ABA to government: Let law students take on more debt
Nov 2nd, 2009 by Mark Cohen
We got an interesting press release from the American Bar Association last week that I have been meaning to blog on. The statement in the release is in response to a report by the Government Accountability Office on issues relating to law school cost and access. ABA president Carol Lamm says,
According to this week’s report from the Government Accountability Office, tuition and fees at law schools, and the debt load taken on by students, compare favorably with the costs of attending medical school, dental school and veterinary school, and the debt loads of students in schools preparing for those professions. …
The agency also concludes that differences in academic preparation are the primary barrier to attaining a more diverse legal profession.
Recognizing those facts, the American Bar Association remains committed to addressing law student debt, to broadening the pipeline and assisting diverse law graduates with success to create a more diverse and inclusive legal profession.
Hmmm. Is it really grounds for celebration that the debt load of law students “compares favorably” with medical students? The last time I looked, medical school lasted longer than law school. Plus I suspect your average med school grad might do a little better financially to start than your average law school grad does.
So what conclusion does the ABA draw from this data?
The ABA is committed to ensuring that the cost of attending law school does not become an increasingly insurmountable barrier for many individuals. We are mindful of the importance of making legal education as accessible to as broad and diverse a community of students as possible. In that respect, the ABA urges Congress and the Administration to lift the cap on federal loans to finance law and other professional schools so that all students with talent and desire can attend law school—not only those of economic means.
I’m not convinced allowing more loan debt is the answer, especially given all we’ve been hearing from law grads struggling under their current debt loads. Thoughts?
The ABA is either horribly deluded or downright sadistic.
If I understand their position correctly, and I’d like to think that I do, they’re saying that there is NO PROBLEM with the current disparity between the cost of a legal education (very high) and a law graduate’s earning potential (for most, not high at all). In fact, the ABA is effectively asking the federal government to permit the gap to grow even wider by easing loan restrictions. Ridiculous.
The ABA should seriously consider reviewing basic principles of economics. There is an absolute glut of lawyers in many areas of the United States, Minnesota included. This publication just posted video of another 615 lawyers being admitted to the state bar. Congratulations to them on their achievements, but where are 500 of those new lawyers going to find jobs? I mean, it’s just laughable how much debt students take on only to discover that there is no demand for their services. But the ABA still wants to make it easier for more to get a legal education. (Hey, why not a thousand unemployed lawyers each year?)
Apples to apples or crackers to steak…. I can’t see the value in comparing law school to the medical/veterinarian professions. Not only is law school shorter in duration, but it does not carry much practical instruction. There is no residency requirement.
On the compensation side, I have managed to build a small book of business negotiating contracts for would-be doctors as they graduate medical school. And yes, they do much better than 1st year associates. They also have the option to buy into a practice at around the two-year mark. The upside is much better.
I’ve commented several times on this blog as to the ongoing Alice-in-Wonderland quality of the current law licensing system. Law schools’ self-interest is not served by reducing either tuition or the number of graduates, but lawyers, who created the bar exam in part to reduce competition by creating a barrier to licensure, must eventually come to our collective senses. We must realize that licensing 600 new (and let’s be honest) surplus lawyers into the legal market helps no one. Pushing supply up reduces the market price for representation, and further damages the public view of the profession (if that’s possible) by pushing unemployed new lawyers into solo practice without experience. If the economic events of the past year haven’t awoken us from our slumber, what will?
I’d comment further, but I’m too busy trying to make a buck to pay student loans. . .
MinnPost has a piece today about law students struggling with debt and joblessness in the current economy.
So create a movement to close Hamline. I hear a lot of griping but don’t see any action.
Have we learned nothing from the housing bubble? Make credit cheap, and it will just get priced in. Law schools need to bring costs DOWN, not have another excuse to make those costs higher.
One thought, Anonymous: a movement to close any private school will likely fail because there is little chance for outsiders to apply appropriate pressure.
Public schools, on the other hand, have to answer for substantial public funding. Additionally 3/4s the new attorneys being popped out now have alma mater’s that are competing with this public funding. Therefore, ironically, the highest-rated school in the area may be the most vulnerable.
But all of this is off point anyways because the real problem is with the ABA. Consider two sources of influence to the ABA: attorney members vs. law schools. Do statements like “remove the tuition cap” reflect the influence of the attorney membership or law schools?
Clearly there is a problem when the organization approving new law schools has been so obviously captured by the interests of those same law schools, and not the bulk of the attorneys in its membership. (Many of whom are probably still paying back outrageous school loans.)
This is just another example of our supposedly representative Government being taken over by the monetary influence of organizations. And anyone who’d like to argue that the ABA hasn’t become a de facto, privatized organ of our Government can be my guest …
Oops, I said the ABA was saying “remove the tuition cap” when they said “remove the student loan cap”. But, again, I’d argue the latter will cause the former.
WOW WHAT A JOKE!!
Maybe the ABA should think about reducing the number of law schools, or maybe capping the number of students admitted into law school each year!!
The legal profession does not even compare to the medical profession. At least Doctors have jobs!! How can you justify giving students more loans!!
1) Slash law professor salaries!
2) forgive law school debt.
3) Don’t allow another law school to open for at least 150 years!
The more easy it is for students to get credit for law school loans, the more money they’ll have available to pay for law school. The more money students have available to pay for law school, the more law schools will charge for tuition. Much as I like the free enterprise system, I think the only way to rescue students from insurmountable debt is to limit what law schools can charge IF they are the beneficiaries of government funded student loans. The gouging has to come to an end. As a previous commentor said, haven’t we learned from the housing bubble? Easily available student loans is, IMHO, the chief reason for the huge rise in education costs over the decades versus nearly everything else (sans medical costs). Why do we keep making the same mistakes?
Make private student grad loans dischargeable under bankruptcy. The result will be 1) a severe contraction in private loans available, 2) a large drop in students able to go to law school, and 3) either a reversal of tuition prices, or the alternative, shuttering of a number of law schools as no longer lucrative to the parent institutions.
The contraction would be painful, but the results would be relief for many who have gone before and those still to come. It might restore the profession to a liveable wage.
If you really want to help with the “insurmountalbe cost” then stop raising tuition and stop accrediting new law schools!!!