As a young liberal, I'm a sucker for polemics that demonize "the man", getting heart palpitations from rhetoric that invokes the plight of the middle class. Daniel Gross's article, unfortunately, did not trigger this reaction. In fact, Gross managed to invert my anger.

While it may seem smug for a giant corporate law firm to charitably donate the price differential between a sandwich at the corner deli and a noontime serving of foie gras, $50,000 is not a paltry sum of money, especially when taking into consideration - as Gross does - that a person can eat fairly well for less than $15, even in New York. Every $45 donated is the equivalent of three $15 lunches. $45 in groceries that go towards a meal provided by a soup kitchen can be stretched even farther. While it may seem disingenuous to boast about this charitable act, it is still a meaningful contribution.

Numbers aside, it would be a travesty to deter people from donating to charity if the money they donate is not proportional to the profits generated, which Gross might call charity as "an end in itsef" (Gross uses the figures of $2.5 million earned per partner versus the $50,000 in donations). There is an obvious dilemma: what exactly constitutes a "fair" proportion? We might decry the "ornamentation" of charitable giving by the behemoths of industry but that does not negate the real money that flows into social services. In lieu of the fact that the current tax policy is skewed such that it perpetuates wealth and adversely affects social services, volunteerism is should be both an acceptable and encouraged interim alternative until policy-makers changes need to be made. This is admittedly hyperbolic, but would Gross similarly denounce the charitable foundations that owe their existence to massive corporate fortunes like that of Bill Gates? And even once major, progressive actions are taken to restructure the tax policy, taxes cannot and should not be designed to erase a public philosophy that supports charitable giving.

Gross also riled me up on a personal level. I currently work at a public interest law firm and will start law school in the fall. I recently took out $45,000 in loans to cover my first of three years of law school. While there are opportunities for students interested in public interest law to ease their debt burden, there are still outstanding deterrents to pursue this kind of work. First, fellowships that pay your loans are extremely competitive and are disproportionately awarded to students who have resumes chalk-full of non-profit work. Non-profit work not being the most profitable line of employment, kids with impressive credentials are often the progeny of upper middle class and wealthy parents who provide considerable financial support. Second, unless a school has the coiffeurs of a school like Harvard or NYU, there are not a ton of debt forgiveness programs available. Furthermore, the law schools that offer these debt forgiveness programs have arbitrary salary cutoffs, i.e if you make $41k as a public defender in Omaha, you're covered but if you make $45k doing the same work in San Francisco, you're not. Again, family wealth is often a prerequisite for participation in public interest law. Rather than debating relatives of this point (and it is certainly possible to practice public interest law without a trust fund), I just want to note that it is not always the uber wealthy who search hard for the corporate jobs that lead to the fat salaries. Many are middle and lower middle class kids who want to change their position on the socio-economic ladder and pay off their substantial debts. Yes there is a systematic perpetuation of wealth and growing income gap. But can we fault law students for not wanting to take advantage of the economic opportunities available to them? Going back to my argument against Gross's totalizing demand for charity "as an end in itself", shouldn't we embrace young lawyers who want to work for firms that have a track record of public service? Wouldn't it be great if firms encouraged and promoted pro bono work as a means to provide essential legal services to those who can't afford them?

Lastly, I want to evoke a currently popular class-warfare example and call out the publishing industry. Publishing jobs are hard to get, even for the best and brightest young writers. Similar to non-profit work, resumes are bolstered through unpaid internships and it need not be reiterated who can afford these internships. Gross would do well to acknowledge that cultural elites being perpetuated in a similar manner and often in tandem with the economic elites. But maybe my inverted bitterness is getting the best of me at this point.

A superb comment that captured all the complexity of the issue.

I think you're exactly right on that issue. I was a need-based scholarship student at Stanford (class of '00). As a private institution, Stanford was far more generous and affordable than a comparable public school would have been. But at the end of the day, the class differences between my classmates were rendered sharply evident... those stepping into a lucrative career through family connections on top, the well-heeled "middle" class moving into the world of entry-level unpaid professional internships, and the unconnected dumped into a rapidly contracting job market.

The publishing industry certainly has its backdoors (I blundered through one). But by and large, it does seem to draw heavily from unpaid internships for its career-building labor pool. I'd argue that the attendant class skewage does the publishing industry a disservice.

Although I tend to agree with the sentiment of this letter, I have to question whether the writer has what it takes to enter the legal profession. It is my understanding that one of the strongest prerequisites for a legal career is a mastery of the language. I have never seen a resume that had any chalk in it other than someone in the education field, and I can't even imagine what type of haircut Harvard or NYU might have. I know it is picky but perhaps "chock" and "coffer" were the words the writer was looking for? I don't expect perfect English from most people, but I do from my lawyer.

I thought the letter was good enough to survive the typos, but you definitely have a point (and I did notice them). I also noticed the typo in the post by the summer associate who obviously had never worked at Simpson Thacher because s/he misspelled the name and referred to it as "Simpson and Thatcher," a usage I've never heard.

Lawyers tend to be extremely anal about things like that.

One reason I always use pseudonymous user names is because I simply don't have the time to print out and proof every post I write.

I'm glad that the content wasn't the main issue. I also appreciate the nitpicking. Please forgive my failure to proof.

There are other ways to pay for law school that don't require you to take a $100K a year job with only the prospect of pro-bono work. You can still get through school and enjoy public service work after you graduate.

For example, you could join the National Guard in a state where they pay for graduate school (or you could go Active Army with a grad school guarantee), then go to a state law school where your loan debt won't be that crushing. That way, you set the stage for a successful public service career without sacrificing your credibility with that $100K a year job.

At least, that's what I'm doing. And I can't wait to embark on my public service career.

Or maybe your somewhat guilty-sounding attitude is what Mr. Gross was referring to in his article - you know, the bit about "defining public service down?"

Just a thought.

I've seen the recruiting ads about the great opportunity the military provides. I wonder how well that's worked out for some people.

If you have good choices and elect to go to a state school other than Boalt Hall or the University of Michigan, you would be seriously limiting your options. The legal field is extremely overcrowded and a lot of law school graduates can't find real legal work of any kind. It matters where you went to law school -- that's why people go into debt to finance their legal education.

Don't kid yourself: The best nonprofit organizations are as selective and snobby as any other organization. Although having worked at big firm doesn't make anyone a shoo-in at a nonprofit, nonprofits are very happy to take people who have worked at big firms because they think they have good training.

I kept reading after "chalk-full", but had to give up after "coiffeurs." Yes, Benny, these are words. Just not the right ones.

The tax code will never, ever be rewritten in a way that punishes wealth, or the creation of wealth, or the perpetuation of wealth. Most of our families moved here from Europe or other places, to CREATE and get some wealth. So anything that changes that part of the deal is dead on arrival.

In the late 80's and early 90s I had several friends and acquaintances who received Ivy League educations, and had many doors opened to them. Every one of them had a door opened that they could not pass through, because they didnt have a trust fund to pay the rent in Midtown Manhattan. Mind you these were not reform minded liberals, but middle class or slightly higher kids who wanted a shot at making a serious killing on Wall Street, as traders or IB's. They wanted to step up big in the world right out of the gate and found that there's a price. (and some of them just didnt want to live in Jersey) So it just doesnt affect the well meaning social "progressives"

it also affects a lot of us troglodytic capitalists whose parents werent wealthy. But thats just the way it is and ever shall be and its a lot easier to go through life with an Ivy league ticket or a prestigious law degree than it is without. So be Happy, donate some money to a small benefactor- less homeless shelter that could work wonders with your millions...and keep perpetuating those elites.