Career by committee redux again (for Bill)
Bill, who has grown cranky waiting for a response, urges me to go to law school.
I'm not going to law school.
Like parenthood, law school seems to be one of those things that people get into after thinking about worst-case scenarios and deeply unhappy exemplars that they themselves personally know, and then uttering those five little words of magical thinking that have caused so much untold misery in the world: it'll be different for me.
In saying this, I'm denigrating neither parents nor lawyers. I'm sure, in both cases, that that particular river can take you to some mighty interesting places that I'll probably never go, for those with the forethought and strength of purpose (and/or luck...) to keep the kayak upright. But, standing on the bridge and looking at all the people dragged under the rocks, I think I'd rather see how far I can get on foot.
I'm not anti-risk. I'm anti-stupid risk. Although my LSATs, which Bill accurately describes as kickass, will get me into a top law school, true; my overall dilettantish life narrative will not get me a free ride at a top law school, and hence there is an unacceptably large chance of going into debt bondage and working 90-hour weeks at some firm that I really hate. And I already have a job that I really hate.
Though the communication PhD makes me feel uncomfortably as though I'd be getting a ladies' auxiliary doctorate, and would involve a lifestyle readjustment, it shouldn't involve debt. Bill asks whether the degree wouldn't really be a bit pointless. Perhaps, on some larger scale, but certainly no more so than staring at my computer from 9 to 5, pretending to think deep thoughts about Tuvalu (which, really, has kind of come to define pointlessness, for me). I suspect it'd be a pleasant enough sandbox, and, these days, that's enough for me.
That said, I did end up tossing my hat into the ring for Burma. But only to avoid non-bidder's remorse; really, I think the chance of getting selected -- or even getting my pitch acknowledged -- is extremely low. And yeah, I did pledge, after my last set of experiences, that I was done with working overseas for the current employer. But...well, you know: I'm sure this time would be different.
I'm not going to law school.
Like parenthood, law school seems to be one of those things that people get into after thinking about worst-case scenarios and deeply unhappy exemplars that they themselves personally know, and then uttering those five little words of magical thinking that have caused so much untold misery in the world: it'll be different for me.
In saying this, I'm denigrating neither parents nor lawyers. I'm sure, in both cases, that that particular river can take you to some mighty interesting places that I'll probably never go, for those with the forethought and strength of purpose (and/or luck...) to keep the kayak upright. But, standing on the bridge and looking at all the people dragged under the rocks, I think I'd rather see how far I can get on foot.
I'm not anti-risk. I'm anti-stupid risk. Although my LSATs, which Bill accurately describes as kickass, will get me into a top law school, true; my overall dilettantish life narrative will not get me a free ride at a top law school, and hence there is an unacceptably large chance of going into debt bondage and working 90-hour weeks at some firm that I really hate. And I already have a job that I really hate.
Though the communication PhD makes me feel uncomfortably as though I'd be getting a ladies' auxiliary doctorate, and would involve a lifestyle readjustment, it shouldn't involve debt. Bill asks whether the degree wouldn't really be a bit pointless. Perhaps, on some larger scale, but certainly no more so than staring at my computer from 9 to 5, pretending to think deep thoughts about Tuvalu (which, really, has kind of come to define pointlessness, for me). I suspect it'd be a pleasant enough sandbox, and, these days, that's enough for me.
That said, I did end up tossing my hat into the ring for Burma. But only to avoid non-bidder's remorse; really, I think the chance of getting selected -- or even getting my pitch acknowledged -- is extremely low. And yeah, I did pledge, after my last set of experiences, that I was done with working overseas for the current employer. But...well, you know: I'm sure this time would be different.
7 Comments:
-
David Schraub said...
-
- 6:29 PM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 8:16 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 5:06 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 12:30 AM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 7:34 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 8:45 AM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 12:05 AM
Post a CommentYou know, all these people who assure me that law school is going to be a misery-inducing, hell-like experience are really starting to worry me. I do think it'll be different for me, but that's primarily because I already know I want to teach, which means a) I have a goal beyond being a glorified paralegal for six years while dying for a partnership and b) I have an attraction to law beyond "I want to make a six-figure income, but have no actual marketable skills."
Or am I just rationalizing?
Oh, I should clarify: I think law school would be extremely interesting, and more than a little fun, and I've found plenty of people who'd allow that to be a realistic attitude.
It's being a lawyer that I think would suck.
(Can you go straight from law student to law prof? I don't know. Sounds like a decent plan, as long as those odds are reasonable.)
I think your characterization of the mindset that leads (most) people to choose to go to law school is spot-on. And I can tell you that, at my 15th college reunion, a very large number of those people are no longer practicing law (particularly those whose parents bankrolled the experience). They loved the school bit and hated the job bit. Please don't go.
Then there are those of us who hated law school but love the actual practice of law. Although I'm only 3 years in, being a trial lawyer is a wonderful life. Never boring, every day is different, and sometimes you actually get to help people.
If what you want is to teach, you should do law school and specialize in international law, then get an LLM to further specialize. And if your LSAT's are that great, don't be so sure that combined with a background of interetsing life experience WOULDN'T get you that full ride from a good school. Boalt looks for people who are not cookie cutters, as do several other top-tier schools.
Anonymous,
I think you might be new here, and I totally don't want to discourage you from commenting, but let's just clear up a couple of things from this tangled skein, shall we?
- Despite everyone's insistence, I really don't wanna go to law school. Not to teach, not to practice, not to specialize in anything, nada, zip. I had hoped to communicate that in my post. I will try harder.
- My LSATs really are all that.
- My new e-pal David, on the other hand, does seem to want to go to law school. Which I'm ok with.
- I have no idea what David's LSATs are like, but he seems like a clever and well-spoken boy, so I'm guessing they're at least fairly "that."
- The question is really whether one can go from law school student to law school prof without an intervening tedium of law practice. This isn't, I stress, a question of personal relevance (see first bullet point) so much as a service for a reader, but I'm perfectly happy if other lawyerly readers would like to weigh in.
If you are going to write a blog that is open to comments, then it is inappropriate to respond to polite comments in a bitchy manner and condescending manner. (Well, you can, but then people will stop referring other people to read you.)
You basically just told me I am an idiot for not knowing you do not want to go to law school, when you wrote a post discussing whether or not that was an option. So no, E, your writing was most certainly NOT clear that you do not want to go to law school.
That said, yes you can go to law school and then teach, but you won't wind up teaching at a top tier school, more like a much smaller third tier one, or teaching law for business people, like my architect-friend who is a former lawyer who graduated 3rd in his class from Boston.
Dear Anon,
See, I thought the second sentence of the original post was pretty darned unequivocal. If this were the GRE reading comprehension question "what characterization best fits this passage?", I don't think your answer, "(C) An option is weighed," would be the best choice. I think the answer would be "(E) Reasons are given why a path will not be pursued."
I try not to call people idiots, A. I like to give the facts and let the inferences fall where they may.
Ok. Sorry for that last sentence specifically. It was aesthetically irresistible. Let me try again: I refuse to take responsibility when people say "you made me feel x." I did no such thing. I said y, and how you respond is entirely up to you. I hasten to add that I have little choice but to take this position, as I seem to suffer from (I'm convinced) a touch of autism-spectrum disorder, and am terminally horrible at predicting or fathoming other people's emotional reactions to things. To my extreme and frustrating detriment as a novelist.
But getting back to you. Look, I'm willing to accept that you feel wronged. And by way of compensation, won't go after you for using the pronoun "you" in your last paragraph, after I clarified that it is *not* me who wishes to teach law; rather, I will presume that you meant "one." I will also caution others that I'm getting a leeetle tetchy that my repeated insistence that I'm not going to law school keeps meeting with "so which law school are you going to?" (Especially when I tentatively floated the trial balloon "I'm thinking of trying to launch a freelance writing career" to some close friends a few weeks ago, in a moment of intense vulnerability, and, to a person, their response was, essentially, "Uh-huh. Have you considered Hastings?" Based on my experiences, I'm thinking: you know why there're so many lawyers in this country? Peer pressure!)
Anyway. I actually think readership in this blog would increase in direct proportion to growth in the bitchiness and condescension sectors. (Let's face it: with a Technorati rank hovering around the 9 million mark, virtually any change would be bound to enhance it.) But, after much soul-searching about the packaging of this blog (hide it? promote it? Hew to a theme? Start a new, more professional one?), I've decided to leave it as an unholy mess. It's an outlet, a bit of a writing lab, a lot of things; but a fair forum on anything isn't even...well, towards the top of the "B" team. It's me, talking to myself. If anyone wants to listen, fine. If anyone wants to comment, fine; and the comment will remain undeleted as long as I, in my sole arbitrary capacity, find some merit in it. Them's the Terms of Use. And, hey, you're undeleted, right? So that's something.
<< Home