Letter to the ABA Forum

[theturkeyisfat]

how can the AMA cap the number of medical grads at 17k/year, while the ABA can't do anything?

[071816]

how can the AMA cap the number of medical grads at 17k/year, while the ABA can't do anything?

Because the ABA is full of irresponsible jerk-offs with no backbone.

[DoubleChecks]

wow kudos to OP for doing this, and all of TLS for contributing. it has certainly made my day.

[Master Tofu]

OP:

I think it's great if this letter gets published in the NYT, but I think it would be better if this letter actually happens. To that end, I would consider tailoring the letter to accomodate some of your judge's views on the legal system. It doesn't have to be 100% but I am sure he will appreciate being heard. In any event, if he sees the letter as a reflection of his views, he's more likely to advocate for it and gather support.

[firemed]

how can the AMA cap the number of medical grads at 17k/year, while the ABA can't do anything?

Because the ABA is full of irresponsible jerk-offs with no backbone.

Amen!

We should probably be capped at 20-25K grads a year.

[Anonymous User]

OP:

I think it's great if this letter gets published in the NYT, but I think it would be better if this letter actually happens. To that end, I would consider tailoring the letter to accomodate some of your judge's views on the legal system. It doesn't have to be 100% but I am sure he will appreciate being heard. In any event, if he sees the letter as a reflection of his views, he's more likely to advocate for it and gather support.

I gave the second draft to the judge today, and he will be 'personalizing' it around the general structure I provided. He also really liked the idea of sending it to the NYT and WSJ as an op-ed.

[Master Tofu]

Great to hear!

[CanadianWolf]

I agree with Master Tofu, but, based on the judges I know, it was an unnecessary comment.

[bgdddymtty]

how can the AMA cap the number of medical grads at 17k/year, while the ABA can't do anything?

Because the ABA is full of irresponsible jerk-offs with no backbone.

This is not the reason, unless by "no backbone" you're referring to an unwillingness to fight the feds. The ABA has been told in no uncertain terms that any attempt to limit either the number of law schools or the number of law students will be considered a violation of antitrust law.

[071816]

how can the AMA cap the number of medical grads at 17k/year, while the ABA can't do anything?

Because the ABA is full of irresponsible jerk-offs with no backbone.

This is not the reason, unless by "no backbone" you're referring to an unwillingness to fight the feds. The ABA has been told in no uncertain terms that any attempt to limit either the number of law schools or the number of law students will be considered a violation of antitrust law.

Let's see the proof, guy. Enlighten me.

Are you telling me that it would be unlawful in the eyes of the feds for the ABA to make accreditation requirements more stringent?

[theturkeyisfat]

how can the AMA cap the number of medical grads at 17k/year, while the ABA can't do anything?

Because the ABA is full of irresponsible jerk-offs with no backbone.

This is not the reason, unless by "no backbone" you're referring to an unwillingness to fight the feds. The ABA has been told in no uncertain terms that any attempt to limit either the number of law schools or the number of law students will be considered a violation of antitrust law.

once again, if the ama can do it, why can't the aba?

The system, in terms of the nation’s legal academy, operates in stark contrast to the medical establishment. In 2006, the last year of measurement, the American Medical College Application Service placed 17,000 students in classroom spots limited by the American Medical Association. That compares with 47,600 students processed in 2008 by the Law School Admission Council who were admitted to campuses approved by the American Bar Association, which has no limit on the number of law schools in the country.

http://forum.lawschool.cornell.edu/Vol3 ... ture-2.cfm

[071816]

once again, if the ama can do it, why can't the aba?

If I had to guess I would say that it has a lot to do with the fundamental differences between the legal and medical professions. Society can't have a surplus of doctors who work in low paying sweatshops. We also can't afford to have a bunch of incompetent doctors because they will harm people. Society can afford to have a surplus of bad lawyers, they will just be unemployed. The medical profession has to make sure they only accept people who have a chance to be competent doctors, but the legal profession doesn't have to and thus can function within a free market economy. There are plenty of lawyers who are just glorified secretaries. I don't think the AMA could ever have that given the nature of medical school and the medical profession.

When the AMA limits the number of med school grads, they are seen as helping society. If the ABA were to limit the number of law school grads, they would be seen as helping people who are currently competing for law jobs and lawyers in general (and that's about it).

[gwuorbust]

once again, if the ama can do it, why can't the aba?

If I had to guess I would say that it has a lot to do with the fundamental differences between the legal and medical professions. Society can't have a surplus of doctors who work in low paying sweatshops. We also can't afford to have a bunch of incompetent doctors because they will harm people. Society can afford to have a surplus of bad lawyers, they will just be unemployed. The medical profession has to make sure they only accept people who have a chance to be competent doctors, but the legal profession doesn't have to and thus can function within a free market economy. There are plenty of lawyers who are just glorified secretaries. I don't think the AMA could ever have that given the nature of medical school and the medical profession.

When the AMA limits the number of med school grads, they are seen as helping society. If the ABA were to limit the number of law school grads, they would be seen as helping people who are currently competing for law jobs and lawyers in general (and that's about it).

this is all just your speculation. until I see some case law for why the ABA can't do this I am going to continue to believe that they are no different from the AMA and could change their own internal policies regarding accreditation requirements.

[robotclubmember]

once again, if the ama can do it, why can't the aba?

If I had to guess I would say that it has a lot to do with the fundamental differences between the legal and medical professions. Society can't have a surplus of doctors who work in low paying sweatshops. We also can't afford to have a bunch of incompetent doctors because they will harm people. Society can afford to have a surplus of bad lawyers, they will just be unemployed. The medical profession has to make sure they only accept people who have a chance to be competent doctors, but the legal profession doesn't have to and thus can function within a free market economy. There are plenty of lawyers who are just glorified secretaries. I don't think the AMA could ever have that given the nature of medical school and the medical profession.

When the AMA limits the number of med school grads, they are seen as helping society. If the ABA were to limit the number of law school grads, they would be seen as helping people who are currently competing for law jobs and lawyers in general (and that's about it).

this is all just your speculation. until I see some case law for why the ABA can't do this I am going to continue to believe that they are no different from the AMA and could change their own internal policies regarding accreditation requirements.

doctors deal directly with the lives of patients. the AMA can't risk letting unqualified doctors into the workplace. if an unqualified lawyer goes into the workplace, the market will weed him out after he blows a couple cases too many. if an unqualified doctor goes into the workplace people could die. markets generally respond to historical data, so med schools have to weed out for quality up front because the by the time the market weeds out a doctor, it will probably because he has already harmed society in some way. the risk of the loss of human life is good incentive for rigid accreditation standards from the AMA and harsher admissions standards from the schools. that risk doesn't exist with law schools. the ABA could change their accreditation standards but they have no incentive that is nearly as compelling as the AMA's. the effects of civil cases blown by lawyers could harm individuals but generally not society since the outcomes represent zero-sum transfers of wealth, and the effects of criminal cases blown by lawyers are mitigated by the existence of an appeals process. you can't appeal a death, and a death is not a zero-sum transfer, it's a net loss to society.

most of the ABA's members run the TTT's anyway. they let the wolf watch the henhouse.

[firemed]

doctors deal directly with the lives of patients. the AMA can't risk letting unqualified doctors into the workplace. if an unqualified lawyer goes into the workplace, the market will weed him out after he blows a couple cases too many. if an unqualified doctor goes into the workplace people could die. markets generally respond to historical data, so med schools have to weed out for quality up front because the by the time the market weeds out a doctor, it will probably because he has already harmed society in some way. the risk of the loss of human life is good incentive for rigid accreditation standards from the AMA and harsher admissions standards from the schools. that risk doesn't exist with law schools. the ABA could change their accreditation standards but they have no incentive that is nearly as compelling as the AMA's. the effects of civil cases blown by lawyers could harm individuals but generally not society since the outcomes represent zero-sum transfers of wealth, and the effects of criminal cases blown by lawyers are mitigated by the existence of an appeals process. you can't appeal a death, and a death is not a zero-sum transfer, it's a net loss to society.

most of the ABA's members run the TTT's anyway. they let the wolf watch the henhouse.

This argument only works if you ignore the fact that over 20,000 qualified doctors are turned down for residency per year.

[robotclubmember]

citations? i have no context. if there's a doctor surplus i'd be interested to know its scope.

[071816]

this is all just your speculation. until I see some case law for why the ABA can't do this I am going to continue to believe that they are no different from the AMA and could change their own internal policies regarding accreditation requirements.

Which is why I said "if I had to guess." I have no fucking clue what the real reasons are. I wish bgdddymtty would explain himself.

[drmguy]

Fucking do it. Bad ass.

[firemed]

citations? i have no context. if there's a doctor surplus i'd be interested to know its scope.

Here:
--ImageRemoved--

This is from this website:

--LinkRemoved--

And this book:

--LinkRemoved--


It is foreign trained US citizens, and foreign trained non-citizens... Some of whom graduated from very good schools in Ireland, England, France, Italy, Poland, Germany, NZ, Australia, etc... the kind of places you wouldn't think twice about getting an emergency surgery done in.

[robotclubmember]

It is foreign trained US citizens, and foreign trained non-citizens... Some of whom graduated from very good schools in Ireland, England, France, Italy, Poland, Germany, NZ, Australia, etc... the kind of places you wouldn't think twice about getting an emergency surgery done in.

So then that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a surplus of doctors in the US, it could just mean that people from other countries want to work here and we don't have enough slots in our country for our people plus theirs. And this is a matching program which isn't inclusive of the entire population of job seekers or jobs. Feel free to make any point you want, I'm going to duck out because I don't want to hijack this thread to talk about the medical profession, but it appears you don't have enough information to make conclusions.

[ShiftyPig]

Regarding the letter as posted: it would probably be good to make it through the first sentence without a grammatical mistake, but what do I know.

[071816]

Regarding the letter as posted: it would probably be good to make it through the first sentence without a grammatical mistake, but what do I know.

--ImageRemoved--

[ShiftyPig]

Regarding the letter as posted: it would probably be good to make it through the first sentence without a grammatical mistake, but what do I know.

*Fresh Prince gif*

As in that was a dick thing to say or you can't spot the error?

[Anonymous User]

Regarding the letter as posted: it would probably be good to make it through the first sentence without a grammatical mistake, but what do I know.

Regarding your toolery as demonstrated ITT: "to."

Regarding the letter as posted: it would probably be good to make it through the first sentence without a grammatical mistake, but what do I know.

*Fresh Prince gif*

As in that was a dick thing to say or you can't spot the error?

yes.

[firemed]

It is foreign trained US citizens, and foreign trained non-citizens... Some of whom graduated from very good schools in Ireland, England, France, Italy, Poland, Germany, NZ, Australia, etc... the kind of places you wouldn't think twice about getting an emergency surgery done in.

So then that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a surplus of doctors in the US, it could just mean that people from other countries want to work here and we don't have enough slots in our country for our people plus theirs. And this is a matching program which isn't inclusive of the entire population of job seekers or jobs. Feel free to make any point you want, I'm going to duck out because I don't want to hijack this thread to talk about the medical profession, but it appears you don't have enough information to make conclusions.

Well, then let me bring it back to the discussion at hand:

There is a huge shortage of doctors in this country (I can cite if you want). There is a supply of medical doctors available. Yet the AMA doesn't pressure congress to increase residency slots, nor does it increase the spots available in medical schools in this country at anything more than a snails pace. Why?

I think the answer is simple: low numbers of doctors handling more patients ensures high salaries for their membership. Physicians in other countries don't make the kinds of salaries our specialists do, that is for sure.

So... given that basically the AMA is looking out for it's members... why the hell is the ABA not doing the same for us? Simply starting an articling program like the one in Canada, limiting the number of spots, and then refusing to accredit schools that do not place enough people in articleships (or whatever they are called) would rapidly deal with the problem while also ensuring more practically trained lawyers available to firms. government, etc.