ITT: THESE SCHOOLS NEED TO CLOSE! Forum

[bjsesq]

United States v. Am. Bar Ass’n, 934 F. Supp. 435, 436 (D.D.C. 1996)

PROHIBITED CONDUCT

The ABA is enjoined and restrained from:

(A) adopting or enforcing any Standard, Interpretation or Rule, or taking any action that has the purpose or effect of imposing requirements as to the base salary, stipends, fringe benefits, or other compensation paid law school deans, associate deans, assistant deans, faculty, library directors, librarians, or other law school employees, or in any way conditioning the accreditation of any law school on the compensation paid law school deans, associate deans, assistant deans, faculty, library directors, librarians, or other law school employees;

(B) collecting from or disseminating to any law school data concerning compensation paid or to be paid to deans, administrators, faculty, librarians, or other employees;

(C) using law school compensation data in connection with the accreditation or review of any law school; and

(D) adopting or enforcing any Standard, Interpretation or Rule, or taking any action that has the purpose or effect of prohibiting a law school from:

(1) enrolling a member of the bar or graduate of a state-accredited law school in an LL.M. program or other post-J.D. program;
(2) offering transfer credits for any course successfully completed at a state-accredited law school, except that the ABA may require that two-thirds of the credits required for graduation must be successfully completed at an ABA-approved law school; or
(3) being an institution organized as a for-profit entity.

[BoGuaGua]

i don't understand how north carolina central should remain open while wake should be shut down

[stillwater]

i don't understand how north carolina central should remain open while wake should be shut down

Wake is TTT. NC State is cheap.

[BoGuaGua]

i don't understand how north carolina central should remain open while wake should be shut down

Wake is TTT. NC State is cheap.

shouldn't UNC close then? it's even more ttt

[stillwater]

i don't understand how north carolina central should remain open while wake should be shut down

Wake is TTT. NC State is cheap.

shouldn't UNC close then? it's even more ttt

UNC is pretty well-respected in the Carolinas. Affords in-state tuition, etc.

[09042014]

The real problem is that law school is a undergraduate degree turned into a masters program and titled a doctorate.

There is no reason it cannot be taught to undergraduates. 2 year gen eds. Junior year = 1L, senior year = 2L, there is no 3L.

It would reduce the cost of the total education by a huge amount. And for people that can't get a job? You still got a BA in Law, which isn't as specific as a JD, and not really as much sunk time and cost.

[ndirish2010]

Yeah, there will be many more open for business before anything shuts down. Belmont, UNT-Dallas, Concordia, Indiana Tech, Pressler (shit you've never even HEARD of, brothers, UMass-Dartmouth, Duncan School of Law (Knoxville). There are other proposed law schools - Stony Brook, Binghampton. I wish I could invest my law school loans in those instead of myself.

Stony Brook law school makes sense as long as Hofstra and Touro close.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

The real problem is that law school is a undergraduate degree turned into a masters program and titled a doctorate.

There is no reason it cannot be taught to undergraduates. 2 year gen eds. Junior year = 1L, senior year = 2L, there is no 3L.

It would reduce the cost of the total education by a huge amount. And for people that can't get a job? You still got a BA in Law, which isn't as specific as a JD, and not really as much sunk time and cost.

Wait, but wouldn't this require people to get work experience before getting a biglaw job?! (That is, of course, unless firms want to hire 20-year-old SA's.)

[Ruxin1]

The real problem is that law school is a undergraduate degree turned into a masters program and titled a doctorate.

There is no reason it cannot be taught to undergraduates. 2 year gen eds. Junior year = 1L, senior year = 2L, there is no 3L.

It would reduce the cost of the total education by a huge amount. And for people that can't get a job? You still got a BA in Law, which isn't as specific as a JD, and not really as much sunk time and cost.

Wait, but wouldn't this require people to get work experience before getting a biglaw job?! (That is, of course, unless firms want to hire 20-year-old SA's.)

or do a 3 year Residency like in medicine?

[alwayssunnyinfl]

^Doesn't Canada do something like this (but shorter?)

[Ruxin1]

^Doesn't Canada do something like this (but shorter?)

oh um nevermind then.

[banjo]

They still award LLB's in Australia and the UK. Upon graduation, LLB students simply try to get a training contract with a firm. From some schools (oxbridge, lse), you don't even need to read law as an undergraduate to get a TC.

Canada has a US model (with slight modifications), but requires an articling year after law school.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

The real problem is that law school is a undergraduate degree turned into a masters program and titled a doctorate.

There is no reason it cannot be taught to undergraduates. 2 year gen eds. Junior year = 1L, senior year = 2L, there is no 3L.

It would reduce the cost of the total education by a huge amount. And for people that can't get a job? You still got a BA in Law, which isn't as specific as a JD, and not really as much sunk time and cost.

This strikes me as a terrible model.

The thing about a law degree is that you need to do well as an undergrad in order to get one. If any jackass who could get into undergrad could automatically get a law degree, the number of lawyers would be even larger than it is now (and the thus the number of unemployed lawyers correspondingly larger), and firms would simply invent something else to weed out candidates with, which would probably be every bit as terrible as 1L grades.

Like it or not, making a JD a graduate degree serves the function of weeding out a large number of candidates who couldn't cut it in undergrad. This is the only reason why $160k salaries are available at all, because firms know that someone coming out the other end must outperform the general public when it comes to several measurements (UGPA, Law school grades, etc.).

[IAFG]

The thing about a law degree is that you need to do well as an undergrad in order to get one.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Especially in response to DF... just lol.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

The thing about a law degree is that you need to do well as an undergrad in order to get one.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Especially in response to DF... just lol.

Did I miss something? Is Harvard letting in people with 2.0 GPAs now?

I apologize for not including the word "worthwhile" before "law degree."

[Bildungsroman]

We're gonna use the power of rock and roll to change the world!

[IAFG]

The thing about a law degree is that you need to do well as an undergrad in order to get one.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Especially in response to DF... just lol.

Did I miss something? Is Harvard letting in people with 2.0 GPAs now?

I apologize for not including the word "worthwhile" before "law degree."

Hahahahaha... yeah bro, because that's totally what your post said.

It's totally possible to screen between Sophomore and Junior years. In fact, lots of undergrad programs do it. Ask for an LSAT score and have a GPA min if you want (though plenty of TTTs will keep cramming them through anyway).

But the bottom line is, getting into law school is not hard, is a shit metric for being worthy of the honor of law, and making it a UG degree would not somehow upset the biglaw model of seeking out high achievers. How absurd.

[09042014]

The real problem is that law school is a undergraduate degree turned into a masters program and titled a doctorate.

There is no reason it cannot be taught to undergraduates. 2 year gen eds. Junior year = 1L, senior year = 2L, there is no 3L.

It would reduce the cost of the total education by a huge amount. And for people that can't get a job? You still got a BA in Law, which isn't as specific as a JD, and not really as much sunk time and cost.

Wait, but wouldn't this require people to get work experience before getting a biglaw job?! (That is, of course, unless firms want to hire 20-year-old SA's.)

Why would they care? Consulting and Banking have 20 year old SA's.

[09042014]

The real problem is that law school is a undergraduate degree turned into a masters program and titled a doctorate.

There is no reason it cannot be taught to undergraduates. 2 year gen eds. Junior year = 1L, senior year = 2L, there is no 3L.

It would reduce the cost of the total education by a huge amount. And for people that can't get a job? You still got a BA in Law, which isn't as specific as a JD, and not really as much sunk time and cost.

Wait, but wouldn't this require people to get work experience before getting a biglaw job?! (That is, of course, unless firms want to hire 20-year-old SA's.)

or do a 3 year Residency like in medicine?

What do you think big law is for virtually all of us bro?

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

Hahahahaha... yeah bro, because that's totally what your post said.

It's totally possible to screen between Sophomore and Junior years. In fact, lots of undergrad programs do it. Ask for an LSAT score and have a GPA min if you want (though plenty of TTTs will keep cramming them through anyway).

But the bottom line is, getting into law school is not hard, is a shit metric for being worthy of the honor of law, and making it a UG degree would not somehow upset the biglaw model of seeking out high achievers. How absurd.

Says the person with absolutely no evidence for their own assertions.

The current biglaw model is based upon the ability of people to twice-signal: once by getting into a top law school, and again by doing well once they are there.

DF suggested replacing this with a model where both of these gatekeepers are missing: the law school application process is completely missing if it's just an UG degree, and your GPA would be useless to firms because undergrad institutions don't have forced curves, everyone can get an A in every class.

The ability to signal that you are a high achiever is what allows someone to start at $160k. Without it you can bet that starting salaries in law would be something like $30k, and the odds of ever moving to partner would be even smaller than they are now, with a partner track that probably takes 20 years. This sounds like a terrible system to me, and I'm glad that the US doesn't have it.

[justonemoregame]

Is it not absurd to A) require an applicant to take the LSAT, but not B) achieve a minimum score? If the ABA merely required an above-average score, even a 152-153, that would wipe out like 5,000 students going to law school this year. Additionally, these are students most likely to have not received scholarships at their TTTT, so they are paying the most for the least to gain.

[09042014]

The real problem is that law school is a undergraduate degree turned into a masters program and titled a doctorate.

There is no reason it cannot be taught to undergraduates. 2 year gen eds. Junior year = 1L, senior year = 2L, there is no 3L.

It would reduce the cost of the total education by a huge amount. And for people that can't get a job? You still got a BA in Law, which isn't as specific as a JD, and not really as much sunk time and cost.

This strikes me as a terrible model.

The thing about a law degree is that you need to do well as an undergrad in order to get one. If any jackass who could get into undergrad could automatically get a law degree, the number of lawyers would be even larger than it is now (and the thus the number of unemployed lawyers correspondingly larger), and firms would simply invent something else to weed out candidates with, which would probably be every bit as terrible as 1L grades.

Like it or not, making a JD a graduate degree serves the function of weeding out a large number of candidates who couldn't cut it in undergrad. This is the only reason why $160k salaries are available at all, because firms know that someone coming out the other end must outperform the general public when it comes to several measurements (UGPA, Law school grades, etc.).

I dunno bro, I got a 2.8 UGPA (and no upward trend of any bullshit, I got a 2.1 my last semester), and I copped dat T14 back when it was actually hard to get into the t14, and you cop't that UC Hastings. Law school isn't hard to get into.

And like IAFG said, plenty of schools have GPA requirements to get into a program during your junior year.

If any jackass who could get into undergrad could automatically get a law degree, the number of lawyers would be even larger than it is now (and the thus the number of unemployed lawyers correspondingly larger), and firms would simply invent something else to weed out candidates with, which would probably be every bit as terrible as 1L grades.

No, this the beauty, people who couldn't get a law job would just find something else to do. Most people do not work in the field they majored in. It's not really expected, and it's not a tragedy if they don't.

Like it or not, making a JD a graduate degree serves the function of weeding out a large number of candidates who couldn't cut it in undergrad.

No it doesn't. It just makes getting a JD a lot more expensive and time consuming.

This is the only reason why $160k salaries are available at all, because firms know that someone coming out the other end must outperform the general public when it comes to several measurements (UGPA, Law school grades, etc.).

And firms would still be selective on law school gpa. Plenty of industries recruit straight from UG, are very selective, and pay a lot.

[IAFG]

Says the person with absolutely no evidence for their own assertions.

The current biglaw model is based upon the ability of people to twice-signal: once by getting into a top law school, and again by doing well once they are there.

DF suggested replacing this with a model where both of these gatekeepers are missing: the law school application process is completely missing if it's just an UG degree, and your GPA would be useless to firms because undergrad institutions don't have forced curves, everyone can get an A in every class.

The ability to signal that you are a high achiever is what allows someone to start at $160k. Without it you can bet that starting salaries in law would be something like $30k, and the odds of ever moving to partner would be even smaller than they are now, with a partner track that probably takes 20 years. This sounds like a terrible system to me, and I'm glad that the US doesn't have it.

You're making a lot of dumb assumptions: the undergrads couldn't be curved (wtf? ask our engineer friends about that one), that there can't be an application process to progress (there is one, for example, at the University of Iowa's business undergrad), that starting salaries would be $30k (plenty of industries pay recent grads more, no idea where you're getting that shit from).

[09042014]

Hahahahaha... yeah bro, because that's totally what your post said.

It's totally possible to screen between Sophomore and Junior years. In fact, lots of undergrad programs do it. Ask for an LSAT score and have a GPA min if you want (though plenty of TTTs will keep cramming them through anyway).

But the bottom line is, getting into law school is not hard, is a shit metric for being worthy of the honor of law, and making it a UG degree would not somehow upset the biglaw model of seeking out high achievers. How absurd.

Says the person with absolutely no evidence for their own assertions.

The current biglaw model is based upon the ability of people to twice-signal: once by getting into a top law school, and again by doing well once they are there.

DF suggested replacing this with a model where both of these gatekeepers are missing: the law school application process is completely missing if it's just an UG degree, and your GPA would be useless to firms because undergrad institutions don't have forced curves, everyone can get an A in every class.

The ability to signal that you are a high achiever is what allows someone to start at $160k. Without it you can bet that starting salaries in law would be something like $30k, and the odds of ever moving to partner would be even smaller than they are now, with a partner track that probably takes 20 years. This sounds like a terrible system to me, and I'm glad that the US doesn't have it.

The good schools would still be hard to get into. It's not like a Harvard BA in Law would just take any random applicant.

Do think consulting firms and banks just hire a bunch of Cal State grads with 3.2's and pay then 30K a year?

Pretty dumb bro.

[09042014]

Hell, all we really have to do is make the JD two years, and only require 60 hours of college credit to get it. Functionally the same as my plan.