NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School Forum
- BackToTheOldHouse

- Posts: 862
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:03 pm
NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... n&emc=tya1
I didn't see a thread on this yet, so I thought I'd start one. If there is a thread already, admins please delete this one.
Discuss.
I didn't see a thread on this yet, so I thought I'd start one. If there is a thread already, admins please delete this one.
Discuss.
-
taxguy

- Posts: 307
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:46 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
Yes, I saw that posted in another forum. My problem with the NYTimes article is that we don't need more law grads or law grads that can get a degree quicker ( with the same costs). We need less law grads! We also need, if possible, lower costs for legal education without necessarily watering down the curriculum. I think NYIimes missed the boat here.
- BackToTheOldHouse

- Posts: 862
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:03 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
er, I think you might be referencing a different ny times piece. This one is more of a round table discussion with several views represented.taxguy wrote:Yes, I saw that posted in another forum. My problem with the NYTimes article is that we don't need more law grads or law grads that can get a degree quicker ( with the same costs). We need less law grads! We also need, if possible, lower costs for legal education without necessarily watering down the curriculum. I think NYIimes missed the boat here.
I do like your less-law-grads-lower-tuition thing, though . . .
Last edited by BackToTheOldHouse on Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
SchopenhauerFTW

- Posts: 1793
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
I am posting in what is sure to become an epic thread.
-
09042014

- Posts: 18203
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- EstboundNDwn

- Posts: 170
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:15 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
Where's the debate about whether law professors are overpaid?
- kapital98

- Posts: 1188
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
+1Desert Fox wrote:I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.
- bilbobaggins

- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
Can anyone copy/paste or link to a mirror? I'm over my limit for articles this month.
- BackToTheOldHouse

- Posts: 862
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:03 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
It's like no one cares about this. 
- PresMacAllen

- Posts: 13
- Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:57 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
i find it sort of funny how the professors from substantially lower ranked schools argued to keep LS at 80 hours. lol.
- BackToTheOldHouse

- Posts: 862
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:03 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
Nope, it's George Leaf who is deserving of TCR, with David Lat and Van Zandt in a close second.Desert Fox wrote:I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.
p.s. -- Professor Noble Maillard makes me happy I will not be attending Syracuse University in the fall. Professor Stone almost makes me wish I was going to be a UChicago student in the fall (almost).
- Bildungsroman

- Posts: 5529
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
Kevin Maillard's contribution is one of the worst piles of drivel I've ever read.
-
071816

- Posts: 5507
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
I agree.Bildungsroman wrote:Kevin Maillard's contribution is one of the worst piles of drivel I've ever read.
"Sure, schools can focus on employment, but it takes a bolder institution to worry more about education."
WTF is that shit?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Ernert

- Posts: 203
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:35 am
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
I was a fan of comment #7 under Maillard's article.
"Schools dangle 160k salaries in front of gullible undergraduates knowing that those jobs exist only for a tiny percentage of law graduates. They force three years of rote learning at prices few students can afford, then hang them out to dry once the last tuition payment has been received. And then they justify it by pretending it's about education and leadership."
"Schools dangle 160k salaries in front of gullible undergraduates knowing that those jobs exist only for a tiny percentage of law graduates. They force three years of rote learning at prices few students can afford, then hang them out to dry once the last tuition payment has been received. And then they justify it by pretending it's about education and leadership."
- PDaddy

- Posts: 2063
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
Agreed, but with an additional requirement for ungraded "practical" experience (10 credits).Desert Fox wrote:I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.
- prezidentv8

- Posts: 2823
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
Linda Greene also is sub-par.Bildungsroman wrote:Kevin Maillard's contribution is one of the worst piles of drivel I've ever read.
-
09042014

- Posts: 18203
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
That's what the Summer in between would be for.PDaddy wrote:Agreed, but with an additional requirement for ungraded "practical" experience (10 credits).Desert Fox wrote:I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
09042014

- Posts: 18203
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
David Lat's is pretty stupid, which I expected for him. Why force an apprenticeship, when that's exactly what the first couple years of law practice already are. Insanely retarded idea.
-
bk1

- Posts: 20063
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
I like Van Zandt's but it only seems to be like a temporary fix if tuition continues to rise.
-
09042014

- Posts: 18203
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
I think low tuition should be factored into USNews. Right now, the more money you blow the higher the rank.
-
bk1

- Posts: 20063
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
And completely wipe out expenditures per student? The shitstorm that would ensue from the effect of that on the rankings would be hilarious.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
09042014

- Posts: 18203
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
Yep. Fuck that shit. Lavish facilities and wasteful bureaucracy shouldn't make a school ranked higher.bk187 wrote:And completely wipe out expenditures per student? The shitstorm that would ensue from the effect of that on the rankings would be hilarious.
- descartesb4thehorse

- Posts: 1141
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:03 am
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
I really, really, really don't understand that aspect of the rankings. Isn't there some brilliant economist with a solution that would allow US News to take into account students paying less but still receiving comparatively more? Such as, I don't know, considering the percentage of tuition used for these services as opposed to rote numbers? From there, I don't think it would be a *huge* jump to use these numbers in a standard equation and whatever other funding they get (which seems minimal) from alums or elsewhere could be added. Unless they are already doing this and schools who charge less are at a disadvantage since they still have the same overhead costs to worry about, but that less 20k a student means no ice sculptures in the library's lavatories or something. Meh.Desert Fox wrote:I think low tuition should be factored into USNews. Right now, the more money you blow the higher the rank.
Yea I second that Greene's contribution was equally vomit-inducing. Something about 200k is priceless. I wish I could use that argument on my future creditors. And Lat is probably just turned on by RonPaulConservative's theory that we can all go overseas for law school and be done with UG&LS in 3 years and on to apprenticeships. We'll see how that works out for everyone.
- PDaddy

- Posts: 2063
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
LOL...LOL...uh...no. I am not talking about a $3,000 per week summer Wall Street job at Cravath, Paul Weiss or Wachtell.Desert Fox wrote:That's what the Summer in between would be for.PDaddy wrote:Agreed, but with an additional requirement for ungraded "practical" experience (10 credits).Desert Fox wrote:I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.
I mean a pro bono/clinical requirement should be standard across the schools and each single credit should require a certain number of completed hours, like 80 hours of work for every one credit.
- IAFG

- Posts: 6641
- Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm
Re: NY Times: Room for Debate - The Case Against Law School
Why would bullshit work be better than actual paid work?PDaddy wrote:LOL...LOL...uh...no. I am not talking about a $3,000 per week summer Wall Street job at Cravath, Paul Weiss or Wachtell.Desert Fox wrote:That's what the Summer in between would be for.PDaddy wrote:Agreed, but with an additional requirement for ungraded "practical" experience (10 credits).Desert Fox wrote:I think Dean Van Zandt's op-ed about reducing the credit load is TCR. JD should be 60 hours, over two years.
I mean a pro bono/clinical requirement should be standard across the schools and each single credit should require a certain number of completed hours, like 80 hours of work for every one credit.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login