MAKING ELITE LAWYERS: VISIONS OF LAW AT HARVARD AND BEYOND

One Comment

1. Peter Jaworski
   Posted March 4, 2010 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

   Robert Granfield’s ‘Making Elite Lawyers’ is an opportunity for the rest of us to peel back the layers of elite law schools and take a peek from a far-from-sycophantic vantage point.

   Granfield’s interest in this book is finding out the subtle underpinnings of the law school that lead, in his eyes, to an output that is surprising in its homogeneity. The argument is that heterogeneous people go into law school and, through its various methods–both sanctioned by the curriculum, like the Langdellian case method, for instance, and subtle social pressures, like the necessity to speak a jargon-riddled, highbrow English–pop out more or less homogenous. They go in with various goals, and come out with a yearning passion to, uhm, work at the biggest corporate law firm, make the most dollars, and be a general corporate cog in the vast machine.

   Granfield’s various theses on this topic are powerful and adroit. Marxian in its orientation, Granfield makes full use of the various currents that run at the elite law schools, showing that what seem like divergent rivers and streams are, in fact, part of a broader, similar stream. There is something to be disconcerted about, to be sure, and Granfield makes you a bit uncomfortable by the ramifications on those who wish to ‘change the world’ rather than ‘file piece of paper ‘a’ in drawer 2′.

   A note about the assumptions: For one, Granfield views ‘change the world’ types as universally left-wing. It appears as if Granfield does not think a non-left winger, never mind a conservative(!), would want to make radical changes to the economic or social institutional structures. An assumption that is painfully (and, lets face it, somewhat obviously) false. The consequence is an uncomfortableness with this premise being smuggled into the lines of this book without explicit acknowledgement.

   Assumption number two is that the change from being ’socially oriented’ and wanting to change the world at large to being more individually driven and less revolutionary is, in Granfield’s eyes, a change for the worse. He doesn’t argue that this is worse, mind you, but assumes it, and leaves the reader with sentences intended to arouse some shock and horror. But it isn’t clear that this is, of necessity, a pernicious sort of influence. Arguments can be constructed to say that, for instance, students see the processes and incentives in society and recognize that they will have to scale down their ‘world-changing’ for ‘local community changing.’ In fact, it could be argued that this is a more realistic and less naive outlook (something the Harvard types in Granfield’s book almost universally said about their former ‘world-changing’ orientations). And maybe they’re right! Maybe it is naive to think you could change the world entire, and maybe the Harvard types have the right vantage point to come to that conclusion. And, finally, what is wrong with highbrow English, and higher language standards generally anyways? We can communicate more precisely with a broader vocabulary, and, in the right circumstances (like at Harvard, for instance) we should expect to avoid ‘uhms,’ ‘huhms,’ ‘yos,’ and ‘likes.’

   One thing I should point out is a contradiction in the text that stood out for me. In one chapter, Granfield argues that students at Harvard are viciously protective of their high academic standing, even though most students at places like Harvard get ‘A’s almost regardless of their actual accomplishments*. As an example, Granfield cites the tearing down of posters by a radical Harvard group that read “Grades Don’t Matter.”

   Then, in another chapter, Granfield contradicts himself saying that Harvard students in general don’t care about their grades, or about competing with one another in general, because they are in such a priviledged position. They shouldn’t have to compete, Granfield argues, because others will compete for them. Granfield says this causes Harvard students to be very chummy with one another, and builds a sense of institutional community. And to prove the point, Granfield brings out the same radical Harvard group with the same “Grades Don’t Matter” poster as an example of how students don’t give a damn about their grades!

   There’s a principle in Sociology for this, I’m sure–something about selecting your evidence and coming to the conclusion you want anyways. But this bit is more of an oversight than anything else–what you are left with is a solid case for taking the transformative power of an elite law school very seriously.

   Finally, a note about the text as a whole: ‘Making Elite Lawyers’ is less of a coherent book with one narrative than it is a series of academic essays underpinned by a similar orientation. In each ‘Chapter,’ Granfield tackles a relatively new point, worthy of separate treatment. In fact, some of the Chapters seem odd next to one another, lacking the intuitive connection that typically makes one chapter flow into the next. Never mind, the bottom line is: it doesn’t matter (this bit anyhow).

   What does matter is the overall impression this book leaves you with. And that is; Granfield is, I think, right! Law schools, especially elite ones, change people. From broad outlooks, to more narrow ones; from an interest in psychic profit derived from public interest sort of work, to an interest in financial profit derived from corporate law sort of work. Is that something you want? Maybe, but at least, with Granfield’s book, you have been forewarned about what to expect.

   * See, for instance, John Stossel’s “Give Me a Break!” segment on ABC’s 20/20 where he interviews a Prof at Harvard who gives two grades–one is the one the student ‘earned,’ the other is the one that goes on the transcript. The ‘earned’ one is almost universally lower than the one that goes on the record.