Thursday, October 6, 2011
Flushing the Current Bloated, Overpriced, Moronic Law School Model Down the Commode
Critiques of “Legal Education” From Practitioners and Scholars
On September 2, 2009, this piece - written by former litigator Dan Slater - appeared in the New York Times:
“The American Bar Association, which continues to approve law schools with impunity and with no end in sight, bears complicity in creating this mess. Yet a spokeswoman, citing antitrust concerns, says the A.B.A. takes no position on the optimal number of lawyers or law schools. So then how about the schools? Can they save future generations of students from themselves?
If it means shrinking classes, don’t count on it. Limiting education is un-American, not to mention anticapitalist, even if many law schools appear to profit from what may charitably be called an inefficient distribution of market information.” [Emphasis mine]
Seeing that the ABA has no problem with overproducing JDs and attorneys, why not allow any college student to major in law, during undergrad? Also taking the likely public backlash against “limiting education” into account, this concept will actually allow more people to sit for the bar exam. The major losers would be the parasites at LSAC, the LSAT prep companies, and the law schools.
Check out this stinging indictment against “legal education” and “the law” - by Yale law professor Fred Rodell. The fact that it was published in 1939 further shows that this industry has been corrupt for generations. From page 87 of this document:
“Thus, law school courses, since they are cut out of the pseudo-science of Law, inevitably focus on generalities and abstractions rather than on the solution of specific problems. A student might even study a case in a dozen different courses – and thus learn all about The Law of the case – and still not have the slightest comprehension of, or insight into, the real down-to-earth factual difficulty or controversy that brought the case into court.” [Emphasis mine]
Push Down the Handle
My goal is modest. I seek to inform potential law students that American “legal education” is typically a terrible and foolish financial decision. Based on this law and economics paper, Vanderbilt University "law professor" Herwig Schlunk agrees with this assessment. In the end, we each want a chance at a decent life. If you incur too much NON-DISCHARGEABLE student loan debt, then later on you may be unable to afford a home, marriage or children. This will take away opportunities for happiness. For $ome rea$on, the law school industrial complex cockroaches do not mention these outcomes, in their glossy brochures, DVDs, and colorful web sites.
Despite complaints from academic Paul Campos that the scam-bloggers have posed no alternatives, several bloggers have proposed the following: (1) require law schools to submit their employment and starting salary figures to an outside, independent audit; (2) tie tuition increases to the rate of inflation; and (3) provide stiff penalties for non-compliance, including placing violators on probation or removing accreditation.
This was before everyone realized that the law school pigs would rather die of cholera than voluntarily comply with any of the above mild requests. The law school pigs see “transparency” in job placement and salary data as unreasonable. This helps explain why Law School Transparency has been an abject failure. You cannot politely ask Industry to change its ways, and expect results. Then again, if you asked law schools to prepare students to practice law, the bitches and hags would scream that this is not feasible. (Somehow, medical and dental schools are able to provide plenty of clinical training to their students. Many faculty members are practitioners on sadistically from their jobs.) The pigs would moan and wail that the schools would need to raise tuition even higher, in order to set up clinical programs. And we all how these pieces of trash are concerned with lowering the costs of “legal education,” right?!?!
In light of the above, we should first close down the law schools – every one of these dung pits. Turn them into pawn shops, petting zoos, boutiques/hair salons, night clubs, sports bars, parking garages, or public libraries. Secondly, make law an undergraduate program, where the last two years are devoted fully to an apprenticeship-type study underneath an experienced lawyer. No more Socratic Method nonsense defecated by FAILED LAWYERS masquerading as “law professors.” At the end of this testing period, all law students will have performed work on actual transactional cases, as well as litigation. They will have researched, drafted, and argued motions – on their own. Those deemed unqualified in these tasks will be unable to sit for a bar exam. The supervising attorney will provide valid reasons for, and sign his name to, his assessment. Lastly, upon successful completion of the degree and program, these students will then take the bar exam. Anyone who fails the test twice will not be eligible to sit for a third time.
Conclusion: In the last analysis, law school is a wildly overpriced, three year ticket to sit for the bar exam. There is no point in REQUIRING law students to spend seven years in “post-secondary education” - and accumulating mountains of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, in the process. Especially, when the job market is oversaturated. Furthermore, outsourcing of legal work, greater public access to statutes and case law, and advances in software has led consumers to scale back on their need to hire lawyers.
It is clear that bar prep courses do a MUCH better job of preparing graduates to pass the bar exam than the law schools could hope to accomplish. The latter cockroaches are too busy training students in “how to think like a lawyer.” So what the hell is the point of law school - other than to provide overpaid work to a bunch of failed lawyers?! Lastly, it is CLEAR that the law schools will continue to game the system and cook the books - in order to help their rankings. Allowing any accredited college or university to provide legal education will get rid of this incentive. Corporate firms can still be selective, by focusing their recruitment efforts on those attending Ivy League schools. At least, the students will no longer expect to take out $120K in additional student debt for the chance to work for a Biglaw firm. Hell, such a system might produce (slightly) ethical Biglaw attorneys.
Posted by Nando at 6:26 AM