Responding to both Alex and Keith’s comments above I would have to say that Keith is closer to the mark considering “the initial proposition indicates that future law students only need a good legal education.” Given that, it is largely true that the education you would receive for in-state tuition at a public law school, especially one like Boalt or Michigan, would rival that at Columbia. Moglen’s point follows from that assumption. The most relevant part of Keith’s post, however, is where he mentions that Veblen would probably say that over time the features (prestige, alumni networks, etc.) one conspicuously wastes to purchase become valued themselves. Now, no rational applicant (much less one from a state like CA with tempting in-state tuition options) really applies to law school with the stated goal of simply “an adequate legal education”. While it may have been useful to discuss it in these terms for Veblen’s argument, it is absolutely pointless in reality. The fact that the goal of an adequate legal education could be achieved at so many different schools means it is likely the other criteria that come to the fore in selecting a law school. [Responding to the original question and on a purely practical/realistic note, many of us who were considering CA schools for the in-state tuition have spent all of our lives in CA and many also chose to attend undergrad at CA public schools for much the same reason. So I wouldn’t underestimate the sheer draw of a new city/coast/people in people’s decisions to come to Columbia. (I was extremely close to going back to Berkeley for law school, but I considered it a kind of copout route, having already spent 4 years there, and with the knowledge that I was likely to end up back in CA. It was pretty much NYC now or probably never.)

-- EldonWright - 30 Mar 2009