“THIS is probably controversial to say, but what the heck,”
said Barack Obama on August 23rd. “[L]aw schools would probably be wise
to think about being two years instead of three.” Mr Obama once taught
constitutional law; his proposal could put many of his former colleagues
out of work. Yet he has a point.
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 limit its accreditation to schools
that offered only a costly three-year degree.
It still requires
accredited schools to offer three years’ worth of courses. Yet most of
the basic principles of law can be learned in a year, and law schools
are reluctant to teach practical skills, so students tend to fill their
final year with classes on curious or obscure topics.
Over the
past decade, however, fees have soared, requiring students to borrow
ever-greater sums: the average graduate this year will be $140,000 in
hock, by one estimate. At the same time, 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, enabling students to save money and start
earning sooner. Reducing the price of education would also allow more
graduates to take lower-paying jobs in public-interest law, or serving
poor clients.
That would benefit students and poor clients, but
not law schools. Already suffering from declining enrollment, they would
not be able to pay so many professors so much if they lost a third of
their tuition revenue. So some schools are trying to reinvent the final
year: New York University is placing students in foreign universities or
in government, while Stanford has emphasised interdisciplinary classes
and clinical training. “We can use that time to prepare them for
practice better and cheaper than firms can,” says Larry Kramer, the
former dean of Stanford Law.
But despite Mr Obama’s words, even
schools that make no such effort are still shielded by the three-year
requirement. The ABA has set up a task force on legal education, and its
commission on standards for accreditation is now conducting a
quinquennial review. Ten of the council’s 21 members come from the legal
academy, which wants to maintain the status quo. James Silkenat, the
association’s president, says he supports “innovation” to reduce
costs—but still believes schools yield “a better product with the full
three years”.
Many advocates for reform are turning to the
judiciary, which sets the rules for bar admission. Last year Arizona
began allowing students to take the test while still in law school. If
more states follow its lead— and if firms will hire lawyers without an
ABA-approved degree, then adventurous law schools might offer a two-year
option.
Or perhaps Mr Obama could tell the Department of
Education to strip the ABA of its role as the federally sanctioned
accreditor if it does not give schools the “flexibility” Mr Silkenat
says he favours.