Guest Feature: Commentator Reacts to 3L Survey Questions
3Ls received a survey yesterday with the stated goal of understanding "post-graduate plans and how well [we] think Boalt addressed and influenced [our] career interests/aspirations."
Questions included:
Questions included:
- What motivated you to attend law school?
- If you took take advantage of the Edley Grant Program, what did you like about it, and what aspects of the program do you think could be improved?
- To what extent did your debt burden influence your post-grad job choice?
Guest commenter Laura left a comment in the thread below and has graciously responded to a request by N&B regulars to produce the following post expanding upon her earlier comment.
I was excited about the 3L survey email (with justifiable procrastination time written all over it). But as I started filling it out, I found that a couple of the questions just had a “gotcha” quality that rubbed me the wrong way.
Among the offending questions: How do I rank the prestige of various legal jobs? And how do I and others “value” public interest work?
I don’t think you can rank different career options in any sensible manner and I don’t think people can express value for something in the abstract (How much do I value world peace? A lot. But ask me how much I value finding my favorite cereal on sale and you’ll get the same answer).
But I think the more fundamental problem I have with these survey questions is that the term “public interest” – like its even more irksome sister “social justice” – is treated like it has one (super duper earth saving) definition. That’s not really the fault of the survey authors; people at Boalt talk about “public interest” in this generic way all the time.
And I think that’s a problem. Treating “public interest" as an amorphous blob is actually incredibly polarizing. In a black and white public interest vs private sector world, you are either (a) saving the world or (b) being a selfish prick. Or, on the other hand, you are either (a) a lunatic hippie who may one day stage a protest by living in a tree or (b) a rational human being who wants to pay their bills and live in a house. Needless to say, these dichotomies are unfair.
Specific issues resulting from this linguistic set up include:
--------------------------------------------
[From Laura:]I was excited about the 3L survey email (with justifiable procrastination time written all over it). But as I started filling it out, I found that a couple of the questions just had a “gotcha” quality that rubbed me the wrong way.
Among the offending questions: How do I rank the prestige of various legal jobs? And how do I and others “value” public interest work?
I don’t think you can rank different career options in any sensible manner and I don’t think people can express value for something in the abstract (How much do I value world peace? A lot. But ask me how much I value finding my favorite cereal on sale and you’ll get the same answer).
But I think the more fundamental problem I have with these survey questions is that the term “public interest” – like its even more irksome sister “social justice” – is treated like it has one (super duper earth saving) definition. That’s not really the fault of the survey authors; people at Boalt talk about “public interest” in this generic way all the time.
And I think that’s a problem. Treating “public interest" as an amorphous blob is actually incredibly polarizing. In a black and white public interest vs private sector world, you are either (a) saving the world or (b) being a selfish prick. Or, on the other hand, you are either (a) a lunatic hippie who may one day stage a protest by living in a tree or (b) a rational human being who wants to pay their bills and live in a house. Needless to say, these dichotomies are unfair.
Specific issues resulting from this linguistic set up include:
- Suggesting that people must fall into one camp or the other. In practice, many people may bounce between various legal fields (ie time in the public and private sectors). I worry people are discouraged from thinking like that and fully considering their options, however, because we tend to approach the career question by asking people which camp they fall into (implying that you pick just one).
- Losing sight of government work. Working for the government may technically fall under public interest, but it doesn't get the same granola street cred as some of the other public interest-y options).
- Losing sight of the many options available within the "public interest" and "private sector" categories. I think law school would be an infinitely more valuable experience if professors and others spent more time talking about various career paths and options in specific terms rather than just public/private.
- Losing sight of the fact that “public interest” work does not have an inherent value based on that tagline alone. Depending on the causes you support (and don’t), some of this work will see helpful and effective, other avenues perhaps wasteful or harmful.
Labels: Rabid Liberals
posted by tj at 7:06 PM
15 Comments:
I totally agree. I got about 3 questions in, realized that the people who wrote the survey clearly have an agenda, closed the survey and promptly deleted the email.
"Public interest" is a floppy phrase, and it can grate on me for many of the reasons Laura cited.
First, there is a (nontrivial) argument that ANY legal work is in the public interest. A functional social system based on law is better than a social system based on violence, right? We'd rather the rich bought lawyers than guns, right?
Second, the term sometimes (but not always) is used to imply a latent and implied holier-than-thou message. Not always, but sometimes.
Third, as Laura implies, it's under-inclusive. Government prosecutors are generally not considered public interest attorneys. But surely they work in the public's interest.
Fourth, it's over-inclusive. I happen to think some "public interest" legal work isn't in the public's interest at all, and whether you know it or not, you probably agree: consider that lawyers on both sides of disputes involving, abortion rights or gun rights or gay rights all consider themselves public interest attorneys.
Fifth, the PI label can get cliquey. There is what Laura called a "street cred" to be gained by tagging one's legal self as a "public interest" advocate. There is nothing wrong with that, and it may even serve a useful function. Setting aside the incoherent hodge-podge of political interests that seem to qualify for the label, it is true most public interest attorney share a few things in common: they don't make much money, they often face unfavorable odds, and they have to deal with a general sense that the social forces they seek to change are bigger than they are. From that perspective "street cred" and its attendant support system make perfect sense. But when it gets carried too far, I sometimes get the sense that Public Interest is the name of a club, and that law students like me are either in, or out. I don't see it that way at all, and so I sometimes resent the feeling that I'm being judged on the basis of a distinction I don't believe in.
I'll probably get roasted for this comment, but there it is. I don't intend it in a mean spirited or derisive way -- all I mean to show is that the label "public interest" is empty. Basing a survey on it seems like a flimsy approach to probative information about Boalt students, or their career paths.
can you post the email survey?
Here you go.
Thanks for the post, Laura. Very insightful. I agree the black and white dichotomy is a big problem. In fact, instead of spending so much time trying to convince more law student to pursue public interest, we should probably start with breaking down the barrier between public and private. I think a lot of lawyers on both sides would be happier if it was easier to do both, or to switch between them.
I ran into a major crisis of conscience last summer, because my plan had always been to start out in the public sector and eventually go private when I needed the economic stability (not that you can't get that in public, blah blah disclaimer blah). I changed my plans when everyone I talked to in either field said jumping was very difficult, and I should just start out wherever I wanted to end up. Whether that advice was valid is an open question, but the perception is out there, and that doesn't help.
reminds me of this
I think it is a mistake to dismiss the division between public interest and corporate law jobs. Corporate lawyers represent the interests of corporations against other societal interests to whom the catch phrase "public interest" applies. It is very hard to switch tracks mid career.
Funniest part I found about it is that they expected me to fill out a survey in hard copy. There's got to be a way to maintain an anonymous survey online right?
Professor Bainbridge of UCLA had these interesting thoughts . . . .
Legal education pervasively sends law students the message that corporate lawyering is a less moral and socially desirable career path than so-called “public interest” lawyering. The corporate world is viewed as essentially corrupting and alienating, while true self-actualization is possible only in a Legal Aid office.
Our students get these messages not only in law school, of course, but also in the media. Films like “A Civil Action” or “Erin Brockovich” illustrate the general ill repute in which corporations—and corporate lawyers—are held, at least here in Hollywood.
In my teaching, I have chosen to unabashedly embrace a competing view. I tell my students about Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia University and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who wrote that: “The limited liability corporation is the greatest single discovery of modern times. Even steam and electricity are less important than the limited liability company.”
I tell them about journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, whose magnificent history, The Company, contends that the corporation is “the basis of the prosperity of the West and the best hope for the future of the rest of the world.” ...
The rise of the corporate form thus has “improved the living standards of millions of ordinary people, putting the luxuries of the rich within the reach of the man in the street.” The rising prosperity made possible by the tremendous new wealth created by industrial corporations was a major factor in destroying arbitrary class distinctions, enhancing personal and social mobility. Many of the wealthiest businessman of the latter half of the 19th Century and the 20th Century began their careers as laborers rather than as scions of coupon-clipping plutocrats.
And so I put it to my students this way: You want to help make society a better place? You want to eliminate poverty? Become a corporate lawyer. Help businesses grow, so that they can create jobs and provide goods and services that make people’s lives better.
The goal isn’t just to make my students feel better about themselves. I firmly believe that too many of our students, when they get out in practice, may be more willing to act in ways that are ethically gray—to act as facilitators rather than gatekeepers—if they’ve been told repeatedly that they’ve already “sold out.” If more legal academics were to celebrate the pro-social aspects of corporate practice, perhaps our students would be better gatekeepers once they get out in practice.
As the authors of the survey, we want to clear up confusion about our intended purpose. The survey is being used for a law school course, Law & Social Justice. We are working on a case study attempting to analyze factors both in and outside of law school that influence our career choices. The survey was designed only to get insight from our fellow law students which we value highly.
Gathering your thoughts and perceptions on this topic in the abstract is exactly what we are trying to do. This is precisely why we a) left the questions broad and open for interpretation by the individual responder, and b) chose not to specify that this a "Law & Social Justice" endeavor because we did not want to color the responses with those same assumptions referenced in your comments. We are just genuinely interested in your anonymous and confidential opinions. "Gotcha" questions or judgments could not have been further from our goal and are ironically enough, quite the opposite of our "agenda."
So, thank you for commenting on this topic. We are glad to get your insight and although not in the intended forum, find it very valuable. As the survey invited, we had hoped to hear these thoughts over a beer or coffee on us if people were willing to give their time. We hope you will take a few minutes to do the survey or to chat with us about your thoughts. We'll be in the donor lobby from 12:40 - 2 pm tomorrow.
My biggest problem with the survey is that the authors of the survey did not identify the group sponsoring the survey nor the purpose of the survey. Why would I fill out a survey that arrived in my inbox from people I don't know for a purpose that I don't know?
I agree that sometimes at Boalt those of us aspiring to corporate work feel selfish.
I think this doesn't take into account our different circumstances. Some of us have a lot of financial obligations, and I do not mean student loans. I mean dependent family members.
Others have trust funds or 'just' need to support themselves.
I don't actually disagree with the use of the term "public interest," although I prefer more specific terms. I DO think that there is a divide between "public interest" and "non-public interest" people at Boalt -- which is very divisive and completely undermines the value of pro bono and also "public interest" people partnering with corporate law firms in the future. Let's face it, the firms play a big role in supporting public interest work financially, and sometimes, substantively with attorney hours.
lol at you 3ls crying about a survey. fill it out. how can ANY survey from your fellow students possibly negatively affect you? lol at berkeley and its students thinking everyone has a hidden agenda.
lol, just thought of this -- transexuals have hidden agenda. get it? lol.
Along the lines of the other comments, there's a case to be made that "public interest" jobs is more private than non-public interest jobs.
When you select a public interest job, you do so because you want your work to reflect your politics, or principles, or personal vision of what the world should be. In many cases, the organization you work for is funded by people who also want to express their personal vision of what the world should be, but are doing so by contributing money.
On the other hand, when you decide instead to work for purely instrumental reasons (i.e. money), you end up doing whatever society wants to do (i.e. what other people are willing to pay you for).
So which is "public" and which is "private"? I can see it both ways, but I'd lean towards saying public interest is private and selling yourself to the highest bidder is public.
What's the point? I don't care much about the usage of the words themselves. Nor am I saying that working at a firm is morally better than working at a nonprofit, let alone making a free market fundamentalist argument about greed being better than altruism. I'm just hinting at that possibility that there's a lot of complex private interests hiding behind the term "public interest," and that some of those motivations are of a piece with the motivations of people you find abhorrent (e.g. you hate war and violence and vaulting Wall Street ambition, but what the human feelings that drive you you when you bang your fist on the table and talk about how you want to *fight* for the poor?). And if that's true, then isn't a little risky to build your identity as a young public interest lawyer on an unexamined faith in (1) the publicness of your own motivations and (2) your ability, as a single human intelligence, to comprehend the best course for an organic, decentralized, fantastically complex society.
Post a Comment
<< Home