It seems to me that the most desired law jobs for law school students were biglaw, being a prosecutor, or a non-profit type job. Very few people in my law school really wanted to go into small law or as I call it "real person" law. I was one of the few people in law school that wanted to practice real person law. I really liked torts and wanted to go to court and do hearings rather than sit around and do transactional work. I love working but I also wanted a bit of an actual life.
I think most people go for biglaw, being a prosecutor, or non-profit type job because those are seen as conferring more status than real person law. Big law is also seen as more profitiable. It usually is but real person law can be financially advantageous to if you do it right. Plus you don't have to worry about billable hours in many cases. No immigration lawyer that I know of charges clients in terms of billable hours. Plus having to work all the time saves you from having to have a life.
I practice immigraiton law for a living. I started working at my job in August 2007. My boss sent me to court on the third week of August. It would have been earlier but there was a judge's conference after I was hired so there were no hearings for a week.
A lot of people adopt fatalism as a copy mechanism for the hardships of life. Its a lot easier to accept what you have if you don't believe you could do better.
And the thing about the Ivies and other elite schools is that they actually aren't stingy with needs-based scholarships for students that get in but can't afford the price tag. The same goes for other elite schools. They have their faults but meeting the needs of poorer or poor students isn't one of them.
I can't say I agree with this. I don't think that parents should raise their kids with unrealistic expectations but at the same time they shouldn't actively discouage relatively realstic aspirations as well. Telling your kid not to expect anything good in life, that life is a giant disappointment is just as bad as making your kid believe that nothing is impossible if you work hard enough.
There are several cultural assumptions that go into the logic that men can not be the victim of sexual assault from women. The first is that men are really eager for sex and would never look down any sexual advance from a woman or women. The other is that men simply have more physical power and social status than women so can never really be physically let alone sexually assaulted by them.
We see this dynamic in play in a lot in media that depicts teacher-student relationships. When its a male teacher and female student, not only is the teacher more or not the instigator but the female student is nearly always viewed as a victim in some way. When its a female teacher, male student the male student is rarely if ever portrayed as a victim. Often its the male student that seduces the teacher in the first place.
This experience matches my experience at a mid-sized private university, total of 10,000 combined undergrad and grad students. Some had wild sex lives, others were in relationships of various stability, and others no relationships at all. There wasn't any particular pressure to get involved in a wild sex life. My campus was a dry one, it was technically a Methodist school, and fraternities were not allowed on campus so that might have contributed to the relatively calm social life.
If you go to a big university, the sheer number of students is going to give a lot of anonmity and release from pressure. The smaller schools are the ones with more pressure to conform, especially at the ideological Evangelical colleges and universities. A liberal college never kicked somebody out for not having a sex life. At least to my knowledge.
The explosion of globalization in recent years might have contributed to the arms race. The Internet was still very much in infancy when I went to college. It was still very primitive and what you could do with it was limited. The world was still unconnected in many ways. Now everything is much more tight and its the global race to the bottom.
Despite 9/11, our government is at best only slightly more centralized in 2013 than it was when I applied for college in 1997. Looming economic security, I give you that. I wonder if college applications felt like this during the Great Depression.
There has always been a strong conformist strain in American society besides all our talk about individual. Before the upheavals of the 1950s, nearly everybody was expected to conform to Anglo-Protestant ideas of behavior with little or no tolerance for those who deviate from it. For all our talk about Free Speech and freedom of religion, American society hasn't dealt well with people on the far left or atheists until very recently.
I think you could also make an argument that American society was more upset at the student radicalism of the 1960s than European society was. In Europe, it was naturally assumed that university students would have a radical and experimental phase before going up. In the United States, since university education was more widespread since the get-go, this was not tolerated. College life was supposed to be about getting polished for working for daddy or getting married or building a career. The student radicalism of the 1960s was an unprecedented event in American life. The Europeans expected it a bit more.
I was applying to go to college in the late 1990s and the competition didn't seem so intense then even for the elite schools like Harvard or Yale. Does anybody have any idea why the arms race for the elite colleges increased so much in such a short time?
I think your second paragraph describes the problem with American higher education really well. The number of qualified students for elite institutions rose exponentially since the end of WWII while the number of elite institutions remained constants. There are plenty of near elite colleges and universities that are just as good but they don't have the cachet of the elite ones. Students, rightly or wrongly, view it as hurting their job prospects. The rise of the internship as a prerequisite for a good job in many places makes things worse.
Every lawyer who practices what I call "real people" law like matrimony, immigration, and criminal defense thinks that they also act as psychologists and social workers in addition to being an advocate. There were times I literally had to hold client's hands and walk them back to the office after things didn't go so well for them.
I'd actually avoid philosophy in creating a liberal arts education. I loved reading philosophy in high school and college but a lot of people are going to find it to be naval gazing. A safer bet would be to replace philosophy with literature. Literature touches a lot on the human condition like philosophy, although it doesn't ask all of the same questions, but the narrative format of much literature would make it more captivating for students. Literature should be added regardless of whether philosophy is taught or not. I'd focus on relatively short works that ask a lot of deep questions like the works of Hesse plus the foundational stuff.
Kiryas Joel is inhabited by a particular group of Ultra-Orthodox Jews called the Satmar, after the place in Romania that they originated, Satu Mare. I live in their Brooklyn neighborhood. Kiryas Joel is a utopian, isolated community that they built so they could live their life style while limiting the influence of modernity. Ultra-Orthodox Judaism operates on the assumption that modernity and Jewishness are incompatible and if the ghetto was torn down than Jews should maintain it anyway.
The Satmar Hasidim are particular passionate about this idea, more so than other Ultra-Orthodox Jews. They aren't what you would call respected or liked in the Jewish community even among other Ultra-Orthodox Jews.
Before the explosion in business schools and business education, lots of liberal arts people had great careers in business because they could write among other things.
American society never looked favorably at youthful experimentation much either. In Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere it was expected that people in universities would have a flirtation with radicalism and Bohemianism. I think since American colleges were mass phenomena much earlier, even in the 19th century university education was more common in the United States than elsewhere, American university education was more about careers than experimentation.
That's a bit of a shame because doing a semester or year abroad is a wonderful experience. My medieval history professor was a great advocate of the junior year abroad with Mickey Mouse classes as a life experience.
I'd say that any accredited school near a major metropolitan area is going to give you a quality education. The school might not be "elite" but the desirability of the area makes it a really attractive choice for potential professors.
Point taken, we till them that if they don't go to an elite school than their job prospects are hurt because they can't get connections and the employers want and demand elite schools for the best or even the next-best jobs.
Qualified students who didn't quite make it into the elite schools might think going to a state or "non-elite" private is a bit of a failure. They might think they won't get a good as an education or that it might hurt their job practice.
The best way to make college admissions sane again is to try to find to make it purely academic again. We probably can't use entrance exams like they do in other countries because its simply not practical for a host of reasons. What needs to be done is to find away to decrease the importance of extra-curriculars and activities outside of school and make it more about the GPA, SAT scores, and AP exam results.
The problem is that there are too many elite students and not enough elite institutions at the Ivy or almost as good as an Ivy level. All the elite institutions are probably wealthy enough to expand in size so more students could attend but they can't be force to do so and its not in their interest to do so, they wouldn't be as elite then. Qualified students do not want to settle for state universities and non-elite private ones. The other problem is that sports are always going to matter because of college football and basketball are big money earners.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Living The Dream (Law School, Part 4)”
Lawyers have very high rates of substance abuse. Dentists have us beat in terms of suicides though.
"
It seems to me that the most desired law jobs for law school students were biglaw, being a prosecutor, or a non-profit type job. Very few people in my law school really wanted to go into small law or as I call it "real person" law. I was one of the few people in law school that wanted to practice real person law. I really liked torts and wanted to go to court and do hearings rather than sit around and do transactional work. I love working but I also wanted a bit of an actual life.
I think most people go for biglaw, being a prosecutor, or non-profit type job because those are seen as conferring more status than real person law. Big law is also seen as more profitiable. It usually is but real person law can be financially advantageous to if you do it right. Plus you don't have to worry about billable hours in many cases. No immigration lawyer that I know of charges clients in terms of billable hours. Plus having to work all the time saves you from having to have a life.
"
I practice immigraiton law for a living. I started working at my job in August 2007. My boss sent me to court on the third week of August. It would have been earlier but there was a judge's conference after I was hired so there were no hearings for a week.
On “Not Your Typical Admissions Letter”
A lot of people adopt fatalism as a copy mechanism for the hardships of life. Its a lot easier to accept what you have if you don't believe you could do better.
"
And the thing about the Ivies and other elite schools is that they actually aren't stingy with needs-based scholarships for students that get in but can't afford the price tag. The same goes for other elite schools. They have their faults but meeting the needs of poorer or poor students isn't one of them.
"
I can't say I agree with this. I don't think that parents should raise their kids with unrealistic expectations but at the same time they shouldn't actively discouage relatively realstic aspirations as well. Telling your kid not to expect anything good in life, that life is a giant disappointment is just as bad as making your kid believe that nothing is impossible if you work hard enough.
On ““Of course, one man’s sexual assault is another man’s sexual fantasy come true.””
There are several cultural assumptions that go into the logic that men can not be the victim of sexual assault from women. The first is that men are really eager for sex and would never look down any sexual advance from a woman or women. The other is that men simply have more physical power and social status than women so can never really be physically let alone sexually assaulted by them.
We see this dynamic in play in a lot in media that depicts teacher-student relationships. When its a male teacher and female student, not only is the teacher more or not the instigator but the female student is nearly always viewed as a victim in some way. When its a female teacher, male student the male student is rarely if ever portrayed as a victim. Often its the male student that seduces the teacher in the first place.
On “Not Your Typical Admissions Letter”
It might have come across in her essay. That being said, a lot of the ivies have a lot of whiny entitled students going to them.
On “G-d and Man and Sex (!) on Campus: Moral Relativism Goes to College, An Historical Perspective, Part I”
This experience matches my experience at a mid-sized private university, total of 10,000 combined undergrad and grad students. Some had wild sex lives, others were in relationships of various stability, and others no relationships at all. There wasn't any particular pressure to get involved in a wild sex life. My campus was a dry one, it was technically a Methodist school, and fraternities were not allowed on campus so that might have contributed to the relatively calm social life.
If you go to a big university, the sheer number of students is going to give a lot of anonmity and release from pressure. The smaller schools are the ones with more pressure to conform, especially at the ideological Evangelical colleges and universities. A liberal college never kicked somebody out for not having a sex life. At least to my knowledge.
On “Not Your Typical Admissions Letter”
The explosion of globalization in recent years might have contributed to the arms race. The Internet was still very much in infancy when I went to college. It was still very primitive and what you could do with it was limited. The world was still unconnected in many ways. Now everything is much more tight and its the global race to the bottom.
"
Despite 9/11, our government is at best only slightly more centralized in 2013 than it was when I applied for college in 1997. Looming economic security, I give you that. I wonder if college applications felt like this during the Great Depression.
On “G-d and Man and Sex (!) on Campus: Moral Relativism Goes to College, An Historical Perspective, Part I”
There has always been a strong conformist strain in American society besides all our talk about individual. Before the upheavals of the 1950s, nearly everybody was expected to conform to Anglo-Protestant ideas of behavior with little or no tolerance for those who deviate from it. For all our talk about Free Speech and freedom of religion, American society hasn't dealt well with people on the far left or atheists until very recently.
I think you could also make an argument that American society was more upset at the student radicalism of the 1960s than European society was. In Europe, it was naturally assumed that university students would have a radical and experimental phase before going up. In the United States, since university education was more widespread since the get-go, this was not tolerated. College life was supposed to be about getting polished for working for daddy or getting married or building a career. The student radicalism of the 1960s was an unprecedented event in American life. The Europeans expected it a bit more.
On “Not Your Typical Admissions Letter”
I was applying to go to college in the late 1990s and the competition didn't seem so intense then even for the elite schools like Harvard or Yale. Does anybody have any idea why the arms race for the elite colleges increased so much in such a short time?
"
I think your second paragraph describes the problem with American higher education really well. The number of qualified students for elite institutions rose exponentially since the end of WWII while the number of elite institutions remained constants. There are plenty of near elite colleges and universities that are just as good but they don't have the cachet of the elite ones. Students, rightly or wrongly, view it as hurting their job prospects. The rise of the internship as a prerequisite for a good job in many places makes things worse.
On “Yes, But Which Arts?”
Camus would be another good choice for philosophical literature.
On “Why Are You Even Thinking About This? (Law School, Part 1)”
Every lawyer who practices what I call "real people" law like matrimony, immigration, and criminal defense thinks that they also act as psychologists and social workers in addition to being an advocate. There were times I literally had to hold client's hands and walk them back to the office after things didn't go so well for them.
On “Yes, But Which Arts?”
I'd actually avoid philosophy in creating a liberal arts education. I loved reading philosophy in high school and college but a lot of people are going to find it to be naval gazing. A safer bet would be to replace philosophy with literature. Literature touches a lot on the human condition like philosophy, although it doesn't ask all of the same questions, but the narrative format of much literature would make it more captivating for students. Literature should be added regardless of whether philosophy is taught or not. I'd focus on relatively short works that ask a lot of deep questions like the works of Hesse plus the foundational stuff.
On “Sign Language”
Kiryas Joel is inhabited by a particular group of Ultra-Orthodox Jews called the Satmar, after the place in Romania that they originated, Satu Mare. I live in their Brooklyn neighborhood. Kiryas Joel is a utopian, isolated community that they built so they could live their life style while limiting the influence of modernity. Ultra-Orthodox Judaism operates on the assumption that modernity and Jewishness are incompatible and if the ghetto was torn down than Jews should maintain it anyway.
The Satmar Hasidim are particular passionate about this idea, more so than other Ultra-Orthodox Jews. They aren't what you would call respected or liked in the Jewish community even among other Ultra-Orthodox Jews.
On “The Liberal Arts and Humanities, Law School, and Careers for the Somewhat Unpractical Student”
Before the explosion in business schools and business education, lots of liberal arts people had great careers in business because they could write among other things.
"
American society never looked favorably at youthful experimentation much either. In Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere it was expected that people in universities would have a flirtation with radicalism and Bohemianism. I think since American colleges were mass phenomena much earlier, even in the 19th century university education was more common in the United States than elsewhere, American university education was more about careers than experimentation.
"
That's a bit of a shame because doing a semester or year abroad is a wonderful experience. My medieval history professor was a great advocate of the junior year abroad with Mickey Mouse classes as a life experience.
On “Ten College Admission Myths”
I'd say that any accredited school near a major metropolitan area is going to give you a quality education. The school might not be "elite" but the desirability of the area makes it a really attractive choice for potential professors.
"
Point taken, we till them that if they don't go to an elite school than their job prospects are hurt because they can't get connections and the employers want and demand elite schools for the best or even the next-best jobs.
"
Qualified students who didn't quite make it into the elite schools might think going to a state or "non-elite" private is a bit of a failure. They might think they won't get a good as an education or that it might hurt their job practice.
"
The best way to make college admissions sane again is to try to find to make it purely academic again. We probably can't use entrance exams like they do in other countries because its simply not practical for a host of reasons. What needs to be done is to find away to decrease the importance of extra-curriculars and activities outside of school and make it more about the GPA, SAT scores, and AP exam results.
The problem is that there are too many elite students and not enough elite institutions at the Ivy or almost as good as an Ivy level. All the elite institutions are probably wealthy enough to expand in size so more students could attend but they can't be force to do so and its not in their interest to do so, they wouldn't be as elite then. Qualified students do not want to settle for state universities and non-elite private ones. The other problem is that sports are always going to matter because of college football and basketball are big money earners.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.