Home / General / The higher learning in America

The higher learning in America

Comments
/
/
/
338 Views

law school

It is much more difficult to recede from a scale of expenditure once adopted than it is to extend the accustomed scale in response to an accession of wealth. — Veblen —

I started ITLSS two years ago this week, in part, because I was frustrated with the sheer level of bullshit prevalent in American legal academia. I stopped it, in part, because after awhile one (and by one I mean me) becomes tired of playing the role of Jeremiah or Howard Beale or your annoying and embarrassing relative who is always saying tactless things at the wrong times and places, even, or especially, if those things happen to be true.

Still . . . last week an ABA committee issued a “working paper” that, after many pages of throat-clearing, issued some on the whole very mild recommendations regarding possible reforms to the structure of American law schools, given the combination of their increasingly high cost and the increasingly problematic employment outcomes experienced by their graduates.

Nothing could better illustrate the need for reform than some of the reactions to the paper. For example, this post features an approving link to a PDF in which a former dean of a law school expressing his view that a distinction needs to be maintained between the training and education of lawyers, and that law schools should not sacrifice the latter in the pursuit of the former:

Let me make a quick and rough distinction between education and training. I can train a reasonably intelligent eighth-grader to draft a non-compete clause in 10 or 15 minutes. I cannot, however, educate them about market definition, information asymmetries, or public policies regarding employment in different sectors of the economy. One might quickly ask: Why would someone who knows how to draft such a clause need to know about economics and market dynamics? The answer is as simple as it is obvious. They need to know the context so that they can critically assess a non-compete clause or draft one in another situation for another client. Without the scholarly work in law and economics or jurisprudence or behavior psychology or other disciplines, the ability to analyze and criticize rules and principles of law is made more difficult if not impossible.

Let’s work through this.

(1) A lawyer drafting a non-compete clause needs to know two things: to what extent are these things enforceable in this jurisdiction, and who is my client? The lawyer will then cut and paste a non-compete clause from a preexisting form, and possibly, depending on how much money his or her client is willing to spend on this transaction, try to narrow it if the lawyer is representing the bound party, or broaden it if the lawyer is representing the enforcing party. That’s it. The economics and psychology and general jurisprudence of non-compete agreements are no doubt fascinating academic topics, especially from a comparative and historical and sociological perspective, but lawyers don’t get paid to think about that stuff.

(2) Law students don’t pay to think about that stuff either. Why? Because this is how much class time will be spent over the course of law school on non-compete agreements, in the experience of the average law student: Between zero and fifty minutes, with the median being zero. If any time whatsoever is spent on the subject, here’s how it will go down: The student will learn, or at least be exposed to, a few doctrinal generalities regarding such agreements, from which at most the student will take away a vague memory that they can be enforceable in a lot of places if they’re not “unreasonably” broad but probably not in California. If the student is unlucky he or she may retain an even vaguer memory of being harassed regarding whether making such agreements enforceable is “sound public policy,” from an economic and psychological and jurisprudential and comparative and sociological perspective (socially appropriate answer: it depends on a variety of factors, which must be carefully balanced by courts and legislatures; true answer: nobody really knows, especially not law professors, whose knowledge of the economics and psychology and etc. etc. etc. of non-compete agreements is never going to be more than puddle-deep, if that much).

(3) Speaking of law professors, here’s the CV of the person who favored the ABA committee with his observations regarding their work. Check it out kids: if you had only had the foresight to be born in 1948 instead of 1988, you too could have had an academic and professional career that consisted of going straight from undergrad to George Washington Law School, getting moderately good grades, spending two years as an associate with a small law firm in New Jersey, then spending the next 37 years (and counting) as a law professor, of the sub-genus homo administratrix, “serving” on about a hundred committees and task forces, eventually running a law school, and lecturing people about what lawyers need to know about a wide variety of extremely complex academic subjects, on the basis of your experience as a general litigation associate with a small law firm in New Jersey 38 years ago, and your own training in a wide variety of extremely complex academic subjects as a law student 40 years ago.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Harry

    This is a pretty great post. Loved item (3).

  • Colin Day

    Administratrix? That’s hitting below the belt.

  • Another Anonymous

    on the basis of your experience as a general litigation associate with a small law firm in New Jersey 38 years ago, and your own training in a wide variety of extremely complex academic subjects as a law student 40 years ago

    Can we still say “bitchslap”? I think we need a good synonym. Yow.

  • oldster

    That’s some fine-looking fake gothic facades, there! Where is that edifying edifice?

    • sparks

      That photo works as a good example of why perspective correction is sometimes necessary.

    • Paul Campos

      That’s the Michigan Law School’s new $120 million annex. Why the law school needed an $120 million annex when the student body is the same size as when I went there 25 years ago probably has something to do with the need to house an enormous expansion in the number of people who have been hired to raise money for things like new annexes.

      • Well, they needed the annex so they could shut down the regular law school (and a chunk of S. University) for a full year while they gutted it and redid it. The Annarbor.com pegs the whole thing at $102,000,000:

        http://www.annarbor.com/news/recent-and-planned-law-school-construction-totals-102m/

        • BarrY

          And the lighted ‘greenhouse’ behind it is the new B-school, also $100 million.

      • kindasorta

        The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

      • I walked through the law school building a couple of months ago with a fellow graduate and… let’s just say, we got to a point in the basement… “I don’t remember this room being here… I don’t remember this stairway…. Hey, wait, this space at the top of the stairs used to be outside!” The little “rarely open” coffee shop has been replaced with a massive coffee bar that offers deli foods. It looked like they have now completed the renovation of the first floor classrooms (save for those replaced by the coffee bar and dining space – I guess that’s why they needed classrooms next door) that had started I’m sure back when you were a student. The changes are impressive, but what they said to me was, “We’re going to compete for students by offering a more lavish experience.”

        The Lawyer’s Club residence halls (or whatever they plan to call the residence halls when they’re done) should have been renovated decades ago. Looking in the windows you get the sense that they know how rare it will be for a faculty member to step inside, but that’s also part of why it was the last item on the renovations list. In some senses the renovated structure will be improved, but the rooms seemed small and cheaply constructed, not at all consistent with the vision of the original building.

        I’m certainly glad I’m not paying for law school at today’s prices. I thought it was expensive back then….

  • TribalistMeathead

    I think you meant “with the mode being zero.” If the median were zero, that would mean that law students could spend -50 minutes on non-compete clauses.

    I’ll let someone who has a stronger stats background than “took a 200-level course in between bong rips during senior year of college” tell me we’re both wrong, though.

    • Pseudonym

      You’re both right. The median being zero just requires over half of law students to spend no time on them. The mean is certainly higher than zero however.

    • Guest

      This post shows one of the fundamental problems which enables the law school scam: the vast majority of Americans, many of them highly educated, have almost no understanding of statistics. For the love of God, learn the meaning of the word median. You owe it to yourself and others.

      • L.M.

        All law school applicants are sure they will never need to know the meaning of the word “median,” unfortunately.

        • Another Anonymous

          The median is what your client negligently and criminally drove across, colliding with and injuring my client.

          • Bloix

            I had a case once in which my adversary’s expert confused a median value with a threshold value. That was a productive deposition. Of course, the case eventually settled, as they usually do.

  • Pseudonym

    I believe non-compete clauses are enforceable in California as part of an acquisition but not for regular employment. And I didn’t learn that in law school.

    • The Dark Avenger

      CPA?

      For example, in California, a non-compete agreement is enforceable only if someone sells a business and agrees not to compete with the new owner. That aside, California employers cannot restrict the livelihood of their current or former employees.

  • Boyohboy

    Excellent post, Paul.

    Your post omitted one very significant fact: Dean Tomain did not author the post on Prawfsblawg. Howard Wasserman did. And Mr. Wasserman thought it was such a great insight that it merited a hat tip to Mr. Leiter.

    Let me repeat that. Two other law professors thought that Dean Tomain’s comment was so insightful and profound that it warranted wider distribution to academia.

    If Tomain did it hastily in a blog post, I’d be more forgiving of it. But two other ostensibly intelligent people reviewed his nonsensical post about noncompetes being so easy a caveman could do it, and embraced it. Complete junk.

    • Another Anonymous

      Possibly non-lawyers may need this part –

      Without the scholarly work in law and economics or jurisprudence or behavior psychology or other disciplines

      – spelled out a bit for them. If I’m arguing a non-compete clause in court, how much am I going to cite to any of that “scholarly work”? Zero. My judge does not care what scholars say. He cares, if he cares at all, about what the law says.

      Even in a state-supreme-court case about NCCs and their merits or lacks thereof, we’re not going to argue policy in such detail. That is because, the more I convince the court it’s a policy issue, the more I’m arguing them into deciding that I should be making these points across the street at the legislature, not in the courtroom.

      So to spell it out, that argument for “education” vs. “training” is actually self-refuting – it exemplifies why “education” as he sees it should be positively shunned.

      • Boyohboy

        This is a fine point, and it shows how removed the law faculty are from both Courts and practitioners. (i.e., real lawyers).

        What is not discussed in law classrooms is how this arises in practice. (or “cases and controversies” to use law faculty language).

        Here’s how it comes up. Bill sells his business to Ted and signs a noncompete as part of the sale. He then gets a new job offer or sees a closely related business opportunity and leaps at it. Ted gets angry, worries that Bill will steal his customers, employees, contacts, etc., and sues. (Or Ted withholds payment on the outstanding contract and accuses Bill of breaching.)

        Here’s how lawyers fit into the fray. Either the litigators take sides after it went to hell, or a general corporate lawyer includes a boilerplate noncompete as part of the asset sale, or Ted really gets worried about Bill and wants to spend a lot of time (and extra money) on a very specific noncompete. Eventually, it still goes to hell and the litigators get involved.

        • I thought law faculty were trying to train lawyer-legislators (and possibly Supreme Court jurists).

          That certainly seems to be what they actually train you for.

          Thank goodness for the British legal education system, where the law profs control pre-law (ie LLB) and BPTC and LPC are controlled by practitioners (well, the Law Society and the Bar Council; our equivalents of your bar associations).

  • Bob Loblaw

    You are calling the guy a homo?

    • MAJeff

      You, sir, are a mouthful.

  • Boyohboy

    Law school graduates are prepared for only one job: to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. They have no administrative experience to be the Chief, but they are trained at bullshitting, analyzing caselaw, making broad policy arguments, etc.

    They are fully unprepared to do anything practical, to advise or advocate on behalf of clients, or to evaluate risk. In other words, they lack the “education” to be lawyers.

    If Tomain were serious about “education,” school could be taught in a way that showed the general rule, the exceptions to the rule, and the fact that there was ambiguity and where it was. Model noncompetes would actually be given to students with the rules in mind. Students would be reminded of where they want to fight and where they don’t want to fight as their client might not want them to fuck up the deal. Students could be trained as to how to CYA to tell the client, here is the risk of this noncompete. it’s cool if you do it, but it might not be enforceable. I advise you to go along with it, however, as the risk is small, the point is minor, and you can use it as a point to horsetrade on the equipment that you want to maintain.

    Law faculty aren’t competent to do any of this, mind you, but it would be nice if they were.

    • dave

      This.

  • Blanche Davidian

    Excellent post. When I came out of law school 28 years ago, I decided to hang out my shingle in a middling urban setting and discovered to my horror that school had prepared me to argue a case before the Supreme Court, but not how to plea bargain a DUI with the local county attorneys (and make some money). Some very sweet clerks in the court system enlightened me to some simple but important things I really needed to know. Not that I didn’t enjoy the heady intellectual atmosphere of law school, but many of the profs were a little too full of themselves and half the faculty seemed to be there to find wives amongst the female student body. Those were the days.

  • RJB

    A lawyer drafting a non-compete clause needs to know two things: to what extent are these things enforceable in this jurisdiction, and who is my client?

    From my perspective as a business school professor, I feel the OP is taking an overly narrow view of what it means to know ‘who is my client’. A broader view makes me more sympathetic to the importance of educating lawyers on economics and market dynamics.

    I teach business students about different methods of calculating costs. I can teach them how to calculate the costs under different methods relatively quickly (though 15 minutes would be pushing it). But the real value in my course comes from helping students understand when they would want to use which method, how doing so will affect their decisions, how others in the firm might react, how a different costing method would affect their position in the industry, and vice versa.

    I’m not sure why you couldn’t make the same argument in law school. If I hire a lawyer, I don’t want them simply to draft an enforceable agreement. I want them to help me understand the value of different types of agreements given my particular situation. How will my counterparties react? Is it even worth the bother given the competitive position and the nature of the industry? That is what it means for my lawyer to know that I am their client.

    Maybe this is totally outside the scope of law school education, but it doesn’t seem like it should be.

    • Francis

      This is why you don’t hire first year associates; you hire someone who has been practicing in the field for at least a decade (and tell him that you won’t pay for any work done by a first-year associate). After you’ve read a couple dozen non-compete clauses (probably none of which have actually been litigated), you get a feel for what you can ask for and what you can’t.

      There are so many different ways that attorneys practice law that it’s impossible for law schools to do much more than (a) teach the basics (torts, contracts, property, Con. law) and (b) teach how to research. Two years is plenty; after that, go join a firm and try not to screw up too much.

      • Another Anonymous

        This is why you don’t hire first year associates; you hire someone who has been practicing in the field for at least a decade

        I sense a fallacy here.

        Teaching a FYA to think about these things isn’t onerous; hell, this thread has gone a good way towards that.

        • Brett Turner

          And there are tasks, less than having final responsibility for drafting the clause, that are appropriate for a FYA. Why is in the client’s interest for the senior partner to bill $300/hour for shepardizing cases?

          The problem with FYAs is when biglaw bills them out at ridiculous rates. But that doesn’t mean that they have no value at all. Every lawyer was an FYA, once.

  • Peter Hovde

    OK, someone invent the damn Flux Capacitor already-1948 or bust!

  • NewishLawyer

    I never understood why my legal writing and research class focused on writing a Court of Appeals brief as the ultimate assignment. Most lawyers will never write for the Court of Appeals.

    I always thought that legal writing courses should focus on how to draft complaints, interrogatories, Depo PMKs, discovery requests, day to day motions, etc. Maybe this tilts too much towards litigation but these are workaday documents.

    Though I suppose an Court of Appeals brief is more general and contains “meatier” research issues.

    • Boyohboy

      This is a fair point. Frankly, legal writing should be required for all 3 years. There should be mandatory contract drafting, opinion letters, memoranda writing, trial brief writing, complaint and discovery demand writing, and appellate writing with argument.

      There likewise should be mandatory statutory and regulatory reading classes. It astounds me how little reading of statutes occurred in law school. Regulatory lawyers, tax lawyers, environmental lawyers, securities regulation, bankruptcy lawyers, and anything related to banking draw heavily on statutory interpretation. Yet almost none of this is taught/emphasized in law school. Even if you take a securities, adlaw, or environmental regulation course, in my experience, you spend 10 times as much class time analyzing caselaw as you do reading the regs. In practice, you always read the regs and opinion letters about the regs.

      Law school is too much mental masturbation, too little “training”.

      • Nathanael

        Absolutely. Legal writing is the bread and butter of lawyers — you’d think they’d teach it in law school!

        Legal READING is even more important, and managing to actually read and quote a section of statute when your opponent didn’t is the most fun way to win a case.

    • Another Anonymous

      Teaching appellate work is easier. Teaching trial practice is hard. That is all.

      • Teaching trial practice is beyond the experience of most legal faculty. If I had a nickle for every law professor who ever told me, “I was a litigator…” Here’s a tip, kids: A litigator is what you call a lawyer who doesn’t try cases.

    • bored_lurker

      I think I can answer this. It’s because the instructor has limited practical experience. And it’s likely that instructor went to a higher-ranked law school which focused on… writing appeals. Finally, it’s just sexier to write appeals. I mean, what lowly faculty member / instructor wants to admit to teaching practical skills? How much panache is there in that??

  • MacK

    A few comments:

    A lawyer drafting a non-compete clause needs to know two things: to what extent are these things enforceable in this jurisdiction, and who is my client?

    Actually, the lawyer needs to ask – in what jurisdictions-plural might my client want to enforce this non-compete (and especially is one California) which is why your point 2 is important. The question is pretty well the first one that I ask. The second question is “what interests do you want to protect” – or more simply “why do you want this?”

    I pretty well never cut-and-paste them, that is one clause that is tailored every time based on the answers to the foregoing and the legal limits that result.

    viz your point (3) – I was talking with an in-law, a doctor, and we both agreed on the same point – most of those who serve on “great and the good” committees of the bar or the medical profession as so poor in practice that we would not trust them to “wash our windows.” It seems a truism that these organisations attract the incompetent in-house politicians who hope to come to be regarded as “great” by their committee assignments. The rest of us do not have the time – a point that pretty well every lawyer I know agrees with.

  • MacK

    A further point about Tomain. He is ABA Consultant – i.e., he is presumably paid to help these law schools maintain their accreditation, i.e., ability to access student loans:

    Charleston School of Law – a school that recently decided to join the Infilaw for profit law school group – notably the owners of Florida Coastal School of Law (about which see Campos, passim)

    Drexel University – whose Earle Mack School of Law (who?) was set up in 2006 in the already spectacularly saturated Philadelphia law school market where it ranks – well – bottom, indeed it is the bottom ranked school in Pennsylvania and manages to rank below both Rutgers in New Jersey (Rutgers-Camden!) and Seton Hall!!

    Wilkes University – no law school as yet – Wikipedia says

    As part of the Wilkes Vision 2010 master plan, the university plans to study the feasibility of a Law School to “add to Wilkes prestige and develop an alumni base over time”.[10] The university was apparently moving forward with this effort, as is noted in the college corner of The Weekender, week of January 11, 2008 edition. Recently, the University in 2010 announced that it would suspend moving forward with this plan for economic reasons and focus more on the sciences.

    so he failed to convince them.

    Phoenix International School of Law – i.e.,

    a private, for-profit law school located in Phoenix, Arizona. Founded in 2005 and accredited by the American Bar Association in 2010,[2] PhoenixLaw is the only private law school in Arizona. The school is not affiliated with the similarly named University of Phoenix. Phoenix is part of the InfiLaw System of independent law schools, which includes Florida Coastal School of Law and Charlotte School of Law, owned by Sterling Partners

    Florida A&M Law School – a law school that (re)opened in 2003 and was granted provisional approval in 2004, but in 2006 received a letter from the ABA Accreditation Committee sent a letter to the institution listing multiple issues, that still gave FAMU three years to fix them (a full law school class’s worth) and 8 years to qualify for full accreditation, i.e., 2014 – during which time they were still allowed to enrol students.

    Just so you know Tomain was also

    Reporter, Standards Review Committee, ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar

    It would be unfair to suggest that in between whoring consulting for so many marginal law schools and abetting Infilaw, Tomain was anything other than completely objective.

  • Joseph Slater

    As someone who teaches covenants not to compete in my Employment Law class, I thought your paragraph (2) was pretty darn amusing (although I think MacK makes some good practical points).

    Would going after the claim, “I can train a reasonably intelligent eighth-grader to draft a non-compete clause in 10 or 15 minutes” just be too much like shooting fish in a barrel?

    • MacK

      I should have added that often in response to the “what interest do you want to protect” the answer may be – “ummm- don’t think so”

    • MacK

      Another practice detail – try to put the justification (if it is legal) in the recitals of the contract.

  • annon

    i agree with most of what you say. however, I litigated a ncc clause and on a borderline case. facts a little too the left would favor one decision. facts a little to the right the opposite decision.

    I used the public policy argument to sway the judge. not that it takes a lot to understand the public policy argument. But it can be helpful understanding it.

    in most of my contract negotiations you can tell who was the contract administrator and who was the attorney by their arguments as to way they wanted certain things in the contract. I am not sure if law school taught them things or senior attorney mentors.

  • dybbuk

    Another Veblen quote that may be relevant to this discussion: “In point of substantial merit the law school belongs in the modern university no more than a school of fencing or dancing.”

    Yes, on some big picture level, society benefits when lawyers are very smart, cultured people, who have dipped into psychology, history, economics, and whatnot. However, the primary thing that law students want and need from their professional education, and pay a great deal of money for, is to receive the knowledge, training, and local contacts to practice law, at least in a couple of practice areas, from the moment of bar passage.

    Is there any way to achieve both goals– lawyers who are both broadly educated and practical-ready– within the existing law school model, and to do so at a cost that does not turn them into debt slaves for 25 years?

    I don’t think so.

    If you want smart, cultured lawyers, tighten admissions standards. Require excellent college grades, top scores on the LSAT or some other test or tests designed to measure critical thinking abilities, and maybe even a year or more or grad school (where tuition waivers and paying graduate assistantships are routine, and where students will study under renowned social science scholars, not law professor dilettantes).

    Actual legal education, however, should be just that: legal education. Clear doctrinal instruction followed by clinics and apprenticeships. Law is a learn-by-doing profession, just like fencing or dancing.

    • NewishLawyer

      One way to do it is to bring back “articling” or “reading” for the law under the guidance of a local lawyer or practice but to have this only be open to people with an undergraduate degree perhaps.

      An articled/read clerk would probably have more practical experience upon passing the Bar and being sworn in/licensed.

      However, I can’t imagine many lawyers or law firms would want to do this and the general practioner is largely dead. Firms and lawyers tend to specialize a lot more these days.

      • Richard Hershberger

        This paralegal would be tempted to read for the bar, if my state allowed it. As it is, however, I looked at the economics of law school ten years ago–before the topic became sexy–and concluded that it was a no-win situation. The economics only make sense if you come out at the back end with a biglaw job, but I also noted that lawyers with biglaw jobs were, as a class, miserable people.

        That being said, there are many general practitioners. Just not downtown. I live in the county seat of a semi-rural/semi-exurban county. Main Street is lined with general practice law offices, ranging from one to perhaps five lawyers. One of those offices would probably be a pretty decent place to read for the bar, were it allowed. What would be in it for the firm? A multi-year commitment from a bright and amibitious worker. Many lawyers would kill for a paralegal like that. And if everyone gets along, it can morph into hiring an associate who is a known quantity. I have seen this happen, via the night law school route. My guess is this is no longer common, again because of the economics.

        • If the fees were sane, then the practice could pay your law school fees.

      • Articling is not an ideal system, by any means, and at times it had led to serious abuses of law graduates. Recall those posts Prof. Campos made about abysmal job offers being made to recent grads? Stuff like that – except if you quit before you complete your articling, you can expect that you won’t get another articling position and thus will never be a full member of the bar.

        • Nathanael

          I don’t see why there’s a credentialling system at all (given that it doesn’t weed out the grossly incompetent).

          And to the extent that there is a credentialling system, just let anyone take the bar exam. If they pass, they pass.

  • Sooner

    In hindsight, Spitzer knew how to spend that kind of money on 50 minutes more wisely than I did.

    Signed,

    2009 Grad

  • Booger

    Is there actually a typo in the CV? Reveiwer? Or is that a word somewhere in law?

    • Nowadays that one mistake would see his CV in the bin. It wouldn’t even get in front of a hirer because it would have been screened with spell-checking software first.

  • Tracy Lightcap

    I read the ABA recs. Even if they were put into full force, they wouldn’t help. Indeed, they would probably make things a good deal worse.

    Why? Because they are based on what some people call the “entrepreneurial model” of education: get the faculty out of the business of running schools, be sure you are delivering “value” (preferably a “value” that can be measured empirically), pay attention to your customers and to their potential employers (i.e. forget general education and specialize like engineers), and put the administration in charge. And, of course, we all know how well that has worked in the rest of post-secondary education.

    The problems with the business of legal education are myriad, but the obvious first step would be to cut back on the subsidized loans and replaces them with need based scholarships. The biggest single problem we have with legal education is that it so potentially profitable. That leads administrators using the model above to want to start law schools as cows with a guaranteed cash flow. The rest of the BS stems directly from this overarching problem. And legal education isn’t unique in this; go to any medical/scientific site and read how pretty much the same system is overstocking us with researchers we probably don’t need.

    The other difficulty is the depression. Demand for all labor, skilled or otherwise, is still low. Law firms aren’t immune from this, especially the ones that haven’t readjusted their fee structure to account for the economy. (My best friend started a new firm in 2007 and does land office business by cutting his old fees roughly in half.) This won’t last, but the old Masters of the Universe days are gone forever. Here no reform in legal education will make much difference.

    Soooo … what kind of reforms would? Northwestern has been trying valiantly for years to do what’s needed: get the clients involved in legal education, give the students something, you know, relevant to their profession to do, change the education model to reflect this, ect. So far, they appear to be the only ones. Let’s hope that something better then yet another GERM (Global Education Reformation Model) solution emerges from all this.

  • Joseph Slater

    Yes. I also want to be on record saying that the ABA recs themselves smack of the “entrepreneurial” model of education that, as Tracy rightly points out, is generally a pretty bad idea.

  • anon

    Tomain was the Dean of the University of Cincinnati Law School when I attended there. Nice guy. But that school was (and may still be) the poster child for the issues Campos writes about. Planning and career counseling was virtually non-existent beyond the OCI carnival, there were few clinic-style classes, and the school hemorrhaged quality faculty.

  • BoredJD

    They continue to miss the point.

    Sure, I’d love it if I was ready to do my job out of law school. But I’d love it much more if I wasn’t competing with twice as many students for those entry-level jobs, and what I’d love the most is not to be paying over a grand a month to Sallie Mae.

    Nobody has yet made a good case as to why the exact same model of education has to cost three or four times as much in inflation adjusted dollars as it did when the people teaching were in law school. Papers like these, that focus on the content of legal education, are more distractions.

It is main inner container footer text