they would not be better off getting an MBA or that at no times individuals would be better served not pursing a graduate degree whatsoever, but to suggest that there is no value added at all is sort of absurd.

I feel like people on this forum have a tendency to equate getting an initial job with long term career success. While many of those with JDs who end up going into other fields that don't require the JD likely could have gotten the job even if the forwent law school, it is very likely that the skills they learn in law school assist them in climbing the corporate ladder over the long term.

Again, I agree that 99% of the time it is likely stupid for individuals who don't want to be lawyers to get a law degree, but not because there is no value added by a JD, but because the valued added is heavily outweighed by a whole host of negatives (e.g., debt incurred, opportunity cost, etc.).

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby utahraptor » Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:57 pm

get back to me in three years, because I have to believe that you'll laugh at this:

hill1334 wrote:While many of those with JDs who end up going into other fields that don't require the JD likely could have gotten the job even if the forwent law school, it is very likely that the skills they learn in law school assist them in climbing the corporate ladder over the long term.


A JD is a ticket to OCI, some networking connections on the PI side, and one of the requirements to be a lawyer. No more, no less.

Moneytrees
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby Moneytrees » Sun Nov 23, 2014 5:03 pm

utahraptor wrote:get back to me in three years, because I have to believe that you'll laugh at this:

hill1334 wrote:While many of those with JDs who end up going into other fields that don't require the JD likely could have gotten the job even if the forwent law school, it is very likely that the skills they learn in law school assist them in climbing the corporate ladder over the long term.


A JD is a ticket to OCI, some networking connections on the PI side, and one of the requirements to be a lawyer. No more, no less.


A little too cynical/simplistic, imo.

User avatar
UnicornHunter
Posts: 13507
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby UnicornHunter » Sun Nov 23, 2014 5:06 pm

hill1334 wrote:
I'll admit right upfront that I am an 0L, so I may just be delusional, but I am not sure I buy into your argument in its entirety. For one, I think that there is lots of evidence that law school does help people improve their writing and their ability to make well thought out and articulated arguments. Also, just furthering your education has a benefit in itself, as by engaging with other intellectually motived and intelligent individuals one is likely going to have some of their ideas challenge and, in turn, they are going to have consider their beliefs and learn how to articulate those beliefs to other people. These are skills that will assist individuals in a variety of fields. That is not to say that if someone is going to be going into business that they would not be better off getting an MBA or that at no times individuals would be better served not pursing a graduate degree whatsoever, but to suggest that there is no value added at all is sort of absurd.

I feel like people on this forum have a tendency to equate getting an initial job with long term career success. While many of those with JDs who end up going into other fields that don't require the JD likely could have gotten the job even if the forwent law school, it is very likely that the skills they learn in law school assist them in climbing the corporate ladder over the long term.

Again, I agree that 99% of the time it is likely stupid for individuals who don't want to be lawyers to get a law degree, but not because there is no value added by a JD, but because the valued added is heavily outweighed by a whole host of negatives (e.g., debt incurred, opportunity cost, etc.).


Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. If law school helps "people improve their writing and their ability to make well thought out and articulated arguments" it does so in the least efficient way possible. Of your 1L courses, the only class that *might* do that is Legal Writing, and even that is more about learning the specific formalities of legal writing. To the extent 2 and 3L are any better, it's only because professors and students have more flexibility to deviate from the traditional law school model.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby Businesslady » Sun Nov 23, 2014 5:12 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Edit to add: actually, most of my knowledge pertinent to critiquing anything has come through practice, not law school itself.

I missed this. It's anecdotal but important and kind of speaks to my potential overwillingness to assume that words like "practice-ready" are euphemisms for "beaten into ideological submission by an attritive brainwashing vocational school wearing academic robes."

Relatedly I still feel intuitively that "professionalism" should be conceptualized as camouflage or at least performative (Judith Butler) and never ever an identity (Stanford prison experiment). The latter seems like a potentially dangerous objectivity (Arendt on Eichmann). FD or whoev, am I missing the Deleuze/Guattari/Shapiro thing? Cite-check please

...

e: In the time I typed this, multiple people stepped in with sticks for the hill1334 piñata, which I mean, is a very helpful thing this website often does. But sometimes it's worth wondering whether learning how to swing a stick makes everything look like a piñata. A strong presumption against excellence is safe by definition but to the point of reifying mediocrity is a bit much. Your name is the fucking Unicorn Hunter, dude. Have fun in a world without unicorns.

e2: This is a skill. It is tied the same skill Steve Jobs describes - bashing against the wall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_decidendi
Last edited by Businesslady on Sun Nov 23, 2014 5:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
los blancos
Posts: 7119
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation

Postby los blancos » Sun Nov 23, 2014 5:13 pm

TheUnicornHunter wrote:Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. If law school helps "people improve their writing and their ability to make well thought out and articulated arguments" it does so in the least efficient way possible. Of your 1L courses, the only class that *might* do that is Legal Writing, and even that is more about learning the specific formalities of legal writing. To the extent 2 and 3L are any better, it's only because professors and students have more flexibility to deviate from the traditional law school model.


Yeah, this is true. I learned a lot more about legal writing during my SA than all through 1L, but that's also because I had a terrible LARW prof and generally did not give a shit about anything during 1L.

I think the idea that a JD is no more than an OCI ticket/networking connections/removed barrier is kind of laughable, tho.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest