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

The thread seems to be fracturing into different topics but I'll leave the re-org to someone else more wiki-competent than I.

As I understand Eben's message, he's cautioning us against complacency and adopting career goals that have been enticingly laid out before us (prestigious firm job, SCOTUS clerkship), as opposed to those borne out of serious introspection and innovation. In some sense, I believe Eben's asking us to drown out the 'job-recruiting noise' and think seriously about who we want to be (an image that is personal to us) and pursue it with passion, as opposed to embracing the blueprint that law school imposes on us. Doing otherwise will only lead to conformity and disappointment:

You will become something you can envision as opposed to something you want to be.

Responding to Melissa's original post, I certainly am happy to be at Columbia Law, but the comment I made a few weeks ago arose from a specific instance at a reception event in which I observed a fellow 1L glorifying Columbia's public interest focus to an admit. Hyperbole and pandering aside, what bothered me most about the whole sequence was that the admit knew exactly what answer to expect and the student knew exactly what answer to give - the whole thing reeked of a con. Realizing that I myself, first as an admit and later as a student, was perpetuating the same script made me feel a bit disturbed, so I generally try to avoid such inquiries when talking to admits. Instead of telling the admits about things (in other words, PUBLIC INTEREST) they probably can't understand or be interested in until they actually interface with the law, I generally try to let my happiness with Columbia shine through. If anything, the approach makes me feel less like a conman.

-- YoungKim - 30 Mar 2009

Sidenote - I have created a new topic for discussing Eben's quote of on Reality and Image, as my comments would be off-topic here.

-- TheodorBruening - 28 Mar 2009

Sure, some students may receive grants from Columbia. But pointing out the exception doesn't help much; it might, in fact, strengthen the opposing position by admitting the general applicability of the initial proposition.

Indeed, there are no California schools in New York. But there are no New York schools in California either. UC-Boalt has its own unique alumni network and traditions as well. If we define admitted students' needs to be (1) attend an Upper West Side law school and (2) have connections to Columbia alumni, then yes they are getting exactly what they require. But the initial proposition indicates that future law students only need a good legal education. By purchasing a CLS degree, therefore, they conspicuously waste. I suppose there is room for argument as to whether attending school in NYC and being with over-achievers provides a better legal education than at Boalt.

But more importantly, assuming that students want to have powerful alumni connections, be in NYC, etc., I believe you actually validate Eben's comment. The reason that students want those features, originally, is that they demonstrate prowess and superiority over peers. In time, Veblen would say, the features themselves become highly valued, even though they do not meet the original need (receiving an adequate legal education).

-- KeithEdelman - 28 Mar 2009