Should the # of law schools be capped at 50 were it possible Forum

[CanadianWolf]

Both of your most recent comments contain inaccuracies & flawed reasoning. Nevertheless, your anger & frustration come through loud & clear even if your reasoning is muddled.

If you think through my suggestions rather than reacting based on emotion, you might find a real world solution.

P.S. In my opinion, if you really believe that "it's irrelevant [that law schools] are profit centers for universities", then you may not be able to understand the source of the problem of oversupply of lawyers & law schools.

P.P.S. @timbs4339: Noticed that you are a recent graduate of Columbia Law School. Were you able to land a job?

[timbs4339]

Both of your most recent comments contain inaccuracies & flawed reasoning. Nevertheless, your anger & frustration come through loud & clear even if your reasoning is muddled.

If you think through my suggestions rather than reacting based on emotion, you might find a real world solution.

P.S. In my opinion, if you really believe that "it's irrelevant [that law schools] are profit centers for universities", then you may not be able to understand the source of the problem of oversupply of lawyers & law schools.

P.P.S. @timbs4339: Noticed that you are a recent graduate of Columbia Law School. Were you able to land a job?

Eliminating government involvement in the higher education industry would also produce undesirable results. Social mobility is a desirable goal (otherwise we'd have a stagnant society see what I did there) and students from lower and middle income backgrounds are able to go to law school. However, the current system does not allow for effective social mobility because the costs of gaining education are so excessive and they are financed by loans. Other Western countries manage to keep education costs low and not saddle students with a ton of debt to students and I see no reason why the US can't either.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is, you seem to be going off on some Econ 101 supply-demand tangent that is not relevant to the issue of too many law schools and too much student debt. We already have more demand for legal services than supply. That's not because there is a shortage of JDs- as we've seen pumping more JDs into the system does nothing to increase competition or lower costs. I'm also not sure what you mean by a "stagnant" profession.

PPS: Yes, I have a job. Why is that relevant?

[CanadianWolf]

Okay...??? I have no response.

Probably a good time to agree that we'll just disagree.

[laxbrah420]

You introduced the reputation argument which ive been saying is the only reason for reducing schools, but didn't do a very good job of explaining it

[CanadianWolf]

@laxbrah: Not sure at whom your post is directed.

Another approach would be to apply higher standards for accreditation & higher standards for remaining accredited.

[laxbrah420]

Timbs
Accreditation standards is what I've argued for throughout the thread

[Jah'rakal]

I say top 150 are all legit and somewhat similar schools, tier 4s can go

[ben4847]

I'd be more in favor of capping the number of schools eligible for federally backed loans. And I'd cap that at 20.

[flcath]

I think that any school that can continue to get students to enroll in it should be allowed to exist. They are sellers in the free market, and the buyers (students) should take personal responsibility. WE DON'T NEED GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE FREE MARKET.

I also think we should supply free money to kids who wouldn't otherwise be buyers of the product. Yeah, we don't do that for mid-sized boats or Ferraris (similarly priced goods), but this is different. Who gets to go to law school shouldn't depend upon whether you're born rich. EVERYONE DESERVES A CHANCE FOR UPWARD MOBILITY.

Thanks,

Infilaw Stockholder

[BallHog]

I think that any school that can continue to get students to enroll in it should be allowed to exist. They are sellers in the free market, and the buyers (students) should take personal responsibility. WE DON'T NEED GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE FREE MARKET.

I also think we should supply free money to kids who wouldn't otherwise be buyers of the product. Yeah, we don't do that for mid-sized boats or Ferraris (similarly priced goods), but this is different. Who gets to go to law school shouldn't depend upon whether you're born rich. EVERYONE DESERVES A CHANCE FOR UPWARD MOBILITY.

Thanks,

Infilaw Stockholder

[flcath]

I think that any school that can continue to get students to enroll in it should be allowed to exist. They are sellers in the free market, and the buyers (students) should take personal responsibility. WE DON'T NEED GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE FREE MARKET.

I also think we should supply free money to kids who wouldn't otherwise be buyers of the product. Yeah, we don't do that for mid-sized boats or Ferraris (similarly priced goods), but this is different. Who gets to go to law school shouldn't depend upon whether you're born rich. EVERYONE DESERVES A CHANCE FOR UPWARD MOBILITY.

Thanks,

Infilaw Stockholder

My post actually sums up the GWB economic mentality quite nicely. Wasn't this essentially the stance on home ownership?

[splitbrain]

I think that any school that can continue to get students to enroll in it should be allowed to exist. They are sellers in the free market, and the buyers (students) should take personal responsibility. WE DON'T NEED GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE FREE MARKET.

I also think we should supply free money to kids who wouldn't otherwise be buyers of the product. Yeah, we don't do that for mid-sized boats or Ferraris (similarly priced goods), but this is different. Who gets to go to law school shouldn't depend upon whether you're born rich. EVERYONE DESERVES A CHANCE FOR UPWARD MOBILITY.

Thanks,

Infilaw Stockholder

Confused%20Bush.jpg

My post actually sums up the GWB economic mentality quite nicely. Wasn't this essentially the stance on home ownership?

...that was the joke, right?

[briviere]

Lol no. Although I have had physicians tell me IRL that he first two years of med school are kind of a waste of time.

You're completely missing the point, bro. The free market is incapable of determining the quality of physicians, because, well, most patients don't know medicine.

ITT laxbrah doesn't understand what free market means.

[dr123]

.

[flcath]

I think that any school that can continue to get students to enroll in it should be allowed to exist. They are sellers in the free market, and the buyers (students) should take personal responsibility. WE DON'T NEED GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE FREE MARKET.

I also think we should supply free money to kids who wouldn't otherwise be buyers of the product. Yeah, we don't do that for mid-sized boats or Ferraris (similarly priced goods), but this is different. Who gets to go to law school shouldn't depend upon whether you're born rich. EVERYONE DESERVES A CHANCE FOR UPWARD MOBILITY.

Thanks,

Infilaw Stockholder

Confused%20Bush.jpg

My post actually sums up the GWB economic mentality quite nicely. Wasn't this essentially the stance on home ownership?

...that was the joke, right?

I'm slow.

[jkpolk]

Gotta keep some TTTs. Otherwise, some states, such as the one I live in, would have no lawyers at all.

and?

[laxbrah420]

Lol no. Although I have had physicians tell me IRL that he first two years of med school are kind of a waste of time.

You're completely missing the point, bro. The free market is incapable of determining the quality of physicians, because, well, most patients don't know medicine.

ITT laxbrah doesn't understand what free market means.

please explain it to me.
TYIA

[PaulKriske]

I would cap it at around 125 or so.

that would still cut 75 accredited schools, which is a lot.

We've had some interesting threads on this topic in gthe past. I agree that a good number would be about 125. The quality of education received, the caliber of students at each school, and the level of prestige within the profession would all be greatly improved by the closing of about 75 schools. In fact, I say close about 100 of them and open about 25 new ones at schools like Johns Hopkins, M.I.T., Dartmouth, Brown, Wellesley, Carnegie Mellon, Rice, GA. Tech, Purdue, UC-San Diego, etc.

open new schools? gtfo.

[BallHog]

Here is my comprehensive list of all schools that should be eliminated. If you disagree go fuck yourself as I'm now in charge of the plutocracy.

AL Keep: Alabama
Gone: Samford, Faulkner

AR Keep: Arkansas
AR Gone: AR - Little Rock

AZ Keep: ASU, U of A
AZ Gone: Phoenix

...

NC Keep: Duke, UNC, NC Central
NC Gone: Wake, Campbell, Charlotte

blah blah blah

This eliminates 102 festering TTTs that don't need to exist. You're welcome in advance.

Get rid of Wake and keep NC Central? It'd be pretty funny getting ridding of Campbell since they built their new law school like a year ago.

[2014]

NC Central is a HBC, it serves a niche better than Wake does I assume is the justification.

[Aberzombie1892]

NC Central is a HBC, it serves a niche better than Wake does I assume is the justification.

Following that logic, they would keep Florida A&M.

The problem with the HBCU's, aside from Howard, is that they are public institutions. What that means is that they have to accept a lot of Caucasian applicants, and that results in them ending up with classes that are 30%+ Caucasian. My point here is that while they serve a purpose (instructing an underrepresented group), they do not serve it very well because they are constricted by the fact that they are public.

Florida A&M - 54.6% AA
Southern - 54% AA
North Carolina Central - 50.9% AA
Texas Southern - 45.7% AA
Howard - 82.2% AA

Data taken from the ABA law school guide (whatever year it is)

[mattviphky]

Let's do some math then.

According to the ABA, 55 percent of C/O 2011 found jobs that required a J.D.

For our sake, let's use 66 percent, because the economy is/will eventually be slightly better and a few people go to law school knowing they don't want to be an attorney (politics, business, etc.).

There are currently 202 schools. 66 percent of 202 is 133. Granted, this would need to be adjusted for class size, but it's a good estimate.

Next question - how would you decide the 133? Straight up rankings? Employment stats? Spread it out geographically? The ability of students to pay back loans?

Examining the fact that there are 6 law school in Chicago would probably be a good start.

[PennBull]

Get rid of Wake and keep NC Central? It'd be pretty funny getting ridding of Campbell since they built their new law school like a year ago.

Well Wake and UNC are peers, one is really expensive and one isn't. The rationale behind keeping NC Central is it's really, really cheap and they could serve DA/PD doods and legal work for poors.

I'm enjoying my dreamland scenario where we actually cut out these schools with some magic wand and it DIDN'T increase the costs of cheap as shit schools (or any school for that matter)