To borrow from Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility.” If today’s news items are any indication, it’s clear that Peter Parker wasn’t the only one who had trouble internalizing and applying that lesson. Aside from countering this problem directly, with investigations and lawsuits if necessary, the best most of us can do is keep tabs on growing sources of power in hopes of anticipating their next move. And of course, the next move doesn’t have to be a malicious or unethical one–but it’s good to be prepared.
First, a story that I’ve heard many times before but never quite understood until now: as a law student, I know legal education costs a fortune (just ask my parents), but the economics behind that reality were a well-kept secret–that is, until I read this New York Times article. David Segal’s explanation of the law school profit-making machine is enlightening, to say the least. The incentive to keep costs high comes, almost to no surprise, largely from the U.S. News & World Report rankings: the more money a school spends on its students (i.e., the more it costs to educate those students), the higher the likelihood that its ranking will increase, or at least remain in the same place for the next year. While I can understand the theory behind this part of the U.S. News algorithm–more money spent on students should indicate a higher degree of attention to student needs and more resources, right?–it’s a dangerous component. I know every stakeholder in the law school game contributes to the deadly cycle of rankings-fueled choices and evaluations, but it doesn’t help to give law school administrations yet another reason to feed their obsession about the rankings. In the end, it means they charge students higher fees: the fact that the cost of legal education has risen 317 percent over my lifetime, according to Segal, is appalling compared to college tuition’s mere 71 percent increase for the same period. Add to this fact larger class sizes, particularly for third-tier schools, and sub-par career services offices and it’s easy to see why post-grad life is so dismal for many students. It shouldn’t be this way, especially because a law degree is considered by most students to be a ticket to a better job and, by extension, a better standard of living. As the training ground for future attorneys, law schools have a responsibility to equip students with everything they need to succeed and to make this the priority rather than a higher ranking or more donations. Realistically, I understand a law school needs both of those things in order to survive, but students shouldn’t have to suffer so dramatically for it, especially considering how much we’re paying to join this elite community of professionals. We deserve better than that. I’m hoping the fact that I’ll be attending a private law school ranked in the Top 20 will count for something, in terms of my experience as well as my job prospects, but it’s good to read stories like this for that extra motivation to be personally responsible for my own success, especially considering the shortcomings of the establishment.
Next, more updates and opinions on the Rupert Murdoch/News Corp. scandal: two telling op-eds in the Los Angeles Times, one about the enduring power of newspapers and another about British society’s appetite for salacious, albeit unethically gathered, gossip news. The first, by Mike Hoyt, calls for newspapers to remember their crusading days during times of great social upheaval and to refashion those objectives for today’s reporting. I’m not sure whether newspapers are still as powerful today as they were during the Civil Rights Movement, as Hoyt seems to be saying, but he makes a valid point: they could be, if they stopped trying to please everyone and dared to take a stand every now and then. Yet at the same time, it’s hard to fault dailies for treading the middle ground. Competition from digital media sources, along with their old rival, television, requires them to attract as many readers and subscribers as possible in order to keep their heads above water. There’s no sense in crusading if the vehicle for that fight is run into the ground–or bankruptcy, more accurately. But either way, it’s true that newspapers have a responsibility to do the kind of investigative reporting and social criticism that is expected of them, because the sheer prospect of a resurgence in their influence could mean big things for everyone. This fact is what makes the conduct of reporters working for News Corp. publications so disturbing: their unethical (and frankly, illegal by American standards) tactics are as much the fault of the laissez-faire news establishment as they are the fault of a public so wrapped up in the gossip that it doesn’t consider, or perhaps doesn’t even care, how the information was obtained. These tabloids, despite their lack of real news stories, had a far-reaching influence, both over readers’ evaluations of public figures as well as on those public figures, who knew what reporters were willing to do to get the story. This is the type of influence Hoyt warns against–and in an effort to Americanize this story, U.S. journalists should take note of how Murdoch’s media empire is unraveling and how easily their own news organizations could crumble if similar foul play was discovered there.
Finally, some encouraging news about an area to watch: Silicon Valley may be experiencing yet another boom, with all signs pointing to success similar to that of the previous dot-com boom–but without the devastating aftermath. The difference seems to be private investors who know and understand how these growing tech companies function as well as the risk involved in funding them. The power of technology rears its (possibly) ugly head again. This time, however, investors’ growing interest means more jobs and more perks for employees. Considering I’m hoping to go into intellectual property law, this is a story I’ll continue following–expect updates!
Suit Yourself 