DISCLAIMER: This is a "zero draft." It should only be read by a PATIENT person who wants to understand what I HONESTLY mean by what I say. (By the time this becomes a first draft, I won't even know what I mean by what I say.)

Goals for my paper:
tell a personal story about my recent disillusionment with law school that makes my classmates think of me as the good cop to Eben's bad cop, so that next year, they will continue to seek my expert opinion on why, setting aside the debt, they should not work at firms. [NB I cannot pose as an expert; I pose as a disillusioned person.]

NECESSARY things to address:
--> my hypocrisy ("stunts"), e.g. tension in me between justice and cynicism -- can anyone trust my language?
--> "If we wanted to do justice, why the hell did we take on all this debt? Justice delayed is justice denied." i.e. I strongly suspect Eben's message would have been more welcome last year at Admitted Students Week, but I tried it this year and got called dirty names.
--> "lawyers are interpreters -- memorizers of dictionaries; professors write the dictionaries." i.e. professors DEFINE justice, lawyers SIGNAL where it's at. (but that sounds specious -- perhaps the difference is the type of client and the cost structure. i.e. Tenure as the means to attain independence; publications as the way to attain prestige -- yes, it's a question of how each vocation signals-out its most prestigious members.)
--> MAKE THIS PAPER AS NON-EMPIRICAL AS POSSIBLE -- non-falsifiability is the key to not getting falsified -- tell people how I FEEL.

POSSIBLE contents of my paper:
1) INCORPORATE THE FACT THAT in the last 2 months, I have become disenchanted with the notion of becoming a lawyer, because I don't think a person who is talented (or capable of becoming talented) with words can maximize his power through law-school channels. (if we claim to be so capable, we should all be freelance writers. Lawyers cheat: they get a captive audience, and then they just need to be better than one other writer.) --> incidentally, do lawyers REALLY do anything special with words? We choose our clients and then we manage them. How's that different from any other professional? We just have a code of ethics -- but that's like saying we choose TWO clients: the bar association and whoever else we want. "A lawyer is a person who chooses his client, then does whatever the fuck he wants until he gets disbarred or fired."
2) Talk about the difficult dichotomies of justice v. power; justice v. prestige; justice v. utility; justice v. legitimacy ... sum up my version of functionalism here ... tell the story of my tort law gasket-blowout, where I "learned" that the terminology of case law and legal academia
3) Describe or demonstrate the concept of "sheep in wolf's clothing": e.g. Mother Theresa, the atheist pretending to be Christian; Peter Drucker, the Christian pretending to be secular. (WHY do I always have to write essays starting with the assumption that no one's heard of Peter Drucker? There are three people in this world I'm incapable of questioning: Darwin, William James, and Peter Drucker.) 4)