Andy Mergendahl, writing in the lawyerist.com said something that brings a lot to the debate on why the hell everyone wants to go to law school, and importantly, why law schools enlists students knowing employment prospects are as bleak as a ducks arse.
Andy said that so long as the federal student loan system persists and the money flows, the law school over subscription problem will exist.
See, it's all craven-self interest. Here's Andy:
"It’s tempting to conclude, given the legal job market and the intense criticism the schools have endured, that they must be changing a lot, and quickly.
I disagree. As long as federal student loan money continues to flow like a river, nothing significant will change. Money drives everything in the law: legislation, the executive branch, judicial elections, law firms big and small. Only money (or the lack of it) will change the law schools."
Read Andy in full here. And in case you don't know where I'm coming from, law professor Eric Posner gives a good explanation in Slate Magazine here.
There's also a great Slate piece on the law school question under the title, 'A Case of Supply v. Demand
Law schools are manufacturing more lawyers than America needs, and law students aren't happy about it.' Some of the article went like this:
There's also a great Slate piece on the law school question under the title, 'A Case of Supply v. Demand
Law schools are manufacturing more lawyers than America needs, and law students aren't happy about it.' Some of the article went like this:
"During the recession, the logic was ubiquitous: The economy is terrible—better to wait it out! It is a three-year fast track to a remunerative, respectable career! It's not just learning a subject— it's learning how to think! Law school, always the safe choice, became a more popular choice. Between 2007 and 2009, the number of LSAT takers climbed 20.5 percent. Law school applications increased in turn."
No comments:
Post a Comment