The Prestige Gap, Part 2

A while back, I posted about what another attorney had termed “The Prestige Gap,” that sometimes unspoken notion that what one business or firm lacks in “fun” or “free time,” it might very well make up for in that elusive idea of “prestige,” and–perhaps more importantly–that every single step one makes from the day they leave law school begins to define their own level of “prestige,” which in turn defines which jobs they’ll be able to get in their next career move.

When the other attorney posted about his musings regarding the Prestige Gap, it created a lot of debate, and usually, when one has a conversation about The Prestige Gap with anyone else, one finds a very heated opinion forthcoming.

Another young attorney posted recently at the Legal Underground in response to the Prestige Gap post, and I found her comment so very honest and poignant, really:

“I hope you’re wrong, Ted [another commenter who noted the value of "prestige"], about the ‘labels and prestige’ issue, but my real point is that I’m afraid you’re right, and I might have goofed.“

One pattern I noticed in personal conversations and in posts online, is that the parties who disparage the notion of prestige generally comment that one can still be happy at “less-pretigious” firms or jobs, or they say that they’ve never had the urge to be at a “more prestigious” firm, or they know lots of people at “prestigious” firms who are miserable, etc.

What strikes me as noticeable, though, is that there is a distinct lack of commentary about the basic premise of The Prestige Gap being incorrect. The Prestige Gap theory doesn’t have anything to do with whether one can (or should, or will) be happy working at a prestigious versus a less-prestigious firm. It simply deals with the objective notion of how likely a career jump from one type of firm to another would be, with The Prestige Gap taken into account.

And that is where I see very little actual debate occurring. I see a lot of debate of whether there should even be a Prestige Gap at all, anywhere. But that is essentially rendered moot by the fact that there is a prestige gap, and because you’re dealing with human nature in its essence and creation and maintenance, you’ll never get it to go away. So I don’t see a lot of point in contending that it “should” or “should not” exist, because it does. It just does.

I also see a lot of debate get stirred up when people talk about happiness, or quality of life. People scream back and forth at each other over whether Prestigious Firm can (or should) provide the same level of self-content and happiness that Less Prestigious Firm can (or should) provide.

But again, that doesn’t seem to be the point. The Prestige Gap argument centers around the way certain legal industries, firms, and specialties tend to be viewed, and how that perception can impact later career opportunities, or continued perception amongst other attorneys. No one really says, “If you’re Prestigious, you cannot also be Happy.” That seems to be the emotional knee-jerk reaction to someone saying, “If you take that job at Less Prestigious Firm, you’re limiting your future options.”

The person to whom that is said will often fire back with, “Well, but I’ll be happy!”

Well, okay then. But no one was saying any differently. The point is not emotional, and it is strange how many lawyer types still have a hard time seeing the difference between emotion and logic. The point in the Prestige Gap is logic and a realistic look at how one’s choices may impact later opportunities. No one said reality was “nice” or “ideal.” But it’s reality. It kind of has the upper hand on us, as such, don’t you think?

Anyway. As someone who’s heading off to a Big Firm that would most likely fall in the “Prestigious” category, but who is close with others who are heading into first-jobs that would most likely fall toward the other end of the spectrum, this remains an incredibly interesting area of debate and thought.

Labels: anecdotes and opinions, law school, lawyer stuff, think-abouts