Top Law Schools

What level of control does the bar exert over JD scarcity? Are law schools required to check with them before increasing or decreasing enrollment? Is there a cap on number of membership given out?

luckdragon wrote:What level of control does the bar exert over JD scarcity? Are law schools required to check with them before increasing or decreasing enrollment? Is there a cap on number of membership given out?

LOL

luckdragon wrote:What level of control does the bar exert over JD scarcity? Are law schools required to check with them before increasing or decreasing enrollment? Is there a cap on number of membership given out?

The ABA's control over law school enrollment is roughly equivalent to their control over med school enrollment.

Cavalier wrote:

luckdragon wrote:What level of control does the bar exert over JD scarcity? Are law schools required to check with them before increasing or decreasing enrollment? Is there a cap on number of membership given out?

The ABA's control over law school enrollment is roughly equivalent to their control over med school enrollment.

Thanks for the answer, although this makes me sad. Any chance the ABA change this unwise policy?

Law schools can do whatever they want concerning things like:

enrollment
tuition
employment assistance
practical education
theoretical education
theoretical practical education
clinics (for the most part; states usually have their own rules for these)

and pretty much anything else that is not a bare bone requirement of the ABA. Which means, as long as you have a building with a library, a few librarians, a few tenured faculty members and a few clinical (LRW) professors, you should be fine.

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Law schools can do whatever they want concerning things like:

enrollment
tuition
employment assistance
employment statistics
practical education
theoretical education
theoretical practical education
clinics (for the most part; states usually have their own rules for these)

and pretty much anything else that is not a bare bone requirement of the ABA. Which means, as long as you have a building with a library, a few librarians, a few tenured faculty members and a few clinical (LRW) professors, you should be fine.

FYP

luckdragon wrote:

Cavalier wrote:

luckdragon wrote:What level of control does the bar exert over JD scarcity? Are law schools required to check with them before increasing or decreasing enrollment? Is there a cap on number of membership given out?

The ABA's control over law school enrollment is roughly equivalent to their control over med school enrollment.

Thanks for the answer, although this makes me sad. Any chance the ABA change this unwise policy?

No, the ABA can't engage in illegal anticompetitive behavior. State bars, however, can and do limit competition. It's the reason California's bar is so difficult--less people passing=more work for those who do.

Renzo wrote:the reason California's bar is so difficult--less people passing=more work for those who do.

You also have to look at the competence of all of the people that take it. CA has 60+ law schools that can have their graduates take the bar. At least around 2/3s of that group would fail if attrition rates at the lower 60-70% of schools and the baby bar didn't stand in the way (not to mention no federal financial aid for the non-aba approved ones).

Agree with Aberzombie. State bars only test for competency.

I agree that the number of unqualified people sitting for the CA bar contributes to the low passage rate, but that's not what I am talking about. I didn't dream up the idea that California has an exclusionary bar exam; that's common knowledge.

Here's an article discussing SLS professor and former dean Kathleen Sullivan's failure of the CA bar: (LinkRemoved)

the bar is primarily a guild system designed to limit competition rather than a process to certify competent lawyers.

Here:

The California Bar Exam is known as the toughest in the nation. It's called an "exclusionary bar" because it's meant not just to measure competence, but also to regulate the number of lawyers who can practice in the state.

And here:

The California Bar Exam is one of the hardest in the nation. California has an exclusionary bar, which means that rather than merely trying to screen out people who are incompetent, the exam is used to regulate the number of lawyers in the state. Other states have shorter and easier bar exams, because they don't have the large number of attorneys that California has.

Here: (LinkRemoved)

California has an exclusionary bar, which means that rather than merely trying to screen out people, the exam is used to regulate the number of lawyers in the state.

If it were just about competence, you'd expect very little difference in the difficulty (not pass rate, difficulty) of bar exams between jurisdictions. Instead, places like NY and CA, where there are lots of lawyers have tough exams, while places where there are few lawyers have easier exams. That's professional protectionism, not competence screening.