Top Law Schools

I think a portion of tuition should go into a conservatively invested fund to serve as a pool of insurance money to be distributed to new JD's if they haven't secured legal employment within 9 months of graduation. They must maintain a 3.2, as well as some other criteria (haven't thought of everything yet) to qualify for this program.

Boom. A great law school problem solved. Everyone wins. Let us lobby until the ABA requires all law schools implement this type of fund. I'm sick of hearing stories about unemployed lawyers who did well in school and were left to die after paying thier dues. It's time for law schools to have some more skin in the game. Otherwise, stop being a law school.

amyLAchemist wrote:

introversional wrote:I think a portion of tuition should go into a conservatively invested fund to serve as a pool of insurance money to be distributed to new JD's if they haven't secured legal employment within 9 months of graduation. They must maintain a 3.2, as well as some other criteria (haven't thought of everything yet) to qualify for this program.

Boom. A great law school problem solved. Everyone wins. Let us lobby until the ABA requires all law schools implement this type of fund. I'm sick of hearing stories about unemployed lawyers who did well in school and were left to die after paying thier dues. It's time for law schools to have some more skin in the game. Otherwise, stop being a law school.

Except the employed people who are paying for their classmates' unemployment.

Those people will be more likely to be employed due to the higher ranking they'll enjoy from more people working harder to maintain a higher gpa. (assuming ranking criteria shifts a bit towards more relevant things such as average LS student GPA, not UG GPA's)

I mean, taxes, social sec.... uh oh, this is going to turn into a social security debate, isn't it.

The idea is a number of TTTT schools will invariably shut down... thereby improving the entire legal market/profession as well, IMO.

amyLAchemist wrote:

introversional wrote:

amyLAchemist wrote:

introversional wrote:I think a portion of tuition should go into a conservatively invested fund to serve as a pool of insurance money to be distributed to new JD's if they haven't secured legal employment within 9 months of graduation. They must maintain a 3.2, as well as some other criteria (haven't thought of everything yet) to qualify for this program.

Boom. A great law school problem solved. Everyone wins. Let us lobby until the ABA requires all law schools implement this type of fund. I'm sick of hearing stories about unemployed lawyers who did well in school and were left to die after paying thier dues. It's time for law schools to have some more skin in the game. Otherwise, stop being a law school.

Except the employed people who are paying for their classmates' unemployment.

Those people will be more likely to be employed due to the higher ranking they'll enjoy from more people working harder to maintain a higher gpa. They'll want to qualify for this employment insurance.

I mean, taxes, social sec.... uh oh, this is going to turn into a social security debate, isn't it.

The idea is a number of TTTT schools will invariably shut down... thereby improving the entire legal market/profession as well, IMO.

Not necessarily, and no.

Fear of unemployment w/100k+ debt is a powerful motivator. I wouldn't underestimate it.

introversional wrote:Those people will be more likely to be employed due to the higher ranking they'll enjoy from more people working harder to maintain a higher gpa. (assuming ranking criteria shifts a bit towards more relevant things such as average LS student GPA, not UG GPA's)

I mean, taxes, social sec.... uh oh, this is going to turn into a social security debate, isn't it.

The idea is a number of TTTT schools will invariably shut down... thereby improving the entire legal market/profession as well, IMO.

1) If the ones who get jobs are the ones more likely to be employed, why force them to pay the living expenses of those who did poorly? This is an artificial inequality; people who do poorly and are unemployed with massive debt could have avoided their problem by not going to law school in the first place. Getting a law degree doesn't guarantee you a job, or income, after you graduate.

2) Aside from this, the ones less likely to get jobs are those going to the lowest-ranked schools. Would this be a school-by-school thing? Cooley grads who actually get jobs would have to have their whole paychecks taken to even approach enough money to subsidize the unemployed. Or would it be a total across-the-profession fund? Then the T14 kids who are much more likely to get jobs going in will not only have to pay their loans, but the living expenses of those who went to a T4 school and should have known going in their job prospects were low.

3) Contrary to your intended effect, this would help T3/T4 schools thrive. Admissions numbers are starting to drop right now, partly because non-law hiring is picking up and people are realizing that a law degree doesn't guarantee future income. But now, you're guaranteeing income for them! "I won't go to law school because I probably can't get employed from a T3/T4" becomes "I may as well go, if I get a legal job then great, if not then legal employment insurance will provide for me." This would encourage enrollment enough to promote the opening of even more schools.

Or, to summarize: No. Just no.

vanwinkle wrote:

introversional wrote:Those people will be more likely to be employed due to the higher ranking they'll enjoy from more people working harder to maintain a higher gpa. (assuming ranking criteria shifts a bit towards more relevant things such as average LS student GPA, not UG GPA's)

I mean, taxes, social sec.... uh oh, this is going to turn into a social security debate, isn't it.

The idea is a number of TTTT schools will invariably shut down... thereby improving the entire legal market/profession as well, IMO.

1) If the ones who get jobs are the ones more likely to be employed, why force them to pay the living expenses of those who did poorly? This is an artificial inequality; people who do poorly and are unemployed with massive debt could have avoided their problem by not going to law school in the first place. Getting a law degree doesn't guarantee you a job, or income, after you graduate.

2) Aside from this, the ones less likely to get jobs are those going to the lowest-ranked schools. Would this be a school-by-school thing? Cooley grads who actually get jobs would have to have their whole paychecks taken to even approach enough money to subsidize the unemployed. Or would it be a total across-the-profession fund? Then the T14 kids who are much more likely to get jobs going in will not only have to pay their loans, but the living expenses of those who went to a T4 school and should have known going in their job prospects were low.

3) Contrary to your intended effect, this would help T3/T4 schools thrive. Admissions numbers are starting to drop right now, partly because non-law hiring is picking up and people are realizing that a law degree doesn't guarantee future income. But now, you're guaranteeing income for them! "I won't go to law school because I probably can't get employed from a T3/T4" becomes "I may as well go, if I get a legal job then great, if not then legal employment insurance will provide for me." This would encourage enrollment enough to promote the opening of even more schools.

Or, to summarize: No. Just no.

Ok, you know what, you're right. +1 for capitalist dynamics within law school. Some people will invariably be crushed underneath the wheel in this system, so to speak, and that's just the way it has to be - not being sarcastic, either. Upon further consideration, I agree this wouldn't work and/or it would be exploited. (i.e. prof's would be "incented" to not hand out 3.2's as easily as before)

With that said, what are your thoughts on social security?