3 ms·
This is a case where I think Cal Newport's arguments are on point: it's not about your passion, it's about your skills. Or as a lawyer friend put it to me when
by smalter 14y ago
This is a case where I think Cal Newport's arguments are on point: it's not about your passion, it's about your skills. Or as a lawyer friend put it to me when we were working together on a late night at an elite NYC law firm: "Law is only good when you can write your own ticket."
All of the OP's statements are true but also not true. For example: law is about authority, computers reject authority. What is authority? In some sense, it's just network effect. A sufficient number of people have agreed on an argument, therefore it won't be disturbed unless there's a very good reason. Same goes with computers.
Innovation vs. Applying past wisdom: The law's not so myopic to only look to the past. It considers the accumulated wisdom of the past to determine what to do now. In fact, the law is changing rapidly in part in response to technological innovation (and the increasing complexity of government and modern life). The question is whether past rationale makes sense under current conditions. Under that frame, innovation and disruption happens in the law -- consider the law & economics movement, for instance, or critical legal theory.
The question isn't whether law or programming is inherently more innovative, it's where you're situated.
If you're arguing cases before the Supreme Court, you are dealing with the cutting edge of law and you are constantly looking at new cases that come out and analyzing how their rationale opens up new arguments and reflects new ways to attack existing decisions. The problem is that to do that, you have to be the best of the best.
If you're a programmer at a huge corporation working on maintaining a legacy system, you probably think you have the dullest job in the world in a field where nothing changes.
No doubt, real differences exist between law and programming, although they are remarkably similar. Nevertheless, I think Newport is on point when he talks about just how important excellence is to appreciating and enjoying your craft.
- rayiner 14y agoVery interesting comment. Do you have a link to anything by Cal Newport that reflects the ideas you referenced?
- esurc 14y ago> real differences exist between law and programming, although they are remarkably similar. As someone who (perhaps like you) practices law and does some programming, I wanted to agree with this statement. The fields are remarkably similar. If you gathered a list of "best practices" for writing good code and a second list of prescriptions for writing good legal briefs, it's striking how much advice overlaps. That's because clear thinking about complex systems is the heart of both worlds, and both sets of professionals have to (working within a set of constraints and syntax) work out an elegant solution that can be readily understood by their peers. As for the OP, the first year of law school has a habit of shattering whatever hazy dreams people bring with them. If he now wants to hone his programming skills instead --- and in this economic climate for lawyers, that seems like the safer bet --- then I wish him well.