Can someone explain the argument against more schools/1Ls? Forum

[Pisto3]

I've been lurking on this board for a while and I really still don't understand the "Tragedy of the Commons" argument as it applies to the JD degree, how many graduating lawyers there are and graduate's employment prospects.

At the macro level, I see there could be a problem:

Let's just say for the sake of argument that University of Phoenix Online opened their own online law school in cahoots with the ABA - that is, it got ABA approval and was a fully "valid and operating" law school. This would never happen, but it's my own fiction so deal with it. USNews and World Report ranks the law school T4 because it is not a very good school by their somewhat flawed standards. After an aggressive late-night TV advertising campaign, they get 15000 enrolled and 12000 graduate and pass the bar. This means that instead of 50000 people competing for 28000 jobs per year, there are now 62000. The next year, Capella Online and Devry Online promise to open their own cheap online law schools as well. The chance of getting a job has just been severely reduced for everyone, all lawyers should just slit their wrists and become plumbers, right?

But is this analogy correct? Of course not. The problem here is obviously the scope of the argument. Everyone knows that a Stanford, Amherst, hell, even a local state college degree is more valuable than a Phoenix Online degree. The same goes for law degrees. Why are people (okay NOT everyone) trying to go to a "T14" or T1 or whatever law school they want to go to? It's probably because the institution they are seeking is more valuable in the sector/geographical area/whatever that they want to enter than a degree from another school. How would 10 more lawyers from a T4, T3, T2, etc. school be detrimental to someone who is top 10% of their T14 law school class? How about 100 more? Maybe 1000? Maybe 10000? It's safe to say that these people are not competing for the same jobs, and even if they are, why should a T14 grad top 10% be upset?

Let's talk about devalued JDs. Someone might say, well, now EVERYONE has a JD! A person in the above scenario might say, "I worked so hard (and paid so much) for mine at T1 University, and these people just took online courses! It's not fair!" This has already happened: it's called bachelor's degrees. 50 years ago, there were far fewer universities and university graduates than there are now. People with bachelor's degrees had a "leg up" on those who didn't graduate high school and could easily obtain entry level jobs. Today, with night school, online classes and community college, a bachelor's degree is within reach for everyone. It's admittedly getting more and more difficult for undergrads to find work out of school. However, should someone with a bachelor from Harvard be upset that their degree is being "devalued" by the number of undergraduates in the country? Of course not. The Harvard grad knows that his/her Harvard degree is going to open doors that are closed to those with a degree from Phoenix Online. Bottom line: is your JD devalued? Maybe. Are your personal accomplishments including school/class rank/law review, etc, devalued. NO.

The ONLY argument I can see here is that people think that they should be "gifted" the career that they want because they achieve the status of JD. These people seem to believe that because there are 28000 or whatever jobs for law grads, there should be 28000 graduates, one for each spot. Doesn't this seem a bit far fetched? There is competition for every job and in every sector of business (and law is CERTAINLY a business) -- in fact, competition for the best resources, be it people or goods - is just the way of capitalism.

The only real problem here is disillusionment, and it's a problem I can't really think of a solution for. Somehow, people think that because they get a JD, they are entitled to the job they want. If that Phoenix Online JD that half-assed his courses is somehow led to believing that the world is going to be their oyster because they achieve JD, they are going to have another thing coming to them when they get out. Is it ethical to charge someone $40K+ per year knowing full well that they can't compete with others? That's really not a question that's part of the argument for/against more JD grads.

Perhaps I'm missing something here...perhaps somehow that guy in the 75th percentile of University of Phoenix Online's JD class IS competing with Mr. Top 10% T14 grad. But I'm more inclined to think that a vocal minority don't want to work hard to distinguish themselves. You don't like being T4/3? Bust your ass and transfer. You heard that you are T2 and only the top 10% can get jobs? Be in the top 10%. You want a Federal Court clerk position? Bust your ass in undergrad, bust your ass on the LSAT, bust your ass at HYS (still probably not be enough ). It's all about how hard you work. If you work hard, doors will open. If not, they will close in front you. It doesn't matter if 28000 people get JDs a year or 28,000,000. Compete hard or get lost in the shuffle.

Bonus about UCI: Let's say that someone opened a brand new school called Bale using HoloDeck technology. This new school has cloned everything about Yale - the look, the professors, the exams. USNWR ranks the new school #2 in it's new survey. What does this mean for grads of HYS? Will one of the schools now be "T14" instead of HBY (harvard/bale/yale?). What if people that may have gotten into Harvard now go to Bale? Does this mean that Bale will get stronger applicants? Probably. Does that mean the class graduating from Bale will also be stronger? Debatable, but from a strictly statistical standpoint, probably. You know who sorts this out? The market. I can see where this can be dicey because the market is very unpredictable, but extend this example further...

Let's now say that Bale is so successful that the owners of Bale open up Zale, Dale, Tale, Nail, etc, until their schools round out the entire T14. Obviously, what we are going to see is just a replication of what happens currently. Being pushed out of the T14, these schools will now be competing for sub T14 standard students and they will push back the rest of the schools that rounded out the Top 50. Market forces again will sort this out. Will the -ales continue to compete? How will Harvard and Stanford react to get better students. Now that Cooley is T5, does it really matter to a Zale grad? If a prospective with a 3.8/176 is deciding between Stanford and Nail, won't they choose Nail? It's not like people are not getting a choice.

If you want to go to UCI and you think it's a better school with better opportunities than USC/UCSD, etc, then CHOOSE IT. If you are upset because you are already attending USC or whatever, transfer if you want. #1 is still #1 and #14 is still #14 whether it's Georgetown or Zale.

Like I said, i'm a long time lurker and I admit, not an expert on any of this stuff. If someone knows if/why i'm wrong, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I'm trying to learn, not flame Thanks for your help, all.

[badlydrawn]

Your argument fails because University of Phoenix Online already has a law school.

[Pisto3]

Your argument fails because University of Phoenix Online already has a law school.

Ha. Now you've made me nose around the University of Phoenix Online website. Couldn't find anything, anyways

[kittenmittons]

Market saturation drives salaries down

[ArthurEdens]

A 1263 word post? Really, OP?

[Pisto3]

Market saturation drives salaries down

Now that's something I didn't think of. Excellent point. I suppose with more JDs out there, market forces would drive a "wal-mart" model of inferior yet cheap goods/services. Not that cheap lawyers don't exist now...

[Pisto3]

A 1263 word post? Really, OP?

It's my last week of work, they took away all my responsibilities and I already trained the person taking my place. I'm sick of studying for the patent bar today...

aka boredom.

[Borhas]

one of the guys (rayiner?) here has credibly proposed the argument that it's not that there are more lawyers now than before (in the past couple decades lawyers per capita has remained the same or gone down). It's that tuition has skyrocketed leading the crippling debt.

[d34d9823]

It's all basically market forces at work. Some people on here don't like some of the results and wish that the ABA would artificially limit the supply of lawyers so that they could have more/cushier job opportunities.

[mhernton]

Market saturation does drive down salaries as a previous poster pointed out, the cost of the education does not decrease based on ranking. The opportunity to get a job does.

[mjs92983]

I think the main reason that people get upset at an increase of 1Ls and Law schools is that most of these schools are very expensive, give people the idea that once they graduate they'll be making 6 figures and then the students end up shafted. So the student ends up with 100 to 160k of debt and has little to show for it. Assuming they pass the bar they'll be making 40 to 60k with a 6 figure debt load. I think that deception that every lawyer makes it "big" is the issue that most people have.

[Renzo]

That was really long, and I'm not going to pretend I even skimmed it, but I'll respond to the title. There are two arguments against more schools.

The first is a selfish argument by lawyers/law students: if there were less lawyers, they could charge more and would get jobs with less competition. It's hard to take this argument seriously, because it's self-serving, anti-competitive, and reminiscent of medieval guilds

The second argument makes more sense: most of these schools are outrageously expensive, and use dishonest employment/job prospect information to lure in students who will never get the kinds of jobs they were promised.

This is obviously bad for the students who have to try and pay back the loans. It's also bad for the economy, in that those students could be doing something else productive for three years, or getting an education that would get them a job. You can also make the same argument that people use against those predatory for-profit "career training" schools that advertise on late-night TV: they sucker people in who don't think about the huge amount of money they're going to owe (because it comes from government loans), and when those people predictably can't pay the loans, the taxpayers get stuck.

[d34d9823]

I think the main reason that people get upset at an increase of 1Ls and Law schools is that most of these schools are very expensive, give people the idea that once they graduate they'll be making 6 figures and then the students end up shafted. So the student ends up with 100 to 160k of debt and has little to show for it. Assuming they pass the bar they'll be making 40 to 60k with a 6 figure debt load. I think that deception that every lawyer makes it "big" is the issue that most people have.

This would be more credible if the outraged people were outraged that their school deceived them. On TLS, it's more usual to hear them complain about how the schools are sinking other people's career prospects. It beggars belief that their only motive is caring about the future of random students at TTTT.

[Mal]

It's all basically market forces at work. Some people on here don't like some of the results and wish that the ABA would artificially limit the supply of lawyers so that they could have more/cushier job opportunities.

Wrong. Borrowing is regulated which changes everything, the ability to borrow is artificially raised; increasing demand.

[romothesavior]

As I understand it, your argument is, "What does it matter if more schools open because it doesn't affect those of you at the top?"

There are lots of really good arguments against opening more schools, but here are the two I usually defer to:

1. It affects those of us at the higher ranked schools because it creates an oversaturation of the market. There is tons of cheap labor coming out of these schools that smaller firms and shitlaw firms can pay horrible salaries with no benefits. I have seen job site listings for lawyers at 30k and no benefits. That is outrageous.

2. Even if it doesn't affect me, it is absolutely unethical. Most of these new schools are offering HORRIBLE job prospects and are asking for outrageous amounts of money to get the degree. To make things worse, they are extremely deceitful about their employment prospects and they lure a bunch of unsuspecting young kids in who think, "Hey a law degree! That's a great idea!" No, it isn't a great idea. Its a f*cking terrible idea.

edit: Damn, Renzo beat me to it... Basically the same arguments.

[rockstar4488]

To address one point of the OP's argument.. I believe that a B.S. (well, really, more a B.A.) is significantly devalued compared to its past worth. I do not believe that JDs will similarly saturate. The reason is because even with a JD, the Bar is still reasonably difficult. We can look at a case study of a reality that the OP imagines. California has, I believe, 45 non ABA accredited law schools whose students are eligible to take the Baby Bar, and subsequently, the California State Bar. The pass rates at these schools are so small, that I am willing to say that their graduates have a negligible impact on legal jobs that require one to be a member of the Bar.

Conclusion: I think additional law schools will be irrelevant to the legal employment atmosphere as long as the Bar remains reasonably difficult.

Caveat: The creation of legal education that is inexpensive enough and accessible enough to allow candidates who would otherwise be well suited for law school but for those issues, to earn a JD.

[romothesavior]

OP, let me turn your question around on you:

Can you explain the argument FOR more schools?

Hint: There isn't one.

[Dr. Strangelove]

More competition.. also a law degree is different from an undergrad degree because it is specialized.
However, unless there's something I don't know about the University of Phoenix Law.. how many of these people are going to pass the bar?

[1ferret!]

Since it would take me a 1263 word post to explain it, I will sum up:
1) supply outpaces demand lower salaries all around unless protected
2) graduates will only stay protected while they are not seen as fungible with grads of "lesser" schools.
3) Schools currently trying to restrict entry (rather than the ABA) by raising tuition rates at the top for what they offer. This is a good tradeoff for those who might get the lucrative jobs to go with the high tuition.
4) Without the ABA restricting entry, this will prove futile as every "Sacramento Community College of Law" feels justified in coming close to what the big boys charge.
5) This really sux for those attending "lesser schools" as they won't be able to secure the jobs to pay the debt that the big boys can as long as the top paying jobs do not see them as interchangeable with the top school grads.
6) If there does come a day when they are interchangeable (not really likely but who knows, were talkin economics) then the market price for a JD will be astronomically and unjustifiably high across the board. This is no good for grads since then its just a 180k crap shoot hoping you get the good job. This should cause the market price for a JD to fall but that will likely be the time the ABA steps in to provide protection to the schools themselves.
7) Currently, the top schools are really not effected by increase in supply (at least those in the top of their classes). It is those schools that are outside of the "top" that are most effected by an influx of new grads who they will be in competition with for mid to small size firms, government work/clerkships, and even PI and summer internships.
I'm a dyed in the wool free market guy, but when someone gets more pie, someone else has less. TLSers are simply lamenting the fact that they will have less if the trend continues.

[romothesavior]

I do not believe that JDs will similarly saturate.

Umm... WTF world are you living in? This happened decades ago.

40,000+ law graduates a year for 30,000 jobs (and it is probably even less than that). And the number of those jobs that pay well enough to make the investment worth it is very, very small.

[quickquestionthanks]

I've been lurking on this board for a while and I really still don't understand the "Tragedy of the Commons" argument as it applies to the JD degree, how many graduating lawyers there are and graduate's employment prospects.

At the macro level, I see there could be a problem:

Let's just say for the sake of argument that University of Phoenix Online opened their own online law school in cahoots with the ABA - that is, it got ABA approval and was a fully "valid and operating" law school. This would never happen, but it's my own fiction so deal with it. USNews and World Report ranks the law school T4 because it is not a very good school by their somewhat flawed standards. After an aggressive late-night TV advertising campaign, they get 15000 enrolled and 12000 graduate and pass the bar. This means that instead of 50000 people competing for 28000 jobs per year, there are now 62000. The next year, Capella Online and Devry Online promise to open their own cheap online law schools as well. The chance of getting a job has just been severely reduced for everyone, all lawyers should just slit their wrists and become plumbers, right?

But is this analogy correct? Of course not. The problem here is obviously the scope of the argument. Everyone knows that a Stanford, Amherst, hell, even a local state college degree is more valuable than a Phoenix Online degree. The same goes for law degrees. Why are people (okay NOT everyone) trying to go to a "T14" or T1 or whatever law school they want to go to? It's probably because the institution they are seeking is more valuable in the sector/geographical area/whatever that they want to enter than a degree from another school. How would 10 more lawyers from a T4, T3, T2, etc. school be detrimental to someone who is top 10% of their T14 law school class? How about 100 more? Maybe 1000? Maybe 10000? It's safe to say that these people are not competing for the same jobs, and even if they are, why should a T14 grad top 10% be upset?

Let's talk about devalued JDs. Someone might say, well, now EVERYONE has a JD! A person in the above scenario might say, "I worked so hard (and paid so much) for mine at T1 University, and these people just took online courses! It's not fair!" This has already happened: it's called bachelor's degrees. 50 years ago, there were far fewer universities and university graduates than there are now. People with bachelor's degrees had a "leg up" on those who didn't graduate high school and could easily obtain entry level jobs. Today, with night school, online classes and community college, a bachelor's degree is within reach for everyone. It's admittedly getting more and more difficult for undergrads to find work out of school. However, should someone with a bachelor from Harvard be upset that their degree is being "devalued" by the number of undergraduates in the country? Of course not. The Harvard grad knows that his/her Harvard degree is going to open doors that are closed to those with a degree from Phoenix Online. Bottom line: is your JD devalued? Maybe. Are your personal accomplishments including school/class rank/law review, etc, devalued. NO.

The ONLY argument I can see here is that people think that they should be "gifted" the career that they want because they achieve the status of JD. These people seem to believe that because there are 28000 or whatever jobs for law grads, there should be 28000 graduates, one for each spot. Doesn't this seem a bit far fetched? There is competition for every job and in every sector of business (and law is CERTAINLY a business) -- in fact, competition for the best resources, be it people or goods - is just the way of capitalism.

The only real problem here is disillusionment, and it's a problem I can't really think of a solution for. Somehow, people think that because they get a JD, they are entitled to the job they want. If that Phoenix Online JD that half-assed his courses is somehow led to believing that the world is going to be their oyster because they achieve JD, they are going to have another thing coming to them when they get out. Is it ethical to charge someone $40K+ per year knowing full well that they can't compete with others? That's really not a question that's part of the argument for/against more JD grads.

Perhaps I'm missing something here...perhaps somehow that guy in the 75th percentile of University of Phoenix Online's JD class IS competing with Mr. Top 10% T14 grad. But I'm more inclined to think that a vocal minority don't want to work hard to distinguish themselves. You don't like being T4/3? Bust your ass and transfer. You heard that you are T2 and only the top 10% can get jobs? Be in the top 10%. You want a Federal Court clerk position? Bust your ass in undergrad, bust your ass on the LSAT, bust your ass at HYS (still probably not be enough ). It's all about how hard you work. If you work hard, doors will open. If not, they will close in front you. It doesn't matter if 28000 people get JDs a year or 28,000,000. Compete hard or get lost in the shuffle.

Bonus about UCI: Let's say that someone opened a brand new school called Bale using HoloDeck technology. This new school has cloned everything about Yale - the look, the professors, the exams. USNWR ranks the new school #2 in it's new survey. What does this mean for grads of HYS? Will one of the schools now be "T14" instead of HBY (harvard/bale/yale?). What if people that may have gotten into Harvard now go to Bale? Does this mean that Bale will get stronger applicants? Probably. Does that mean the class graduating from Bale will also be stronger? Debatable, but from a strictly statistical standpoint, probably. You know who sorts this out? The market. I can see where this can be dicey because the market is very unpredictable, but extend this example further...

Let's now say that Bale is so successful that the owners of Bale open up Zale, Dale, Tale, Nail, etc, until their schools round out the entire T14. Obviously, what we are going to see is just a replication of what happens currently. Being pushed out of the T14, these schools will now be competing for sub T14 standard students and they will push back the rest of the schools that rounded out the Top 50. Market forces again will sort this out. Will the -ales continue to compete? How will Harvard and Stanford react to get better students. Now that Cooley is T5, does it really matter to a Zale grad? If a prospective with a 3.8/176 is deciding between Stanford and Nail, won't they choose Nail? It's not like people are not getting a choice.

If you want to go to UCI and you think it's a better school with better opportunities than USC/UCSD, etc, then CHOOSE IT. If you are upset because you are already attending USC or whatever, transfer if you want. #1 is still #1 and #14 is still #14 whether it's Georgetown or Zale.

Like I said, i'm a long time lurker and I admit, not an expert on any of this stuff. If someone knows if/why i'm wrong, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I'm trying to learn, not flame Thanks for your help, all.

[Billy Blanks]

I think the main reason that people get upset at an increase of 1Ls and Law schools is that most of these schools are very expensive, give people the idea that once they graduate they'll be making 6 figures and then the students end up shafted. So the student ends up with 100 to 160k of debt and has little to show for it. Assuming they pass the bar they'll be making 40 to 60k with a 6 figure debt load. I think that deception that every lawyer makes it "big" is the issue that most people have.

This is a real problem. I think that schools intentionally exploit the expectations that many naive 0Ls have regarding the earning power of lawyers. Of course, the earning power of some lawyers is awesome, for others it's respectable and for many lawyers speaking of earning power is really a joke. Going into huge debt to obtain a degree that won't allow the recpient to even pay off the debt is a terrible choice. However, OP acknowledged that this is a problem, and points to the (relevant and well-reasoned) fact that this is a problem not with having more accredited schools but with having more ultra-expensive accredited schools coupled with individuals who are willing to take on the debt required to attend. In other words, it seems to be a real concern but not necessarily one of accreditation.

Other posters have put forward the argument that more JD-holders means more competition which undercuts the wages of lawyers. This argument sounds good, until you look at data from the National Association for Legal Career Professionals (NALP): http://www.nalp.org/2009septnewassocsalaries. From 1996 to 2009 the median starting salaries of lawyers increased for lawyers at all levels; granted, growth over this time period was a less impressive 37% at the super-small (2-25) than it was at the huge firms (250+ with a median increase of 107%). Now, maybe there's something to be said for an increase in JDs undercutting the market in other ways, but from what I can tell there are more jobs for lawyers now than there were 14 years ago with an increase in median salary which outpaces inflation. Notwithstanding the legal crash, we seem to have more jobs AND higher pay.

[rockstar4488]

I do not believe that JDs will similarly saturate.

Umm... WTF world are you living in? This happened decades ago.

40,000+ law graduates a year for 30,000 jobs (and it is probably even less than that). And the number of those jobs that pay well enough to make the investment worth it is very, very small.

...

~25% of folks 25 or over have a Bachelors Degree. Obviously this figure goes up and up.
~1% of folks have a JD. I doubt this has significantly changed in modern times.

[romothesavior]

I do not believe that JDs will similarly saturate.

Umm... WTF world are you living in? This happened decades ago.

40,000+ law graduates a year for 30,000 jobs (and it is probably even less than that). And the number of those jobs that pay well enough to make the investment worth it is very, very small.

...

~25% of folks 25 or over have a Bachelors Degree. Obviously this figure goes up and up.
~1% of folks have a JD. I doubt this has significantly changed in modern times.

That is an utterly irrelevant statistic. Who cares what the ratio of JDs to the American population is?

What matters is JDs : Jobs

[lawdowne]

Here is why the "the same thing happened to undergrad" argument is not that strong.

Unlike undergrad, law school trains students (almost exclusively) for a legal profession. The lesser the quality the legal professional out in the country due to their graduating from T2 and T3 schools, the more people are likely to continue to percieve lawyers as money grabbing, petty, (insert modern lawyer stereotype here), etc. People disperse into many different lines of work from undergrad so the correlation is less strong there. Thus, student A from Harvard saying they are a lawyer can cause a listener to recall negative stereotypes they have of student B from a T3 school (now also a lawyer) and student A suffers as a result.

Compare the connotation of he/she is a lawyer vs. he/she is a doctor. The former is significantly less well regarded. Why? Because the number of med schools is limited and standards are more regulated. Thus most anyone graduating from med school is respected for their achievement.

The number of law schools needs to be SLASHED. T2 and T3 schools should be turned into schools that train specialized paralegals much the same way that Physician Assistants are specialized nurses (overgeneralization I know but you get the point). Perhaps they should be called Laywer Assistants. Lawyer> Lawyer Assistant > Paralegal.