http://www.economist.com/node/21584392/print
The Economist
Making law school cheaper
For many, two years is plenty
The president suggests scrapping the last year of law school
Aug 31st 2013 | NEW YORK |
From the print edition
"THIS is probably controversial to say, but what the heck," said Barack Obama on
August 23rd.
"Law schools would probably be wise to think about being two years instead of three."
Mr Obama once taught constitutional law; his idea could put many of his former
colleagues out of work.
Yet he has a point.
For most of the 1800s, would-be lawyers (such as Abraham Lincoln) learned the trade
as apprentices.
Law schools sprouted up late in the century, in two main flavours.
Elite universities set up legal departments for posh students; night schools catered
to the sons of immigrants.
To stop the proles from
sullying the image of the bar - ahem, to provide sufficient instruction in the
intricacies of the law - the snootier institutions
convinced the American Bar Association (ABA) to accredit only schools that required a
costly three years' worth of courses for a
degree.
It still does.
Most of the basic principles of legal analysis can be learned in a year, and law
schools have made little effort to teach practical
skills, since firms have historically trained new attorneys themselves.
So students tend to fill their final year with classes on curious or obscure topics.
Over the past decade, however, fees have soared, requiring students to borrow
ever-greater sums:
the average 2013 graduate will be $140,000 in hock, by one estimate.
Meanwhile, firms have cut back on hiring, leaving many debt-laden young lawyers
unemployed.
That has led critics - now including Mr Obama - to suggest that law schools pare
their coursework down to two years, letting
students save money and start earning sooner.
Cutting costs would also allow more graduates to take lower-paying jobs in
public-interest law.
That would benefit students, but not law schools.
Already suffering from declining enrolment, they would have to tighten their belts if
they lost a third of their tuition revenue.
So some schools are trying to reinvent the final year:
New York University is placing students in foreign universities or in government,
while Stanford has emphasised interdisciplinary
classes and clinical courses.
Since first-year lawyers at big firms now earn $160,000 a year, their time has become
too valuable to squander
on training.
"We can use that time to prepare them for practice better and cheaper than firms
can," says Larry Kramer, the former dean of
Stanford Law.
But despite Mr Obama's words, even schools that make no such effort are still
shielded by the threeyear requirement.
The ABA has set up a task force on legal education, and its commission on
accreditation standards is now conducting a quinquennial
review.
Ten of the council's 21 members come from the legal academy, which wants to maintain
the status quo.
James Silkenat, the ABA's
president, says he supports "innovation" to reduce costs - but still believes schools
yield "a better product with the full three
years".
Many advocates for reform are turning to the judiciary, which sets the rules for bar
admission.
Last year Arizona began allowing students to take the test while still in law school.
If more states follow its lead - and if firms will hire lawyers without an
ABA-approved degree - then adventurous law schools might
offer a two-year option.
Or perhaps Mr Obama could tell the Department of Education to strip the ABA of its
role as the federally sanctioned accreditor if it
does not give schools the "flexibility" Mr Silkenat says he favours.
From the print edition:
United States
Making law school cheaper:
For many, two years is plenty
The Economist