"One of the ironies of (at one point) anonymously
managing a blog lamenting the plight of
dejected law grads is that I achieved a certain level of fame – most likely the
greatest celebrity I will ever experience in my life.
No, it didn’t amount to the fame of a well-known legal
scholar nor of even some of my other former “scam blogger” contemporaries.
Nevertheless, I certainly never expected to be interviewed or profiled by the
National Jurist or the Wall Street Journal.
It was, of course, ironic because all of the attention was
directed towards a pseudonymous caricature, and instead of heralding success,
it was a byproduct of my miserable condition.
Nevertheless, my anti-LS scam compatriots and I were usually
one side of a story that also featured at least one apologist for the reigning
system – whether law school dean, an ABA representative, or just a general
mercenary for the machine.
In those days, condescending and dismissive remarks were the
norm. I remember one dean bemoaning that LS critics tended to make the most
noise because they were the most displeased. She further asserted that the
majority of graduates were happily and quietly pursuing post-JD endeavors.
We now know this to be nonsense. In the years that have
elapsed since this and other blogs have gone dormant, the mainline media has
recognized that something is amiss as class after class of law grads are thrust
into the unemployment grinder.
The Washington Post, the New York Times, and Slate have all
run stories to this effect. If they don’t fully endorse the idea that the law
school cartel is managing a full blown
scam, they are at least exploring the repercussions of saddling freshly minted
JD’s with mind blowing debt while the schools shout ‘caveat emptor’ and hungrily
look towards the next harvest.
Sure, every now and then an apologist pops his head up from
the trenches in order to predict the imminent recovery of the legal market or
to offer an unpersuasive case for paying the equivalent of three or four
Mercedes for an unmarketable degree.
Nobody is buying it, though."
Even more:
".....It remains to be seen whether the closing of a few law
schools will either result in institution wide reform – more practical
coursework, lower tuition, and fewer semesters – or simply a reduction in the
number of “firms” in this saturated sector.
For the time being, however, law schools have to grapple with
the present economics of reduced demand for their services.
With fewer prospective students, law schools only have two
unpleasant choices: Reduce tuition and hack away at the scam’s raison d'être or attempt to retain the present cash flow
and torpedo the prestige to which these pseudo-august institutions so jealously
cling.
There really is no
other choice. Bread and circuses won’t fly anymore. If prospective students are
unpersuaded that there are ample legal jobs available, no amount of moot court
rooms with mahogany benches and cutting edge technology is going to drive them
in.
If enrollment
continues to decline, maintaining both high academic standards and fiscal
solvency will be a difficult feat. There will be a smaller and smaller pool of
quality applicants, who will be on the lookout for either bargains or true
prestige.
Prospective students
will still be courted heavily with scholarship offers from schools that at one
time would have been far outside of their leagues. It’s unlikely that the
“pedigree” of a top 50 or even 25 school would be enticing in comparison.
As enrollment
tanks, this will be a very costly strategy to pursue. Cutting costs could
mitigate the impact of decreased revenue from tuition, but less impressive
facilities and fewer perks like lavish moot court trips could make law school
an even more miserable environment.
Moreover, cutting
faculty could mean the availability of fewer interesting courses, and a reduced
support staff would likely result in delays in important administrative tasks
(transcript requests; graduation verification).
I’m certainly not
advocating retaining the largesse of the cartel, but for students with
shorter-term time preferences, the loss of such immediate perquisites could
serve as disincentives to matriculation.
While reducing
tuition either directly or more subtly via increased financial aid is a costly
endeavor, sacrificing student quality could be an even more dangerous game.
Schools somewhere
in the middle can tolerate poorer LSAT scores and GPA’s for a while. They just
need to hope that their peer institutions need to make similar sacrifices, and
they can at least hold their relative place in the LS pecking order – for
whatever that’s worth.
While the mid-tier schools can try to wait out the rough seas in their metaphorical dinghies of reduced academic standards – awaiting either miraculous salvation or the final storm to take them under – the bottom feeder schools don’t have such luxury."
