Top Law Schools

I woke up this morning to a story about a respected school offering a 2 year JD. Respected as in a top 21 USNWR ranked school with an employment rate of 80% (unfortunately this percentage is inflated with a 22% SFJ).

Nevertheless, if you had a 2 year JD deal, your 3L tuition would be wiped out. You would be earning money (perhaps enough to nearly cover your tuition, or close to it) versus accumulating a needless 3L debt.

In looking for a downside, what if you had not gained employment by the end of 2L? According to TLS lore (backed with compelling data), 3L offers no guarantee of gainful employment….far from it.

Question. Would you have given up your 3 year T-14 JD for a 2 year JD at a highly ranked school? Noting that highly ranked is still not T-14 worthy when it comes to enhancing your employment odds.

I think I would have considered a 2 year JD plan. What about you?

TL;DR.

Cliffs, brah, cliffs.

I would have done a 2-year JD provided I could be certified at graduation (take the February bar during school).

The only downside is a major one: for many/most people, the dream of law school is the well-trodden path of: crush 1L -> land 2L summer gig -> part 2L summer -> ignore 3L -> start at a firm post-barzam.

That is so established in the industry that being a 'first mover' to a 2 year program would throw a major wrench into participating.

Otherwise I see literally 0 point to the 3rd year of law school other than an expensive excuse to drink and play softball, so cool.

kalvano wrote:I would have done a 2-year JD provided I could be certified at graduation (take the February bar during school).

I thought taking the bar during school was dependent on the state’s policy….some states say OK to law students, others say no. In any case you could take the bar a year earlier.

Aside from passing up a sure thing with a T10/14, I think every other scanario would have led me to a 2 year JD. 3L is such an incredible and expensive waste of time.

thesealocust wrote:The only downside is a major one: for many/most people, the dream of law school is the well-trodden path of: crush 1L -> land 2L summer gig -> part 2L summer -> ignore 3L -> start at a firm post-barzam.
That is so established in the industry that being a 'first mover' to a 2 year program would throw a major wrench into participating.
Otherwise I see literally 0 point to the 3rd year of law school other than an expensive excuse to drink and play softball, so cool.

I agree 180 except the part about a 2 year JD throwing a wrench into anything. Just the opposite, we would be freed from this 3L albatross. IMHO: For a 2 year JD to become a reality one of the T14s would need to break rank and join in. Unless of course some T14 schools started to see their enrollment decline (which is somewhat doubtful).

Some poster suggested, and this breaks tradition, but what if after 1L you do OCI like normal, get 2L summer SA, do said SA, then take February bar? yealh there is a lot of down time there, but presumably if you have a firm gig lined up its not a huge deal.

If you did not get said SA, you could just take it in July instead. and by October of what would be 3L you are able to fight the masses for the much-vaunted $30k a year lawyer gig.

NU and W&L both have versions of these proposals already. Neither provide a tuition break.

IAFG wrote:NU and W&L both have versions of these proposals already. Neither provide a tuition break.

I hear W&L is a good school. Their employment stat is 50% so you take your chances. If NU is Northwestern, your employment odds improve to 75%. As far as going for 2 years but paying like you went for three.... sounds like the competitive American LS marketplace needs to step it up. I guess W&L/NU could make the case that you do get to start work a year earlier to start chipping away at your debt.

Unless someone can make a strong case for 3L being a good thing, I can see the system changing to a two year law degree (unfortunately that ship has sailed for us). I do wonder if going to a 2 year system would flood the system with more attorneys. It seemingly would make LS more attractive if tuition is cut coupled with dropping a year. If I were applying to LS now and could not crack the T14, a highly ranked T1 with a 2 year plan would be very attractive.

People have been calling for getting rid of the third year of law school for ages and it hasn't happened. Neither W&L nor NU's accelerated program actually dispenses with the third year - they either devote it to experiential learning (W&L) or squish it into the first 2 years (NU). I could see more schools moving toward a W&L model, but I'd be surprised if any significant number actually did away with the third year entirely in the sense of shortening the degree. For one thing, the ABA has minimum requirements - a school must require 83 semester hours of credit or 129 quarter hours of credit for the JD to be accredited. And for another, there's no incentive for schools or the ABA to change this.

J. D. wrote:a top 21 USNWR ranked school

Ah, yes, the ol' T21.

.

Question that I do not have the answer to:

Theoretically, could an LL.B program get accredited and allow a grad to sit for the bar under the current rules?

Currently, the ABA rules say: "A law school shall require for admission to its J.D. degree program a bachelor’s degree, or successful completion of three-fourths of the work acceptable for a bachelor’s degree, from an institution that is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Department of Education," and it also requires schools to get proof of an applicant's awarded B.A. before the student registers or within a reasonable time thereafter. So I don't think that allows for an LLB program (if you mean earning a law degree-bachelors).