Thursday, June 19, 2008
[Gender] Politics Thursday!
Originally, I was going to post about criminal law issues in the 2008 elections. Then (in relation to another project) I had my ace research assistant, Kendall Cockrell, dig into the candidates' positions. He found some stuff from Obama, but nothing, really from McCain, even when he called their offices-- literally, it appears to be a non-issue in this election.
So, now I am on to Plan B, which promises to be a doozy. I do not take a position on this, but rather pose a question.
Going to Yale Law School was like getting the Golden Ticket to the Wonka factory. It made all kinds of things possible-- clerkships, teaching, a network of academics and judges-- and is a unique and powerful credential that opens many doors. One can fairly argue that those advantages are unearned (I largely agree with that argument), but it is indisputable that they exist.
There are a very limited number of those Golden Tickets-- about 130 a year or so. It is almost impossible to calculate its value, if one wants to change the world in the field of law (an expectation that was made clear to us from the first day of orientation).
Here's the thing, though: Many people get that Golden Ticket, cash it in, and then never use the education in the traditional way. Most of these people, though certainly not all, are women who finish law school and then decide (either immediately or after a few years) that they want to be stay-at-home moms. Many of these women never return to the work force.
This is not a phenomena limited to any one prestigious school. As the NY Times has reported, it is a trend at many elite schools. For example, for graduates of Harvard Business School out for 10-20 years, almost a third of the women do not work, and another third work part-time:
A 2001 survey of Harvard Business School graduates found that 31 percent of the women from the classes of 1981, 1985 and 1991 who answered the survey worked only part time or on contract, and another 31 percent did not work at all, levels strikingly similar to the percentages of the Yale students interviewed who predicted they would stay at home or work part time in their 30's and 40's.
In response to this trend, I have heard two basic responses:
1) People have the right to choose to do what they want, and an education is worthwhile regardless of how it is later put to use. Further, many highly-educated women and men contribute to society in other ways than through full-time work.
2) People who take a coveted spot for a specialized, elite education and then don't use that education are taking that spot from someone who would dearly love it and make use of it to more broadly benefit society. If you are going to be a stay-at-home mom, you don't need a graduate degree from Harvard or Yale.
I haven't heard anyone suggest that admissions standards or anything else systemic should change, but I have heard people suggest that there is something morally wrong with someone taking a coveted spot in a graduate program if they don't intend to use it in the working world.
What do you think?
Comments:
<< Home
Okay, I am trying really hard to put aside the feminist tirade in my head, in response to this outrageous post . . . for now I'll just make one point, about my years in admissions at UVA.
In that situation, there were 18000 applicants for about 5000 places. But for out-of-state students, it was more like 10-to-1 applicants for places.
My job was to advocate was students talented in the arts: drama, music, or visual arts. I would have the departments review the extra portfolios or tapes they submitted. I would then take the departments' recommendations for their most talented kids and advocate to the entire committee for acceptance of these kids, some of whom would not have been admitted without that talent.
In the cases where these kids were admitted and later came to UVA, neither admissions nor the drama department tracked them to see whether they actually participated in the activity in which they were talented, and which had helped them gain admission. Informally we did, but there was no written commitment expected of them or formal tracking of them.. They were there because of their own merit, and that was that.
Athletic departments--for recruited Div I athletes--are a different story, of course, but there are kids admitted all the time with particular talents who may or may not use those talents at the university, and who are taking a space from someone else who could've been admitted.
So by Osler's logic, Yale Law should extract a commitment from every one who enters that they will contribute to society in some way afterwards. I guess mothering the child--maybe of a fellow Yale Law grad-- doesn't count as contributing to society.
In that situation, there were 18000 applicants for about 5000 places. But for out-of-state students, it was more like 10-to-1 applicants for places.
My job was to advocate was students talented in the arts: drama, music, or visual arts. I would have the departments review the extra portfolios or tapes they submitted. I would then take the departments' recommendations for their most talented kids and advocate to the entire committee for acceptance of these kids, some of whom would not have been admitted without that talent.
In the cases where these kids were admitted and later came to UVA, neither admissions nor the drama department tracked them to see whether they actually participated in the activity in which they were talented, and which had helped them gain admission. Informally we did, but there was no written commitment expected of them or formal tracking of them.. They were there because of their own merit, and that was that.
Athletic departments--for recruited Div I athletes--are a different story, of course, but there are kids admitted all the time with particular talents who may or may not use those talents at the university, and who are taking a space from someone else who could've been admitted.
So by Osler's logic, Yale Law should extract a commitment from every one who enters that they will contribute to society in some way afterwards. I guess mothering the child--maybe of a fellow Yale Law grad-- doesn't count as contributing to society.
# posted by 
: 2:30 AM
: 2:30 AM
The problem (and here my third-wave feminist roots will show) is that there's no good way for defining "what women should do" without embracing an essentialist conception of femininity or womanhood.
Women ought to have the choice to be stay-at-home moms or career-holders... or both. Or neither. The second-wave focus on getting an education and career is in many respects the white, upper or middle class woman's dream. It doesn't speak to the real issues facing women for whom this is either not a possibility or not a desire, and so I can't, in good conscience, say that women should not be choosing to be stay-at-home moms and wives, even if a small part of me wants to stamp up and down and scream "false consciousness!"
Because, while there are undoubtedly some exemplars of false consciousness, I think that many women do--and should--make the choice to stay at home for personal reasons. Part of empowering women to fight off patriarchy means giving them that choice.
But I also think they should have the choice to seek out whatever level of education they want before making that choice. Being a stay-at-home mom is not a permanent condition, and when the kids are older she will be able to return to the public sphere armed with a graduate degree. And that's a good thing.
And, speaking as a student whose grades and efforts foreclosed him from many of the benefits that such things entail (like law review, clerkships, or even job offers), I will not begrudge these things to those that have worked for them. I respect and admire those with the ability and drive to succeed, mainly because I lack these qualities all too often.
Women ought to have the choice to be stay-at-home moms or career-holders... or both. Or neither. The second-wave focus on getting an education and career is in many respects the white, upper or middle class woman's dream. It doesn't speak to the real issues facing women for whom this is either not a possibility or not a desire, and so I can't, in good conscience, say that women should not be choosing to be stay-at-home moms and wives, even if a small part of me wants to stamp up and down and scream "false consciousness!"
Because, while there are undoubtedly some exemplars of false consciousness, I think that many women do--and should--make the choice to stay at home for personal reasons. Part of empowering women to fight off patriarchy means giving them that choice.
But I also think they should have the choice to seek out whatever level of education they want before making that choice. Being a stay-at-home mom is not a permanent condition, and when the kids are older she will be able to return to the public sphere armed with a graduate degree. And that's a good thing.
And, speaking as a student whose grades and efforts foreclosed him from many of the benefits that such things entail (like law review, clerkships, or even job offers), I will not begrudge these things to those that have worked for them. I respect and admire those with the ability and drive to succeed, mainly because I lack these qualities all too often.
Lane has a much more measured response than mine . . . I jumped very quickly at the mention of Position 2 in Osler's post.
I would say, again in response to Position 2, that there are all kinds of situations where people get a "golden ticket," not just at Virginia or at Yale Law. What about kids who grow up with great privilege? There are kids who grow up with wealth and privilege who go on to do great things with it, and there are also kids who squander it completely.
And--aside from novels where the prince and the pauper get switched and grow up in each other's households--in the real world, there's no way to guarantee someone won't make optimal use of what's given to them, or of what they have earned.
There's the Biblical parable warning against hiding your light under a bushel--i.e. not using your talents--but, aside from keeping women out of universities because they might stay home and have kids instead of using their law degree in a traditional way, there's no way to ensure people do what's ideally expected of them, in any situation.
Position 2 is a non-argument, in my mind, unless we want to be a very very different society indeed.
I would say, again in response to Position 2, that there are all kinds of situations where people get a "golden ticket," not just at Virginia or at Yale Law. What about kids who grow up with great privilege? There are kids who grow up with wealth and privilege who go on to do great things with it, and there are also kids who squander it completely.
And--aside from novels where the prince and the pauper get switched and grow up in each other's households--in the real world, there's no way to guarantee someone won't make optimal use of what's given to them, or of what they have earned.
There's the Biblical parable warning against hiding your light under a bushel--i.e. not using your talents--but, aside from keeping women out of universities because they might stay home and have kids instead of using their law degree in a traditional way, there's no way to ensure people do what's ideally expected of them, in any situation.
Position 2 is a non-argument, in my mind, unless we want to be a very very different society indeed.
# posted by : 5:57 AM
: 5:57 AM
Swissgirl--
Calling the post "outrageous" is ridiculous and makes feminists sound like lunatics. Osler didn't take a position, he just asked a question and posited two answers. It really hurts your cause when you say that just discussing something is "outrageous." It's a typical liberal line, too-- to simply rule some questions off limits as offensive.
Calling the post "outrageous" is ridiculous and makes feminists sound like lunatics. Osler didn't take a position, he just asked a question and posited two answers. It really hurts your cause when you say that just discussing something is "outrageous." It's a typical liberal line, too-- to simply rule some questions off limits as offensive.
# posted by : 9:10 AM
: 9:10 AM
Wow. Um...Here's my issue with Position #2 - it essentially means that I as a woman have to make that earth-shaking child/career/both/neither decision when I am 21, deciding to apply for law school, or I have forever cheated a man - who never has to make that decision in the same way that a woman does - out of his future? I'm not even close to making that decision at 26. I know it certainly never crossed my husband's mind to make that decision at 21; his biggest decision at 21 was what kind of beer to have with his cereal each morning. Nor apparently did it have to cross his mind, according to Position 2. But because I was born with ovaries, I have to force an irrevocable life decision at 21 and make myself, my husband, my potential children, and my potential clients deal with the consequences for the rest of my life?
I actually had a partner at one firm I was considering tell my HUSBAND (while he was recruiting me!) that women at law schools took up places that a good man could use, so I know the issue is so prevalent that people will actually say it out loud. But I also know that same partner extended an offer to me over any of the other (male) candidates, so I have got to think that women can have value to the legal field that can supersede such prejudice. I worked hard in school and I AM working hard to continue leaving all doors open for myself. There are things women can do to give themselves more options, like make themselves indispensable at work so that employers are more inclined to give them flexibility if one makes the decision later to have children. But the ability for women to make that decision must always be present if we want to have good mothers and good lawyers.
Like swissgirl, I am trying very hard not to be militant about this. But...dern. I think Position 2 is the kind of opinion that really doesn't merit discussion. Although I guess I just discussed it, haha.
I actually had a partner at one firm I was considering tell my HUSBAND (while he was recruiting me!) that women at law schools took up places that a good man could use, so I know the issue is so prevalent that people will actually say it out loud. But I also know that same partner extended an offer to me over any of the other (male) candidates, so I have got to think that women can have value to the legal field that can supersede such prejudice. I worked hard in school and I AM working hard to continue leaving all doors open for myself. There are things women can do to give themselves more options, like make themselves indispensable at work so that employers are more inclined to give them flexibility if one makes the decision later to have children. But the ability for women to make that decision must always be present if we want to have good mothers and good lawyers.
Like swissgirl, I am trying very hard not to be militant about this. But...dern. I think Position 2 is the kind of opinion that really doesn't merit discussion. Although I guess I just discussed it, haha.
# posted by : 9:16 AM
: 9:16 AM
OK, angry people, what about this-- it's a guy who is going to an elite law school, but he is from a wealthy family. He knows he won't practice law-- he will live off investments and take in stray animals. He hopes, also, to teach kids skiing. None of this will use his law school education. And, his taking that spot deprived admission to a deserving and hard-working female.
Also, why do you assume Ms. Stay-at-home mom is depriving a male of admission? It's more likely she is depriving another woman (and one who is likely to use that degree), since most grad students now are women.
Also, why do you assume Ms. Stay-at-home mom is depriving a male of admission? It's more likely she is depriving another woman (and one who is likely to use that degree), since most grad students now are women.
# posted by : 10:18 AM
: 10:18 AM
Is that woman in the picture vacuuming her baby at the same time she cooks a turkey and stirs soup? That's pretty impressive, if so.
# posted by : 10:30 AM
: 10:30 AM
Anon 8:10: I think I admitted in my second post that I jumped in too quickly, at the mere mention that women should stay out of law school if they're not going to use their education. I apologize to Osler for mis-characterizing Position 2 as his own; I reacted too quickly without reading completely.
And okay, I will take the general point that liberals might sometimes dismiss issues as not having merit, out of fear of talking about them.
As I said in my second post, I don't think this is an issue for which there's a solution, or even really two sides in the society we live in, unless we can stop over-valuing, disproportionally, some universities' education over others.
And okay, I will take the general point that liberals might sometimes dismiss issues as not having merit, out of fear of talking about them.
As I said in my second post, I don't think this is an issue for which there's a solution, or even really two sides in the society we live in, unless we can stop over-valuing, disproportionally, some universities' education over others.
# posted by : 10:54 AM
: 10:54 AM
I think Jen's point is a really good one-- most 21-year-olds don't know what will happen next.
Where is RRL? We need an opposing viewpoint here, and he always seems up for that.
Where is RRL? We need an opposing viewpoint here, and he always seems up for that.
@swissgirl: I read Osler’s post as a moral musing and not an articulated policy recommendation and I tend to think confusing the two muddles the issue rather than advances it. (To explain, a discussion about whether looking at pornography in the privacy of your own home is wrong is different in kind than one centered on whether a regulation of such an action is consistent or possible under privacy laws).
@lane: As I see it, option (2) is really just a question about whether there should certain societal consequences for someone exercising individual wants and desires. Your point is totally focused on why individual choice is good and gives no time to interplay.
Let’s say the following happens: I walk into the store with a person (let’s call them person A) and mention that I’m really thirty and I want a diet coke. Person A hears me, gets to the soda refrigerator first, and then buys the last diet coke. He then goes outside and pours the newly purchased soft drink on the ground. Am I justified in thinking that the person is a bit of a jerk, or do I have to humbly mumble something about how well they exercised their individual rights?
@jjs: First, you don’t need to make the choice at 21. I seem to remember a ton of people who went and did something else before going to law school. Also, I think you are concerned with a different problem than (2) presents. They evil is not that a woman will get her degree, use if for a while, have kids and take some time off, and then go back to using it. Rather it’s that she will get a degree, maybe use it for a year, and then never use it. I don’t think it is unreasonable to view the latter case negatively (just as you would view the son of privilege who chooses not to use his degree), and wonder if they next person on the waiting list would have been a better choice for society.
@lane: As I see it, option (2) is really just a question about whether there should certain societal consequences for someone exercising individual wants and desires. Your point is totally focused on why individual choice is good and gives no time to interplay.
Let’s say the following happens: I walk into the store with a person (let’s call them person A) and mention that I’m really thirty and I want a diet coke. Person A hears me, gets to the soda refrigerator first, and then buys the last diet coke. He then goes outside and pours the newly purchased soft drink on the ground. Am I justified in thinking that the person is a bit of a jerk, or do I have to humbly mumble something about how well they exercised their individual rights?
@jjs: First, you don’t need to make the choice at 21. I seem to remember a ton of people who went and did something else before going to law school. Also, I think you are concerned with a different problem than (2) presents. They evil is not that a woman will get her degree, use if for a while, have kids and take some time off, and then go back to using it. Rather it’s that she will get a degree, maybe use it for a year, and then never use it. I don’t think it is unreasonable to view the latter case negatively (just as you would view the son of privilege who chooses not to use his degree), and wonder if they next person on the waiting list would have been a better choice for society.
# posted by : 11:06 AM
: 11:06 AM
Oh, and Swissgirl--
You suggest facetiously that Yale Law "should extract a commitment from every one who enters that they will contribute to society in some way afterwards."
Believe me, they did exactly that, from orientation on forwards, repeatedly. We knew that we were expected to be accomplished in the field of law.
In our orientation here at Baylor, I have asked for the same commitment from our students, something I first saw Bill Underwood do as he challenged them in orientation.
You suggest facetiously that Yale Law "should extract a commitment from every one who enters that they will contribute to society in some way afterwards."
Believe me, they did exactly that, from orientation on forwards, repeatedly. We knew that we were expected to be accomplished in the field of law.
In our orientation here at Baylor, I have asked for the same commitment from our students, something I first saw Bill Underwood do as he challenged them in orientation.
Dearest Osler,
Have you considered the bias informing the way you are framing this issue? Why is it that raising children is less valuable than bilking clients of billions of dollars as an obscenely well-paid, Yale-trained attorney?
Have you considered the bias informing the way you are framing this issue? Why is it that raising children is less valuable than bilking clients of billions of dollars as an obscenely well-paid, Yale-trained attorney?
# posted by : 11:11 AM
: 11:11 AM
@Anon 10:11: Just because someone is doing something important does not mean that every act that they take is sanctified.
I think being a mother is important, but I tend to think getting a j.d. (and charging 100K worth of debt to someone) is a little stupid and wasteful if you all you want to be is a mother.
I think being a mother is important, but I tend to think getting a j.d. (and charging 100K worth of debt to someone) is a little stupid and wasteful if you all you want to be is a mother.
# posted by : 11:21 AM
: 11:21 AM
I have women who went to graduate school (not Yale Law, lol) to find a good husband. Given what they wanted, it seemed like a decent strategy. It's easier to meet people while you are school, grad students are generally more smart/interesting than undergrads, they're older and maybe more interested in a long-term relationship, also likely to be better providers over time. I always felt like those women where there under false pretenses, though. I never thought about somebody getting rejected because they took a slot, but it bugged me that I had to work with people who weren't as committed to the common purpose of our program.
Don't see a problem with people keeping their options open or changing their minds, but the few who consciously take a spot at a top program without intending to use what they learn or to advance the common purposes of the program deserve to be criticized as selfish and deceptive (I'm sure they didn't tell the admissions folks they just wanted an Mrs. Degree). But I think that's true of anyone who intentionally wastes an opportunity like the "golden ticket." I used to tell prospectives not to come to Baylor Law unless they wanted to be a practicing atty.
-Joe
Don't see a problem with people keeping their options open or changing their minds, but the few who consciously take a spot at a top program without intending to use what they learn or to advance the common purposes of the program deserve to be criticized as selfish and deceptive (I'm sure they didn't tell the admissions folks they just wanted an Mrs. Degree). But I think that's true of anyone who intentionally wastes an opportunity like the "golden ticket." I used to tell prospectives not to come to Baylor Law unless they wanted to be a practicing atty.
-Joe
# posted by : 11:26 AM
: 11:26 AM
I have no problem with women (or men) who get golden ticket degrees from Yale or the other Ivies or other top notch schools, but then don't practice law, or work in the business world if they got an MBA or don't "work" at all.
Is there a difference between a Yale Law grad who is a stay at home Mom and a Yale Law Grad who chucks it all to become a writer or ski instructor?
In my view society actually benefits if Yale Law Grads or Harvard MBAs etc. become stay at home Moms. Educated mothers are likely to produce curious and creative children. And women with that kind of smarts and energy are likely to really put those assets to work as mothers. Educated people, women and men, are also likely to contribute to their communities by organizing play groups, joining the PTA, being volunteers in Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc.
Is there a difference between a Yale Law grad who is a stay at home Mom and a Yale Law Grad who chucks it all to become a writer or ski instructor?
In my view society actually benefits if Yale Law Grads or Harvard MBAs etc. become stay at home Moms. Educated mothers are likely to produce curious and creative children. And women with that kind of smarts and energy are likely to really put those assets to work as mothers. Educated people, women and men, are also likely to contribute to their communities by organizing play groups, joining the PTA, being volunteers in Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc.
# posted by : 11:39 AM
: 11:39 AM
10:11--
Bilking clients is not a social good, and probably neither Baylor or Yale trained anyone to do that.
I don't think anyone is saying there is not social value in raising kids, just that you don't need to have been to law school to do that.
Bilking clients is not a social good, and probably neither Baylor or Yale trained anyone to do that.
I don't think anyone is saying there is not social value in raising kids, just that you don't need to have been to law school to do that.
# posted by : 11:53 AM
: 11:53 AM
That lady in the picture should answer the phone, too. It's ringing. It is a law firm telling her they won't hire her because she has been out of the working world for too long.
# posted by : 12:10 PM
: 12:10 PM
Osler, I'm here for you!!!!
First, I'm not sure I would call this an opposing viewpoint because I'm all for women doing whatever they want. Go to school, don't go to school, have babies, don't have babies, start a rock band....whatever.
Some selected quotes I liked:
"Part of empowering women to fight off patriarchy means giving them that choice."
I guess part of empowering women is also letting them know that whatever power they have is given to them. If we have to give them choices can we also take them away??
"makes feminists sound like lunatics."
Nope, this one is too easy....
"I think being a mother is important, but I tend to think getting a j.d. (and charging 100K worth of debt to someone) is a little stupid and wasteful if you all you want to be is a mother."
Ummm, "if all you want to be is a mother"....seriously....now I understand why all the female comments are so angry.
Look, what bothers me is the one-sided nature of this discussion. Women should be able to make choices. If they want to work great. If they want to become mothers fantastic. We all seem to agree about that. What bothers me is that the schools and law firms don't get to have the same freedom. A firm can't even ask you about your desire to have children when they consider hiring you. A woman can work for 5-10 years and then squander the investment the firm made in her by leaving to become a mother (not that there is anything wrong with that), but the firm can't do anything on the front end to protect itself. Why shouldn't that be a consideration in admitting someone to lawschool? Or hiring them at a law firm?
I'm all for women doing whatever they want. But I think when we act as though those choices should be incubated from the real world consequences it is a bit childish and naive. As a man, if I choose to dye my hair green and pierce my forehead, I may get fired. And if they ask me in an interview if I'm prone to do such things I wouldn't be able to sue them for not hiring me. Why should choosing to have a child be treated any differently??
First, I'm not sure I would call this an opposing viewpoint because I'm all for women doing whatever they want. Go to school, don't go to school, have babies, don't have babies, start a rock band....whatever.
Some selected quotes I liked:
"Part of empowering women to fight off patriarchy means giving them that choice."
I guess part of empowering women is also letting them know that whatever power they have is given to them. If we have to give them choices can we also take them away??
"makes feminists sound like lunatics."
Nope, this one is too easy....
"I think being a mother is important, but I tend to think getting a j.d. (and charging 100K worth of debt to someone) is a little stupid and wasteful if you all you want to be is a mother."
Ummm, "if all you want to be is a mother"....seriously....now I understand why all the female comments are so angry.
Look, what bothers me is the one-sided nature of this discussion. Women should be able to make choices. If they want to work great. If they want to become mothers fantastic. We all seem to agree about that. What bothers me is that the schools and law firms don't get to have the same freedom. A firm can't even ask you about your desire to have children when they consider hiring you. A woman can work for 5-10 years and then squander the investment the firm made in her by leaving to become a mother (not that there is anything wrong with that), but the firm can't do anything on the front end to protect itself. Why shouldn't that be a consideration in admitting someone to lawschool? Or hiring them at a law firm?
I'm all for women doing whatever they want. But I think when we act as though those choices should be incubated from the real world consequences it is a bit childish and naive. As a man, if I choose to dye my hair green and pierce my forehead, I may get fired. And if they ask me in an interview if I'm prone to do such things I wouldn't be able to sue them for not hiring me. Why should choosing to have a child be treated any differently??
# posted by : 12:33 PM
: 12:33 PM
good point rrl.
With "just" I meant to communicate that a focus was soley on motherhood (as opposed to mother/lawyer/indian chief)and not that it was a lesser career plateau.
Poor word choice.
sorry if I offended.
btw
With "just" I meant to communicate that a focus was soley on motherhood (as opposed to mother/lawyer/indian chief)and not that it was a lesser career plateau.
Poor word choice.
sorry if I offended.
btw
# posted by : 1:46 PM
: 1:46 PM
Such an interesting topic...
I went to Yale undergrad and earned a secondary education teaching certificate from there - From friends, parents, and family alike, I heard all too often "If all you want to be is a teacher, you didn't need to go to Yale." (Now, of course I ended up in law school, but those comments aren't the reason.)
I agree that you don't need to go to Yale to be a teacher or Yale Law to be a stay-at-home mom, but if you do, more power to you. You may teach a student or raise a child that grows up to be President, or something else really great.
Now, no part of me agrees with wasting your education, but just because you do not practice law at a top-notch firm, that does not mean that you are wasting your education. Raising kids is a challenge - a little extra education can't hurt you as a mom.
So... if someone is qualified enough to get into Yale Law or Harvard Law, let them in without requiring a commitment to practice law.
I went to Yale undergrad and earned a secondary education teaching certificate from there - From friends, parents, and family alike, I heard all too often "If all you want to be is a teacher, you didn't need to go to Yale." (Now, of course I ended up in law school, but those comments aren't the reason.)
I agree that you don't need to go to Yale to be a teacher or Yale Law to be a stay-at-home mom, but if you do, more power to you. You may teach a student or raise a child that grows up to be President, or something else really great.
Now, no part of me agrees with wasting your education, but just because you do not practice law at a top-notch firm, that does not mean that you are wasting your education. Raising kids is a challenge - a little extra education can't hurt you as a mom.
So... if someone is qualified enough to get into Yale Law or Harvard Law, let them in without requiring a commitment to practice law.
# posted by : 2:25 PM
: 2:25 PM
Anon 1:25--
I think the reality is that the woman who does that is self-indulgent. Harvard Law makes you a better mom? I doubt it. It's actually arguable that it would even make you a better lawyer.
I think the reality is that the woman who does that is self-indulgent. Harvard Law makes you a better mom? I doubt it. It's actually arguable that it would even make you a better lawyer.
# posted by : 3:45 PM
: 3:45 PM
I always believed that there was value in having an educated society. The "golden tickets" given out by various prestigious universities around the country may give people the opportunity and resources to do great things, but a free society demands that those people have an opportunity to do whatever they choose. I don't think that its a waste, because I'm positive that an education at Yale does far more than teach law or create contacts. I'm also positive that a stay-at-home mom does far more with her time than simply stay-at-home.
That mother is a role model for everyone she comes in contact with. She is a coach, a mentor, and an educator for her child. While she may not turn out to be John Marshall, her child very well might. Who knows where that same child would be without the guidance that the mother (shaped by her experiences at Yale) provided. A law degree, to me, is so much more than a mandate to practice law. I can't believe that Yale graduates feel any differently (Osler, correct me if I'm wrong).
All that to say while legal academia and practice may not benefit from a stay-at-home mom's experience at Yale, society is benefited greatly. Any other system mandating graduates to practice, would not only be reprehensible to my sense of freedom, but it would rob society of those many perhaps under appreciated benefits flowing from those who chose the road less traveled.
Love,
Matt
That mother is a role model for everyone she comes in contact with. She is a coach, a mentor, and an educator for her child. While she may not turn out to be John Marshall, her child very well might. Who knows where that same child would be without the guidance that the mother (shaped by her experiences at Yale) provided. A law degree, to me, is so much more than a mandate to practice law. I can't believe that Yale graduates feel any differently (Osler, correct me if I'm wrong).
All that to say while legal academia and practice may not benefit from a stay-at-home mom's experience at Yale, society is benefited greatly. Any other system mandating graduates to practice, would not only be reprehensible to my sense of freedom, but it would rob society of those many perhaps under appreciated benefits flowing from those who chose the road less traveled.
Love,
Matt
# posted by : 3:56 PM
: 3:56 PM
It's interesting that so many people here are dealing with this as if the issue is external control-- that is, the issue of stopping people from going to an elite law school unless they commit to actually practice law. The question was originally posed as internal control-- is that a moral choice for the person to make, if they aren't going to use the education.
It's a harder question.
It's a harder question.
# posted by : 4:57 PM
: 4:57 PM
I'm here on full scholarship, I got out of my hometown (which is really all I ever wanted to do), I have no idea what I want to do after law school (practice? clerk? teach? raise kids? a little from column A,B,C,D and maybe an unexpected E too??), and I am comfortable with that. I don't wake up every morning feeling guilty for getting my spot here without being 100% certain that I will change the world. I earned my way here, and that's enough for me right now.
I don't think a lot of people go to law school thinking "I'm never going to practice, I just want to stay home with my kids"--going through the hell of law school wouldn't be worth it. I think for a lot of these women (and men) who end up not "using" their education in the traditional sense, it was less a concious choice and more how the cookie crumbled.
Women are put in an awkward position, particularly well educated women. If we choose to stay home with our kids, we're wasting the "gift" of our education. If we choose to go to work full time and leave our kids with a sitter/nanny/etc, we're not real mothers, and if our kids turn out deficient or delinquent in any way, well it serves us right for "abandoning" them. And if we just plain don't have kids...well...that's a whole other can of worms.
I don't think a lot of people go to law school thinking "I'm never going to practice, I just want to stay home with my kids"--going through the hell of law school wouldn't be worth it. I think for a lot of these women (and men) who end up not "using" their education in the traditional sense, it was less a concious choice and more how the cookie crumbled.
Women are put in an awkward position, particularly well educated women. If we choose to stay home with our kids, we're wasting the "gift" of our education. If we choose to go to work full time and leave our kids with a sitter/nanny/etc, we're not real mothers, and if our kids turn out deficient or delinquent in any way, well it serves us right for "abandoning" them. And if we just plain don't have kids...well...that's a whole other can of worms.
A guarantee is what is missing in this discussion; what we have are infertility, death, divorce, trauma, tragedy and don't forget mid life, etc. Life is messy and seldom can be plotted accurately. I vote for getting/giving/taking all the opportunities that you aspire to and see what shakes out. I do not believe that my husband, daughter or son would have ever disliked having a more educated mother (excepting the debate skills).
# posted by : 7:48 PM
: 7:48 PM
I can hear the groans already when I begin to type my comment to this post but here is what my experience has been:
I did not want children, and I did not intend to have any, until, at age 39, I found myself pregnant, and it was WAY beyond any time that I might ever think about termination, legally or NOT. I hated every minute of pregnancy and I was convinced I would be the worst mother on Earth. Even after having Spencer I was not convinced I was cut out for motherhood but somewhere along the way I think I was crazy not to have done this earlier. Maybe it was because after you have the kid is there really a choice? I mean its not like I could send him back so MAYBE this is a massive rationalization.... However, I reallly really love being this kid's mom, and I did not even want to do it. Maybe that is because I was older, or my body somehow tricked me into it I don't know, but it might be the best thing I have ever done.
However I DID NOT know this when I was 20, or 30 or 35.... Not even after I had him did I realize this.
So the point is, maybe these women really did intend to change the world with their Law Degree, but then they just discovered that being a mom is really great and they gave it all up to do only that.
Honestly, I find it unbearable at times to be ONLY a mom. You need SOMETHING else to do besides that...even if its just obsessing about an exploded house. In the beginning it was just a mind numbing routine of diapers and formula and Costco and Target, with a little BOOBAH and Baby Einstein thrown in... I was seriously losing my mind, but now he is so much fun...
However, when he is a teenager, I think I may be ready to work full time again.
SO you do not always know what you want, women do not know, nor do men... Maybe a guy would stay home with his kids and give up a Law Degree too.
Everyone should be able to go to whatever school they get into.
I did not want children, and I did not intend to have any, until, at age 39, I found myself pregnant, and it was WAY beyond any time that I might ever think about termination, legally or NOT. I hated every minute of pregnancy and I was convinced I would be the worst mother on Earth. Even after having Spencer I was not convinced I was cut out for motherhood but somewhere along the way I think I was crazy not to have done this earlier. Maybe it was because after you have the kid is there really a choice? I mean its not like I could send him back so MAYBE this is a massive rationalization.... However, I reallly really love being this kid's mom, and I did not even want to do it. Maybe that is because I was older, or my body somehow tricked me into it I don't know, but it might be the best thing I have ever done.
However I DID NOT know this when I was 20, or 30 or 35.... Not even after I had him did I realize this.
So the point is, maybe these women really did intend to change the world with their Law Degree, but then they just discovered that being a mom is really great and they gave it all up to do only that.
Honestly, I find it unbearable at times to be ONLY a mom. You need SOMETHING else to do besides that...even if its just obsessing about an exploded house. In the beginning it was just a mind numbing routine of diapers and formula and Costco and Target, with a little BOOBAH and Baby Einstein thrown in... I was seriously losing my mind, but now he is so much fun...
However, when he is a teenager, I think I may be ready to work full time again.
SO you do not always know what you want, women do not know, nor do men... Maybe a guy would stay home with his kids and give up a Law Degree too.
Everyone should be able to go to whatever school they get into.
P.S.
A LOT of people not just women raising kids, go to Law School and never use their Law Degrees. I mean ALL KINDS of people do this all the time.
Also, It might be true that a woman would go to Law School to get her MRS. Degree, but that seems like an awful lot of work just to meet a cool guy.... seriously... I mean people go to ALBION to get their MRS. Degree, but not to LAW SCHOOL, do they? If so, that is insane...
A LOT of people not just women raising kids, go to Law School and never use their Law Degrees. I mean ALL KINDS of people do this all the time.
Also, It might be true that a woman would go to Law School to get her MRS. Degree, but that seems like an awful lot of work just to meet a cool guy.... seriously... I mean people go to ALBION to get their MRS. Degree, but not to LAW SCHOOL, do they? If so, that is insane...
@back to work...
The way I see it, there shouldn't be consequences to the choice. I don't think, for example, that a consequence of going to law school should be the denial of starting one's own family to women. Nor do I think that we should penalize women for making either choice (e.g., it shouldn't be expected that everyone grow up, get married and have babies, as my mother would say).
@rrl:
The one-sidedness of the debate is perhaps appropriate. Given the relative difference in status and power (individual person versus big law firm / big company?) perhaps legal safeguards for women are appropriate. Certainly I wouldn't want a woman penalized for having a family. If the worry is that she won't be able to dedicate the time to work that a childless person would, well, then that is something to be assessed after viewing her performance, not judged against her beforehand. After all, it is not just women who might be tempted to put other concerns before work: I would hope that fathers are equally as motivated, or spouses/partners to each other, or children to their parents. I doubt any firm truly wants a bunch of ruthless sharks with no attachments.
And as for the green hair and forehead piercing (ow!), that's a conscious choice that one has to make, and easily remedied by a razor or a bandage and some antiseptic. Changing one's decision to have a family is a different proposition altogether.
The way I see it, there shouldn't be consequences to the choice. I don't think, for example, that a consequence of going to law school should be the denial of starting one's own family to women. Nor do I think that we should penalize women for making either choice (e.g., it shouldn't be expected that everyone grow up, get married and have babies, as my mother would say).
@rrl:
The one-sidedness of the debate is perhaps appropriate. Given the relative difference in status and power (individual person versus big law firm / big company?) perhaps legal safeguards for women are appropriate. Certainly I wouldn't want a woman penalized for having a family. If the worry is that she won't be able to dedicate the time to work that a childless person would, well, then that is something to be assessed after viewing her performance, not judged against her beforehand. After all, it is not just women who might be tempted to put other concerns before work: I would hope that fathers are equally as motivated, or spouses/partners to each other, or children to their parents. I doubt any firm truly wants a bunch of ruthless sharks with no attachments.
And as for the green hair and forehead piercing (ow!), that's a conscious choice that one has to make, and easily remedied by a razor or a bandage and some antiseptic. Changing one's decision to have a family is a different proposition altogether.
@lane: Do you think a person should be allowed make choices without considering the effect that those choices have on others and the community?
If so, how is that community sustainable?
If not, then how do you square this answer with your position that ". . . there shouldn't be consequences to the choice?" Even if there aren't hard societal consequences (i.e. law firms not hiring), shouldn't someone at least feel guilt if they do an act that is a minor good for them, but a major disservice to the community as a whole?
(Also, please save the invective, I'm not saying starting a family falls into the latter category, it's me playing with an idea.).
If so, how is that community sustainable?
If not, then how do you square this answer with your position that ". . . there shouldn't be consequences to the choice?" Even if there aren't hard societal consequences (i.e. law firms not hiring), shouldn't someone at least feel guilt if they do an act that is a minor good for them, but a major disservice to the community as a whole?
(Also, please save the invective, I'm not saying starting a family falls into the latter category, it's me playing with an idea.).
# posted by : 12:58 AM
: 12:58 AM
@Done with work:
I'm sorry if something I've said could be classified as invective. I mean nothing to be offensive, though I am occasionally unconsciously insensitive. My apologies.
As for your question, some things ought to have societal consequences (crimes, for example). Other things ought not. My position is thus: if we allow, as RRL suggested, law firms to protect themselves at the front end by screening out candidates they believe do not fit a set of criteria (like will devote more time to family life instead of work) then we judge all people according to a baseless stereotype, that it is impossible for one to be both a diligent worker and a good parent/spouse. By saying that law firms could discriminate in such a way against potential mothers, I think, would force women to make a choice that traditionally they've had to: be a working woman or a soccer mom. These are gender roles I think we ought to reject, and if one way of societally rejecting them is to protect women from just that sort of discrimination by law, then I'm all for such a law.
Similarly, we don't ask the questions in this post of men -- men are never expected to choose between career and fatherhood, because the accepted gender role is of distant father who works hard to provide for his children. Neither my father nor my stepfather was such to me, and I think that the fathers reading this will agree: they love their children every bit as much as the mothers, and are just as integral to the children's development.
So, if at the education stage of her life, a young woman chooses to go to graduate or law school, I don't think that such a choice should determine what she should do later in life. Even in the circumstance where she knows, ultimately, that she will not use her law degree because she will be a stay-at-home mom, she earned that spot and has a right to it. I think if we place the burden of merit on such external considerations as use, we tend to see things in a sterile, utilitarian fashion, asking what good they can do, rather than what good they are. And the deontologist in me rejects such a worldview.
I'm sorry if something I've said could be classified as invective. I mean nothing to be offensive, though I am occasionally unconsciously insensitive. My apologies.
As for your question, some things ought to have societal consequences (crimes, for example). Other things ought not. My position is thus: if we allow, as RRL suggested, law firms to protect themselves at the front end by screening out candidates they believe do not fit a set of criteria (like will devote more time to family life instead of work) then we judge all people according to a baseless stereotype, that it is impossible for one to be both a diligent worker and a good parent/spouse. By saying that law firms could discriminate in such a way against potential mothers, I think, would force women to make a choice that traditionally they've had to: be a working woman or a soccer mom. These are gender roles I think we ought to reject, and if one way of societally rejecting them is to protect women from just that sort of discrimination by law, then I'm all for such a law.
Similarly, we don't ask the questions in this post of men -- men are never expected to choose between career and fatherhood, because the accepted gender role is of distant father who works hard to provide for his children. Neither my father nor my stepfather was such to me, and I think that the fathers reading this will agree: they love their children every bit as much as the mothers, and are just as integral to the children's development.
So, if at the education stage of her life, a young woman chooses to go to graduate or law school, I don't think that such a choice should determine what she should do later in life. Even in the circumstance where she knows, ultimately, that she will not use her law degree because she will be a stay-at-home mom, she earned that spot and has a right to it. I think if we place the burden of merit on such external considerations as use, we tend to see things in a sterile, utilitarian fashion, asking what good they can do, rather than what good they are. And the deontologist in me rejects such a worldview.
lane: The invective comment was not directed at you. I was concerned that my alternative follow-up question could be misinterpreted.
As for the rest. Eh. Look, you like individuals and I'm a sterile utilitarian. I imagine if we were both to hear a pianist play a single note, you would gape at the beauty of the act, while I would chew my lip and wonder about how that note fits into the larger symphony. Frankly, I don't think we will convince each other on this one.
However, I do have a question: what is/are the virtue(s) achieved by rejecting traditional gender roles?
As for the rest. Eh. Look, you like individuals and I'm a sterile utilitarian. I imagine if we were both to hear a pianist play a single note, you would gape at the beauty of the act, while I would chew my lip and wonder about how that note fits into the larger symphony. Frankly, I don't think we will convince each other on this one.
However, I do have a question: what is/are the virtue(s) achieved by rejecting traditional gender roles?
# posted by : 2:50 AM
: 2:50 AM
Sleep Now--
I'm sure Lane will get back to you, too (and you should check out the latest post on his blog, Citizen Lane, but I want to answer your question about the virtue of rejecting traditional gender roles.
I think the traditional Mommy at home/Daddy at work gender roles are troubling. In part, they are rooted in biology, at least until men can give birth and nurse. However, that expectation also places incredible limits on half the population, and that hurts them and all of us. The nation's economy has prospered over the past 50 years in large part because of productivity gains as women enter the work force in greater numbers.
I'm sure Lane will get back to you, too (and you should check out the latest post on his blog, Citizen Lane, but I want to answer your question about the virtue of rejecting traditional gender roles.
I think the traditional Mommy at home/Daddy at work gender roles are troubling. In part, they are rooted in biology, at least until men can give birth and nurse. However, that expectation also places incredible limits on half the population, and that hurts them and all of us. The nation's economy has prospered over the past 50 years in large part because of productivity gains as women enter the work force in greater numbers.
Indeed he will, now that he is back from his summary judgment hearings! Also, the link is Citizen-Lane, with the hyphen. Someone stole the unhyphenated one and then never developed it. I would like to adversely possess it, but can't for the life of me figure out how.
Echoing what Prof. Osler said, strict gender roles were harmful to society because they kept a whole lot of capable people from being full participants. I'm a big fan of democracy and doing things democratically, by considering all viewpoints. And as tolerant and open-minded as I'd like to think myself, I just can't see what the world is like through a woman's eyes. I don't have that lived experience of being female, and so if I don't ask for input from women on smart decisions, I'm foreclosing an important source of insight.
But more than that, the gender roles we've observed the world over have been for the subjugation and oppression of women. Intrinsically, I think that anything that seeks to determine a person's fate or path in life based on things like sex, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. is fundamentally flawed and injurious to the human spirit.
Echoing what Prof. Osler said, strict gender roles were harmful to society because they kept a whole lot of capable people from being full participants. I'm a big fan of democracy and doing things democratically, by considering all viewpoints. And as tolerant and open-minded as I'd like to think myself, I just can't see what the world is like through a woman's eyes. I don't have that lived experience of being female, and so if I don't ask for input from women on smart decisions, I'm foreclosing an important source of insight.
But more than that, the gender roles we've observed the world over have been for the subjugation and oppression of women. Intrinsically, I think that anything that seeks to determine a person's fate or path in life based on things like sex, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. is fundamentally flawed and injurious to the human spirit.
I think what a person does with their degree after getting it should be held against them after-the-fact. Most people, men included, don't know what they will do with a given degree after they have it or even if that degree is the right choice for them. There are plenty of people in the world with law degrees who are FBI agents or public school teachers or non-profit managers that don't 'use' their degree, but have opted to do other work instead.
Does that mean they shouldn't have been let in to law school? No. Their legal training continues to filter down to the rest of society. Those children of the ivy-trained women should, statistically, benefit from their mothers' education. And these days, many women are returning to the work force after thier children leave home, either to bolster retirement income or because they're bored with the kids out of the house.
So, yeah. Just because a degree earner is idle doesn't mean that they shouldn't have had the opportunity to get said degree.
Post a Comment
Does that mean they shouldn't have been let in to law school? No. Their legal training continues to filter down to the rest of society. Those children of the ivy-trained women should, statistically, benefit from their mothers' education. And these days, many women are returning to the work force after thier children leave home, either to bolster retirement income or because they're bored with the kids out of the house.
So, yeah. Just because a degree earner is idle doesn't mean that they shouldn't have had the opportunity to get said degree.
<< Home
