Career thoughts and conclusions
I think it's time I sat back and did some thinking. What is it that I really want? I've said a bunch of different things... to make a difference, to have the influence to do so, to be a statesman in the old sense, to question assumptions that are put before me. Two things occur to me now. I'm not entirely certain that they are mine, reading epic fantasy sometimes confuses me, but the questions seem real enough.
(1) In the end, everything will turn on certain assumptions. Question them all you like, in the end, it comes down to one thing: What is it that I can fight for? What ideal stands above the others?
(2) As much as I talk about making a difference, or living for duty or honor, there is one thing that I have ignored... and I think travelling may have brought it out. I want to have a stronghold, if you will. I want someplace I know to be safe, someplace that I can call my home, someplace where I know how the game is played and how to succeed in it.
Those seem to be the central questions or ideas at play here. Of course, they aren't the only ones, and some other things have helped me to narrow things down a bit.
(3) I don't want to be an academic, at least not yet. I want to be in the 'real world' so to speak. This is probably because academics seem to lose perspective on reality and turn rather odd after a while... especially the ones at research universities. Being left alone with your thoughts and theories and such seem to detach people and lead to unrealistic conclusions and massive eccentricities. I think I want to stay firmly grounded in reality. That being said, it rules out the PhD in Philosophy, and I think I'm going to let it rule out the PhD in Political Science as well. If I want to do politics, I still have access to the Masters in International Relations that I applied to programs for, as well as a law degree if I want to take the LSATs and go for that (a distinct possibility if I am rejected from IR programs).
(4) Now that I've applied to IR programs, including programs in international development, I'm pretty sure that I don't have the desire to do hands-on development work. Basically, development means either hands-on for an NGO, consulting for a government, or working for an IGO in economics (World Bank, IMF, etc). I don't have the guts for the hands-on, and my strength is my analytic ability, not my ability to build schools and bridges and such. Additionally, an NGO pays very little and is emotionally taxing work due to the limited resources and power these places have. With consulting, the only people who I would have any real influence with are people who want to reform anyway, and don't want to line their pockets too much. That's a bit more appealing, but would probably require a PhD in international economics. I'm not interested enough in the formulae to go through with that. The same story holds for the upper levels of the World Bank, IMF, and WTO. A lone masters is not enough to have real, direct influence.
Ok. I've just narrowed my options a bit, especially in terms of possible career choices. If I combine that narrowing with the facts that I want a certain level of security (which means compensation, and some location stability), I'm left with three options.
(A) MA in International Relations with an aim towards the private sector - helping international businesses work out trade deals on the business side of things.
(B) JD from a good law school, focus to be determined, but probably related to international or constitutional law (More on this later).
(C) JD-MA (in IR) dual degree. This would most likely end up with a focus on international trade laws, etc. With the combination, I could either work of an IGO with enough credentials to have more influence, and could eventually help to set the framework for laws. Additionally, there is plenty of private sector work for either businesses or law firms, jobs are well-compensated, and out of a good school I could have some choice in the type of cases I took.
There are a couple minor things to consider here. The JD-MA can either be sequential, or it can be done concurrently, depending on the school I'm at. If I end up at Columbia or Georgetown, I would almost certainly go with a concurrent program. At Hopkins, it would have to be sequential. I'm still in the air about George Washington or American. Both programs are good, but there are better law schools and they might be worth the extra year of tuition. Never mind that I applied for a development-specific program at American, and that unless GW or American offer me a reasonable amount of financial aid, I'll be tempted to work somewhere else for the year.
Now for the harder part. I am left with three options, which are each somewhat interconnected. How do I choose? I think what is needed here is to try and answer the question of what I would be willing to fight for. What is it that really motivates me and angers me when people fail to uphold it? First, there is a preliminary moral consideration that I need to get out of the way.
There is more to morality than simple happiness or pleasure. Making a moral decision, even (or perhaps 'especially') for a policymaker, does not simply mean maximizing resources for the most people. It does not always mean giving people what it is they want. Sometimes, the moral choice involves giving people what they need or what they deserve. I don't mean that a government or anyone should tell people what their specific needs are, no more than the government should tell them what they want. Instead, there are certain things that a government exists to protect. For the most part, people's wants and needs should be left to themselves. It is their responsibility to provide for them, and their responsibility to accept the consequences of their choices. This does not mean that the government should not attempt to provide for the most level playing field that it can, especially as an initial starting position... but it does mean that it should do so within a set of certain limitations and that it cannot always catch people when they fall... especially when there own decision makes them fall. Morality can be concerned with needs and wants, but it is also concerned with responsibility and growth. A system that fails to allow for that oversteps its bounds and fails to do its duty. Even beyond that, governments are notoriously inefficient, and their reporting mechanisms (statistics, polling, voting, etc.) are terribly vague. I am not certain exactly what a government should and should not provide for, but what it should most definitely do is protect certain sets of rights.
So, with that being said, what would I be willing to fight for? There are a few things: Liberty, Upholding obligations, Preventing coercion, Ensuring people reflect on their lives, and Compassion top the list, I think. I might add respect as well. Of course, no job or government position or anything else can really enforce compassion or respect without sacrificing too much in the way of liberty. Additionally, self-reflection is not something that can be coerced... although the tools may be provided through adequate education. What remains after this are three: Liberty, Upholding obligations, and Preventing coercion.
Setting aside what this would mean for government, ethics in general, and all the rest... what does it mean in terms of my careers (especially if we assume that I want to be compassionate and respectful as well)? I'm going to do this one step-by-step.
(A) MA-only: This is out, especially if it means private-sector work in the long-run. Too many businesses are exploitative, and I would not want to be a 'cog in the wheel' of some corporate machine. The MA doesn't give enough flexibility or credentials on its own to prevent this easily. So, unless I were to receive a good government job offer or something of the sort, this would be out. In the long-run, I think it would probably be out anyway.
(B) JD-only: This is still in, and is a likely route, especially with an eye towards constitutional law as a way of upholding certain rights, and making the right sort of contacts to get into politics later on. It might involve picking up a Public Policy masters degree later on, but that wouldn't necessarily be the case. The JD from a good school gives enough credentials to provide protection, allows for a reasonably wide range of job choices, good compensation, and in the right position lets me fight for what I want.
(C) JD-MA: Assuming I get accepted to one of the MA programs I want, this seems the most likely option, and gives me solid credentials. It also comes with a wider range of options than the JD would bring, especially in contract law fields and the like. Finally, if I did want to work internationally, it could allow for more influence because of the law-expertise coupled with a familiarity with political economy and quantitative analysis.
Ironically, I seem to be back at law, after taking a year hiatus to figure things out and explore other options. On the other hand, I think I know why I chose law better now than I did then, and I have a bit more certainty in terms of career paths. Whether I go with (B) or (C) will depend on whether I get into a good MA program. If I do, it will obviously be (C) (eventually... although a year or two break might be needed to pay off some debt). If I don't get into the MA program, I will have a year off in Rochester. Given that, I'll have to decide whether to pick up one more semester at Geneseo and bring my Economics and Spanish up to par in case I want to apply to dual JD-MA programs. On the other hand, assuming I'm not accepted, it may be more likely for me to find a job, look to work or volunteer with the Obama campaign, study for the LSATs, and apply to Law School in the fall.