Dingbat and I have covered the cost of law school extensively in a prior thread. If I recall, I argued that the increasing cost of tuition was "rent-seeking"--essentially "taking a cut of"--of future income streams of students' active investments and as such was an improper but natural market distortion, such distortions typically requiring correction by a market supervisor, usually the government (but in this case, the ABA would do just fine.) I contrasted this with "rent-seeking" of another's passive investment, like a stock, with which the investor has nothing to do but buy it to gain a profit, which is not improper. In the case of law school, a student has plenty to do on his own to reap the profit of his education and so has a right to pay only for the fair value of the services that comprise his education, and no more.
(Dean Mitchell seems not to have quite understood my argument and contrasted law school with a "passive or active" investment, if I recall...perhaps he reads TLS?)
But, before we start giving the shitboomers what they want, a rowdy crowd of Millennials sounding cranky that someone isn't paying their way, I think we should organize our initial sally in this fight on common ground. What can we say that will ring strong in the ears of all three relevant groups--ourselves, Deans and faculty, and the general public? Drop class sizes: supply has outstripped demand. What will happen to tuition prices? Well, either they'll fall on their own, as schools decrease faculty hiring and other costs in the face of smaller class sizes, or they'll stay the same. In the unlikely later case, we'll still have won a very important battle: stanching the glut into our profession. And our careers, and the quality of legal services in America, will be better for it.
Last edited by manofjustice
on Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.