Blessedassurance wrote:banjo wrote: Why does the total population matter? Canada graduates approximately as many lawyers as they need through a combination of fewer law schools and smaller class sizes.
The number of Canadian law schools you cited is roughly similar to that of the US (adjusting for population size and not including the number of seats at those law schools). That was my point.The key is that Canadian legal education is public and therefore more strictly regulated. It's a bureaucratic nightmare to open a new school. Tuition is often capped by the provinces, which is one of the reasons Mcgill Law is charging in-province students an absurdly low $4k to attend. The requirements to practice in Canada after earning a degree elsewhere (such as a US TTTT or an Australian private school like Bond) are insane, giving Canadian law grads privileged access to the limited number of articling positions.
The AMA severely restricts supply. Also, note the number of Veterinary Schools in the US. Restriction happens in the United States, the ABA is just not very efficient at doing that. They tried doing that in the past, and the schools threatened to sue. The philosophical underpinnings of the US are different from Canada's. The only hope is to let the market fix this, which is why many argue for the Government to get out of the student loan business.
If people are paying 30 grand a year to learn their native tongue, there obviously is a problem. Of course libtards will argue about how their subjective analysis of Kafka's Metamorphosis advances humanity but that's another matter.Also, I don't see what better consumer information will accomplish. People have too much faith in the decision-making capabilities of 22-year-olds and their anxious parents.
The public should not have to shoulder the short-sighted decisions of 22-year olds making such decisions. That is the argument, not that I necessarily support such a stance. Another angle is that the rise of tuition is related to the government guarantee. As is, schools have no incentive not to raise tuition.
This is actually similar to the housing bubble.
What specifically did the ABA get sued for? Was it for trying to not allow new schools to open? Why can't the ABA just put a limit on the number of students that a school can admit?