Page 1 of 2

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

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:07 pm
by BackToTheOldHouse
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.

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

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:10 pm
by taxguy
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.

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

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:14 pm
by BackToTheOldHouse
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

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

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:16 pm
by SchopenhauerFTW
I am posting in what is sure to become an epic thread.

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

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:18 pm
by 09042014
I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.

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

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:22 pm
by EstboundNDwn
Where's the debate about whether law professors are overpaid?

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

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:25 pm
by kapital98
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

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

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:32 pm
by bilbobaggins
Can anyone copy/paste or link to a mirror? I'm over my limit for articles this month.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:47 am
by BackToTheOldHouse
It's like no one cares about this. :(

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:17 am
by PresMacAllen
i find it sort of funny how the professors from substantially lower ranked schools argued to keep LS at 80 hours. lol.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:18 am
by BackToTheOldHouse
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).

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:22 am
by Bildungsroman
Kevin Maillard's contribution is one of the worst piles of drivel I've ever read.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:25 am
by 071816
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?

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:08 am
by Ernert
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."

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:38 am
by PDaddy
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).

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:50 am
by prezidentv8
Bildungsroman wrote:Kevin Maillard's contribution is one of the worst piles of drivel I've ever read.


Linda Greene also is sub-par.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:49 pm
by 09042014
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:53 pm
by 09042014
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:57 pm
by bk1
I like Van Zandt's but it only seems to be like a temporary fix if tuition continues to rise.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:01 pm
by 09042014
I think low tuition should be factored into USNews. Right now, the more money you blow the higher the rank.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:04 pm
by bk1
And completely wipe out expenditures per student? The shitstorm that would ensue from the effect of that on the rankings would be hilarious.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:08 pm
by 09042014
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:39 pm
by descartesb4thehorse
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.

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

Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:36 am
by PDaddy
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.

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

Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:46 am
by IAFG
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?