Top Law Schools

Today, I read an article (relatively arcane I would say) written by an experienced lawyer for a large firm who discussed the problems with the current state of law schools in the US and the type of lawyers they are producing. Many law schools promise job placement and hefty salaries that many times, they simply cannot provide. The real question is, especially in an economy where it is difficult for even the best of schools to provide students with choice jobs, do we really need 200+ accredited law schools to meet the demand for attorneys? This, in addition to the economy, could explain some of the hardships in the job market for prospective attorneys. One could certainly postulate that the standards for becoming a lawyer have drastically lowered in the past few decades, allowing for a large swell in applicants and graduates of law school. Sure, a person may have to settle for Cooley rather than a T1 based on their numbers, but the fact remains, they are getting their J.D. Only in law do do numbers play such a crucial role in determining which notch on the totem pole you will be placed. Perhaps if there was more of a higher standard for entrance into a J.D. program, including a person who shows genuine interest in law based on experience (for instance dental students are required to shadow dentists for at least 50 hours before they can be considered), then perhaps performance would mean more than school title. The article raised a lot of questions for me personally, I'm curious as to whether anybody else has an opinion on this or perhaps even read the same article. Do you agree, disagree, have any additional thoughts? I think this is a very interesting topic.

Yes, their are some viable law schools left. If you're shooting for a gig at a top firm, clerkship etc. then the vast majority of law schools are not viable for that goal.

Cut it down to 100 schools.

kalvano wrote:Cut it down to 100 schools.

I'd rather see the ABA more closely regulate (or regulate at all) the placement statistics reported by the schools they accredit. Make the TTT's of the world report accurate data and people would think twice before blindly signing a six-figure loan.

dhatfie1 wrote:Today, I read an article (relatively arcane I would say) written by an experienced lawyer for a large firm who discussed the problems with the current state of law schools in the US and the type of lawyers they are producing. Many law schools promise job placement and hefty salaries that many times, they simply cannot provide. The real question is, especially in an economy where it is difficult for even the best of schools to provide students with choice jobs, do we really need 200+ accredited law schools to meet the demand for attorneys? This, in addition to the economy, could explain some of the hardships in the job market for prospective attorneys. One could certainly postulate that the standards for becoming a lawyer have drastically lowered in the past few decades, allowing for a large swell in applicants and graduates of law school. Sure, a person may have to settle for Cooley rather than a T1 based on their numbers, but the fact remains, they are getting their J.D. Only in law do do numbers play such a crucial role in determining which notch on the totem pole you will be placed. Perhaps if there was more of a higher standard for entrance into a J.D. program, including a person who shows genuine interest in law based on experience (for instance dental students are required to shadow dentists for at least 50 hours before they can be considered), then perhaps performance would mean more than school title. The article raised a lot of questions for me personally, I'm curious as to whether anybody else has an opinion on this or perhaps even read the same article. Do you agree, disagree, have any additional thoughts? I think this is a very interesting topic.

The problem is not the number of law schools. The number of law schools is dictated by the desire of people to apply.

The main problem is information asymmetry. People are too easily mislead by manipulated data, and the result of this is an inflation of the demand side of the law school market.

Here's what's wrong: Law schools are far too expensive for what you get. That's why I try and score as much free pizza as possible.

raze everything after the second tier

too bad lawh skouls r cash cows for universities...

There aren't 200+ accredited schools, are there? I thought it was under 190.

First to be cut should be Cornell.

Desert Fox wrote:First to be cut should be Cornell.

+1

Tuition is outrageous and jobs for grads are practically nonexistent.

Helmholtz wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:First to be cut should be Cornell.

+1

Tuition is outrageous and jobs for grads are practically nonexistent.

Fact: One's chance of avoiding suicide at Cornell is less than the chance of surviving a tour in Iraq.

Desert Fox wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:First to be cut should be Cornell.

+1

Tuition is outrageous and jobs for grads are practically nonexistent.

Fact: One's chance of avoiding suicide at Cornell is less than the chance of surviving a tour in Iraq.

Easiest Ivy to get into, hardest one to get out of...