Anyone else disappointed how overly practical LS is? Forum

[kapital98]

Law school is fine the way it is, except that it needs to be one year shorter.

+1 The length of undergrad and law school = racket.

It's such bullshit that students are having to go into all this debt when post high school education could be cut in half.

Barrier of entry would be too low then. Can't make big salary that way.

huh? There's not "barrier of entry" as it is.

What??? The barrier to entry is incredibly high. You need to graduate with a 4 year degree (that eliminates over 1/2 the population there.) You need to have a respectable GPA (that eliminates another ~20%.) You need to have a LSAT score around, or above, 50% of prospective law students (that's intertwined with the GPA issue but would still eliminate ~10% of candidates.)

THEN, you have to finish three years of law school. Factor in the significant costs of all this education and the mental intelligence required to be accepted and graduate and that's a VERY HIGH barrier to entry.

The only profession with a barrier to entry higher than being an attorney is, maybe, being a doctor. This isn't an elitist argument saying only a small percentage of people can be lawyers. A large percent of our society could be lawyers if they really tried -- but they don't because the barrier to entry is so high. It's not worth the significant investment.

[20130312]

huh? There's not "barrier of entry" as it is.

Someone doesn't understand what a barrier to entry is...

[Gettingstarted1928]

Law school is fine the way it is, except that it needs to be one year shorter.

+1 The length of undergrad and law school = racket.

It's such bullshit that students are having to go into all this debt when post high school education could be cut in half.

Barrier of entry would be too low then. Can't make big salary that way.

huh? There's not "barrier of entry" as it is.

What??? The barrier to entry is incredibly high. You need to graduate with a 4 year degree (that eliminates over 1/2 the population there.) You need to have a respectable GPA (that eliminates another ~20%.) You need to have a LSAT score around, or above, 50% of prospective law students (that's intertwined with the GPA issue but would still eliminate ~10% of candidates.)

THEN, you have to finish three years of law school. Factor in the significant costs of all this education and the mental intelligence required to be accepted and graduate and that's a VERY HIGH barrier to entry.

The only profession with a barrier to entry higher than being an attorney is, maybe, being a doctor. This isn't an elitist argument saying only a small percentage of people can be lawyers. A large percent of our society could be lawyers if they really tried -- but they don't because the barrier to entry is so high. It's not worth the significant investment.

[/quote]


1) any idiot can get into law school
2) any idiot with any major can get into law school
3) anyone can get loans to go to law school
4) any idiot can graduate law school

This is why the market is saturated. It's too damn easy to become a lawyer. I obviously wasn't suggesting there are ZERO barriers, but to say that law is some sort of difficult profession (unlike medicine, engineering, etc.) to get into is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, it's just as difficult to get into any other graduate program as it is to get into law school.

Now, if we're talking about barriers to elite schools only, well that's a different argument entirely.

[Bronte]

1) any idiot can get into law school
2) any idiot with any major can get into law school
3) anyone can get loans to go to law school
4) any idiot can graduate law school

This is why the market is saturated. It's too damn easy to become a lawyer. I obviously wasn't suggesting there are ZERO barriers, but to say that law is some sort of difficult profession (unlike medicine, engineering, etc.) to get into is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, it's just as difficult to get into any other graduate program as it is to get into law school.

Now, if we're talking about barriers to elite schools only, well that's a different argument entirely.

There's an argument that the barriers to entry to the legal profession are not high enough. However, there's not an argument that decreasing a JD from a three-year to a two-degree wouldn't decrease the barriers to entry into the legal profession.

[20130312]

The biggest barrier to entry: a hundred thousand other J.D.'s competing with you for maybe thirty thousand entry level jobs. Made up numbers, but you get the idea. The barriers to entry into a legal profession are enormous considering you might not even land a job.

[ahduth]

The biggest barrier to entry: a hundred thousand other J.D.'s competing with you for maybe thirty thousand entry level jobs. Made up numbers, but you get the idea. The barriers to entry into a legal profession are enormous considering you might not even land a job.

Do we get to lynch the 0Ls?

[mrloblaw]

1) any idiot can get into law school
2) any idiot with any major can get into law school
3) anyone can get loans to go to law school
4) any idiot can graduate law school

This is why the market is saturated. It's too damn easy to become a lawyer. I obviously wasn't suggesting there are ZERO barriers, but to say that law is some sort of difficult profession (unlike medicine, engineering, etc.) to get into is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, it's just as difficult to get into any other graduate program as it is to get into law school.

Now, if we're talking about barriers to elite schools only, well that's a different argument entirely.

The barriers to entry, given the return on investment that the overwhelming majority of law grads (i.e. those who don't make biglawl) actually see, is astronomical. $200k in debt, and three years of lost opportunity cost in addition to the investments in the bachelor's degree, are objectively pretty similar to the costs of obtaining an MD, which is something like $300k and four years. The barriers to entry are high enough to be economically crippling for a huge percentage of law grads, so the notion that they aren't high enough is absurd.

The problem isn't that the barrier is low. The problem is that we let a lot of undergrads who are, due to a lack of real-world experience, god-awful at weighing opportunity costs, make the decision. At the time in their lives that most kids decide to go to law school, $200k in borrowed money looks like $200k in monopoly money, and three years of lost opportunity cost just looks like an extra three years to get drunk and play Xbox instead of entering the real world.

What medical schools get right isn't that it's absurdly hard to get into an MD program (hence the rise of very successful DO programs). It's the fact that the adcomm, from requiring various sorts of work and volunteer experience to actually interviewing the candidate to assess maturity and interest, makes sure that they aren't just getting a bunch of real-world dodging children.

Edit: My sentence structure gets really freaking bad when I haven't slept in days. Oops.

[Gettingstarted1928]

The biggest barrier to entry: a hundred thousand other J.D.'s competing with you for maybe thirty thousand entry level jobs. Made up numbers, but you get the idea. The barriers to entry into a legal profession are enormous considering you might not even land a job.

Well, if this is a barrier, it's not a very effective as far as entrance to law school is concerned.

[20130312]

The biggest barrier to entry: a hundred thousand other J.D.'s competing with you for maybe thirty thousand entry level jobs. Made up numbers, but you get the idea. The barriers to entry into a legal profession are enormous considering you might not even land a job.

Do we get to lynch the 0Ls?

Please lynch everyone you know that is considering law school. More jobs for me.

[20130312]

.

[Gettingstarted1928]

The biggest barrier to entry: a hundred thousand other J.D.'s competing with you for maybe thirty thousand entry level jobs. Made up numbers, but you get the idea. The barriers to entry into a legal profession are enormous considering you might not even land a job.

Well, if this is a barrier, it's not a very effective as far as entrance to law school is concerned.

Are we talking about barriers of entry to law school or to a legal job? Yes, any fucking moron can get into LS. But the barriers to entry for a job are much higher.

No shit.

[ahduth]

1) any idiot can get into law school
2) any idiot with any major can get into law school
3) anyone can get loans to go to law school
4) any idiot can graduate law school

I got into a law school!!! Now I'm here, and they tell me things. It's neat!

[20130312]

.

[Gettingstarted1928]

Law school is fine the way it is, except that it needs to be one year shorter.

+1 The length of undergrad and law school = racket.

It's such bullshit that students are having to go into all this debt when post high school education could be cut in half.

Barrier of entry would be too low then. Can't make big salary that way.

[Bronte]

Law school is fine the way it is, except that it needs to be one year shorter.

+1 The length of undergrad and law school = racket.

It's such bullshit that students are having to go into all this debt when post high school education could be cut in half.

Barrier of entry would be too low then. Can't make big salary that way.

And then you said:

huh? There's not "barrier of entry" as it is.

Which is wrong. There are barriers to entry, whether they're high enough or not, and making law school two years would only reduce those barriers to entry. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but it will indisputably reduce the barriers to entry.

[ahduth]

Which is wrong. There are barriers to entry, whether they're high enough or not, and making law school two years would only reduce those barriers to entry. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but it will indisputably reduce the barriers to entry.

Disagree. 33% less tuition for law schools would mean some of the lesser lights would close their doors. Median LSATs and GPAs would rise, and children all over the world would hold hands and sing.

[Bronte]

Which is wrong. There are barriers to entry, whether they're high enough or not, and making law school two years would only reduce those barriers to entry. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but it will indisputably reduce the barriers to entry.

Disagree. 33% less tuition for law schools would mean some of the lesser lights would close their doors. Median LSATs and GPAs would rise, and children all over the world would hold hands and sing.

They would also have 33% less classes to provide. They would lay off professors and staff so as to cut 33% of expenses. This is why this will not happen anytime soon, but, if it did, it would reduce the barriers to entry.

[ahduth]

Which is wrong. There are barriers to entry, whether they're high enough or not, and making law school two years would only reduce those barriers to entry. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but it will indisputably reduce the barriers to entry.

Disagree. 33% less tuition for law schools would mean some of the lesser lights would close their doors. Median LSATs and GPAs would rise, and children all over the world would hold hands and sing.

They would also have 33% less classes to provide. They would lay off professors and staff so as to cut 33% of expenses. This is why this will not happen anytime soon, but, if it did, it would reduce the barriers to entry.

We agree however that top schools would simply raise tuition while bottom schools would close their doors though, right?

Either way, I'm in this argument now. This rules!

[Bronte]

We agree however that top schools would simply raise tuition while bottom schools would close their doors though, right?

Either way, I'm in this argument now. This rules!

I'm saying if, for the sake of argument, Congress passed a law requiring that a JD was a two year degree, all law schools would immediately respond by laying off a third of their staff and/or raising their tuition. I don't see any reasons that lower ranking schools would respond any differently than higher ranked schools.

[ahduth]

I'm saying if, for the sake of argument, Congress passed a law

I had to stop right there. I'm willing to deal in hypotheticals, but let's try and stay just a bit grounded, shall we?

[Bronte]

I'm saying if, for the sake of argument, Congress passed a law

I had to stop right there. I'm willing to deal in hypotheticals, but let's try and stay just a bit grounded, shall we?

Lol. You got me there.

[r6_philly]

The biggest barrier to entry: a hundred thousand other J.D.'s competing with you for maybe thirty thousand entry level jobs. Made up numbers, but you get the idea. The barriers to entry into a legal profession are enormous considering you might not even land a job.

Well, if this is a barrier, it's not a very effective as far as entrance to law school is concerned.

LSAC data says somewhere around 1/3-1/4 (if I remember correctly) of all law school applicants do NOT receive an offer of admission from anywhere.

This doesn't include people who don't even apply.

Contra community colleges where there is no selectivity. You think there are too many lawyers now because 10000 grads fighting for 3000 jobs, imagine 100000 grads fighting for 3000 jobs.

[ahnhub]

The biggest barrier to entry: a hundred thousand other J.D.'s competing with you for maybe thirty thousand entry level jobs. Made up numbers, but you get the idea. The barriers to entry into a legal profession are enormous considering you might not even land a job.

That's not a barrier to entry, it's a disincentive to entry. A barrier to entry would be making it harder to get into law school, or harder to get a license to practice.

The barriers to entry are laughably low. You can major in anything at any school. You have to take a 4-hour test which has no material to study, and which is designed to measure performance independent of preparation. I would argue even at the elite schools the barriers are very low. You have three shots to get twelve questions or less wrong, give or take, on a hundred-question test. It's the disincentive part that is causing the regression in law school school applicants we're seeing now.

Law schools are profitable. And practicing lawyers seem to be entirely disinclined to control entry into their profession, unlike doctors who jealously guard entry to protect their own salaries (not a single new medical school was opened in the U.S. between the mid 1970s and 2000s.) Anyone who makes the choice to go to law school today, even at Harvard, goes in with the understanding they are entering a market with significantly more supply than demand.

[Gettingstarted1928]

The biggest barrier to entry: a hundred thousand other J.D.'s competing with you for maybe thirty thousand entry level jobs. Made up numbers, but you get the idea. The barriers to entry into a legal profession are enormous considering you might not even land a job.

That's not a barrier to entry, it's a disincentive to entry. A barrier to entry would be making it harder to get into law school, or harder to get a license to practice.

The barriers to entry are laughably low. You can major in anything at any school. You have to take a 4-hour test which has no material to study, and which is designed to measure performance independent of preparation. I would argue even at the elite schools the barriers are very low. You have three shots to get twelve questions or less wrong, give or take, on a hundred-question test. It's the disincentive part that is causing the regression in law school school applicants we're seeing now.

Law schools are profitable. And practicing lawyers seem to be entirely disinclined to control entry into their profession, unlike doctors who jealously guard entry to protect their own salaries (not a single new medical school was opened in the U.S. between the mid 1970s and 2000s.) Anyone who makes the choice to go to law school today, even at Harvard, goes in with the understanding they are entering a market with significantly more supply than demand.

You forgot to mention that you can get in the low 140s (maybe even lower) and get into law school. Ya, that's quite a barrier.

[fathergoose]

relative to the population size as a whole. there hasn't really been an increase in the number of lawyers in the last 40 years.

also to say there is not a barrier to entry to the profession is just dumb. granted the profession is not all brilliant people but it never has been. even shakespeare wanted to kill all the lawyers first. dumb people becoming lawyers is as much a part of the tradition of the profession as pompousness and functional alcoholism