« Damn you, ABA! | Main | Conference: Public Service and the Law »
Humble Pie: ABA Not Awful
As you can see from the comments in the post below, I wasn't being very accurate when I made a leap from passing the bar exam to a critique of the ABA. II apologize for the misfire. To a large extent, I don't know what I'm talking about, but let's see if I can clarify it a little. My understanding is that one of the functions of the ABA is to act as an accrediting body, just as Princeton Review says here:So there's a connection between the ABA and the high cost of law school, which was really the complaint at the heart of yesterday's rant. Exactly what the connection is, I'm still not sure. What are those accreditation requirements? How much do they add to the cost of law school? Do they stipulate the three-year requirement, or is that just something all schools have decided to do on their own? Also, according to the Princeton Review again, “[m]ost states won't let you take the bar exam if you haven't attended an ABA-accredited school,” so while joining the ABA is purely voluntary, the organization can have a pretty sizable impact on anyone who wants to practice law, regardless of whether that person decides to become a member of the ABA. Beyond that, state bar associations are largely responsible for the vague UPL statutes in many states, as well as the selective enforcement of them. So it's not the ABA's fault if these statutes don't serve the public interest, but is the ABA blameless here? Doesn't it have some influence over the state bars, which in turn have a lot of influence over the state legislatures that make these laws? But whatever. I'm sure the ABA does many very good things, and for that I am thankful. Consider all this a bit of constructive criticism from someone who really doesn't know enough about the details involved. If you can fill in the gaps a little, please do. UPDATE: A bit more on accreditation, including a link to the ABA standards for approval of law schools. Also, it appears Barry University School of Law recently sued the ABA over its accreditation standards, calling them monopolistic and racist. Sounds fascinating, but I don't have time right now for deeper digging...In most states, a law school graduate cannot take the bar exam without having attended an ABA-approved school (or, in legal lingo, a school that has earned ABA accreditation.) And in most states, passing the dreaded bar exam is a requirement for the practice of law, so a degree from a non-ABA-accredited school is a ticket to nowhere.
Posted November 22, 2004 10:12 AM | law general
ai, you should join the national laywers guild, if you haven't already. it's a great way to meet progressive lawyers (that have job openings) in D.C. and all over the country. (nlg.org) and it's a good way to get involved in awesome causes that they're working for. the guild really gives me much more hope for my future profession than aba or any of that other capitalist crap.
Posted by: monica at November 22, 2004 11:07 AM
How is the ABA accrediting law schools different from the AAMC providing accreditation to medical schools? Or the AICPA providing accreditation to accounting programs for CPAs? Or the AACSB accrediting MBA programs? Or the APA accrediting psychology programs? Or even the NCA accrediting four year institutions?
Maybe law school costs a lot because to get good faculty, they have to compete with salaries in the legal profession; if being a law professor only paid $30k a year, what would the quality of faculty be?
Maybe law school costs a lot because in order to provide a solid legal education, class sizes have to be limited, which means that the infrastructure and support costs have to be aggregated over a smaller student body than an undergrad program, or a large research graduate program.
Maybe law school costs more because unlike hard science graduate programs, law schools aren't subsidized by research grants from pharmaceutical companies or the Department of Defense.
Sure, making a program comply with the requirements of accreditation might take some money; however, it also ensures that people get a similar quality of education from institution to institution. Your take on the issue seems to imply that you think accreditation results in costly measures that schools would not have already implemented in the normal course of providing a good education. I'm just not convinced that's the case. Perhaps the requirements for accreditation are borne from the best practices of existing law schools? I don't know, but that's certainly a possibility.
To make the leap that because the ABA accredits law schools, which must add to the cost, which is bad, therefore the ABA is bad is quite a stretch. Correlation does not equal causation.
Posted by: -Dave! at November 22, 2004 11:40 AM
Monica: I do belong to the Guild, and I, too, find its work more satisfying than the ABA's. Unfortunately, the D.C. chapter of the guild is highly dysfunctional thanks to petty internecine disputes, so it's a bit less inspirational and satisfying than it could be.
Dave: Dude. I did not say the ABA was bad. At least, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that the ABA could do better. Your points about accreditation sound good. But like I said, is the ABA responsible for the J.D. being a three-year degree instead of a two-year degree? If so, then the ABA is responsible for a huge increase in the cost of becoming a lawyer. I'm not saying that there's no value in a an accrediting body or accreditation requirements, merely that some of those requirements may not really serve the interests of education or producing good lawyers.
As for faculty salaries, I would disagree w/the idea that current salary levels at top schools are necessary to get quality faculty. My understanding is that many many many more people would like to teach law than there are positions available, meaning that if you cut the salaries, there would still be plenty of people eager to do the jobs. Also, the hottest hot shot with the straight-A record from Harvard or Yale does necessarily make a great teacher. Law schools should reward good teaching, not just good resumes.
But like I said, I'm just shooting the breeze here about the ABA. I admit I poured it on too strong yesterday so I'm trying to find a more reasonable take on this. ABA good or bad? I'm sure it's both. Responsible for high cost of law school? I don't know. Beyond question or critique? Certainly not. If we're lucky someone who knows more about this than we do will come along and set us all straight on what the ABA is all about and its relationship to the cost of law school.
Posted by: ambimb at November 22, 2004 12:10 PM
Point well taken. Personally, I think there are good criticisms of the ABA. I just like to play devil's advocate. :)
Posted by: -Dave! at November 22, 2004 07:44 PM
You'll be happy to know that this is one of the major subjects of my Five by Five, to be appearing alongside yours later this week.
One answer to Dave would be the library requirements involved in ABA accreditation. They require not only that every law school have its own library, but that it be operator under the a Director and the Dean. Now, this sounds reasonable until you think about it a little bit.
Let's say I'm a large, ethical, and utterly progressive organization that, in a fit of poor branding, decides to call myself McLawLibrary. I look at the legal market in NYC and think, "Hey, there's a large number of law schools in this city, and they're running a very high-cost operation: they're not integrated, they have high overheads, and really, they do very nearly the same thing. I'll offer to the Dean of each major NYC law school to provide the same level of service at half the price by buying up their stock, streamlining the management, and making some efficiency improvements."
Good idea? Bad idea? Who knows--the point is that even if I could convince the Dean of Columbia that I could pull off this trick, the Dean of NYU that service would be the same or better (quicker ILL!), and Ambimb that I wasn't about to sell the whole thing to Microsoft, no one could accept it. Why? Because no matter how good an idea it might be, you can't do it without losing your accreditation from the ABA. And without that, you're not a major law school.
Dave's argument--that the accreditation requirements might come from the "best practices of existing law schools"--is actually a statement that should be proven first, before such policies are made mandatory. Because once you've put something like the ABA's requirements in place, those "best practices" become fixed, immutable, and very, very difficult to innovate.
(Put it this way, Ambimb. Would you like LINUX development (or training for developers) restricted by the "best practices of existing operating systems developers"?)
Posted by: A. Rickey at November 22, 2004 10:38 PM
if the NLG sucks in D.C., then i'm sure the progressive lawyers gather together somewhere else. they're out there, and awesome.
but are you sure a J.D. has to be three years? many part-time programs take longer, and is there any prohibition to taking classes in the summer and graduating early?
Posted by: monica at November 23, 2004 05:14 PM
oh, also, i'm glad you say "dude." because i do all the time and now i feel validated.
Posted by: monica at November 23, 2004 05:15 PM
