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

[laxbrah420]

Is the argument here that potentially good lawyers are not entering law school anymore because of the grim propects? Do we have evidence to suggest that the quality of lawyers in our country has suffered as a result of over enrollment?

that may be a side effect, but I don't think that that's the main point at issue.

Is the issue ITT really as fucking stupid as what I've been mocking? That we should reduce the # of law schools simply because then a higher pct of grads would have law jobs?

[Ohiobumpkin]

I don't know the math, but with the exception of some regionally strong tier-3+4, I would say cut all other t-3+4 and keep the rest. It is schools who have no regional placement who need to be cut. Schools like LS of Maine or North Dakota should be kept for regional significance, but all others should be cut for trying to scam students.

[Broseidon]

Hence why an arbitrary number of law schools is retarded. Reducing the number of law schools is necessary. But it's a process that needs a scalpel, not a cleaver.

[JamMasterJ]

Hence why an arbitrary number of law schools is retarded. Reducing the number of law schools is necessary. But it's a process that needs a scalpel, not a cleaver.

exactly

[JamMasterJ]

I just wen through This list
I think we could reduce to 71 schools.

[jkpolk]

Should go back to the system where a law degree wasnt always a graduate degree. Gimme a BA in law and lemme sit for dat bar exam.

[Broseidon]

Should go back to the system where a law degree wasnt always a graduate degree. Gimme a BA in law and lemme sit for dat bar exam.

That only worked because fewer people went to college. That would only exacerbate the problem.

[RedBirds2011]

Should go back to the system where a law degree wasnt always a graduate degree. Gimme a BA in law and lemme sit for dat bar exam.

That only worked because fewer people went to college.

It seems to work for accounting ok. The problem right now is people graduate from college, have nothing else to do, so they think law school is a good thing to fall into. If it were a bachelors program, fewer people would "major" in law because it wouldnt be some fall back plan for them. They would just major in what interested them.

[laxbrah420]

Hence why an arbitrary number of law schools is retarded. Reducing the number of law schools is necessary. But it's a process that needs a scalpel, not a cleaver.

exactly

So you're saying make accreditation and bar passage harder, right? I really don't follow while yall think unemployment is a legitimate reason for blowing up law schools.

ETA: Should we crush the psychology, architecture, and Jewish Studies, too?

[jkpolk]

Should go back to the system where a law degree wasnt always a graduate degree. Gimme a BA in law and lemme sit for dat bar exam.

That only worked because fewer people went to college.

It seems to work for accounting ok. The problem right now is people graduate from college, have nothing else to do, so they think law school is a good thing to fall into. If it were a bachelors program, fewer people would "major" in law because it wouldnt be some fall back plan for them. They would just major in what interested them.

we also could get rid of MDs and just let the market weed out bad doctors, amirite?

[RedBirds2011]

Should go back to the system where a law degree wasnt always a graduate degree. Gimme a BA in law and lemme sit for dat bar exam.

That only worked because fewer people went to college.

It seems to work for accounting ok. The problem right now is people graduate from college, have nothing else to do, so they think law school is a good thing to fall into. If it were a bachelors program, fewer people would "major" in law because it wouldnt be some fall back plan for them. They would just major in what interested them.

we also could get rid of MDs and just let the market weed out bad doctors, amirite?

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.

[laxbrah420]

we also could get rid of MDs and just let the market weed out bad doctors, amirite?

I mean --this is why I asked if the sentiment in this thread was that the quality of lawyers in this country has suffered, but I was informed, no that's just merely a potential side effect. It's simply a, "DEYTUKARJOBS" thread

[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.

[RedBirds2011]

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.

Was my point that the free market should? Im not sure what the point is. I used accounting (a profession) as an example to compare to law. Medicine is extremely different on multiple levels so it was a very weak attempt at an analogy by poli..we lol

[androstan]

Any number/criterion/etc. you name will be close to arbitrary. Ficath is right, you cannot do this by fiat decree. The free market is a good model to start with, and sometimes works on its own, but usually works much better with some intelligent policies and legal control. When the government intervenes stupidly in the free market, it usually functions much, much worse. The government needs to behave like a rational actor. A rational actor does not lend unlimited supplies of money to individuals without even a cursory evaluation of the risk. That creates a bubble. Federal student loans need to be contingent on the institution's employment statistics and the students' ultimate ability to repay the loans. A rational risk-assessment needs to be performed, just as in any private company.

Also, we need rigid enforcement of transparency and honesty. Honesty in spirit, not merely technical truth.

Do those two things. Then, the right schools will close or cut enrollments.

So how many years of schooling in your expert, rational opinion, should the government blindly bankroll? Just K-12? K-Bach?

0

[banjo]

The ideal number of law schools is zero. Law should just be an undergraduate major like English or physics. College seniors would then compete for 2-year training contracts with firms, just as they do in the UK and Australia. If they don't get one, they move on to other careers without wasting three years of their lives

[Broseidon]

Should go back to the system where a law degree wasnt always a graduate degree. Gimme a BA in law and lemme sit for dat bar exam.

That only worked because fewer people went to college.

It seems to work for accounting ok. The problem right now is people graduate from college, have nothing else to do, so they think law school is a good thing to fall into. If it were a bachelors program, fewer people would "major" in law because it wouldnt be some fall back plan for them. They would just major in what interested them.

Not really. The same type of people who graduate college and have nothing else to do are the same type of people who would be undecided with a major and would then proceed to major in law (for the same reasons they choose law school).

[RedBirds2011]

Should go back to the system where a law degree wasnt always a graduate degree. Gimme a BA in law and lemme sit for dat bar exam.

That only worked because fewer people went to college.

It seems to work for accounting ok. The problem right now is people graduate from college, have nothing else to do, so they think law school is a good thing to fall into. If it were a bachelors program, fewer people would "major" in law because it wouldnt be some fall back plan for them. They would just major in what interested them.

Not really. The same type of people who graduate college and have nothing else to do are the same type of people who would be undecided with a major and would then proceed to major in law.

Meh, maybe. I think if it were only a bachelors program, the allure of "the law" would definitely decrease. Instead of this prefftigious graduate school thing it would just be another focus to have in college.

[laxbrah420]

The job performance of accountants is very easily verified. HTH

And LOL at the government abandoning primary education

ETA: You're now arguing that we need to do something to decrease the allure of being a lawyer?

[RedBirds2011]

The job performance of accountants is very easily verified. HTH

And LOL at the government abandoning primary education

ETA: You're now arguing that we need to do something to decrease the allure of being a lawyer?

I dont get your point often lax lol I never said someone should actively TRY to decrease the allure. I just said that people more often than not look at "THE LAW" as this grand vocation and calling. They make it out to be this grand idol or something. Its just a fucking job lol


As a bachelors degree, like accounting, people would see it as less lay prefftigious.

[jkpolk]

The job performance of accountants is very easily verified. HTH

And LOL at the government abandoning primary education

ETA: You're now arguing that we need to do something to decrease the allure of being a lawyer?

the usofa wastes so much money on primary education for dem cretins, we should only have education for those who can afford it and spend the saved government money on bombs.

oh wait.

[androstan]

Any number/criterion/etc. you name will be close to arbitrary. Ficath is right, you cannot do this by fiat decree. The free market is a good model to start with, and sometimes works on its own, but usually works much better with some intelligent policies and legal control. When the government intervenes stupidly in the free market, it usually functions much, much worse. The government needs to behave like a rational actor. A rational actor does not lend unlimited supplies of money to individuals without even a cursory evaluation of the risk. That creates a bubble. Federal student loans need to be contingent on the institution's employment statistics and the students' ultimate ability to repay the loans. A rational risk-assessment needs to be performed, just as in any private company.

Also, we need rigid enforcement of transparency and honesty. Honesty in spirit, not merely technical truth.

Do those two things. Then, the right schools will close or cut enrollments.

So how many years of schooling in your expert, rational opinion, should the government blindly bankroll? Just K-12? K-Bach?

0

Important word is important.

[BVest]

I think this is key. If we capped # of schools, the remaining schools would just up their enrollment and it wouldn't change anything. Capping the number of graduates is def. antitrust territory (unless you're the AMA, ADA, etc)

In what way do you think AMA, ADA, etc., are exempt from antitrust concerns. I can assure you that antitrust is the primary legal concern for large associations.

Sorry the AAMC, really controls new schools and enrollment. I think, in 2005, they open the first new med school in 20 years!!

I am not saying they are EXEMPT from antitrust concerns. Just that they seem to be more successful at controlling their market.

There are other factors too such as Congress limiting spending on medical residencies etc etc.

It's more economic than market control. While the LCME certainly has some limitations on expansion and strict rules for for initiating and running a training program, the ABA, also has its similar structure.

The difference is that the cost of establishing or expanding a program which meets the ABA's required educational structure is far, far lower than the cost of establishing the same for medicine. Further, the cost of education is far lower for law than medicine. The result is that law schools are established where students paying sticker are paying all of their expenses, plus some of those for their classmates; meanwhile medical students paying sticker are actually paying 1/2 to 1/3 of the annual expense to educate them, with schools scrambling for grants, fees, state funds, and other sources to pick up the rest.

Add to that the MAJOR differences in facility requirements between medical and law schools and the extended lead time to establish a medical school, and it's a no-brainer that a university seeking to expand its portfolio or a group seeking to start a school for scratch would favor law (and business) over medicine.

(BTW, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board put out an excellent document on the cost of starting a new medical school a few years back. The six-year start-up costs, before taking their first class of 60 students, was estimated at $92million)

(BTW2, the other way for a university to expand their portfolio without establishing a new business/law/med school is to buy one, like Texas A&M did with Scott & White for Medicine, and like they just announced today with Texas Wesleyan for law. Given A&M's growing significance in Texas and it's demonstrated ability to improve, I would expect Texas Wesleyan to come crawling out of the 4th tier fairly quickly.)

[Mr. Pancakes]

what's up, brothers?

[laxbrah420]

Any number/criterion/etc. you name will be close to arbitrary. Ficath is right, you cannot do this by fiat decree. The free market is a good model to start with, and sometimes works on its own, but usually works much better with some intelligent policies and legal control. When the government intervenes stupidly in the free market, it usually functions much, much worse. The government needs to behave like a rational actor. A rational actor does not lend unlimited supplies of money to individuals without even a cursory evaluation of the risk. That creates a bubble. Federal student loans need to be contingent on the institution's employment statistics and the students' ultimate ability to repay the loans. A rational risk-assessment needs to be performed, just as in any private company.

Also, we need rigid enforcement of transparency and honesty. Honesty in spirit, not merely technical truth.

Do those two things. Then, the right schools will close or cut enrollments.

So how many years of schooling in your expert, rational opinion, should the government blindly bankroll? Just K-12? K-Bach?

0

Important word is important.

Ya exactly --aptitude tests for all!