Jeremy posted a provocative quote
from former Harvard University president Derek Bok bemoaning the large
numbers of "exceptionally gifted" students who go into law, causing a
"massive diversion of exceptional talent into pursuits that often add
little to the growth of the economy, the pursuit of culture, or the
enhancement of the human spirit." Demonstrating that he obviously never
worked as an engineer, Mr. Bok approvingly quotes the Japanese, who
supposedly say "Engineers make the pie grow larger; lawyers only decide
how to carve it up."
Yeah, okay.
In general I find statements ranking the creativity of various
professions to be devoid of the very creativity they supposedly value.
Maligning an entire profession as lacking creativity and intelligence,
or something as amorphous as enhanced human spirit, demonstrates a lack
of imagination on the part of the speaker more than anything else.
But Mr. Bok’s lack of imagination is his problem, not mine. No, what
really bugged me about the quote was his disapprobation of decisions
that he obviously never had to make himself.
This is classic academia, a quote from somebody who hasn’t had to worry
about being laid off in fifty years, who doesn’t have to think about
his skills atrophying in an industry that changes instantaneously
overnight. Mr. Bok has clearly never been through the regular layoffs
that are a hallmark of engineering in this country. He lives in a world
where people worry about how creative their jobs are, not whether those
jobs will exist in six months.
Does he understand how many of the engineers, high school principals,
business executives, and public servants that he lauds would love to
enter that privileged world? Has he ever paid a bill and wondered
whether the check would bounce? Does he have any idea how law, a mostly
stable profession with a steady income, appears to the rest of the
layoff-fearing, bill-paying world? Would he trade his income and his
academic safety for life as a budget-cut-threatened high school
principal?
Of course not. That would be silly, about as silly as criticizing the
"exceptionally gifted" for desiring a little of the job security
Mr. Bok himself has.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You hit the nail right on the head. If people like Mr. Bok are so darn interested in preserving the engineering (and other 'creative' professions) talent pool in this country, then why are they always telling us that shipping our jobs overseas is so good for the economy (I'm not saying that Mr. Bok has personally advocated this position, just people like him).
The bottom line is that given a choice, people will move toward the more secure, better paying jobs. The reason engineers are leaving the field is because they can. At least many engineers have the financial basis to make the choice, unlike those at the bottom of the working world who are stuck in low paying jobs with no future at wallmart selling products made in ultra-low paying factories that have already moved overseas.
I think Bok's statements made sense, and so does the Japanese pie quote. Bok didn't say that law as a profession lacks creativity and intelligence; he said that lawyers as a group "often add little to the growth of the economy, the pursuit of culture, or the enhancement of the human spirit." I agree with that; while there are lawyers who pursue worthy goals and help advance society, the vast majority are there to ensure compliance with existing rules. This isn't a bad thing in itself. The rules are so complex that we need people to help us navigate through them. But if the best and brightest people are filling out corporate merger forms and writing up wills, then they're not creating, they're not teaching, they're not innovating.
Bok was talking about the world as he wishes it would be. Clearly there are practical reasons for pursuing a law career, and for wanting to leave an unstable or low-paying profession. But it's alarming to see so many of the best people taking that option. Made me think twice, at least for a second, about abandoning a career in software to go to law school.
Hm. I fundamentally disagree with both Bok and the Japanese statement. I don't see the practice of law as not adding to the growth of the economy or the human spirit. Certainly on a practical level, saying that law doesn't contribute to the growth of the economy seems to ignore fundamental market economics. Law firms get their work from private individuals and corporations that hire them, and since there are plaintiffs for every defendant, they are clearly not being hired just as a defensive measure. People hire lawyers to further their interests, and presumably those interests (at least in civil suits) are financial at heart. Unless one believes that individual economic growth doesn't contribute to the pie as a whole, it's hard to make the argument that law takes away from the pie rather than contributes to it.
Furthermore, even if I accept the proposition that the vast majority of lawyers only ensure compliance with existing rules - which I don't, as the practice of law is all about testing, refining, and changing the existing infrastructure - I don't believe that means that lawyers take away from the total rather than growing it. Personally I think that over-idealizes the contributions (and litigiousness) of other professions and unfairly castigates the law. The pie exists because as a society we have set up means to promulgate and protect it, and those means may be through teaching, through engineering, or through law.
I think what bugged me about the quote the most was the underlying assumption that Other People should do work that Bok deems creative and important to the human spirit. Who is he to define what is important to the human spirit? Who is he to criticize others for doing something that he doesn't consider creative?
Post a Comment