flcath wrote:"can pass the bar and MPRE" =/= "qualified"
I assume you support the practice of reading law?
Depends, there are a few states that do this, some of them require working alongside licensed lawyers for a certain amount of hours. That sounds like a pretty good system.
Anyway, passing the bar and MPRE may not be sufficient, but that wasn't my point and I imagine you know that. The point is, even below median students at TTTT's like Cooley, Golden Gate, etc., frequently have what it takes to be lawyers, which is not saying much. A huge portion of legal work is repetitive bullshit.
And my other points still stands, you're not really interested in the greater legal profession, you're transparently interested in improving your own job prospects. So am I, but I don't want to create further artificial barriers to entry to the profession, I just want to cut out the unlimited financing we've got now.
First of all, though you're correct in asserting that *my* argument about the integrity of the legal profession is disingenuous, it isn't disingenuous for many lawyers, and it might (and hopefully will) not be disingenuous for me, one day... you can't really have that much "pride" in a profession you aren't actually a part of yet, right? Anyway, it's an argument that should be addressed b/c it's still valid, despite my ulterior motives in presenting it. To make another analogy to medicine (don't know why I've been favoring these so much ITT), this "quality of the overall profession" argument is my (physician) parents' sole objection to universal healthcare--they won't ever be affected by the diminished income potential themselves (too old, too established), but they don't like the impact it will have on the quality of new docs.
Though your position is consistent (though your idea about cutting gov't guarantorship is politically unfeasible... as my idea might be), we obviously *do* license this profession, and when we have schools that practice forced attrition policies not seen anywhere else in academia, only to pump unnecessary (I'm not saying incompetent or even surplus) lawyers into the system, it seems like an ideal opportunity to take advantage of to simply say: "Okay, bar passage and all other standards remain the same as they were, but now you have to maintain them while dismissing <10% of your class
Some of the TTTs would survive, some would have to cut back class/faculty sizes but then would survive, and some would undoubtedly fail. I just don't think that adding a simple stipulation about 1L attrition is that crazy; when you think about it it's just closing the loophole that has allowed these T4s to stay accredited to this point anyway.