Top Law Schools

Another fantastic article penned by Mr. Segal over at the NYT came out recently: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/busin ... davidsegal

The argument is essentially that the ABA is too restrictive and imposes too many costs on potential law schools.

As a side note, keep a kleenex nearby—near the end we are given the tragic story of one Ms. Keri-Ann Baker. She went to Loyola Chicago Law for a total cost of $200,000. It turns out that this money actually had to be repaid and Ms. Baker couldn't use Monopoly money, like she planned when deciding to attend. Her dream was to be a county prosecutor in Florida. But it paid too little, and IBR didn't apply to Ms. Baker, so she had to go work for midlaw making $90k a year—and that's barely enough to live on. Cue the violins for the wholly unexpected debt that Ms. Baker took on when deciding to attend Loyola.

Looks like these articles are running out of sympathetic characters to include. Someone had to settle for only making $90,000 a year plus whatever her husband can earn? The horror.

They really can't find better horror stories? Or are they just that lazy..?

I think you're missing the point... He was using the Loyola grad to show how the debt-load influenced her career decision. Using someone worse off and not in a position to make the decision to choose the better paying job wouldn't be helpful in proving this point.

What a bargain. Year too long though.

NYT should just hire areyouinsane to write these stories

Master Tofu wrote:I think you're missing the point... He was using the Loyola grad to show how the debt-load influenced her career decision. Using someone worse off and not in a position to make the decision to choose the better paying job wouldn't be helpful in proving this point.

No, I got his point. My point was that she should have foreseen her debt load influencing her career decisions when she decided to go to Loyola Chicago for $200k. Thus, me not feeling any sympathy. Hell, my debt load is going to influence my career choices and I knew that going in.

Some LMU kids are really screwed as of yesterday. The school was denied provisional ABA approval.

Ialdabaoth wrote:Some LMU kids are really screwed as of yesterday. The school was denied provisional ABA approval.

Anyone enrolling at the school would have to know that accreditation was not guaranteed, so hopefully nobody was foolish enough to gamble too heavily on LMU law being a ticket to a better life.

Bildungsroman wrote:

Ialdabaoth wrote:Some LMU kids are really screwed as of yesterday. The school was denied provisional ABA approval.

Anyone enrolling at the school would have to know that accreditation was not guaranteed, so hopefully nobody was foolish enough to gamble too heavily on LMU law being a ticket to a better life.

You would think so, but I know that's not the case. There are out-of-state students enrolled, who will possibly be stuck in TN after graduation. It's sad, but I also have trouble feeling too much sympathy for that crowd. (TN's one of the few states where you can sit for the bar even if you attended a non-ABA--but still state--accredited school.)

Helmholtz wrote:

Master Tofu wrote:I think you're missing the point... He was using the Loyola grad to show how the debt-load influenced her career decision. Using someone worse off and not in a position to make the decision to choose the better paying job wouldn't be helpful in proving this point.

No, I got his point. My point was that she should have foreseen her debt load influencing her career decisions when she decided to go to Loyola Chicago for $200k. Thus, me not feeling any sympathy. Hell, my debt load is going to influence my career choices and I knew that going in.

I was responding to the posters above me.

Master Tofu wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:

Master Tofu wrote:I think you're missing the point... He was using the Loyola grad to show how the debt-load influenced her career decision. Using someone worse off and not in a position to make the decision to choose the better paying job wouldn't be helpful in proving this point.

No, I got his point. My point was that she should have foreseen her debt load influencing her career decisions when she decided to go to Loyola Chicago for $200k. Thus, me not feeling any sympathy. Hell, my debt load is going to influence my career choices and I knew that going in.

I was responding to the posters above me.

Either way, I don't think this audience is in any position to comprehend that part of the article. Any person remotely familiar with law schools would be shocked by the fact the Loyola grad even had two options, much less one of them paying near six figures (or possible at/above six figures after bonus+benefits). So any point the author is trying to make is lost in a sea of LOLs. But I guess to a lay person this may be an interesting read.

I guess I can see that the problem in the legal profession isn't oversupply, it's maldistribution. Just look at law school locations. In my state of Illinois there are 9 law schools...six in Chicago. Six. In one city. They are all private, and they all have insane tuition. But I feel like the state has addressed the potential problem of lawyer distribution. There are 3 state schools, NIU, SIU, and UIUC. I know more about SIU, so I'll give some info on them. If you want to be a lawyer in downstate Illinois, from a small city like Springfield, to very rural county seats, SIU is a fine place to go. It is a decent building on a large campus in a college town with ABA accreditation and cheap tuition. The cost is dirt cheap, and they hand out scholarships to nearly everyone. Just get a 161 on the lsat and you have free tuition, leaving you with about 45k in debt. The professors are amiable, and very aware that students are attending in order to practice in the areas they are from, which is typically the downstate area. It is a good school, but not if you want big law or something...but again, that is not the mission of the school. In fact, the school's mission statement is "Established in the public interest, serving the public good" Both NIU and SIU were created to provide lawyers to underserved areas. While I respect the fact that this guy really wants to help Appalachia, he should have just endowed some local school like Mauer did with IUB, instead of starting a private school that can't even fulfill its purpose.

NYC Law wrote:

Master Tofu wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:

Master Tofu wrote:I think you're missing the point... He was using the Loyola grad to show how the debt-load influenced her career decision. Using someone worse off and not in a position to make the decision to choose the better paying job wouldn't be helpful in proving this point.

No, I got his point. My point was that she should have foreseen her debt load influencing her career decisions when she decided to go to Loyola Chicago for $200k. Thus, me not feeling any sympathy. Hell, my debt load is going to influence my career choices and I knew that going in.

I was responding to the posters above me.

Either way, I don't think this audience is in any position to comprehend that part of the article. Any person remotely familiar with law schools would be shocked by the fact the Loyola grad even had two options, much less one of them paying near six figures (or possible at/above six figures after bonus+benefits). So any point the author is trying to make is lost in a sea of LOLs. But I guess to a lay person this may be an interesting read.

I thought his articles are generally well-written and interesting, even if the concept might be obvious to me. I think there is a lot of value in getting the lay population to see this side of the legal industry.

MasterTofu wrote:I thought his articles are generally well-written and interesting, even if the concept might be obvious to me. I think there is a lot of value in getting the lay population to see this side of the legal industry.

Whatever keeps more people from applying to law school in the first place is awesome IMO. Less competition, amirite?

Interesting thread. One usually thinks of California in connection with non-ABA approved law schools but there are others.

Personally, I'd rather see alternate paths to the Bar exam instead of just allowing State accredited law schools. I've had three or four paralegals work with me over the years that I think could have been trained through a formal guided reading and examination program and supervised practice. A tiny program of this sort exists in Washington State. The few who have completed the WSBA sponsored program have had no apparent difficulty passing the Bar on the first attempt.

I have never been convinced of the need for law school in the training of new lawyers. I am even less convinced now that law schools have gotten so horribly expensive.

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:

MasterTofu wrote:I thought his articles are generally well-written and interesting, even if the concept might be obvious to me. I think there is a lot of value in getting the lay population to see this side of the legal industry.

Whatever keeps more people from applying to law school in the first place is awesome IMO. Less competition, amirite?

I don't really care about the supply of lawyers as much as making sure that people know what they're getting.