The ABA is Broken

According to a recent study by the ABA's Commission on Loan Repayment and Forgiveness, law school costs too much and it's hurting the legal profession [link may require subscription]:

Between 1992 and 2002, the report noted, the cost of living in the United States rose 28 percent, and average tuition at public law schools jumped 134 percent, to $9,252, for in-state students, and 100 percent, to $18,131, for out-of-state students. Tuition at private law schools increased 76 percent, to $24,920, during the same period. ... In 2002, the average starting salary for lawyers in private practice was $90,000, more than twice the $36,000 average for public-interest jobs.

No kidding? Here's what the ABA recommends to change the situation:

Congress should enact legislation, or the U.S. Department of Education should change existing regulations, to forgive income-contingent loans sooner and to eliminate provisions of those loans that amount to a marriage penalty.

More law schools should create their own loan-forgiveness programs, along with scholarships and fellowships for students who choose public-service jobs.

State and local bar associations should create or expand loan-forgiveness programs.

Here's a better idea: Make law school 2 years instead of three and put a cap on tuition. I'm sorry, but when most law school classes hold 150 or more students, I can't see how the costs of professors' salaries and infrastructure could require each of those students to be paying $30k/year for the privilege of being in class. You could also eliminate the costs of doing legal research by creating a public domain research service that will put Lexis-Nexis out of business, which would cut costs dramatically for both law schools and practicing lawyers. I'm sure there are other ways the system could be reformed, but judging by this report, the ABA doesn't seem too serious about it. Tell me again why the ABA exists?

Oh yeah. The legal world and I are going to be best friends, aren't we?

Posted 09:52 AM | Comments (1) | law general law school

Racing to the Bottom

Phillip Greenspun's brilliant satire strikes again, this time on the subject of unfair trade policies. Greenspun asks: "Why can't we buy a Chinese house at Walmart?"

How about this for a brilliant business idea:  clearcut a Canadian forest (they love to cut down trees in British Columbia) and ship the lumber to China, build modular houses there and ship the completed houses back to the U.S. in container ships.  Sell them at Walmart (they'll sell anything Chinese-made at Walmart).  The quality won't be quite as good as the best custom homes in the U.S. but it will be good enough and when things start to get creaky in 20 years you can throw the house out and buy a new one at Walmart or Home Depot.

Yeah, why don't we do that? But really, why do we keep messing around? While we're clear-cutting Canadian forests, why don't we just invade Canada, enslave the populace, and force Canadian labor to build us anything we want? Think of what we'd save on shipping!

Posted 09:24 AM | general politics