NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
BackToTheOldHouse
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:03 pm

NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby BackToTheOldHouse » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:07 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... n&emc=tya1

I didn't see a thread on this yet, so I thought I'd start one. If there is a thread already, admins please delete this one.

Discuss.

taxguy
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby taxguy » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:10 pm

Yes, I saw that posted in another forum. My problem with the NYTimes article is that we don't need more law grads or law grads that can get a degree quicker ( with the same costs). We need less law grads! We also need, if possible, lower costs for legal education without necessarily watering down the curriculum. I think NYIimes missed the boat here.

User avatar
BackToTheOldHouse
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:03 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby BackToTheOldHouse » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:14 pm

taxguy wrote:Yes, I saw that posted in another forum. My problem with the NYTimes article is that we don't need more law grads or law grads that can get a degree quicker ( with the same costs). We need less law grads! We also need, if possible, lower costs for legal education without necessarily watering down the curriculum. I think NYIimes missed the boat here.

er, I think you might be referencing a different ny times piece. This one is more of a round table discussion with several views represented.

I do like your less-law-grads-lower-tuition thing, though . . . :D
Last edited by BackToTheOldHouse on Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:16 pm

I am posting in what is sure to become an epic thread.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby 09042014 » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:18 pm

I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.

User avatar
EstboundNDwn
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:15 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby EstboundNDwn » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:22 pm

Where's the debate about whether law professors are overpaid?

User avatar
kapital98
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby kapital98 » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:25 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.


+1

User avatar
bilbobaggins
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby bilbobaggins » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:32 pm

Can anyone copy/paste or link to a mirror? I'm over my limit for articles this month.

User avatar
BackToTheOldHouse
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:03 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby BackToTheOldHouse » Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:47 am

It's like no one cares about this. :(

User avatar
PresMacAllen
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:57 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby PresMacAllen » Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:17 am

i find it sort of funny how the professors from substantially lower ranked schools argued to keep LS at 80 hours. lol.

User avatar
BackToTheOldHouse
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:03 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby BackToTheOldHouse » Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:18 am

Desert Fox wrote:I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.

Nope, it's George Leaf who is deserving of TCR, with David Lat and Van Zandt in a close second.

p.s. -- Professor Noble Maillard makes me happy I will not be attending Syracuse University in the fall. Professor Stone almost makes me wish I was going to be a UChicago student in the fall (almost).

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby Bildungsroman » Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:22 am

Kevin Maillard's contribution is one of the worst piles of drivel I've ever read.

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby 071816 » Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:25 am

Bildungsroman wrote:Kevin Maillard's contribution is one of the worst piles of drivel I've ever read.


I agree.

"Sure, schools can focus on employment, but it takes a bolder institution to worry more about education."

WTF is that shit?

User avatar
Ernert
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:35 am

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby Ernert » Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:08 am

I was a fan of comment #7 under Maillard's article.

"Schools dangle 160k salaries in front of gullible undergraduates knowing that those jobs exist only for a tiny percentage of law graduates. They force three years of rote learning at prices few students can afford, then hang them out to dry once the last tuition payment has been received. And then they justify it by pretending it's about education and leadership."

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby PDaddy » Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:38 am

Desert Fox wrote:I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.


Agreed, but with an additional requirement for ungraded "practical" experience (10 credits).

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby prezidentv8 » Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:50 am

Bildungsroman wrote:Kevin Maillard's contribution is one of the worst piles of drivel I've ever read.


Linda Greene also is sub-par.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby 09042014 » Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:49 pm

PDaddy wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.


Agreed, but with an additional requirement for ungraded "practical" experience (10 credits).


That's what the Summer in between would be for.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby 09042014 » Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:53 pm

David Lat's is pretty stupid, which I expected for him. Why force an apprenticeship, when that's exactly what the first couple years of law practice already are. Insanely retarded idea.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18425
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby bk1 » Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:57 pm

I like Van Zandt's but it only seems to be like a temporary fix if tuition continues to rise.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby 09042014 » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:01 pm

I think low tuition should be factored into USNews. Right now, the more money you blow the higher the rank.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18425
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby bk1 » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:04 pm

And completely wipe out expenditures per student? The shitstorm that would ensue from the effect of that on the rankings would be hilarious.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby 09042014 » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:08 pm

bk1 wrote:And completely wipe out expenditures per student? The shitstorm that would ensue from the effect of that on the rankings would be hilarious.


Yep. Fuck that shit. Lavish facilities and wasteful bureaucracy shouldn't make a school ranked higher.

User avatar
descartesb4thehorse
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:03 am

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby descartesb4thehorse » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:39 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I think low tuition should be factored into USNews. Right now, the more money you blow the higher the rank.


I really, really, really don't understand that aspect of the rankings. Isn't there some brilliant economist with a solution that would allow US News to take into account students paying less but still receiving comparatively more? Such as, I don't know, considering the percentage of tuition used for these services as opposed to rote numbers? From there, I don't think it would be a *huge* jump to use these numbers in a standard equation and whatever other funding they get (which seems minimal) from alums or elsewhere could be added. Unless they are already doing this and schools who charge less are at a disadvantage since they still have the same overhead costs to worry about, but that less 20k a student means no ice sculptures in the library's lavatories or something. Meh.

Yea I second that Greene's contribution was equally vomit-inducing. Something about 200k is priceless. I wish I could use that argument on my future creditors. And Lat is probably just turned on by RonPaulConservative's theory that we can all go overseas for law school and be done with UG&LS in 3 years and on to apprenticeships. We'll see how that works out for everyone.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby PDaddy » Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:36 am

Desert Fox wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.


Agreed, but with an additional requirement for ungraded "practical" experience (10 credits).


That's what the Summer in between would be for.


LOL...LOL...uh...no. I am not talking about a $3,000 per week summer Wall Street job at Cravath, Paul Weiss or Wachtell.

I mean a pro bono/clinical requirement should be standard across the schools and each single credit should require a certain number of completed hours, like 80 hours of work for every one credit.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School

Postby IAFG » Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:46 am

PDaddy wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.


Agreed, but with an additional requirement for ungraded "practical" experience (10 credits).


That's what the Summer in between would be for.


LOL...LOL...uh...no. I am not talking about a $3,000 per week summer Wall Street job at Cravath, Paul Weiss or Wachtell.

I mean a pro bono/clinical requirement should be standard across the schools and each single credit should require a certain number of completed hours, like 80 hours of work for every one credit.


Why would bullshit work be better than actual paid work?




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests