Brian Tamanaha's New York Times editorial Forum

[RedBirds2011]

Why does the total population matter? Canada graduates approximately as many lawyers as they need through a combination of fewer law schools and smaller class sizes.

The number of Canadian law schools you cited is roughly similar to that of the US (adjusting for population size and not including the number of seats at those law schools). That was my point.

The key is that Canadian legal education is public and therefore more strictly regulated. It's a bureaucratic nightmare to open a new school. Tuition is often capped by the provinces, which is one of the reasons Mcgill Law is charging in-province students an absurdly low $4k to attend. The requirements to practice in Canada after earning a degree elsewhere (such as a US TTTT or an Australian private school like Bond) are insane, giving Canadian law grads privileged access to the limited number of articling positions.

The AMA severely restricts supply. Also, note the number of Veterinary Schools in the US. Restriction happens in the United States, the ABA is just not very efficient at doing that. They tried doing that in the past, and the schools threatened to sue. The philosophical underpinnings of the US are different from Canada's. The only hope is to let the market fix this, which is why many argue for the Government to get out of the student loan business.

If people are paying 30 grand a year to learn their native tongue, there obviously is a problem. Of course libtards will argue about how their subjective analysis of Kafka's Metamorphosis advances humanity but that's another matter.

Also, I don't see what better consumer information will accomplish. People have too much faith in the decision-making capabilities of 22-year-olds and their anxious parents.

The public should not have to shoulder the short-sighted decisions of 22-year olds making such decisions. That is the argument, not that I necessarily support such a stance. Another angle is that the rise of tuition is related to the government guarantee. As is, schools have no incentive not to raise tuition.

This is actually similar to the housing bubble.

What specifically did the ABA get sued for? Was it for trying to not allow new schools to open? Why can't the ABA just put a limit on the number of students that a school can admit?

[Blessedassurance]

What specifically did the ABA get sued for? Was it for trying to not allow new schools to open? Why can't the ABA just put a limit on the number of students that a school can admit?

This is the latest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/busin ... ation.html

--LinkRemoved--

[Blessedassurance]

Relevant:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.co ... s_lawyers/

[timbs4339]

This whole thing really started in the 90's. A great article explaining it is 79 Wash. U. L. Q. 1035

Basically, Mass. School of Law, which was operating outside of the ABA, sued for antitrust violations. The suit was dismissed but MSoL got the DoJ to initiate an antitrust investigation. The ABA backed down from the DOJ and agreed to a consent decree changing certain accreditation standards. The consent decree was actually supposed to encourage more competition, segmentation, and lower prices. Instead it either helped cause or didn't stem the explosion in JDs and soaring tuition costs.

See United States v. American Bar Ass'n, 934 F. Supp. 435

[thelawyler]

Relevant:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.co ... s_lawyers/

lol fuck that guy.

[minnbills]

Relevant:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.co ... s_lawyers/

lol fuck that guy.

[ru2486]

Relevant:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.co ... s_lawyers/

lol fuck that guy.

what an amazing turd

[JCougar]

There are three elements to this whole problem.

1) There is almost certainly a psychological element undermining market efficiency here. There are information asymmetries that the buyers of legal education are on the wrong side of, and there is likely an overestimate of the value of legal education amongst buyers.

2) The government really is distorting the market by making loans so accessible. This creates more people in law school than there is demand for lawyers;

3) There is increased competition from people who without federal student loans would not be able to afford legal educations. A huge part of the reason top law schools had 50%+ acceptance rates back in the 1950's was because only people with financial resources could really afford to go to top schools.

The "limited government" folks are really focused on (2), but it must be understood that (1) and (3) are also huge problems. Their deeply flawed economic models which ignore behavioral/psychological elements of modern economics make them ignore (1), and their lack of concern for fairness makes them ignore (3). But just getting government out of the way isn't going to fix the problem. It's not going to address the psychological irrationalities in the market, and will return us to the status quo ante. The status quo ante was pretty great for upper middle class folks, who faced less competition, but was far less meritocratic.

Perfect post. 180.

[flem]

Relevant:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.co ... s_lawyers/

"When I was going to law school, and I sold my Corvair to make first-semester tuition and books for $330, a sizeable portion of the faculty had tenure. They had tenure then and they have tenure now," he said.

DIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIE

[Blessedassurance]

WSJ linked this today. The issue is getting more traction in so-called traditional sources. This is the sort of sustained effort that is needed (as a start). Of course, we all await (with rapt attention), the rejoinders from people with vested interest citing the usual BS about a JD being useful beyond law etc.

Sadly, this will probably fall on deaf ears, especially to the people that need such information the most:

http://blogs.smartmoney.com/advice/2012 ... s-respond/

[abc12345675]

Within 10 years I believe there will be a massive student loan forgiveness by the fed gov't. They really will have no choice. Direct Plus loans will be wiped clean, and the people who borrowed $200k to get a T3 degree will get a free pass for their stupidity.

[CanadianWolf]

The simpliest, easiest & most effective solution: Allow student loan debt to be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

[rickgrimes69]

The simpliest, easiest & most effective solution: Allow student loan debt to be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Goodbye stafford loans.

[CanadianWolf]

Goodbye Tier Three & Tier Four law schools.

Goodbye $40,000 & $50,000 a year law school tuition bills.

Goodbye massive numbers of unemployed lawyers.

Goodbye unneeded loan sources.

Hello employment opportunities.

Hello credit worthy borrowers.

[MormonChristian]

The simpliest, easiest & most effective solution: Allow student loan debt to be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

I think that is a viable alternative, but the best one would be to allow student loans to be a tax write off, both for the person and the company.

For example, if a company is paying you $100K/year, they could transfer $30K/year to paying off your student loans. While that money would still be considered compensation, both you and the company would benefit, since the company would not have to pay payroll taxes on it and you wouldn't have to pay income taxes on it. This carrot would encourage people to pay off their loans quicker and would encourage companies to hire poorer people who had to take out student loans.

[CanadianWolf]

That's why we have temp agencies. (Companies benefit from paying low wages & no benefits, it's all tax deductible & the worker doesn't make enough to worry about income taxes.)

Tax deductible loan payments might actually aggravate the problem of an oversupply of lawyers. (Plus, just wait until they realize that tax deductions, unlike tax credits, don't work against no or very low income.)

[Tiago Splitter]

Goodbye Tier Three & Tier Four law schools.

Goodbye $40,000 & $50,000 a year law school tuition bills.

Goodbye massive numbers of unemployed lawyers.

Goodbye unneeded loan sources.

Hello employment opportunities.

Hello credit worthy borrowers.

??

Your solution addresses none of those issues. It keeps the current system but simply lets people discharge federally guaranteed loans when things don't go well. That makes the problem a lot worse, as the risk to the borrower goes down even more.

Simply allowing the discharge of loans in bankruptcy while doing nothing else would be a horrible thing.

[CanadianWolf]

I don't think that you understand the source of the problem. There are too many law schools producing an oversupply of lawyers from overpriced law schools fed by easy money. Lenders have no risk when their loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Law schools can expand & charge ever increasing tuition due to readily available easy money.

P.S. Ever heard of the housing crisis fueled by easy money ? That's why so many jumped into the housing market both as buyers (law students) & builders (law schools). Although not entirely identical situations as housing appraisal fraud enabled the situation to continue as if lenders were fully secured, student loan lenders need no such security when student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Both situations, however, resulted in an oversupply (houses & lawyers).

[Tiago Splitter]

I don't think that you understand the source of the problem. There are too many law schools producing an oversupply of lawyers from overpriced law schools fed by easy money. Lenders have no risk when their loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Law schools can expand & charge ever increasing tuition due to readily available easy money.

P.S. Ever heard of the housing crises fueled by easy money ? That's why so many jumped into the housing market both as buyers (law students) & builders (law schools).

I don't think you understand the student loan system. The government guarantees the loans. You are right that it's too easy to borrow unlimited sums of money to go to law school, but allowing discharge in bankruptcy doesn't fix this. The school can still charge whatever it wants, the borrower can still borrow as much as he wants, but now the borrower is even less concerned with paying it back because if things go south he can start over in bankruptcy.

Now if the government moved out of the way and student loans were just like any other loan then yes, all of the consequences you listed would be true. Other issues, primarily ones of fairness and access for the disadvantaged, would then move to the forefront.

[CanadianWolf]

You're beginning to understand.

[Tiago Splitter]

You're beginning to understand.

The fuck is this condescending bullshit? You said that making student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, while doing nothing else, would fix the problem. It wouldn't.

[flem]

You're beginning to understand.

lolwut

[minnbills]

You're beginning to understand.

lolwut

[CanadianWolf]

Sorry you feel that way. You'll get there.

Again: The simpliest, easiest & most efficient way to fix the problem of the oversupply of lawyers is to once again make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy.

This will cause lenders to alter there practices & law schools to become less profitable. The result will be less easy money to fuel the problem & fewer law schools which should result in fewer new lawyers.

[CanadianWolf]

You're trying to make a simple problem more complicated than it is.