FOIST!! FOIST FOIST FOIST!!!

FOIST!! FOIST FOIST FOIST!!!

FOIST!! FOIST FOIST FOIST!!!

FOIST!! FOIST FOIST FOIST!!!

Bagels, and muffins, and donuts, and pork chops, and cupcakes, and ribs, and bacon, and steaks, and...

Just playing big guy. Keep up the good work (and by good work, I mean the great south park and wire references.)

2 year law school plus some apprentice period after that.

If it isn't painfully obvious to you that law schools are worthless for all purposes related to practicing law, you are dumb. So very dumb.

Does that mean Tier 3 will be the new Tier 4?

Does this mean they get to excommunicate Turd Tort Trash schools like CaTTTholic, HofsTTTra, TTTouro?

Does this mean they get to excommunicate Turd Tort Trash schools like CaTTTholic, HofsTTTra, TTTouro?

All they do is collect money.

I’ve grown suspicious of these “accrediting” organizations. What’s the point? Back when Abe Lincoln decided to become a lawyer, he didn’t have to worry about schools being “accredited” and he didn’t have to take a bar exam. I don’t think he even went to law school. And he did fine for himself. As did thousands of other lawyers.

The exam and ABA / AALS accreditation is supposed to stop bad lawyers and bad schools—but we all know there are plenty of crappy lawyers out there. It’s the marketplace that stops bad lawyers.

So isn’t the ABA, the bar examiners, and every other entity that has its hands in the pie just out to make money? It sure seems that way to me.

Elie, be careful what you wish for. Fewer lawyers with useless degrees from lousy schools means fewer people with nothing better to do than read ATL.

Normally, I don't make fun of Elie for his typos, but "cull come of the under performing law schools," when he surely meant "cull some..." is just a mess. C and S aren't even close to one another on the keyboard! Are his phonetics that poor? We obviously need to cull some under-performing grammar schools.

Normally, I don't make fun of Elie for his typos, but "cull come of the under performing law schools," when he surely meant "cull some..." is just a mess. C and S aren't even close to one another on the keyboard! Are his phonetics that poor? We obviously need to cull some under-performing grammar schools.

Erwin Chemerinsky and 60 kids who dinged Hastings for Irvine are sweating in their interdisciplinary Bermuda shorts.

Since ATL spent a week on one illegal alien being killed by an American, here are some supplemental stories:

"Illegal Alien Kills Teacher, Mother of Two"
http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200906020429/WDH0101/906020524

"Illegal Alien Rapes 12-year-old Girl in Remote Cabin"
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12503821

And on, and on.

And Obama wants to give them citizenship as a reward for being so successful at violating federal law.

Deferred associate here.

Everyone on this blog who repeatedly says that no one is entitled to a job - I hear that. It sucks and it's not "fair" that those who came before us got to ride the gravy train and got paid the big bucks right out of lawschool. But life's not fair...I get that...and I get that I'm not entitled to a job.

But here's what I AM entitled to. After paying 180k to go to law school...I am entitled to know (even if just a little bit or the basics) how to practice law.

The era of teaching law students "how to think" and not "how to practice" has got to stop. Both can be accomplished. Rather than taking "Critical Race Theory" and "Psychology and the Law," I should have taken (and it should have been offered) "Discovery," "Investigations," "Drafting Motions," and the like.

We ARE entitled to a legal education that produces marketable and useful skills in addition to being able to "think like a lawyer."

Considering the employment after graduation statistic is already heavily manipulated, this will really not help.

Oh and plenty of practical classes are offered at law schools. It's just people take "Race, your feelings and the law" rather than "legal drafting" or "advanced legal research." You don't take the practical classes, you don't get to complain how you are not ready to actually practice law.

-- Practicing attorney who took the practical classes

Totally agree with what 18 said

Don't blame the ABA for the proliferation of law schools; blame the DOJ. Check this out: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/June95/363.txt.html

Although there was definitely some impropriety going on with the ABA, one particular part of the settlement agreement (where the ABA agreed to stop "refusing to accredit schools simply because they are
for-profit") really contributed to the surge of crap law schools in this country. For shame DOJ.

Don't blame the ABA for the proliferation of law schools; blame the DOJ. Check this out: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/June95/363.txt.html

Although there was definitely some impropriety going on with the ABA, one particular part of the settlement agreement (where the ABA agreed to stop "refusing to accredit schools simply because they are
for-profit") really contributed to the surge of crap law schools in this country. For shame DOJ.

Don't blame the ABA for the proliferation of law schools; blame the DOJ. Check this out: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/June95/363.txt.html

Although there was definitely some impropriety going on with the ABA, one particular part of the settlement agreement (where the ABA agreed to stop "refusing to accredit schools simply because they are
for-profit") really contributed to the surge of crap law schools in this country. For shame DOJ.

Here is what we need:

*More prerequisites for college grads to get into law school (which is what medical schools do)

*Replace the LSAT with a more comprehensive exam

*Greater emphasis on legal practice skills (research, writing, trial practice, etc.)

*Reform bankruptcy laws to make student loans dischargeable after 8-10 years--so that lenders think twice about lending a kid $100K+ to go to some shit-hole

*End federal aid for institutions which produce a disproportionately high number of defaulters on student loans.

You can all thank me later. :-)

18 -

I went to a tier 4 school and I was offered, and took classes like Motion Practice and Pre-Trial litigation. Now I am in Biglaw at a V15.

Just to add an extra sting, I was on a scholarship so I paid practically nothing!

That decision has worked out well for me, but I hear stories like yours and think "there but for the grace of God go I..."

Good luck out there to everyone being affected by the economic conditions.

10/11--probably not, since a prof from Catholic was the vice chair. but not to worry, the dopes who run such schools and ensure their crappy rankings and lack of money will take care of killing the schools off, they don't need the help of the ABA.

I feel bad for 18 and 20. I didn't go to a top school, but I was able to take practical courses like Pretrial Practice, Evidence Workshop, and Trial Practice. Luckily, my school chose to offer these courses instead of crap like Roman Law.

19,

I took as many as I could. A lot of the practical classes are transactional-based. I want to litigate. Courses like Advanced Legal Research and Pre-trial Litigation were great...but still not totally practical. In both of those classes, you are handed "the record."

How convenient. Only until I joined a clinic did I learn that building "the record" takes a vast amount of legal skills that those courses can't teach you.

Also, research and drafting courses improve skills...but I still don't think I'd be able to effectively rep a client on my own first spending months learning or shadowing an attorney. That should not be the case.

Texas Southern, you might have a problem. Check out those bar results:

http://www.ble.state.tx.us/Stats/stats_0209.htm

Strange, I never saw those posted on this site.

19,

I took as many as I could. A lot of the practical classes are transactional-based. I want to litigate. Courses like Advanced Legal Research and Pre-trial Litigation were great...but still not totally practical. In both of those classes, you are handed "the record."

How convenient. Only until I joined a clinic did I learn that building "the record" takes a vast amount of legal skills that those courses can't teach you.

Also, research and drafting courses improve skills...but I still don't think I'd be able to effectively rep a client on my own first spending months learning or shadowing an attorney. That should not be the case.

- 18

18,

I've been practicing 12 years, and can tell you that while schools could do a better job of preparing people for practice, and the 3 topics you mention could be combined easily in a one-semester practice course that many schools offer, nothing can really prepare you for what you'll see in practice.

To really get a feel for what goes on you'd need to work in a law firm. I envy the medical profession which has students going on rounds and working hands-on.

Law school is one year too long, for virtually all students. My last year I was fortunate to find a firm to clerk at, and did a lot of the kind of work that you mention. Yet even then, I can tell you that I didn't really get a feel for what goes on in practice, and think back now about how clueless I was. (Then again, maybe I'm just a dumbass!)

I think it sucks ass that you are deferred. Of course I'd rather be a jobless fresh grad, than a 52-year-old lawyer in a rapidly downsizing firm.

If I were you, I'd find a way to use my year learning about practicing law. I'd take a job as a secretary, paralegal, or work unpaid in some capacity. I'd just find somebody, maybe a smaller firm or a plaintiff's firm, and bug them until they let me do it.

You sound like a really good person and very sincere; whining won't help you one bit. You think you're entitled to learn this stuff, get off your ass and shoehorn your way in someplace and learn it.

Take all your anxiety, anger and hurt feelings and turn them into aggression and a burning desire to be the best. The newbie who does that today, will be riding high 8 years from now.

SMU and Tulane are now toast.

Look for Columbia to lose its accreditation.

Nice West Wing reference, Elie.

right on 18.

I tried to take as many practical law courses as possible such as income taxation, real estate transaction, commercial transactions, corporate finance, securities regulation and what not - guess when even with my focus on taking practical relevant courses - i still do not know how to practice this BS because it was all academic....LAW SCHOOLS need to be held accountable and stop offering bullsh*t courses that only serve the purpose of jacking up your gpa. LAW SCHOOL is nothing more than an academic extension of COLLEGE...except its a heck of a lot less fun and for majority - 3x as expensive because of stinginess of aid.

right on 18.

I tried to take as many practical law courses as possible such as income taxation, real estate transaction, commercial transactions, corporate finance, securities regulation and what not - guess when even with my focus on taking practical relevant courses - i still do not know how to practice this BS because it was all academic....LAW SCHOOLS need to be held accountable and stop offering bullsh*t courses that only serve the purpose of jacking up your gpa. LAW SCHOOL is nothing more than an academic extension of COLLEGE...except its a heck of a lot less fun and for majority - 3x as expensive because of stinginess of aid.

31,

Thanks for the message. I definitely will. After the Bar I'm volunteering until January 2010.

- 18

I blame the ABA for accrediting Mystal's Moobs.

Speaking of lacking credentials, can anybody find "Elie Mystal" on the New York State bar site?
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch

Since Elie was apparently able to pass the bar exam, what kind of racist incident would have caused him to fail character and fitness and never get admitted to the NY bar?
Does intolerance abound with Elie Mystal?

What a clueless bunch, you ATL commenters.

There is talk throughout higher ed about the possibility of measuring output. Heck, it's hard to measure high school output, and that's fairly well defined.

Luckily for this field, there is already an exam to consider, one that will allow comparing of schools. -- Oh wait, there isn't.

There are 50+ bar exams in this country. Everyone knows that some are harder than others. How does one compare passing rates across states? Does anything expect the ABA to do a bunch of regression models? Of course.

And then there's the issue of whether scores on bar exams are actually related the legal accumen and ability. We know that law schools are criticized for not teaching the *practice* of law. Do we want to pile onto that the problems of the generality of bar exams, when most lawyers need to have expertise?

Of course, we also know that people take extra courses to prepare for their bar exam. So, law school is not really for bar exams, anyway.

So, what output do you want to measure?

Do you want to punish law schools in regions suffering economically relative to the rest of the country because fewer of their graduates have jobs? Really?

And then there are the fools who want to go back to admissions issues? Seriously? Didn't the ABA say "outputs"?

We know in education that peopel who do well after taking a course are the people who did well before taking the course. Pre-tests and post-tests are *highly* correlated. So, how will the ABA control for this? Are they going to rate the quality of the education, or the quality of the admitted students?

What's really going to happen? A lot of talk, yes. Perhaps a few committees and proposals. But other than that?

I hear crickets. Do you hear crickets?

I hope this means that the ABA will force law schools to ACCURATELY report the employment numbers of its graduates. Law schools need to actually specify how many of its students can only get doc review gigs or can only find a job at Starbucks or McDonalds.

I think the ABA should force all recent graduates to fill out an employment survey as a precursor requirement before they can get their bar license. By taking this process away from law schools, the state bar can gather the raw data before it is manipulated or summerized with vague labels like "Graduates employed in business" and other bullshit categories.

Additionally, law schools should provide the fine print when it reports salary info. When a law school states that the median salary is $100K, I assume that if you line up all the recent grads by class rank, the person in the middle is making $100K. In reality, that salary number is based off of the folks who reported their salary AT graduation. So if 60% of grads have jobs at graduation and you take the MEDIAN of that sample, you will find that you have to be in the top 30% to get a $100K job. Not to mention that a couple of folks in the top 10% are reporting salaries of $60-70K due to clerkships, which shrinks the class ranking making $100K to the top 25%.

If the ABA really had balls, it would force law schools to JUSTIFY its tuition amount. If the ACTUAL average salary of a student is less than a year's tuition charged, then the law school should not be in opperation. If the law school claims that it is serving the oppressed and underrepresented, it should charge its students a tuition amount that reflects their ability to serve the community. I'm all for free market, but only assuming that we have unbiased information and statistics that are not misrepresented.

A law school should be a trade school. Instead, they are run like a Master's Degree program. Think about it.

What a clueless bunch, you ATL commenters.

There is talk throughout higher ed about the possibility of measuring output. Heck, it's hard to measure high school output, and that's fairly well defined.

Luckily for this field, there is already an exam to consider, one that will allow comparing of schools. -- Oh wait, there isn't.

There are 50+ bar exams in this country. Everyone knows that some are harder than others. How does one compare passing rates across states? Does anything expect the ABA to do a bunch of regression models? Of course.

And then there's the issue of whether scores on bar exams are actually related the legal accumen and ability. We know that law schools are criticized for not teaching the *practice* of law. Do we want to pile onto that the problems of the generality of bar exams, when most lawyers need to have expertise?

Of course, we also know that people take extra courses to prepare for their bar exam. So, law school is not really for bar exams, anyway.

So, what output do you want to measure?

Do you want to punish law schools in regions suffering economically relative to the rest of the country because fewer of their graduates have jobs? Really?

And then there are the fools who want to go back to admissions issues? Seriously? Didn't the ABA say "outputs"?

We know in education that peopel who do well after taking a course are the people who did well before taking the course. Pre-tests and post-tests are *highly* correlated. So, how will the ABA control for this? Are they going to rate the quality of the education, or the quality of the admitted students?

What's really going to happen? A lot of talk, yes. Perhaps a few committees and proposals. But other than that?

I hear crickets. Do you hear crickets?

What is SMU?

@ 10/11 - you can throw Suffolk into that as well

Someone should sue the summer associates for failing to take the time to learn the actual practice of law during their first and second summers in law school and the law firms for overpaying the summers and not requiring them to learn practicable skills as a lawyer.

Instead, it's like a fucking all you can eat buffet all summer long for the clueless summer associates. They get to leave early at 5:30 pm every fucking day for drinks and partying and completely fail to do any kind of work.

45,

you sound like an angry paralegal. :)

Summers are underutilized- nobody wants to spend 5 weeks teaching them the simplest tasks to get a half-day of work out of them the first day of their last week. Also 6 weeks of playtime is a good recruiting tool.

No Law Student Left Behind.

46

Incorrect. I am an angry and pissed off partner.

45

Thank god I go Northwestern.

Do they like gays in Southern law schools?

32: I couldn't agree more.

10/11 and 44---did you guys go to GULC and not get a job because a diversity candidate from one of those schools did? if not, why do you care?

GULC should be closed because it produces sweaty and desperate graduates. How very offputting. I'll hire someone more cool and poised like HLS graduates.

Has the ABA ever deaccredited a law school? That will never change.

This is good news. It appears that the ABA is actually paying attention to the sorry situation that many lawyers are in. The bottomline problem is oversupply. The ABA can learn a lot from the AAMC. Doctors are relatively scarce and thus enjoy stable jobs, numerous employment opportunities, and the public's respect. The switch to evaluating output should result in a healthy cut of the law school herd.

Thank you ABA! I plan on joining asap!

Agree with 53. All of the GULCers in my bar class are mouth-breathing weirdos.

At the most basic level, more law schools = more lawyers = lower wages seems self-evident. But if you're already at a T10 school, does it matter if there are 190 or 250 crappy schools underneath you? Probably impacts all those poor solo's and folk in small ambulance-chaser firms, but does it affect us BigLaw types that much?

Geez, not everyone can go to HLS, Elie. You arrogant prick.

I just came all over Mystal's bitch tits and then ate some corn bread.

Jimmy Crack Korn

Nice West Wing reference. No one else seems to have gotten it....

The ABA will change its view on online law schools. This will help in the globalization of law and pave the way for the next generation of lawyers that will be needed from places like India to do all the shit law work that overpaid associates now handle.

40,

You meant "mean" instead of "median."

The median is what the person in the exact middle makes,or the average between the two middle people if the sample has an odd number. Median is not the same as an average.

The mean is the average of all the data.

I think that law schools should have to report the median salary, or better yet, the salary distribution (or at least the salaries of the 25%, 50%, and 75% percentiles. E.g., if 25% of the class makes less than 50K, the law school should have to report that.

Posters in this thread are overpaid mouthbreathers who think the world owes them a $160,000 job to sit behind a desk and review documents.

You will never be rich in the age of globalization. You shuffle paper and that can be done by someone in Bangalore for .55 cents a day.

Do the math.

Was there a West Wing reference?

WesTTT Wing sucks.

My law school was a tier 84 institution, and I can't even read, but I work at a V5 firm.

You all believe me, right?

ABA = 200 accredited law schools (assuming avg class size of 220, that's 44,000 new lawyers a year).

AAMC = 130 accredited medical schools (assuming avg class size of 110, that's 14,300 new doctors a year).

In other words, the ABA lets 207% more lawyers into the marketplace than the AAMC lets doctors into the marketplace.

Law school should be done away with entirely. Make the bar exam significantly more challenging than it currently is, including adding an LSAT section titled "legal reasoning" or the equivalent, and let any aspiring attorney over the age of 18 take the test in any jurisdiction.

Presumably "Law," would immediately become a meaningful and necessary major for aspiring lawyers in all reputable undergraduate institutions, and undoubtedly the same level of legal education could be imparted at the undergraduate level as at the graduate level (considering the paucity of actual legal education available in any law school).

Standardized test scores, the prestige of one's undergraduate university/major, one's undergradate GPA, and one's ability to interview -- the keys to law school admission, and thus the keys to post-law school employ -- would still be available to legal employers. In addition, assuming most students took the bar in the summer before their fourth year of undergraduate study , employers could recruit in the fall with security in knowing that prospective employees are licensed to practice. (An even better solution would permit taking the multi-state and state-specific portions of the bar at separate times, in order to allow students additional flexibility to build their resumes and hunt for jobs in multiple jurisdictions.)

New lawyers would graduate with a liberal arts major and undergraduate debt -- indeed, in the very position of most lawyers prior to attending law school -- such that BigLaw would not be a necessary stop to pay off debt, and a young lawyer who wants to leave the law can do so very easily. Meanwhile, BigLaw could pay incoming associates significantly less than six figures -- instead on par with the pay scale for the highest acheiving entry level employees with only an undergraduate degree. Presumably with most "Law" students being under the age of 21, summer associateships would go away entirely, which is an added benefit to employers.

I see no downside, except to (1) law schools; and (2) bar exam prep companies (since presumably more exam-takers will take the exam without an employer's commitment to reimburse). Certainly the very tools that make our system of legal training inefficient and ineffective cannot justify keeping it in place.

Best,
T14 alum who spent three years of law school drinking prior to enrolling in this biglaw life, and, while acknowledging that was a fun time, recognizes it was a real fucking waste of money made at a huge opportunity cost.

The funny thing is that this will really only affect top tier law schools that teach ideas rather than law. T3 and T4 teach for the practice of law. That is why so many litigators come out of those schools (for better or worse).

I personally never had visions of Big Law so I enjoyed studying legal theory over practice. No school is ever going to be able to completely cover the finer points of a Big Law M&A unless the entire legal education is changed to 2 years with a 1 year internship.

45,

then make your summers work, and fire them if they don't.

This Christopher Johnson Jr. fellow is a professor at Thomas Cooley. I am very skeptical of a faculty member from a school of indolents leading a committee on accreditation. I would love to see no more than 100 law schools in the country, but it is unlikely a committee where the most respectable member is from Catholic University is going to accomplish anything positive.

There is a lot of talk about the unnecessary length of law school and the lack of practical courses. All this is true, but most T14 grads eschewed any attempts to gain practical experience by working part time at a law firm or taking advantage of clinicals that would have placed them in DA and public defender’s offices. Feeling safe after their overpaid 2L summers and subsequent big firm offers, they boozed their way through their 3rd year, just trying to skate by. I, on the other hand, routinely worked throughout law school drafting motions, watching court proceedings and helping to prepare for depositions. I turned down my big firm offer (after happily accepting their summer checks) and spent three years in the Navy JAG Corps. Imagine! No billables, no book of business nonsense and good money, earning about 75K when I was done, real mentoring, real experience. Of course I was repeatedly filleted for giving up on the “big time”—but now with real experience, I landed a 120K job with a good, solid mid-size firm. All of you are paying for your painful lack of vision.

24 is right. Medical school has prerequisites galore. And from what I understand the prerequisites are pretty much hooey since the prerequisite topics get covered in two days and on day three everyone is on completely new ground. Nevertheless, the prerequisites serve as a good barrier.

I bet Steven C. Bahls. I bet Steven lick Bahls too.

Whats the status of Mystal's moobs?

"Bring me the finest bagels and muffins from throughout the land!"

Isn't that a West Wing reference, circa Season 1?

68,

Maybe law school seems like such a waste to you because you spent the whole time drinking.

There have been several excellent proposals mentioned already.

Have state bar associations, or some other 3rd party, collect salary and employment information instead of leaving it up to the law schools. Law schools have a clear conflict of interest. Data should also be reported for quartiles (e.g. 25, 50, 75th pecentile) to give incoming students a more accurate view of the salary market for that schools graduates.

18, if you want a mechanics/trade school education like that, stick to tiers 2-4. That stuff is not that hard to learn and hardly worth paying for when a law firm will pay you six figures to learn it better on the job. Harvard and Yale aren't hiring the brightest legal scholars so they can teach you black letter law and how to draft a meet & confer letter. BTW: if you're not a good writer already by the time you get to law school, your briefs will never be better than competent.

Your mom MysTTTal.

Teachers have student teaching. Doctors have residency. Why don't we have the same for attorneys?

Well we do in general--it's just that there aren't formalized expectations. There isn't a partnership between the schools and the places where these informal apprenticeships happen over summers. So it's a big grab bag instead of a situation with evaluations and expectations. Perhaps the ABA will push for more formalized apprenticeships in legal education akin to student teaching or medical residencies.

Meanwhile, I myself intentionally chose a school that offers enormous opportunities for clinical work--more opportunities than students to take them--because as a former educator I know the value of a practical education. I think the largely positive reaction to Drinker-Biddle's recent move is indicative of the hunger among students for this kind of education as well.

I just FarTTTED!!!

You kids currently enrolled at Patrick Henry "Law School" better hope the ABA doesn't make this move before you graduate.

It's hard for law schools to teach students how to practice law when very few of the professors know a damn thing about practicing law. Most law professors have their heads up their ass. They never practiced law, would crap their pants at the thought of having to practice law, and wouldn't know what to do if they had to have a real job. I've never understood it. Even when I was in law school 35 years ago, they did very little to prepare students for the real world. It's only gotten worse as far as I can see. Hell, I know a lot of law professors, and they're worthless, same as most of the judges I know.

The ABA and all the state bars have allowed a lucrative legal education industry to develop and flourish over the past ten years. Why does UGA need 50 tenured law professors? And each of them earning six figures while Georgia struggles to keep its courts open and its public defender program functional. RIDICULOUS. All law schools should cut class sizes and get rid of these lazy professors.

45/48 -
You probably have a promissory estoppel claim. I'm surprised you, as a partner, didn't think of that.

These "lazy" professors would resent having to curtail a lifestyle that includes summers off, rolling in to work at 11 am, trolling ATL, perusing other blogs, posting incoherent and political blogs (I'm looking at you VC), and writing papers that only other professors read.

And teach one or two classes per semester.

And are highly paid with tenure.

And no billables other than the obligatory dinners with rich donors that come into town.

Yes, such an easy lifestyle.

Perhaps I should become a professor.

53,

Go ahead, hire someone from HLS. Like Elie. I'm sure that'll work out well.

-Not a GULCer

Does this mean GW will lose is accreditation?

88, note that HLS graduates place better than any other law school in the country and ascend to partnership at a better rate than graduates of any other school in the country. Shocking, I know, considering the lack of a "Motion Drafting 101" course offering.

Everything you learn in law school you could learn faster and better on the job. One year is more than enough school time, two years is already too long and three years is just an excuse to take your money. A smart person could walk in here off the street and do just as well if not better than many of the first years. The three year legal education does not prepare first year attorneys for much, and what they did learn in law school (evidence rules, etc) could be explained to them in an afternoon. I think law school exists for two reasons: (1) like the bar, it is a professional regulator that tries to keep our numbers down by requiring a significant time/cash investment and by ostensibly weeding out people who aren't smart enough (but there is no such thing as not being smart enough to practice law, based on what I've seen). (2) Supports the professoriate so we have a legal academy and legal intellectuals in addition to just having practicing lawyers. I don't really have a problem with that either, I wouldn't mind teaching myself, but lets lop off the third year and pay professors less or just have less of them. The reason for the proliferation of all these "underwater basket weaving law" classes is that someone else was already teaching torts.

I'd like to correct something I've read posted on this site several times. Commenters frequently blame lower-tiered law schools (and law schools with large student bodies, like GULC) for the "glut in the supply of lawyers." This is the wrong way to think about the situation.

The job of law school, rather, should be viewed as responding to demand, that demand being eager would-be law students. As long as college graduates are willing to enroll, a law school can consider itself as successfully having met the demand.

So the real problem is not the law schools, but the willing law students. Why are so many people willing to enroll? There are many causes, and prevalent among them must surely be the well-circulated myth that "you can do anything you want with a law degree", like it's some sort of Magic Ticket to a great array of interesting, white-collar jobs. This is far from the case, and for graduates of all but the very best law schools, the only thing you can do with a law degree is be plain vanilla lawyer, in a profession that is, for the overwhelming majority lawyers, incredibly boring, unintellectual, and unfulfilling.

Part of the reason law schools sprout up everywhere and medical schools don't is that law schools are very cheap to start and very lucrative to run. The ABA sould consider changing its requirements for new law schools so that they are not so cheap to start up. A few ideas off the top of my head: functional mock courtrooms, forced malprac policies on each student (for clinical activities), fully stocked libraries with staff, functioning journals, and teaching firms (like teaching hospitals).

To 79's comment: "That stuff is not that hard to learn and hardly worth paying for when a law firm will pay you six figures to learn it better on the job."

1. HAHAHAHAHA. You obviously have not heard of these things called the "layoff" and the "deferred start date."

2. You are also obviously a clueless 1L who thinks you'll get "client contact" and "business development" and "courtroom appearances" as a junior biglaw associate. I pity the fool.

72,

Congrats on your Nacvy JAG experience. I'm Army JAG myself and love life. I've been in three-plus years, and in another two or so years, my take-home will approach an entry level Big Law take-home salary. Some long hours here and there, but by and large 9-5 and 9-6 days. It's amazing how many people are now beating down the doors to join JAG, including people who undoubtedly looked down their nose at military folks a short 1-2 years ago.

Is a SMU a female EMU?

It it is really true that the top schools don't prepare students for practice, and that the second or third years are a waste of time, then whey haven't we seen a *market-driven* change that results in (1) law firms recruiting more from lower ranked "practice-oriented" law schools, rather than the top 10 and (2) demand for two-year program law schools increasing (thus raising the selectivity rating of those schools in the USNWR).

If what people write here were true, shouldn't these changes just happen on their own in response to market signals?

I drink from the keg of glory Donna! Rip off...

Memo to ABA--

Here is how to revise your accreditation standards. De-certify half of the law schools in the country and shut them down.

JAG is a good deal. Good job, good experience, good pay and benefits, plus student loans get forgiven after 10 years. The only real problem is being in the military, which isn't like life in a college frat house.

99

Your proposal is certain to be vigorously fought against by law professors and law schools throughout the country.

I would also be against such a proposal if I had such a cushy job like a law professor.

77,

Nonsense. I took a perfectly appropriate courseload at a T14 school, hit or exceeded the curve in every class, got a fine job by BigLaw standards (which I still have), am in the process of being trained in all things law by more experienced lawyers in my firm, and meet/exceed expectations in my performance reviews.

In fact, I would argue that anyone who did not treat law school as a second undergraduate experience did not take advantage of the second greatest benefit of law school: free time (second only to increased job prospects upon graduation).

The waste to which I refer is the law school experience relative to what an efficient and/or effective legal education system would provide, i.e., I am arguing that the cost to me of my free time over those three years was extraordinarily high.

I would not go so far as some commenters by arguing that the purpose of law school should be to provide the tools to hang a shingle. Things have worked out fine for me learning nothing more than legal theory and lawyerly thought process. But if the purpose of law school is to teach "how to think like a lawyer," I see no practical reason why law school is necessary in the first instance. Since the comments who wanted hands-on training are essentially arguing "I paid all this money and what I have a really got?" the better solution, I think, is to eliminate the law school hurdle to practice in favor of tighter licensing requirements. This moots the "I paid all this money" arguments, provides a more streamlined path to practice, and has the added benefits (and limited costs) outlined in my earlier post.

Cheers,
68

Will the ABA abandon its highly politicized accreditation criteria? Will it abandon legal racism (a/k/a so-called diversity)?

99

Your proposal is certain to be vigorously fought against by law professors and law schools throughout the country.

I would also be against such a proposal if I had such a cushy job like a law professor.

Good.

I just read that diploma mill in Michigan, Cooley "Law School" expanded with ANOTHER branch, and ANOTHER 600+ students.

Unfuckingbelievable.

97- You obviously aren’t practicing. Big Firm “lawyering” requires no practical skill for the first 3-4 years. Its just monkey work that the partners can (or used to) be able to charge obscene rates to their clients. But it is (or was) easier to bill out some junior associate at 300 per hour who went to some T14 then a TTT.

Interesting to note that NYS has an apprenticeship option to sit on the bar as an alternative to three full years of law school:

http://www.nybarexam.org/Eligible/Eligibility.htm#D

...yet I know of no one who has done it, or any firms who would even remotely consider it, regardless of all the complaints about law schools I see so often...

I went to GW and then transferred to Cooley after my first year. GW easily should lose its accredidation.

68 - What law school and year?

96 - SMU has the hottest girls around. Nerd.

Comment removed by moderator.

If there were something wrong with legal education as presently given, then the market would force it to change. The fact legal education hasn't changed much (except the trend toward pass/fail grading at some of the higher-ranked schools) is strong evidence that there is nothing amiss in the current system of legal education.

#110 - No it doesn't. Pepperdine does. Faggot.

Ditto to 68.

Law school as a prerequisite to the bar exam is laughable - especially since you could run any decent high school student through BARBRI and get her to pass. Law schools, believe it or not, do not have a monopoly on critical thinking.

It's also laughable that the ABA would look to bar passage rates as a measure of accreditation. A monkey could pass most bar exams, so if that's going to be a measure of accreditation, the ABA should just pack it up and close shop.

The states' licensing requirements need to be far more rigorous. Legal schooling needs to be completely re-thought. For some reason, I doubt that the ABA will be at the forefront of thinking on either of these issues.

94, I'm a 5th year lit associate at a top firm, actually, thanks. No layoffs here yet. It's true that deferrals were not happening when I finished law school. (We were also getting paid $125k at the time.)

-79

107 - California too:

Rule 4.26 Legal education.

General applicants for the California Bar Examination must:

(A) be graduates of law schools approved by the American Bar Association or accredited by the Committee; or

(B) demonstrate that in accordance with these rules they have
(1) studied law diligently and in good faith for at least four years in a law school registered with the Committee; in a law office; in a judge’s chambers; or by some combination of these methods; or
(2) met the requirements of these rules for legal education in a foreign state or country; and

(C) have passed or established exemption from the First-Year Law Students' Examination.

68/102,

When you talk of the cost of your free time during law school are you referring to the income you would otherwise be earning during that period if law school were shorter or nonexistent? Is that it?

112,

You fucking moron. In the midst of one of the most severe economic downturns, you're fucking reciting "the market polices itself"?

There is a problem with legal education - apparently nutfuckers like yourself are a product of it.

An attorney who passed the bar but did not go to law school is commonly referred to as a "County-Seat Lawyer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County-seat_lawyer

97, 112 - The flaw in your logic is that you assume rational actors with transparency of information. We know empirically this is not true.

First, prestige feeds prestige in biglaw, so T14 hiring partners prefer T14 students/grads regardless of the qualifications of students at lower ranked schools. Rational actor behavior would foster a true meritocracy, while biglaw clearly does not.

Second, as someone else commented earlier, the "market" for law school is not the firms but aspiring law students. Students after all are the ones paying money to buy legal education, not the firms. And at the risk of sounding like Donald Rumsfeld, for the majority of pre-law kids the realities of law school and law practice are unknown unknowns. Just look at the fudging of employment stats and gaming of USN&WR. Thus the "market" lacks the transparency of information necessary to bring about market change.

113 - That's how I know you're gay.

-Not 110

Its about time. That crap factory, Seton Hall, has been firing on all cylinders for way to long. Time to thin the herd.

118,

If the problem is so clear, why aren't you able to state it concisely (or at all)? And if there really is a problem, why can't you articulate why the market wouldn't induce supposedly needed change on its own.

There is nothing wrong with the current legal educational system. There are crappy colleges too, you don't hear those gradutates bitching about having to work at McDs. Stop whining. Its a recesssion, this too shall pass. Kobra Kai!

I went to W&L and then SMU. Locke Lord has been good to me.

There is nothing TTT in my resume, I do not know what you are talking about 118.

92- if that is what you think supply and demand are you belong in law school.

Based on the previous comments, everyone seems to agree that there is a complete lack of transparency in the legal industry, with specific regard to employment and law schools generally.

1. Law schools purposely publish misleading employment data
2. Law schools to not publicize data about their faculty salaries or employment contracts
3. The most comprehensive data on the legal industry focuses on the very top tier firms and omits the majority of the industry.
(Yes these are very attainable for T14 grads, but, what % of law school grads is that? 15%? If you take away these 15% of jobs, what do the average salaries look like? when compared to the cost of law school?)

4. What is a realistic ratio of attorneys to general population?

Worse, we pretend like "the market" will have a hand in correcting supply/demand issues, this is impossible when the Federal Government guarantees $20k a year for graduate loans and many states have additional moneies available for the same purpose.

5. Where is the data on the Student loan industry?

My post started as a concise comment and I left off with more questions than answers...

If a law school doesn't perform you may have a breach of implied warranty of habitability. I think you awesomely smart attorneys should look into this. Attorneys are the smartest people alive.

68 is obviously correct

92--The reason the law schools are responsible is because they are the ones who put out the phony job market and salary stats encouraging prospective students to (incur the astronomical debtload) and go. There's no other recognized source for this information besides the schools themselves, the NALP (captive to the schools) and USNWR. They peddle the false information and actively hide the truth. The lowest ranked schools are the ones that are lying the most in their cooked stats.

92

Its called common sense. If Universtiy of Toldeo law school is advertising that its graduates make $140,000 a year, maybe you shouldn't believe it? Stop looking for someone else to blame. Get a government job if you have to.

127 - public law schools (Texas, UVA, Penn etc.) have to publish teacher salaries.

112, 118, 126 - Stop trying to pretend that you understand economics. There IS NO free market when it comes to the practice of law (but there should be). Occupational licensure dramatically restricts the number of attorneys who are able to practice. This barrier to entry ensures that it is very expensive (and difficult for very stupid people) to become an attorney and, out of their own self interest, those who have already become attorneys are pushing for more restrictions because a free market would mean more affordable legal services and less money for attorneys.

Also 118, any argument that free markets don't work because sometimes there is a recession is very narrow minded.

117,

Take a bigger picture view. I primarily purchased two things by going to law school. The first was the law student lifestyle -- which is awesome. The second was increased job prospects by virtue of holding a law degree. I also got a little knowledge along the way, but, let's be honest, it was de minimis (at least in terms of anything remotely relevant to my career). In exchange for three years of the lifestyle and the increased job prospects, I gave up three years of earnings, and incurred six figures in debt.

Meanwhile, the reason the law school lifestyle was so great was that my expectation for increased job prospects were a function of purchasing a degree, not investing time in attaining knowledge or even doing particularly well in class. And that evidences the general inefficiency of the system: if you can think critically on the way in, and you don't aspire to be #1 in your class, then you spend three years waiting for your degree to be handed to you. There's some work along the way, but buckle down for the two weeks before exams, and hitting the curve is completely manageable.

I realize that it's a different experience at lower rated law schools, where you need to work harder to differentiate yourself in order to increase your job prospects. So a lower-tier student is not purchasing the lifestyle, but is (likely) spending significantly less (and is also risking mediocrity at the lower-tier school = no payday). And, while the lower-tier student is working harder in class and presumably learning more, the subject matter of those classes remains almost entirely irrelevant to the student's future career. So again, we're talking about significant waste.

If we acknowledge that only very little practical knowledge is to be found at law school, the natural result is to replace the post-graduate law curriculum with an undergraduate law curriculum. In doing so, a new aspiring lawyer could no longer have the law school lifestyle. But the aspiring lawyer also could not have any law school debt and, assuming the lawyer is able to find gainful employment (a risk under either model), would have three years of earnings as a young lawyer otherwise lost to full-time study of irrelvant topics in law school. The tradeoff is a no-brainer trade, assuming the pay for post-undergrad lawyers remained relatively high. And I believe that it could be as outlined in my earlier post.

Best,
68/102

At WESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, they implemented the foundation point system (where only students with a certain amount of 2.5's, graded without a curve, could graduate). This was to increase bar passage rate and to dump out the "undesirable" students.

What is so tasteless about this move was that there was no blame on the part of the faculty who were the constant variable in the school's past low bar passage rate.

I really hope that the ABA change things around because if they do, it seems like the "professors" will have to do real work (e.g., teaching the students what they learned from their < 10 years of real law practice).

135,

Is Western State University College of Law a real school?

Even if it is, if you can't manage 2.5's in classes (even without a curve), you shouldn't be in law school. This is because grades are everything.

"If you get good grades, you will have a successful life."

There is a good reason why that saying has been echoed throughout the past 30 years in education.

For example, I have very high grades and made law review. I have not taken the bar, but statistically, people like me pass. Once I pass the bar, I will get a good job and make lots of money and impress everyone I come across.

Life is simple.

136- Statistically me hitting you in the face will hurt. Life is simple.

Unless you were being sarcastic, of course, in which case I apologize for the uncalled for violent imagery.

Steven C. Bahls?
Seriously?

To the people that argue law school should not be required and to just make the bar more difficult:

Not even worth addressing. I'll let you hold your breath waiting for 200 law schools to close shop.

To the people that whine about there being too many law schools and request that the ABA decertify 50%:

The basic argument is that there are too many law school grads and thus the market is overwhelmed and the jobs you are "entitled" to are not longer there but here's the catch: YOU DON'T BECOME A LAWYER BY GOING TO LAW SCHOOL!
You must pass the bar exam, which many of the less distinguished graduates fail to do. Secondly, it's common knowledge that many would-be lawyers only finish law school because they learned they hated it too far in. GUESS WHAT, they go into fields other than law. And finally, as I so often read from the esteemed and reputable posters, "TTT can't go Biglaw and even if they do; only the top of the top!!!!---Insert add'l lame joke"

Well, if that's the case then what are the mighty T14 LSAT extrodinaires so worried about?

As a final note, does anyone at a T14 feel less secure in paying full price rather than taking the scholarship at a 50-100 school? In all seriousness, if the recent economic struggles have proven anything in the legal field it's this: graduating T14 or even T3 does not guarantee job security. I pose my final question to the recently laid off T14's: Has your three years spent studying esoteric legal theory helped you find work outside your pipeline to Biglaw? Perhaps there is a philosophy dept. nearby looking for a T.A.? Practical law courses serve a dual purpose: ONE for those law students not jumping into Biglaw i.e. actually going to a courtroom and working with clients; they already have the knowledge needed to perform, and TWO it does provide opportunites to be something other than a lawyer. Such as working in government , for insurance companies, media, etc, etc, etc. Again, remind me where I can find a job with a background in Roman Law?

In sum,

Dear God.

97/112, you HAVE heard of a little thing called, "Affirming the consequent," right? It goes like this, "If A, then B. B, therefore A." And it is wrong.

B can exist independent of A, and idiots who are studying for the LSAT after having pulled a B- in some college level econ course are prone to forgetting it.

So, yes, if the Market Forces you clearly think are controlling the world (which is a perversion of what Adam Smith said, anyway, but I digress) were to act in a rational manner, they could correct the clear imbalance between supply and demand in the legal market. That they have not so acted, however, does not prove that there is no need for them to act.

Please learn more.

That is all.

Thank you.

137,

You, hitting someone in the face is not violent, nor will it hurt anyone.

A person with pansy hands like you cannot accomplish such a feat.

Stick to pencil pushing, tough guy.

Prove me wrong on this, then: The higher the grades in law school, the more you are likely to pass the bar.

A person who passes the bar will be more likely to practice law than those who get lower grades in law school.

This would mean that a higher grade law student is very likely to become more successful than law students with crummy grades.

If this were not true, students in law school would not be miserable about their grades.

The idea that we should make the bar harder or to let less people in law school has elitism written all over it. It assumes that only a few are "fit" to become lawyers.

What is wrong with this picture, besides being filled with arrogance and conceit (not signs of wisdom), is that everyone forgets that it is law "school." It is a place to teach people, not to exclude people.

84,

I totally agree with you. Finally, someone on ATL who knows that professors are full of crap.

Here's my impression of a typical law professor:

"Hey everyone, I'm a cunt with a J.D.!! I can say and do whatever I want because I'm a cunt!!!!! Did you read!? What did you read? See you next class everyone! You want to fire me!? You can't because I have tenure; it's there because I can't do any other work, since I am incompetent!"

"The idea that we should make the bar harder or to let less people in law school has elitism written all over it. It assumes that only a few are "fit" to become lawyers.

What is wrong with this picture, besides being filled with arrogance and conceit (not signs of wisdom), is that everyone forgets that it is law "school." It is a place to teach people, not to exclude people."

The fact that it's elitist, arrogant, and conceited does not necessarily make it incorrect. Also, not everyone is teachable in every area.

144,

"The fact that it's elitist, arrogant, and conceited does not necessarily make it incorrect."

It may not be incorrect, but it is irrational, distasteful, immoral, detrimental because it leads to a crummy life for most people (maybe why elitist, arrogant, and conceited people are never vocal and direct about how they are!). Why should legal academia follow such a path?

"Also, not everyone is teachable in every area."

I think a whole field in psychology (think Tabula Rasa) would disagree with you on this.

Also, let's say that someone is not teachable. Does that mean that they can never learn one thing at all? Does that mean that nothing can be gained at all?

Sure, life is filled with rejection, sorrow, and segregation, but that doesn't mean that we must always use this as a justification for everything else in life and be "ok" with such an elitist attitude.

144...

I think that a lot of lawyers and law students feel the same way you do that being elitist, arrogant, or conceited is not wrong.

But on some level you must have, at one point or another, found it apprehensible when someone was acting in such a manner. The reason for that is that it is inherently wrong, since it is irrational (how could someone be the one and only in this world?).

The problem with this is that we have a whole profession and academic field that is fine with such behavior. For example, we have all come across law professors who act like only the "best of the best" can survive. I doubt such a person would take such a position when they are in court doing real practice, though.

145,

I'm sorry, what exactly leads to a crummy life?

"I think that a lot of lawyers and law students feel the same way you do that being elitist, arrogant, or conceited is not wrong."

I'm sorry, I must have been unclear. I didn't say that "being elitist, arrogant, or conceited is not wrong," I said that a statement is not incorrect simply because it indicates that the speaker is elitist, arrogant, or conceited.

-144

147...

Those people were talking about how how it is elitist, arrogant, etc. it is to have less peopl in law school and to make the bar harder to prevent people from practicing. The assumption in doing such a thing is that it was elitist, arrogant, etc.

I guess that guy was saying that those characteristics are detrimental to a person and people in general (crummy life).

Either that leads to a crummy life or your mom's arrogant crotch.

135...

Then why don't you just get out of the school.

I'm sure that if the school is really so bad, they would have a bad reputation, which is a reason of why you shouldn't stay.

I don't see why being an arrogant, conceited elitist necessarily means you will have a crummy life.

And oh yes, I forgot:

"The reason for that is that it is inherently wrong"

No.

151,

Like you have anything to be arrogant or conceited about. You're probably some pale dork who never could get laid in high school (typical of many pretentious lawyers and law students). LOL.

Now, you sit back going, "I will be a great lawyer and they'll all feel bad," while no one gives a rat's ass because they're having huge sex parties, while you're wasting life away plotting some get-rich scheme that will never work.

(BTW, 2 inches is not something to be proud of because that i basically a vagina).

152: You're wrong. I think I'll be a terrible lawyer.

-151

The exclusion of people from practicing law has nothing to do with arrogance or elitism. It's about protecting the practitioners of the profession. The whole point of professional associations like the ABA, going back to the days when they were guilds, was to make sure that the people in the profession earned a good living.

Flooding the market with tons of TTT grads hurts that goal. There are simply too many lawyers out there. Sure, we could cull the herd at random, but why do that? We know which schools are better/more prestigious. Nobody can pretend that Thurgood Marshall Eastern College of Law is more deserving or produces better grads than Harvard, so why not just keep Harvard and let the other go.

If there is such an oversupply of lawyers, why do they cost so much per hour?

It's good to know that Northeastern prepares its students by forcing them to intern four times before graduating so they have real world experience. Too bad the school is not ranked higher.

140 = ftw

this is crap. Even the crap law schools are harder to get into than even 15 years ago. I'd love to see everyone here not in law school try to compete today.

You've all benefitted from this system.

I speak here to the rest of the guerrilla warriors who are on the internet with me spreading the word of the law school scam--keep fighting! The ABA and the state bar assns are going to try to pull a whitewash on the bogus stats used by law schools to lure in the lemmings.

Keep fighting. Never give up!

Problem is, once you start focusing on outcome-based metrics, you end up with schools like Howard being disaccredited.

And we all know that won't be allowed to happen.

I feel that most law students I meet, regardless of the school they attend, are intellectually incapable of doing real lawyering. There was a day when the smart kids were doctors, lawyers, and accountants.

Now that we have a society where you get sued for IIED for sneezing (the def. might have swine flu) or you are a fucking moron and spill coffee on yourself, or you breathe, but someone has patented the business process the need for lawyers is huge becasue everyone want's to CYA. This means that lesser qualified people are needed to fill the lawyer roles. Until our society changes TTT's will be neededto churn out the workforce to deal with the problems society creates.

What a complete bunch of SHIT. #71 is credited. With a Cooley retard does anyone REALLY expect there to be credible/worthwhile change in their policies?

UnF'ing believable.