Thanks for this. Mystal’s article is appallingly poor. I don’t quite agree with this characterization of Atri’s article, however:
The main issue seems to be that both responders have dismissed the possibility that someone going into corporate law would actually donate 25% of their salary.
A major theme in Atri’s article is Barlow’s unnecessarily provocative characterizations of people who choose not to go into Big Law. To some degree I understand that Atri is upset, in the light of sentences like these:
Alternatively, go into Public Interest, Government, or Academia, and feel warm and fuzzy about yourself. Sadly, when people at this school talk about public service, they mean the latter, rather than the former.
Lots of people who’ve gone into Public Interest, Government, or Academia have a tremendous amount of good—more good, I’d argue, than they could have done at a Big Law firm. What’s more, I think that some of them had reason to believe that when they choose their career, given what they knew about their capabilities. Harvard Law graduate Barack Obama is a name that springs to mind. In any case, the burden of proof is on Barlow. He shouldn’t start talking in this condescending way about people who don’t go into Big Law without giving us very firm evidence—much firmer than the rather shallow arguments that he gives (e.g. “Can poor people eat using your opinion on law’s impact on poor people?”—this is below the argumentative quality you’d expect from an effective altruist) - that choosing the Big Law path is indeed the right one for everyone.
I’m sure some people who go into Public Interest, Government, or Academia are self-important and/or confused over how they can best impact the world, but there are also morally serious and determined people similar to Obama out there. Hence sweeping generalizations such as this should be avoided.
I agree. The think there’s a strong argument that you can go into Big Law and still achieve a lot of good; but it’s pretty unclear whether an equally talented and altruistic person would do more good earning to give than going into public interest law. Also, as Alasdair points out below, personal fit is going to be a big consideration.
Thanks for this. Mystal’s article is appallingly poor. I don’t quite agree with this characterization of Atri’s article, however:
A major theme in Atri’s article is Barlow’s unnecessarily provocative characterizations of people who choose not to go into Big Law. To some degree I understand that Atri is upset, in the light of sentences like these:
Lots of people who’ve gone into Public Interest, Government, or Academia have a tremendous amount of good—more good, I’d argue, than they could have done at a Big Law firm. What’s more, I think that some of them had reason to believe that when they choose their career, given what they knew about their capabilities. Harvard Law graduate Barack Obama is a name that springs to mind. In any case, the burden of proof is on Barlow. He shouldn’t start talking in this condescending way about people who don’t go into Big Law without giving us very firm evidence—much firmer than the rather shallow arguments that he gives (e.g. “Can poor people eat using your opinion on law’s impact on poor people?”—this is below the argumentative quality you’d expect from an effective altruist) - that choosing the Big Law path is indeed the right one for everyone.
I’m sure some people who go into Public Interest, Government, or Academia are self-important and/or confused over how they can best impact the world, but there are also morally serious and determined people similar to Obama out there. Hence sweeping generalizations such as this should be avoided.
I agree. The think there’s a strong argument that you can go into Big Law and still achieve a lot of good; but it’s pretty unclear whether an equally talented and altruistic person would do more good earning to give than going into public interest law. Also, as Alasdair points out below, personal fit is going to be a big consideration.