Top Law Schools

So, the new economy has magnified the extent to which the ABA, via its accrediting FAR too many law schools, has fueled the oversupply of law grads in this country. Students at T3/T4 schools have never had a particularly easy time recouping their massive tuition investments, and now that even T20 schools are seriously starting to suffer in terms of placement the ABA continues to accredit more schools like it's going out of style. It's absurd that most law grads wind up in massive financial holes and totally regret their decision to attend law school. Far too many people think a law degree is a ticket to riches, and the ABA continues to play on this fallacy by acting as if there is a shortage of law grads every year.

Of course, ABA does this to increase its own power as a guild despite the deleterious effects such overaccreditation has on ABA member attorneys and their career prospects.

So, I ask you, fellow future attorneys, will you join the ABA and pay them to keep screwing the people they're supposed to be advocating for?

Will membership look good on my resume?

Clever username wrote:Will membership look good on my resume?

Can't see how it would. I mean, it doesn't differentiate you from any other legal job seeker. ABA membership is not mandatory; It's not the same as being a member of your state bar. There is no exam for ABA membership, just dues. I can't see an employer saying "Wow, you fork over all that money every year to a special interest group. The job is yours!"

Then fuck 'em, feed 'em fish heads.

The ABA was compelled to not overly restrict law school accreditation by the Clinton administration's Justice department, which accused them of antitrust practices. But, I suppose you can blame them if it makes you feel better!

art vandelay wrote:So, the new economy has magnified the extent to which tuition is too high at many Law Schools.

fixed

singularity wrote:

art vandelay wrote:So, the new economy has magnified the extent to which tuition is too high at many Law Schools.

fixed

Definitely those private JD mills are overpriced, but I'm hesitant to blame better schools for tuition hikes. I mean, at lots of great state schools state legislatures have literally yanked their funding out from underneath them.

sbalive wrote:The ABA was compelled to not overly restrict law school accreditation by the Clinton administration's Justice department, which accused them of antitrust practices. But, I suppose you can blame them if it makes you feel better!

It's not like ABA didn't have 8 years of comparatively lax antitrust prosecution to reverse course. Bush's DoJ would have had better things to do.

sbalive wrote:The ABA was compelled to not overly restrict law school accreditation by the Clinton administration's Justice department, which accused them of antitrust practices. But, I suppose you can blame them if it makes you feel better!

Why did they not say the same thing to med schools, then?

If an organization composed entirely of lawyers cannot figure out a way around a legal squable, who the f@ck can?

i don't know, i kind of liked ABBA

Splitt3r wrote:

sbalive wrote:The ABA was compelled to not overly restrict law school accreditation by the Clinton administration's Justice department, which accused them of antitrust practices. But, I suppose you can blame them if it makes you feel better!

Why did they not say the same thing to med schools, then?

It's much easier to justify why medical schools have tougher rules for accreditation, and it's much more expensive to start a new medical school - with far less assured revenue stream. Even so, there are a bunch of new ones that have either just opened or will be opening in the next couple of years. The main issue in the medical profession is not actually restriction on the opening of new medical schools, but rather how the profession restricts foreign grads, Caribbean grads, and DO's to compete from competing fairly for residency and fellowship positions. It's a lot harder to attack them for that though because people are freaked out about someone with a MD from Pakistan operating on them, even if they pass all the same credentialing exams that the American grad did.

The main thing is that this is just inherent to the fact that there really isn't much to law school education at its most basic level. You've got a building, some rooms, some JD's (not even PhDs) to teach the classes, and you're pretty much done. Yeah, selfishly I'd love to see law be a restricted, guild-like profession like it is in Canada, but I don't see how I could win that argument with non-lawyers.

In the end, the market will have to end this - eventually if people realize that spending $120K + lost wages + COL to be unemployed, have a crappy job, or fail the bar exam, then the # of students who are willing to pay will drop and the law schools will start losing money and shrink/close. Until then, the US News rankings will have to do if a T1 grad wants to "objectively" differentiate their degree from the bottom-tier masses.

sbalive wrote:

Splitt3r wrote:

sbalive wrote:The ABA was compelled to not overly restrict law school accreditation by the Clinton administration's Justice department, which accused them of antitrust practices. But, I suppose you can blame them if it makes you feel better!

Why did they not say the same thing to med schools, then?

It's much easier to justify why medical schools have tougher rules for accreditation, and it's much more expensive to start a new medical school - with far less assured revenue stream. Even so, there are a bunch of new ones that have either just opened or will be opening in the next couple of years. The main issue in the medical profession is not actually restriction on the opening of new medical schools, but rather how the profession restricts foreign grads, Caribbean grads, and DO's to compete from competing fairly for residency and fellowship positions. It's a lot harder to attack them for that though because people are freaked out about someone with a MD from Pakistan operating on them, even if they pass all the same credentialing exams that the American grad did.

The main thing is that this is just inherent to the fact that there really isn't much to law school education at its most basic level. You've got a building, some rooms, some JD's (not even PhDs) to teach the classes, and you're pretty much done. Yeah, selfishly I'd love to see law be a restricted, guild-like profession like it is in Canada, but I don't see how I could win that argument with non-lawyers.

In the end, the market will have to end this - eventually if people realize that spending $120K + lost wages + COL to be unemployed, have a crappy job, or fail the bar exam, then the # of students who are willing to pay will drop and the law schools will start losing money and shrink/close. Until then, the US News rankings will have to do if a T1 grad wants to "objectively" differentiate their degree from the bottom-tier masses.

Sure, the market could end this, but it hasn't. And I'm a market-trusting kind of guy. The fact is that there is (and has, for some time, been) a misunderstanding of what it is to be a lawyer. People watch the wrong TV shows and think that all lawyers live the rich, fast-paced lives of Harvard or Yale Law grads.

The market may one day solve this problem, but we (as current law students) would be much better off if someone else (like the ABA) took a proactive stance towards ensuring that supply does not so far exceed demand. Hell, if the market has its way supply would theoretically equal demand, but we don't want that either. We want demand to so far exceed supply that all law grads are assured of good work. It's not whats best for the market, it's what's best for us... and if lawyers don't look out for themselves, who the hell else will look out for them?