IAFG wrote:Samara wrote:rayiner wrote:manofjustice wrote:Rayiner as usual makes sense. But we need to bottom-line it and (hopefully) agree: at this point, in the final analysis, law school costs too much and (as a corollary) BigLaw salaries are minimally acceptable. Either the former has to go down, or the latter should at least keep strict pace with inflation.
Law school costs too much. It's taking up increasingly larger fractions of the net value added by getting a T14 JD. Law schools are effectively oligopolies (the very existence of the "T14" concept bears that out), so it is no surprise they can continue to expand to capture more and more of the value added by the degree. I'm one of those leftists who thinks their oligopoly and tax-advantaged status warrants strict regulation, and at a more philosophical level that educational institutions shouldn't be in the business of trying to extract all of the value they add to students' careers.
Not to go off-topic, haha, but do we know how much the average amount of tuition actually paid has increased, inflation-adjusted? For UG, the average amount paid (inflation-adjusted) has actually only slightly increased. Sticker price has increased dramatically, but so has financial aid. I'm curious if it is a similar situation for law school.
If you think taking out loans to pay for law school at sticker is crazy, that's nothing compared to people who hit that debt level for UG. I'm not completely on the law school costs too much bandwagon because I think sticker is still well worth it if you make it to biglaw. Thus, sticker price shouldn't necessarily be reduced as much as debt loads should be lessened for people who miss out on biglaw.
Don't conflate the issues. It's possible for law school to both cost too much and also be worth the investment.
Precisely. Hence the "right to "complain"" (complain in quotes) while cashing the paycheck.