Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
moonman157
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:26 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby moonman157 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:58 am

jas1503 wrote:
minnbills wrote:
jas1503 wrote:
Instead of making it harder to pass the Bar or making it harder to gain access to a law education, why not just make it more likely that people will 'wash out' of law school at a much higher rate?


Because then they would have debt and nothing to show for it.

I was thinking along the lines of, if they wash out at 1L, then it's about a $40,000 hit and 1 less lawyer in the field.

I'm imagining that it would also work as a deterrent, since less people are going to risk that money in the 1st place, if they think that it's incredibly hard to even graduate.


If people haven't been deterred by the influx of information regarding what a risky investment a law degree is, I doubt this will do much more. It doesn't get rid of the "special snowflake" mentality where everyone goes into law school assuming that they'll be the exception that succeeds, even though at a lot of these schools most of the students will be wrong. They might recognize that it's a greater risk, but their confidence will still compel them to go.

User avatar
moonman157
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:26 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby moonman157 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:00 pm

Renzo wrote:
moonman157 wrote:Going out on a limb here completely, but maybe shut down more than just a few of the worst law schools. Shut down a ton of them, leaving only the T14 and the best regional schools. Random example: get rid of Northeastern, Suffolk, New England, etc. and leave just BU/BC. It will seriously cut down on the number of lawyers entering the market, and these are the students who are most in trouble in terms of getting a job. It will also add job security for those who go to BU/BC because it cuts down on the number of new lawyers. It will also make law school more exclusive and thus getting in is an achievement. If you don't have the GPA/LSAT to get into one of these schools, or get scholarship money from them, then maybe you shouldn't go to law school. I wouldn't go as far as to call for slash and burn when it comes to elimination. Leave Pitt Law, but get rid of Duquense. Leave Temple, but get rid of Nova. Again, if you can't get into Temple of Pitt with scholarship money, then maybe you aren't cut out for it. Elitist? Maybe. But maybe there should be more elitism when it comes to law school admissions, because there's certainly elitism when it comes to hiring.


Two problems with this (well, more than that, but let's start with two). First, it's an illegal restraint on trade. Second, it would drive up prices for those schools, since they would have an even bigger monopoly than they already do, and thus would likely drive up the cost of legal services as lawyers try to recoup their investment.


Oh it's completely impossible to actually carry this out. This is more of a perfect-world scenario. And perhaps a cap on tuition? Again, this is perhaps legally impossible, but in a perfect world...

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby Renzo » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:01 pm

moonman157 wrote:
Renzo wrote:
moonman157 wrote:Going out on a limb here completely, but maybe shut down more than just a few of the worst law schools. Shut down a ton of them, leaving only the T14 and the best regional schools. Random example: get rid of Northeastern, Suffolk, New England, etc. and leave just BU/BC. It will seriously cut down on the number of lawyers entering the market, and these are the students who are most in trouble in terms of getting a job. It will also add job security for those who go to BU/BC because it cuts down on the number of new lawyers. It will also make law school more exclusive and thus getting in is an achievement. If you don't have the GPA/LSAT to get into one of these schools, or get scholarship money from them, then maybe you shouldn't go to law school. I wouldn't go as far as to call for slash and burn when it comes to elimination. Leave Pitt Law, but get rid of Duquense. Leave Temple, but get rid of Nova. Again, if you can't get into Temple of Pitt with scholarship money, then maybe you aren't cut out for it. Elitist? Maybe. But maybe there should be more elitism when it comes to law school admissions, because there's certainly elitism when it comes to hiring.


Two problems with this (well, more than that, but let's start with two). First, it's an illegal restraint on trade. Second, it would drive up prices for those schools, since they would have an even bigger monopoly than they already do, and thus would likely drive up the cost of legal services as lawyers try to recoup their investment.


Oh it's completely impossible to actually carry this out. This is more of a perfect-world scenario. And perhaps a cap on tuition? Again, this is perhaps legally impossible, but in a perfect world...


You can't actually have a cap on tuition, but a cap on student loans would be a very close proxy, and perfectly legal.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby timbs4339 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:09 pm

PDaddy wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:Brian Tamanaha, author of the new book Failing Law Schools, has an op-ed in the NYT on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/how-to-make-law-school-affordable.html?ref=opinion

I have some thoughts on it here: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/06/and-new-york-times-said-law-is-dead.html


Your friend's plan sounds nice, in theory, but there's one huge problem with his proposal: the profession would almost certainly become elitist and exclusionary towards the ethnic minorities and the poor if such strict limits force banks to loan primarily to students who are least likely to really "need" the money. This is almost a certain reality if caps are placed on the law schools and the federal government tightens regulations so that private lenders refuse to loan to the most needy students.

This would have a devastating impact on the legal profession and the public itself, as the courts are already denying access to those persons who most need it. As it is, victims of civil rights violations are unable to find lawyers to take their cases in this economy, adding batches of lawyers from upper-end financial backgrounds will only result in a legal industry that is wholly apathetic to minorities and the poor, which will result in more civil rights violations, disparate prosecution and sentencing, predatory lending, and loss of home ownership for those persons.

I do agree that one solution would be to lower tuition at law schools to the point that they are profitable, but only within reason.


This is going to be the next line of attack from tenured profs and deans against the law school reform movement. It's an old favorite and one that allowed them to win that DOJ antitrust suit back in the 90s that paved the way for a bunch of shit law schools to open. I predict that because of the drop in qualified applicants we will begin to see more lawsuits against the ABA on a similar theory if it becomes apparent that TTT schools are unable to field a class that can pass the bar at great enough rates to satisfy accreditation standards.

It's bullshit, and all that has happened is a giant social welfare program for limousine liberal law professors and deans. I fail to see how letting a poor kid (or even a middle class kid) take on 200K in loans for a 50/50 shot at a legal job is at all beneficial to that individual or to society. Schools already have in place affirmative action programs that improve access for minority students.

I'm pretty lefty myself and am squarely in the more government control of higher ed camp. But the hypocrisy in a group of people who claim to be all for the welfare of the poor and minorities and then turn around and charge 40-50K per year to attend their school, knowing their students will be mortgaging their future, is disgusting. If law school was 15K per year (the price at CUNY), I'd buy it. But there are other ways to improve access to the profession that don't result in such a boon to law professors.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby timbs4339 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:19 pm

I think most of us agree on what has to happen (lower tuition, fewer law students). But the problems are:

1) How we are going to get there? Do we dump the federal loan system for law students altogether and let the private loan market handle it? Do we cap tuition and seats? Do we do nothing except keep writing blog posts and warning people to stay away from law school, hoping the current system will sort itself out?

2) Who is going to help accomplish this besides angry students and a few rogue law profs and interested practitioners? What groups are seriously going to stand up against the entrenched interests of law professors and deans? Will the law schools ever stand up and self-regulate? The ABA Section on Legal Education has been captured by lower-ranked law deans and profs. The state bar associations can only control things on the back-end, after people have taken out massive loans and spent three years of their life. The federal government could solve the problem, but law students (and students generally) are a low priority interest group and universities are major campaign donors to Democratic politicians. Pelosi, for one, is squarely in the back pocket of the for-profits meaning any push back against unlimited federal loan money is unlikely to happen.

I have my own thoughts on (1) but the possible progression of (2) has always eluded me.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby RedBirds2011 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:23 pm

timbs4339 wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:Brian Tamanaha, author of the new book Failing Law Schools, has an op-ed in the NYT on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/how-to-make-law-school-affordable.html?ref=opinion

I have some thoughts on it here: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/06/and-new-york-times-said-law-is-dead.html


Your friend's plan sounds nice, in theory, but there's one huge problem with his proposal: the profession would almost certainly become elitist and exclusionary towards the ethnic minorities and the poor if such strict limits force banks to loan primarily to students who are least likely to really "need" the money. This is almost a certain reality if caps are placed on the law schools and the federal government tightens regulations so that private lenders refuse to loan to the most needy students.

This would have a devastating impact on the legal profession and the public itself, as the courts are already denying access to those persons who most need it. As it is, victims of civil rights violations are unable to find lawyers to take their cases in this economy, adding batches of lawyers from upper-end financial backgrounds will only result in a legal industry that is wholly apathetic to minorities and the poor, which will result in more civil rights violations, disparate prosecution and sentencing, predatory lending, and loss of home ownership for those persons.

I do agree that one solution would be to lower tuition at law schools to the point that they are profitable, but only within reason.


This is going to be the next line of attack from tenured profs and deans against the law school reform movement. It's an old favorite and one that allowed them to win that DOJ antitrust suit back in the 90s that paved the way for a bunch of shit law schools to open. I predict that because of the drop in qualified applicants we will begin to see more lawsuits against the ABA on a similar theory if it becomes apparent that TTT schools are unable to field a class that can pass the bar at great enough rates to satisfy accreditation standards.

It's bullshit, and all that has happened is a giant social welfare program for limousine liberal law professors and deans. I fail to see how letting a poor kid (or even a middle class kid) take on 200K in loans for a 50/50 shot at a legal job is at all beneficial to that individual or to society. Schools already have in place affirmative action programs that improve access for minority students.

I'm pretty lefty myself and am squarely in the more government control of higher ed camp. But the hypocrisy in a group of people who claim to be all for the welfare of the poor and minorities and then turn around and charge 40-50K per year to attend their school, knowing their students will be mortgaging their future, is disgusting. If law school was 15K per year (the price at CUNY), I'd buy it. But there are other ways to improve access to the profession that don't result in such a boon to law professors.



The issue right now is that, without government assistance and PSLF, NOBODY would be able to be a public interest lawyer at current law school costs. Public defenders are...uh...kinda important for a functional criminal justic system. Also, it would be bad for the poor because fewer and fewer lawyers would be able to give legal services to them.

High tuition and the situation we are in now have a very indirect way of favoring a legal system that favors only the wealthy. Call my crazy but the legal system just seems like it should be about fairness lol

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby timbs4339 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:29 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:Brian Tamanaha, author of the new book Failing Law Schools, has an op-ed in the NYT on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/how-to-make-law-school-affordable.html?ref=opinion

I have some thoughts on it here: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/06/and-new-york-times-said-law-is-dead.html


Your friend's plan sounds nice, in theory, but there's one huge problem with his proposal: the profession would almost certainly become elitist and exclusionary towards the ethnic minorities and the poor if such strict limits force banks to loan primarily to students who are least likely to really "need" the money. This is almost a certain reality if caps are placed on the law schools and the federal government tightens regulations so that private lenders refuse to loan to the most needy students.

This would have a devastating impact on the legal profession and the public itself, as the courts are already denying access to those persons who most need it. As it is, victims of civil rights violations are unable to find lawyers to take their cases in this economy, adding batches of lawyers from upper-end financial backgrounds will only result in a legal industry that is wholly apathetic to minorities and the poor, which will result in more civil rights violations, disparate prosecution and sentencing, predatory lending, and loss of home ownership for those persons.

I do agree that one solution would be to lower tuition at law schools to the point that they are profitable, but only within reason.


This is going to be the next line of attack from tenured profs and deans against the law school reform movement. It's an old favorite and one that allowed them to win that DOJ antitrust suit back in the 90s that paved the way for a bunch of shit law schools to open. I predict that because of the drop in qualified applicants we will begin to see more lawsuits against the ABA on a similar theory if it becomes apparent that TTT schools are unable to field a class that can pass the bar at great enough rates to satisfy accreditation standards.

It's bullshit, and all that has happened is a giant social welfare program for limousine liberal law professors and deans. I fail to see how letting a poor kid (or even a middle class kid) take on 200K in loans for a 50/50 shot at a legal job is at all beneficial to that individual or to society. Schools already have in place affirmative action programs that improve access for minority students.

I'm pretty lefty myself and am squarely in the more government control of higher ed camp. But the hypocrisy in a group of people who claim to be all for the welfare of the poor and minorities and then turn around and charge 40-50K per year to attend their school, knowing their students will be mortgaging their future, is disgusting. If law school was 15K per year (the price at CUNY), I'd buy it. But there are other ways to improve access to the profession that don't result in such a boon to law professors.



The issue right now is that, without government assistance and PSLF, NOBODY would be able to be a public interest lawyer at current law school costs. Public defenders are...uh...kinda important for a functional criminal justic system. Also, it would be bad for the poor because fewer and fewer lawyers would be able to give legal services to them.


I'm not arguing against PSLF- it's the one repayment program I agree with. In fact, I would advocate more government spending on hiring PDs and DAs and well as an expansion of Legal Aid into civil areas. The recent government cutbacks have really hit entry-level lawyers hard. But let's do it directly by hiring more lawyers. We can also do it indirectly by LOWERING or capping tuition so that entry-level lawyers have more freedom to work in private practice areas serving low or middle income clients. The way to increase access for poor and middle income clients is to take money away from law schools.

But I despise the mentality of the law professor who cloaks himself in social justice rhetoric and then turns around and charges some poor or middle-class kid 40K to attend his school. Then has the audacity to claim that increasing the numbers of lawyers will increase access for the poor and middle-class, when it is both the loan debt and the impractical pedagogical methods of law school that make it impossible for a young lawyer to strike out on his own and serve those same clients.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby dresden doll » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:37 pm

Renzo wrote:
jas1503 wrote:
If a Yale student with shitty grades at Yale would still be the 'creme de la whatnot' at a lower ranked law school, then a curve at Yale wouldn't be necessary?


In the words of Justice Scalia, “By and large, I’m going to be picking [clerks] from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest.”


Isn't that the quote from his American University Law School appearance? Awkward (although true).

User avatar
Gettingstarted1928
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:38 pm

sunynp wrote:
morally0bese wrote:Yeah there is nothing here that law school applicants should not know already.

It may be useful to consider this article's impact within the wider student loan debate that has gotten so much attention this political season. Will this focus lead to increased awareness and possibly policy?


You are mistaken if you think that everyone knows this information. There are still plenty of people who have no idea what is happening with law school. Just read some of the threads here. I read one yesterday by a guy who was considering transferring and deeply regretted not finding this site first. There was a while ago where I argued with a girl who wanted to give up Michigan to go for free at a her local T4 California school with high stips.

I think there are many, many undergrads who don't know about law school. Neither do their parents nor their pre-law advisors. Also, the years of misinformation put out by the schools is a lot to overcome.

Another aspect is that some people are desperate for jobs. They can't find any work, so they feel that law school is their only ticket to financial security. If it doesn't work out, they feel they will just go on IBR and not be any worse off than they are now.


This could not have been said better.

User avatar
Gettingstarted1928
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:39 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
CwallXC322 wrote:Finally, someone (besides Krugman) who things we need more spending and less austerity.


How can we have less austerity when there hasn't been any?


LOL

User avatar
Julio_El_Chavo
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby Julio_El_Chavo » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:16 pm

rayiner wrote:
Julio_El_Chavo wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:Brian Tamanaha, author of the new book Failing Law Schools, has an op-ed in the NYT on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/how-to-make-law-school-affordable.html?ref=opinion

I have some thoughts on it here: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/06/and-new-york-times-said-law-is-dead.html


Your friend's plan sounds nice, in theory, but there's one huge problem with his proposal: the profession would almost certainly become elitist and exclusionary towards the ethnic minorities and the poor if such strict limits force banks to loan primarily to students who are least likely to really "need" the money. This is almost a certain reality if caps are placed on the law schools and the federal government tightens regulations so that private lenders refuse to loan to the most needy students.

This would have a devastating impact on the legal profession and the public itself, as the courts are already denying access to those persons who most need it. As it is, victims of civil rights violations are unable to find lawyers to take their cases in this economy, adding batches of lawyers from upper-end financial backgrounds will only result in a legal industry that is wholly apathetic to minorities and the poor, which will result in more civil rights violations, disparate prosecution and sentencing, predatory lending, and loss of home ownership for those persons.

I do agree that one solution would be to lower tuition at law schools to the point that they are profitable, but only within reason.


LOL @ this trite liberal bullshit.


Sorry for your tiny pink worldview little breh.


I have no problem with most liberal bullshit as long as it's not complete devoid of any relevancy to society's problems.

kingofspain
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:55 am

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby kingofspain » Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:37 pm

What if there were something like a credit-rating system for law schools? Like, we determine for each law school how much debt their grads can realistically bear, and then the government guarantees loans only up to that level. (It could take into account not only earning potential but things like a school's low-income repayment program, generosity w/ need-based aid, etc.)

Granted, it would probably be an actuarial & bureaucratic nightmare, but it seems like it would 1) force prices down at schools where they most desperately need to be forced down, 2) maintain fair access to law school for low-income people, and 3) maintain the continuum of law schools that are needed to fill the wide variety of legal work the world requires.

User avatar
Julio_El_Chavo
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby Julio_El_Chavo » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:44 pm

timbs4339 wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:Brian Tamanaha, author of the new book Failing Law Schools, has an op-ed in the NYT on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/how-to-make-law-school-affordable.html?ref=opinion

I have some thoughts on it here: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/06/and-new-york-times-said-law-is-dead.html


Your friend's plan sounds nice, in theory, but there's one huge problem with his proposal: the profession would almost certainly become elitist and exclusionary towards the ethnic minorities and the poor if such strict limits force banks to loan primarily to students who are least likely to really "need" the money. This is almost a certain reality if caps are placed on the law schools and the federal government tightens regulations so that private lenders refuse to loan to the most needy students.

This would have a devastating impact on the legal profession and the public itself, as the courts are already denying access to those persons who most need it. As it is, victims of civil rights violations are unable to find lawyers to take their cases in this economy, adding batches of lawyers from upper-end financial backgrounds will only result in a legal industry that is wholly apathetic to minorities and the poor, which will result in more civil rights violations, disparate prosecution and sentencing, predatory lending, and loss of home ownership for those persons.

I do agree that one solution would be to lower tuition at law schools to the point that they are profitable, but only within reason.


This is going to be the next line of attack from tenured profs and deans against the law school reform movement. It's an old favorite and one that allowed them to win that DOJ antitrust suit back in the 90s that paved the way for a bunch of shit law schools to open. I predict that because of the drop in qualified applicants we will begin to see more lawsuits against the ABA on a similar theory if it becomes apparent that TTT schools are unable to field a class that can pass the bar at great enough rates to satisfy accreditation standards.

It's bullshit, and all that has happened is a giant social welfare program for limousine liberal law professors and deans. I fail to see how letting a poor kid (or even a middle class kid) take on 200K in loans for a 50/50 shot at a legal job is at all beneficial to that individual or to society. Schools already have in place affirmative action programs that improve access for minority students.

I'm pretty lefty myself and am squarely in the more government control of higher ed camp. But the hypocrisy in a group of people who claim to be all for the welfare of the poor and minorities and then turn around and charge 40-50K per year to attend their school, knowing their students will be mortgaging their future, is disgusting. If law school was 15K per year (the price at CUNY), I'd buy it. But there are other ways to improve access to the profession that don't result in such a boon to law professors.


CR.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby Renzo » Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:16 pm

dresden doll wrote:
Renzo wrote:
jas1503 wrote:
If a Yale student with shitty grades at Yale would still be the 'creme de la whatnot' at a lower ranked law school, then a curve at Yale wouldn't be necessary?


In the words of Justice Scalia, “By and large, I’m going to be picking [clerks] from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest.”


Isn't that the quote from his American University Law School appearance? Awkward (although true).


Yep. It was his answer to a student question about how best to advance his [the student's] career.

Napt
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:43 am

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby Napt » Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:59 am

kingofspain wrote:What if there were something like a credit-rating system for law schools? Like, we determine for each law school how much debt their grads can realistically bear, and then the government guarantees loans only up to that level. (It could take into account not only earning potential but things like a school's low-income repayment program, generosity w/ need-based aid, etc.)

Granted, it would probably be an actuarial & bureaucratic nightmare, but it seems like it would 1) force prices down at schools where they most desperately need to be forced down, 2) maintain fair access to law school for low-income people, and 3) maintain the continuum of law schools that are needed to fill the wide variety of legal work the world requires.

(Barney Frank)

User avatar
thelawyler
Posts: 902
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:00 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby thelawyler » Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:48 am

Napt wrote:
kingofspain wrote:What if there were something like a credit-rating system for law schools? Like, we determine for each law school how much debt their grads can realistically bear, and then the government guarantees loans only up to that level. (It could take into account not only earning potential but things like a school's low-income repayment program, generosity w/ need-based aid, etc.)

Granted, it would probably be an actuarial & bureaucratic nightmare, but it seems like it would 1) force prices down at schools where they most desperately need to be forced down, 2) maintain fair access to law school for low-income people, and 3) maintain the continuum of law schools that are needed to fill the wide variety of legal work the world requires.

(Barney Frank)

huh?

PostLSATBender
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:29 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby PostLSATBender » Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:58 pm

dresden doll wrote:
Renzo wrote:
jas1503 wrote:
If a Yale student with shitty grades at Yale would still be the 'creme de la whatnot' at a lower ranked law school, then a curve at Yale wouldn't be necessary?


In the words of Justice Scalia, “By and large, I’m going to be picking [clerks] from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest.”


Isn't that the quote from his American University Law School appearance? Awkward (although true).


Lol what's true? That the best law schools always select the best and brightest? Lololol. They admit the person with the highest LSAT score, but that doesn't translate into the best and brightest. Definitely not the best lawyer. Anyone who tells me that solving a complex hybrid logic game in 2 minutes vice 2 1/2 makes a better and brighter law student is on drugs. But it dictates whether or not I get into T-14?? Such crap. I scored 166, applied to Gtown and GW and rejected by both within 2 weeks. But someone with a 169 will get into Gtown b/c they saw something on a logic game I didn't...within a matter of seconds...and b/c of that they get a better clerkship? I'm friends with a girl who's a paralegal at an IP firm in DC and she says a lot of the attorneys although brilliant are social morons. And they wanted to be lawyers? Doesn't sound very "logical." Man, can't wait to get on trial team at my school, where I am going for free, and take my bitterness to competition. BTW Scalia is an ideological f*cktard who legislates from the bench. A clerkship w/ him or any other conservative wingnut on SCOTUS is a sh*tstain on a resume for someone trying to be a lawyer if you ask me

User avatar
thelawyler
Posts: 902
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:00 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby thelawyler » Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:36 pm

You sound mad. You mad brah?

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby Renzo » Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:42 pm

thelawyler wrote:You sound mad. You mad brah?


--ImageRemoved--

PostLSATBender
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:29 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby PostLSATBender » Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:36 am

Renzo wrote:
thelawyler wrote:You sound mad. You mad brah?


--ImageRemoved--


Dudebrah I'm fired up. Been poppin hydroxycut and caffeine pills and haven't slept more than 3 hours a night since January. Feel sorry for my 1L classmates lol.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby rad lulz » Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:40 am

PostLSATBender wrote:Man, can't wait to get on trial team at my school, where I am going for free, and take my bitterness to competition.

See the funny thing is, no one who's not on trial team cares ab trial team.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby Blessedassurance » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:43 am

banjo wrote:We should simply look to Canada as a model. For the most part, legal education in Canada is affordable, employment prospects are strong outside British Columbia, and Canadian law faculties remain involved in academic research. There are only 18 common law schools in all of Canada, many with class sizes < 100.


The US has a population approximately ten times that of Canada.

A lot of law schools should be closed but looking to the Canadian model is not the answer. Law school is a terrible investment. The rationality of the consumer is in doubt due to misinformation etc.

The problem with the government-guaranteed loans starts at the undergraduate level. Students borrow a lot of money for degrees with terrible ROI, graduate to the reality of the market and then compound their initial mistake by enrolling in Law Schools from which they cannot reasonably hope to gain the kind of employment (if any), that would enable them pay off their loans.

There are of course trade-offs with doing away with the government guarantee. On one hand, there is the risk of restricting access. Some might argue that schools, in the interest of diversity etc., will institute other methods of funding (scholarships based on financial need etc) to counter the non-existence of the government guarantee. On the other hand, law schools will be forced to adjust tuition pursuant to curtailed demand the lack of government-backing unleashes and so on.

The main issue is the ever-increasing cost of tuition, which is a function of demand, which is a function of misinformation and government funding. A lot of people under-estimate the intelligence of the average consumer.

A burst is due. The insanity must burst asunder. The inevitable burst is being starved off by the non-dischargeability of student loans. This too shall pass.

User avatar
banjo
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:00 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby banjo » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:29 am

Blessedassurance wrote:
banjo wrote:We should simply look to Canada as a model. For the most part, legal education in Canada is affordable, employment prospects are strong outside British Columbia, and Canadian law faculties remain involved in academic research. There are only 18 common law schools in all of Canada, many with class sizes < 100.


The US has a population approximately ten times that of Canada.

A lot of law schools should be closed but looking to the Canadian model is not the answer. Law school is a terrible investment. The rationality of the consumer is in doubt due to misinformation etc.


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. Take a look: http://www.oxfordseminars.ca/LSAT/lsat_profiles.php. Keep in mind that a lot of these students are coming from low-tuition public undergrads where they incurred very little debt. Some Canadian law schools even allow you to matriculate after finishing just two years of undergrad (Alberta is one, IIRC). The result is that Canadian law students have less debt, more flexibility, and brighter job prospects than their US counterparts.

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.

We can do this in the US by keeping around 50 public law schools (one for each state) and a few of the best private law schools. Tuition and enrollments at the public law schools should be tied to job outcomes.

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.

FWIW I'm not Canadian and have no ties at all to the country.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby Blessedassurance » Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:45 pm

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.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial

Postby timbs4339 » Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:01 pm

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.


I think the number of seats is much lower. I'm not sure you have massive diploma mills churning out 300-600 JDs per year.

http://www.oxfordseminars.ca/LSAT/lsat_profiles.php

The tuition column made me sob uncontrollably.

EDIT: Contrast with this http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... w-rankings

It's total enrollment, but any number over 1000 looks like it is higher than all Canadian schools except U of O.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests