Top Law Schools

After reading through this forum, I think it is worth to have this poll here
I am sure I am going to see more Yes than No

Um, no?

What would be much better than that: Most all schools reduce class size, as well as tuition, and don't flood certain markets (i.e., NYC, California) with more schools than needed.

No

What a stupid idea. Why shouldn't places like Montana or Kansas have a state law school that will provide lawyers who will actually end up practicing in state? We would have quite a big problem if the entirety of law grads were overentitled T14'ers who only want to practice in the big cities. largely for big firms.

We're producing too many lawyers right now. Reducing down just to the top 14 would make us produce far too few.

Well, the t13 should atleast be the only schools who can charge tuition. Maybe Georgetown can charge tuition too if they volunteer to move their school to Idaho or Nevada or something.

The market is already correcting. The bottom-feeders will (hopefully) die out or have to drastically cut class size as people wise up to the fact that law is not the easy-path-to-riches.

There is another TLS thread suggesting that a 160 LSAT minimum would reduce the applicant pool to 30,000. Keeping in mind there are (est.) 25,000 law jobs available…

kaiser wrote:What a stupid idea. Why shouldn't places like Montana or Kansas have a state law school that will provide lawyers who will actually end up practicing in state? We would have quite a big problem if the entirety of law grads were overentitled T14'ers who only want to practice in the big cities. largely for big firms.

+1. There are a select number of regional schools that serve their purposes well.

PRgradBYU wrote:

kaiser wrote:What a stupid idea. Why shouldn't places like Montana or Kansas have a state law school that will provide lawyers who will actually end up practicing in state? We would have quite a big problem if the entirety of law grads were overentitled T14'ers who only want to practice in the big cities. largely for big firms.

+1. There are a select number of regional schools that serve their purposes well.

Yeah, there are plenty of cheap state schools that should stick around so that people who want to do lawyer work for their local communities can do so for cheap. But I'd say there are at least 100 law schools that should be shut down.

Sheffield wrote:There is another TLS thread suggesting that a 160 LSAT minimum would reduce the applicant pool to 30,000. Keeping in mind there are (est.) 25,000 law jobs available…

Is this the number of people who score a 160+, apply with a 160+, or matriculate with a 160+?

moonman157 wrote:

Sheffield wrote:There is another TLS thread suggesting that a 160 LSAT minimum would reduce the applicant pool to 30,000. Keeping in mind there are (est.) 25,000 law jobs available…

Is this the number of people who score a 160+, apply with a 160+, or matriculate with a 160+?

I understand the concept is somewhat modeled after the MCAT. There is a minimum score for entrance (which is why doctors are not unemployed with a cliff-diving debt). 160 LSAT for legal. Might be a way to include GPA since a school would likely prefer a 158:4.0 candidate over 160:3.1. But the gist of it is, if you want into LS, 160 is the floor.

The butthurt is strong in this one

..

sublime12089 wrote:No. All outside T2(?) should, and any non T14 school should lower their tuition.

Eh, I woudn't generalize like that. For instance, CUNY is outside T2, but it is a cheap option and is a good path to some local PI work for NYC denizens, albeit not high-paying stuff. Also, there are schools with decent rankings but terrible job placement (American, Washington & Lee, etc.)

All schools should cut tuition by at least half. But that is Congress's fault. Only worse now with PAYE.

..

I think some sort of academic index would be a good thing. (GPA*X)+LSAT >Y, or no law school for you. Having more than 120-130 law schools is senseless and the fact that a lot of the schools out there exist is a travesty. As my republican friends love to say, sometimes you have to starve the beast.

txdude45 wrote:I think some sort of academic index would be a good thing. (GPA*X)+LSAT >Y, or no law school for you. Having more than 120-130 law schools is senseless and the fact that a lot of the schools out there exist is a travesty. As my republican friends love to say, sometimes you have to starve the beast.

This I agree with. 100 schools is plenty, and the fact that there are schools out there with median - and even some with with 75th %ile - LSAT scores below 152 (read: they got less than half of the questions right), is completely absurd.

..

What about linking those juicy federal loan guarantees to actual outcomes (i.e. employment/bar passage)? Without those guarantees a lot of folks going to TTTTs would have no way to pay to go.

Not that I think this will happen anytime soon. The US Department of Ed can't even stop people attending randomly accredited online universities from getting stafford loans.

Maybe people could stop enrolling in TTT/TTTT schools.

(even if they have substantial scholarship money)

qwertyboard wrote:Maybe people could stop enrolling in TTT/TTTT schools.

(even if they have substantial scholarship money)

but they won't because they are special snowflakes

There should only be one law school - The Law School Academy. Each year they admit 30,000 students, and after 1L you are ranked 1-30,000. Classes are held at some midwestern football stadium. Professors are rockstars, they should have rockstar venues. Actually the professors tour the country to a number of football stadiums, and the students have to get bused there to attend class, and after class, if you have a question, you have to line up at the professor's tour bus like a groupie. If a firm or a government agency or whatever wants to hire a young associate, they can call the law school academy.

..