Also, everyone who enrolls in law school is a consenting adult. Why should the ABA prevent people from taking a risk that they understand and accept? It’s true that the very same low-income and minority applicants who tend to score lower on the LSAT will also be most hurt if they are hit by high debt and poor job prospects.Bingo, Ringo. If there's one thing a butt-rapist likes to hear, it's the phrase "consenting adult." When law students get barebacked by a two-headed pine-cone, it's because they voluntarily chose such activities. What, you want a bunch of metaphorical anal gangbang virgins representing your real estate conglomerate?
There’s something uncomfortably paternalistic about saying that the elites of the ABA accreditation committee need to swoop in and save these applicants from themselves.
Once full disclosure is made of the risks and rewards, which every law school in America does in a quaint theory completely unmoored from the gravity of Planet Realism, it's absolutely paternalistic to set LSAT cut-offs and bar passage rates. Heck, it's paternalistic to even have a bar exam. The free market is fully capable of determining good lawyer from bad.
But then we have the devastating conclusion.
As long as the bar exam remains a significant barrier to practicing law, one of the obligations for schools that admit students with low LSAT scores is to prepare a large majority of them to pass the exam. Any school that fails to do so is not serving these students, but preying upon them. The American Bar Association would be right to revoke its accreditation.Far from the paternalism concerns of the previous paragraphs, the writer now is seeking to hold law schools (non-fiduciary, non-principal third parties) responsible for the individual failures of their customers. Essentially, people of this mindset would completely ignore the actual quality level of instruction in favor of evaluating a multi-million dollar institution based on how a few students do on an inherently biased test.
Could you imagine if hotels were rated this way? The actual quality of accommodations would become irrelevant and hotel chains would gain or lose their licenses based solely on how well-rested the guests were on some third-party test conducted right after check-out. Some two-star shithole in Ohio could outsource handjobs and score higher than Hilton.
It would be bedlam, and it's bedlam in the law school world as well. If a consumer wants to purchase five-star law school services from a prestigious long-standing institution like Mitchell-Hamline or the Houston College of Law with well-earned government funding, said consumer should be allowed to do so. The government has no business interposing itself and proclaiming that the consumer wouldn't benefit enough from the five-star services to do some unrelated career that the student may not even want.
A love of education should naturally mean a love of the crony free market in education. For Bloomberg of all companies to even publish tripe repudiating this ideal and obstructing the standard higher education model in America is shameful.
Note that at the end of the article, Bloomberg the organization disclaims that the article represents the views of the company. One should hope so!