Among the words and phrases used in Allen Mendenhall's opinion-slam (not all by the author himself) about the bar exam are the following:
- restricts access to a particular vocation
- reduces market competition
- products of big-city politics
- ugly history
- paternalistic response
- consumer above all who is harmed
- archaic rules
- anticompetitive practices
- apprenticeship model
- Amazon, eBay, Uber and Airbnb
- sheer ubiquity and immediacy of reputation markets
- legal cartel
- hazing rituals
- meaningful change
With legal practice in many places shifting more and more to form documents over what our predecessors did, it makes me wonder if we can't use Mad Lib-style formulae for various propaganda pieces!
Here, I'll try a few:
Form sentence: The [thing jeopardizing law school profits] needs reform because it unfairly discriminates against [sub-set of lawyers or law students].
Filled-in sentence: The LSAT needs reform because it unfairly discriminates against prospective students with reasoning deficiencies.
Another filled-in sentence: The usage of nine-month employment statistics needs reform because it unfairly discriminates against schools whose students voluntarily choose to be unemployed, like women who have children and who may also be Jewish lesbian African-Americans or something.
Form Sentence: We must [Cold War verb] the [threat] because it obstructs our [politically-favorable adjectival phrase] ideals.
Filled-in sentence: We must eradicate the bar exam because it obstructs our free-market ideals.
Another filled-in sentence: We must neutralize the US News Rankings because it obstructs our Constitutional justice-driven ideals.
I can even foresee this style of form argumentation finding a welcome place in many contexts. To wit:
Form Sentence: The [socially-negative thing] is/are [bad adjective] because it/they [synonym for "holds back"] people who [activity related to socially-negative thing that expresses freedom from tyrannical government] while aiding the [industry] cartel.
Filled-in sentence: The OSHA rules are defective because they restrain people who contract for a fair market wage working twenty-hour shifts in a third-world sweatshop while aiding the safety cartel.
Another filled-in sentence: The residency requirement for surgeons is nefarious because it imprisons people who want to try a laparoscopic appendectomy after watching one on youtube while aiding the anti-home medicine cartel.
And another: The lawyer cartel is cartel-like because it cartelizes against people who want to break the cartel by offering mergers and acquisitions work for $100 flat fees while aiding the legal cartel.
As an aside, I would like to note that libertarianism and mainstream academic liberalism may seem like odd bedfellows, particularly given the academy's reliance on government-guaranteed loans to survive. But the fact that incompatible political ideas are being mashed together simply shows the sheer ubiquity of anti-anti-law school beliefs.
After all, if law school were such a bad idea, the internet would allow for rapid consumer response, and people would be avoiding law school altogether. Yet, several years post recession and scamblog era, and matriculations are down only by modest percentages. Just as those same market forces can rid the country of a bad lawyer before any serious damage is done like someone going to prison or having an estate botched, they, too, can correct for law schools being "bad." Since seats are being filled, the market for law school seats is strong.