To play some devil's advocate,
The problem for me with basing accreditation on employment statistics isn't so much that they're imprecise, though they certainly are. The problem is employment statistics measure the quality of the law school's brand, not its quality of education.
I'm aware that law schools are practical degrees, and agree that students should evaluate schools by their placement power. But the ABA should not be in that business: it is unethical for a governing body to bar entry to the market simply because schools are not established brands. Schools should not be punished simply because they are not Harvard.
From Chapter 1 of the ABA standards:
A law school approved by the Association or seeking approval by the Association shall demonstrate that its program is consistent with sound legal education principles.
What people are proposing w/r/t restricting accreditation on the value of the degree is a regulatory solution to what is, at its core, a market-based problem. Students get bad advice from friends and family that law degrees are a golden ticket, so they overvalue law degrees. Students have bad information on employment statistics or the legal marketplace (or believe, rightly or wrongly, that it's just as bad in every other sector of the economy), so they overvalue law degrees. The solution to this isn't for the ABA to target a certain number of graduates in expectation of a certain number of jobs via rigid accreditation standards. The solution is better information.
The market is realizing law degrees are less valuable than they once were; applications are down 20% this year and 50% in the last three years. This is enormous. Yes, tuition is still rising - there are still too many applicants and too many graduates. But the problem is working itself out. Restricting ABA standards would only serve to reduce the ability of the market to correct itself when the legal market changes (and it will; everyone seems to assume the current state of the economy will continue indefinitely no matter what that current state happens to be).
I do think there are real problems that need to be addressed here - the federal loan spigot is just too torrential. I don't really know what to do about this; making loans dischargeable would increase the risk profile of student loans and hurt social mobility. But something needs to happen.
That "something" just should not involve making it impossible for new law schools to exist. I'll mock TTTs with everyone else, but they should be given the chance to prove their worth in the marketplace. Brooklyn nabbed a SCOTUS clerkship last year, for example, and I expect they'll get some marginal boost from this; whether this reflects their worth as a law school will be shown over time. UC Irvine, despite the scorn it gets on here, is probably headed toward a mid-20s ranking given its medians. The problem isn't that TTTs exist, the problem is that students think they're worth something. Better information availability fixes that.
Add this to the list of arguments I, as a committed socialist, never thought I'd be making.