And with the economy improving and law-school enrollments shrinking, there will be more jobs available for new law graduates.
Many law schools have reduced the size of their classes, to be sure, but this is simply to balance supply and demand.
Our chief concern is that the claims about a crisis in legal education will be the impetus for reforms that will do more harm than good.
Law schools need to teach a greater diversity of subjects to improve legal judgment and decision-making.
And sometimes, the rhetoric of crisis leads to proposals that are far worse than the actual problems we face.
These are quaint examples of bad-assed shilling that exude the type of excellent persuasion expected of legal experts. These have me smiling.
Here's what has me in rip-roaring, rolling-on-the-dance-floor laughter:
Law schools specifically should do more to provide need-based financial aid to students — rather than what most law schools have been doing in recent years, which is to shift toward financial aid based primarily on merit in order to influence their rankings. This has amounted to “buying” students who have higher grades and test scores.
Considering UC-Irvine's origins are as a vanity project to see if a new law school in Orange County could jump up instantly by "buying" a Georgetown-level first-year class, instead of, you know, being the sort of public law school that California may actually need, this is a fucking riot.
I mean, is this not the ultimate drinking-buddy fodder at parties and law dean getaways? Bro, I heard you, you banged twin sisters on their birthday at different times, but dude, listen to this, bro, I gave free rides to an entire class of high achievers who could've gone to Cornell, then knocked the practice in the New York Times, bro, with quotation marks.