Pres. Obama says Law School should be 2 years.

[turtlerock]

<p>The Economist published an interesting related article regarding this.</p>

<p>

Making law school cheaper
For many, two years is plenty
The president suggests scrapping the last year of law school</p>

<p>. . . </p>

<p>For most of the 1800s, would-be lawyers (such as Abraham Lincoln) learned the trade as apprentices. Law schools sprouted up late in the century, in two main flavours. Elite universities set up legal departments for posh students; night schools catered to the sons of immigrants. To stop the proles from sullying the image of the bar—ahem, to provide sufficient instruction in the intricacies of the law—the snootier institutions convinced the American Bar Association (ABA) to accredit only schools that required a costly three years’ worth of courses for a degree. It still does.</p>

<p>Most of the basic principles of legal analysis can be learned in a year, and law schools have made little effort to teach practical skills, since firms have historically trained new attorneys themselves. So students tend to fill their final year with classes on curious or obscure topics.</p>

<p>Over the past decade, however, fees have soared, requiring students to borrow ever-greater sums: the average 2013 graduate will be $140,000 in hock, by one estimate. Meanwhile, firms have cut back on hiring, leaving many debt-laden young lawyers unemployed. That has led critics—now including Mr Obama—to suggest that law schools pare their coursework down to two years, letting students save money and start earning sooner. Cutting costs would also allow more graduates to take lower-paying jobs in public-interest law.</p>

<p>That would benefit students, but not law schools. Already suffering from declining enrolment, they would have to tighten their belts if they lost a third of their tuition revenue. . .

[Making</a> law school cheaper: For many, two years is plenty | The Economist](<a href=“The Economist | World News, Economics, Politics, Business & Finance”>For many, two years is plenty)</p>

<p>

@AmericanPatriot1

1. . . . They would also need to take the bar exam, which will delay them from being able to be employed by these firms yet (thus the bar exam would need to be changed around too in terms of scheduling).

The article points out that AZ recently passed law allowing LS students to take the bar exam while still attending LS - so no requirement for a JD or tutorship under a judge. The article hints that many states may follow suit.</p>

<p>

@AmericanPatriot1

2. . . . they often spend much of their 3L year job-searching. Instead of giving them a cushion to job-search while taking relative easy elective classes, this would throw them right into the market mess.

You mean the relatively easy elective courses that are argued as having no real added benefit to an LS student’s practicum of the law? These elective classes on average require the student to take on $25 - 35k more debt. That doesn’t seem like a “cushion” to me. Making $0 is better than losing tens of thousands (plus interest).</p>

<p>

@AmericanPatriot1

3. . . . The 3L year gives the ‘cream on the top’ that has allowed them to extract all they can/need from the academic world.

Yet, according to the article, the majority of LS grads joining big firms are being “retrained” within the firm anyway, effectively wiping out the majority of what the student learned that last year.</p>

<p>I remember going to the School of Infantry for the Marine Coprs not so long ago now. The instructors taught us the textbook styles of combat, marksmanship, weapons employment, and field survival. The very first thing I was told by my leadership at my very first field exercise after graduating that school - “Forget everything you learned at SOI. We’ll teach you how things are really done.” I can imagine the same type of thing can happen in other “industries”.</p>