Conglomerate Blog: Business, Law, Economics & Society

I'm a little behind, but earlier this week, while I was teaching, the WSJ published an op-ed by John McGinnis (Northwestern Law) and Ruseell Mangas (Kirkland & Ellis and recent NW graduate) entitled "First, Let's Kill All the Law Schools." The gist of the controversial op-ed is that by allowing Law majors in college to sit for the bar, we would increase the number of lawyers, cut fees, and cut the amount of tuition paid (debt borrowed) by lawyers-to-be. Dan Rodriguez, the new NW dean, responded on his own blog here, then allowed for rebuttal here. My reflexive response was similar to Dean Rodriguez's, but different enough to warrant a post. I am all for creative ways to change legal education to meet the new legal market, but not all ways are without bugs.

The creative solution is to make the four years of college two years of liberal arts and sciences and two years of law. Then, states could require a one-year apprenticeship program, reducing the cost of law school to zero.

First, the op-ed makes the misleading claim that "[t]he high cost of graduate legal education limits the supply of lawyers and leads to higher legal fees." The first half is false. The high cost of legal education is not limiting the supply of lawyers. We are opening new law schools each year, and I have not heard of any law school that is not filling its seats. Applications are down, and schools are reachign deeper into the pool, but my sense is that there are still more folks each year applying to law school than being accepted. That being said, the high cost of graduate legal education may be limiting the supply of great lawyers -- perhaps, using the authors' words "bright students with attractive career opportunities" opt to take those opportunities and not go to law school -- but not the supply of all lawyers.

The second half of the sentence is a causal claim that I would have to see some data on. Do high tuition costs and high debt loads lead fees to go higher? Dean R. says no. I would be more likely to believe a claim that high costs lead students to choose higher paid legal work than legal aid work, but to say that fees are higher overall because of the higher cost of education would not some explaining. (Perhaps one of the drawbacks of the op-ed format.)

The second assertion that did not ring true to me was that the college plus one-year apprenticeship model is the British model, and it works fine. Except that it's not. I'm not from the UK, but three minutes on the Internet showed me that after undergraduate college, would-be lawyers pay to go to school (Bar Professional Course or Legal Practice Course) for one more year, with either a solicitor curriculum or a barrister curriculum. Then, graduates of those programs (which are not cheap) then apply to be an apprentice either for a barrister firm (pupilage for one year) or a solicitor firm (training contract for two years). These are in high demand, and not everyone gets one (the pupillage statistics seem to suggest that only half of applicants get one), and the trainee is paid a minimum wage. (The trainee solicitor minimum in London is £18,590 ($28,762), and the trainee barrister minimum is £12,000 ($18,566), though the fancy places pay much more, just like in the U.S. So, if we are going to fashion the new U.S. law model after the British one, and compare costs, we need to compare apples to apples. College plus tuition-based one-year course, plus 1-2 year discounted wage training. If you wanted to major in something else, like business or engineering, then add on one more year of post-graduate schooling.

A few more thoughts. The authors' suggestion seems to also hinge on the assumption that college doesn't need to be four years, in addition to the fact that law school doesn't need to be three years. the authors would condense college to two years, then have a condensed two-year law school. Those who want more law or to someone distinguish themselves could take a substantive LL.M. course -- tax, securities, appellate, etc. This assumption also rests on another assumption -- that law students all have liberal arts degrees. Sure, I agree one could condense a lot of degrees to two years and add a streamlined two-year law degree. (I went to college in three years). Some law schools have had 3 + 3 programs for years. But a lot of students are from the hard sciences, engineering, and economics. I thought we wanted more of those? Could you sit for the patent bar with only two years of undergraduate courses?

I also think that if we went to a four-year legal education (or even five year), that colleges would find a way to charge more. Here at Illinois, engineering and certain other majors have a higher tuition than other majors. Just throwing that out there.

Law Schools/Lawyering | Bookmark

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e20168e5df27ff970c

Links to weblogs that reference Should Law be an Undergraduate Degree?:

I'm a little behind, but earlier this week, while I was teaching, the WSJ published an op-ed by John McGinnis (Northwestern Law) and Ruseell Mangas (Kirkland & Ellis and recent NW graduate) entitled "First, Let's Kill All the Law Schools." The gist of the controversial op-ed is that by allowing Law majors in college to sit for the bar, we would increase the number of lawyers, cut fees, and cut the amount of tuition paid (debt borrowed) by lawyers-to-be. Dan Rodriguez, the new NW dean, responded on his own blog here, then allowed for rebuttal here. My reflexive response was similar to Dean Rodriguez's, but different enough to warrant a post. I am all for creative ways to change legal education to meet the new legal market, but not all ways are without bugs.

The creative solution is to make the four years of college two years of liberal arts and sciences and two years of law. Then, states could require a one-year apprenticeship program, reducing the cost of law school to zero.

First, the op-ed makes the misleading claim that "[t]he high cost of graduate legal education limits the supply of lawyers and leads to higher legal fees." The first half is false. The high cost of legal education is not limiting the supply of lawyers. We are opening new law schools each year, and I have not heard of any law school that is not filling its seats. Applications are down, and schools are reachign deeper into the pool, but my sense is that there are still more folks each year applying to law school than being accepted. That being said, the high cost of graduate legal education may be limiting the supply of great lawyers -- perhaps, using the authors' words "bright students with attractive career opportunities" opt to take those opportunities and not go to law school -- but not the supply of all lawyers.

The second half of the sentence is a causal claim that I would have to see some data on. Do high tuition costs and high debt loads lead fees to go higher? Dean R. says no. I would be more likely to believe a claim that high costs lead students to choose higher paid legal work than legal aid work, but to say that fees are higher overall because of the higher cost of education would not some explaining. (Perhaps one of the drawbacks of the op-ed format.)

The second assertion that did not ring true to me was that the college plus one-year apprenticeship model is the British model, and it works fine. Except that it's not. I'm not from the UK, but three minutes on the Internet showed me that after undergraduate college, would-be lawyers pay to go to school (Bar Professional Course or Legal Practice Course) for one more year, with either a solicitor curriculum or a barrister curriculum. Then, graduates of those programs (which are not cheap) then apply to be an apprentice either for a barrister firm (pupilage for one year) or a solicitor firm (training contract for two years). These are in high demand, and not everyone gets one (the pupillage statistics seem to suggest that only half of applicants get one), and the trainee is paid a minimum wage. (The trainee solicitor minimum in London is £18,590 ($28,762), and the trainee barrister minimum is £12,000 ($18,566), though the fancy places pay much more, just like in the U.S. So, if we are going to fashion the new U.S. law model after the British one, and compare costs, we need to compare apples to apples. College plus tuition-based one-year course, plus 1-2 year discounted wage training. If you wanted to major in something else, like business or engineering, then add on one more year of post-graduate schooling.

A few more thoughts. The authors' suggestion seems to also hinge on the assumption that college doesn't need to be four years, in addition to the fact that law school doesn't need to be three years. the authors would condense college to two years, then have a condensed two-year law school. Those who want more law or to someone distinguish themselves could take a substantive LL.M. course -- tax, securities, appellate, etc. This assumption also rests on another assumption -- that law students all have liberal arts degrees. Sure, I agree one could condense a lot of degrees to two years and add a streamlined two-year law degree. (I went to college in three years). Some law schools have had 3 + 3 programs for years. But a lot of students are from the hard sciences, engineering, and economics. I thought we wanted more of those? Could you sit for the patent bar with only two years of undergraduate courses?

I also think that if we went to a four-year legal education (or even five year), that colleges would find a way to charge more. Here at Illinois, engineering and certain other majors have a higher tuition than other majors. Just throwing that out there.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30