Top Law Schools

Choose the option that comes closest to your preference. There are (I believe) 202 ABA schools.

This is building off a previous thread (linked: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 82&start=0) asking whether all but the T14 should close. The resounding answer was no, but there seemed to be a consensus that it would be beneficial for at least some of the schools to close (as there has been for a while). So here I'm trying to get a better idea of exactly how many people think that is. Obviously we need enough to cover Biglaw down through shitlaw, national through local, government, PI, business, and whatever else. But we also produced 68k graduates for 25k jobs last year. So what would the right number be?

Keep in mind the question of whether the schools should close is different from whether they should be forced to close/be shut down by a regulating entity. This is just asking what the right number would be to "re-optimize" the law school market.

HYS only. T1 is Yale. TT Stanford. TTT Harvard. Done.

In all seriousness I think kill all but the top 75. Kill the TTT/TTTT and half of the TT.

Keep the top 75 and every other school with a COA at/under 150k, burn the rest

.

But if we close all teh law schools, what will happen to professor jobs? that's just more jobbs lost

nickb285 wrote:Eliminate all TTTTs, all non-state flagship TT/TTTs. I'm fine with Kentucky, Wyoming, Montana, or Idaho, but not with American, Catholic, McGeorge, or USF.

+1. I would like to see a system with 50 or so respectable private law schools, and the top flagship state schools at a significant discount to their residents, with a few others treading water if they can keep their employment figures high enough like UCLA.

Close every law school.

justonemoregame wrote:But if we close all teh law schools, what will happen to professor jobs? that's just more jobbs lost

they chose to either practice law or go into another field of academia. if we have ~100 law schools and lowered class sizes, we could potentially produce slightly less lawyers at first than the economic produces legal jobs, which the profs could fill

but where do we draw the line?

justonemoregame wrote:But if we close all teh law schools, what will happen to professor jobs? that's just more jobbs lost

LOL so? They'll just have to leave their cush jobs and find gainful employment elsewhere. It'll work out for 'em.

TheThriller wrote:but where do we draw the line?

I'd say T14 + one solid regional school in every state. That's plenty of lawl schools.

I think it's gotta be more elaborate than just ranking. I'd say top 20 +1 per state or something.

Just let the free market sort it out, fellows.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:Just let the free market sort it out, fellows.

The free market is too slow to react when schools are able to manipulate data like they do.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:But we also produced 68k graduates for 25k jobs last year.

Where do you get these numbers? Last I heard there were expected to be fewer than 40K starting this fall, and attrition is usually ten percent. So maybe 35K graduating looking for 25K jobs. That's a massive improvement from where things were just a few years ago.

..

Closing law schools is a bull shit "rent-seeking" idea that needs to be put to bed. The problem is not having too many lawyers. Indeed there are still large segments of the population that don't have access to legal services. The problems is the cost of law school. If law school grads had little or no debt coming out of school then they could afford to take jobs serving the middle and lower classes. As it is, you are fucked unless you can land a job defending big corporations or 1%ers (i.e. Big Law).

RELIC wrote:Closing law schools is a bull shit "rent-seeking" idea that needs to be put to bed. The problem is not having too many lawyers. Indeed there are still large segments of the population that don't have access to legal services. The problems is the cost of law school. If law school grads had little or no debt coming out of school then they could afford to take jobs serving the middle and lower classes. As it is, you are fucked unless you can land a job defending big corporations or 1%ers (i.e. Big Law).

Lol at the false progressive sentimentality

No one is advocating to only have schools for biglaw (or at least I am not). There are a sizeable number of schools among whose graduates less than half are practicing any kind of law. Yea, lowering cost is essential, and yes, providing legal services to the less well off is a noble goal, but the market could fill those jobs from far less law schools, like half of what there are

There arent too many "lawyers": there are too many JDs

It isn't the number of law schools, its the number of ABA accredited law schools. Most T3 and T4 should be converted into state-accredited schools akin to the California-accredited schools. Many of these service California's under served local populations (think Chico, Barstow, or San Luis Obispo). Students must pass the baby bar to get to the real bar. This process is difficult, and at the end of the line students are not competing for big firm jobs. Imagine how much better it would be if all of these students were segregated into a basic class-2 legal profession (I mean they already are, but they get to pretend that they are not right now).

TaipeiMort wrote:It isn't the number of law schools, its the number of ABA accredited law schools. Most T3 and T4 should be converted into state-accredited schools akin to the California-accredited schools. Many of these service California's under served local populations (think Chico, Barstow, or San Luis Obispo). Students must pass the baby bar to get to the real bar. This process is difficult, and at the end of the line students are not competing for big firm jobs. Imagine how much better it would be if all of these students were segregated into a basic class-2 legal profession (I mean they already are, but they get to pretend that they are not right now).

So in your view it should be more like the MD vs. DO distinction in medicine?

Keep the best 5-10 schools that place mostly within their state (gotta keep Montana, Iowa, etc. flush with attorneys)
After that, close any school with sub 50% bar passage, or sub 75% JD required job within 9months.
Either cap tuition, or tie it to school specific metrics (some multiple of median salary for graduates?)

This will solve most problems.

txdude45 wrote:Keep the best 5-10 schools that place mostly within their state (gotta keep Montana, Iowa, etc. flush with attorneys)
After that, close any school with sub 50% bar passage, or sub 75% JD required job within 9months.
Either cap tuition, or tie it to school specific metrics (some multiple of median salary for graduates?)

This will solve most problems.

Too many. Possibly wouldn't cut any outside ny and ca...

Some good ideas here.

My ideal system would be top 25+ 50 state flagships with class size roughly weighted by population (so CUNY might have 250 while Wyoming might have 100). The top 25s would cost about 175K and the flagships about 10-15K per year depending on location.

Everything else would be local, small time schools like Mass School of Law in suburban Boston. Places that maybe graduate a couple dozen lawyers per year, serve the local area, are hooked into the local bar association, and have almost no debt.

All schools outside the t14 should be shut down (someone had to say it).

close UC Irvine

Dr. Dre wrote:close UC Irvine

Close UC *Everything*

Side note: I'm impressed by the restraint TLS has shown by having the majority of people voting for 50%, not the T14 one or 75%... yay for us.