Imagine a world in which the highest levels of income are held by academics, journalists and artists. A teacher makes $90,000 his or her first year, and a staff reporter at The New York Times makes several hundred thousand dollars. In this magical kingdom, a partner at Sullivan and Cromwell earns $25,000 a year, and similarly those at Smith Barney, Bear Stearns, McKinsey and the others receive a meager $30,000 salary. Would Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Columbia Law Schools still attract enough students to fill next year's incoming class? Would the same percentage of Harvard seniors still decide to undergo recruiting? In sum, would these corporate-America professions still have an appeal without their reputation for money-making?

In my Gen Ed 105 class, it's generally held that the answer to this last question is no--people choose the lucrative fields because they are lucrative. The belief is that no one in their right mind would argue that handling a merger and acquisition is as noble a contribution to society as is teaching.

Similarly, no one would honestly argue that in trading futures, one gets to use the personal and emotional parts of one's character which often get to play a role in a more humanitarian career. In the world of investment banks and law firms, it seems that one leaves oneself at home before coming to the office, while a writer or artist remains more true to his or her very character when producing a work. These beliefs seem to revolve around the following assumption: if a profession is lucrative, it is morally suspect; that is, the more one earns monetarily, the more he or she loses personally.

As one who is neither applying to law school nor undergoing recruiting, I do not feel I am too biased to defend those sailing in the corporate direction. I believe that even in our imaginary world in which lawyers and investment bankers make less money than academics, the former professions would continue to exist. There are those who find the corporate world exhilarating and action-packed. There are others who consider aspects of consulting or legal reasoning intellectually challenging and fulfilling. In addition, not everybody turns to a profession for emotional and personal inspiration. Some individuals turn to a career because it is different from their emotional sphere of life (i.e. friends, community, and family). The uplifting personal experiences one derives from home need not be repeated in one's career. If there are reasons other than money to draw people to law and business, why is it that writers, artists and teachers are so critical of these corporate fields?

The criticism of these lucrative professions is specifically based on the fact that they are extremely lucrative, that many of those who enter that world come out very wealthy people. The world of law and business, money management and investment is cast in one great dark shadow--MONEY. To observers, this is what that world is about. Money is an object, or a commodity which people love to hate. There is something "cool" or noble about choosing to belittle the significance of money, and something weak and compromising about attributing to it great importance. In Gen Ed 105, in the world in which journalists and artists are glorified, pre-law students and recruitees are made to feel like money-hungry sleazeballs. Again, we find the belief that law, consulting and investment banking are "lifeless" professions.

We all reach a point at which it seems we must choose between two goals--financial success vs. academic or intellectual pursuit. We reach a fork in the road--for money, make a left; for a profession of personal, intellectual and emotional integrity, bear right. An essential piece of the puzzle which often seems to go unsaid is the fact that whether we like it or not, we need money. Let us not belittle the world of privileges, education, travel and culture to which money is vital. We are not defending one who looks at 90-hour weeks, no sleep, no family time, but plenty of money as a be all and end all. We are talking about students who will undergo that rough lifestyle for a few years, as a means to an end.

Similarly, there are very few law students who go to law school planning on spending their entire life in Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz. Rather, a student who finds himself or herself $100,000 in debt may opt to postpone civil rights litigation, politics or legal academia in hope of attaining some financial security.

It is so easy to condemn the money makers. It is fun to bash the wealthy. It is much harder to acknowledge the reality of money--namely, that we need it. We at Harvard are so quick to criticize the recruitees and pre-law gov jocks for being valueless, soul-sacrificing rat racers who abandon the world of personal reward and emotional fulfillment.

Let us not assume that making money and understanding life's many emotional and moral facets are mutually exclusive. Let us not look down on those who value financial security. An individual's desire to earn a steady income in and of itself is not a vice. It is how one balances this desire while maintaining time for "play" which is a far more acceptable criterion for judgement. Perhaps we should give our fellow students a greater benefit of the doubt, assuming they too will find ways to utilize themselves and remain true to themselves in the world of briefs, numbers and trading.

Erica S. Schacter is a senior in Kirkland House.