I was using Wyoming as an example, but the point holds true for any school that isn't up to par, whether public or private, reasonably priced or exorbitantly expensive. Either way, your argument is exactly what I am saying is wrong with the current way of thinking. You basically assume that if someone cannot go to law school in Wyoming, then they cannot become a lawyer in Wyoming. If the national market wasn't super-saturated like it currently is, then this just wouldn't be true. Graduates of law school have a hard time going to different regions because, among other reasons, each region already has its feeder schools and is saturated with graduates from those institutions.
Also, even if it is cheap, why should the University of Wyoming
be accredited when it only has a 50% employment rate? No matter where you go to law school, and no matter the cost of tuition and living expenses, the investment of 2~3+ years of one's life is the same for everyone, everywhere. By accrediting institutions that have consistently been unable to perform, the ABA is basically condoning the scamming that has gone on for so many years now.
To use yet another analogy, let's say that you see a “Babe Ruth Rookie Card” on eBay for $300,000. You’ve wanted this card for a long time, and now is your chance, so you decide to buy it. Before finalizing the purchase, you notice that the seller has many less-than-stellar customer reviews, but there are also some customers who have left high ratings. You optimistically think “nobody can please everyone, and my purchase is guaranteed through eBay anyway,” and proceed to make the purchase. Three weeks later, you receive an envelope in the mail from the seller, and when you open it, you find a birthday card with a picture of young Babe Ruth cheaply printed on the front. “This isn’t what I paid for!” you think, but as you go back and look at the fine print on the product’s page, you notice that the seller specifically stated that they are selling “a card of Babe Ruth when he was a rookie.” You realize at this point that you’ve been scammed, and try to take action against the seller. Unfortunately, the court rules that after checking the seller’s review history, you shouldn’t have expected to get a real Babe Ruth rookie card; the wording on the product’s page also didn’t explicitly state that you would be receiving a valuable baseball card, so you were wrong to assume that you were buying such.
Interesting enough, I’ve seen an episode of Judge Judy (
) where a seller was taken to court because she was sending buyers pictures of cell phones when they thought they would be getting actual phones. Even though the wording on the product’s page was vague enough to not condemn the seller, Judge Judy still ruled in favor of the plaintiff because the defendant had the intention of deceiving. The point here is that yes, you would have to be some level of dumb to make sure a purchase, but that doesn’t mean that the sellers of shady products shouldn’t be held accountable for their sketchy deals.