New ABA Task Force On Financing Legal Education

This will be another exercise in law school higher ups avoiding the issue.

The policy makers who need to be informed are not solely, or even primarily "throughout the legal community."

The policy makers who need to be informed, and least of all by the ABA, are the members of Congress, who need to immediately stop the use of students as conduits to funnel unreasonable sums from the taxpayers to underperforming, demonstrably dishonest institutions.

If the ABA wishes to intercede, it should do so to set strict standards by which its accreditation, which is the ticket to federal student loan money, is maintained.

I am skeptical of any task force related to reforming law school funding practices that is chaired a board member of InfiLaw.

Rearranging deck chairs………

When only a small minority gets the sort of jobs which offer a *chance* to pay off current debt levels, what can law schools do?

ALL the task forces!

How do you measure "underperforming … institutions"? (not going to argue the other half of that description)

Bar passage? Job placement? Are these really about the performance of the institution, or about how many students and which students should be permitted to go to law school?

"I am skeptical of any task force related to reforming law school funding practices that is chaired a board member of InfiLaw."

Yep.

Philip Schrag is at Georgetown not Colorado. (Colorado has Pierre Schlag.)

Colorado also has Phil Weiser.

I'm waiting to see if any of the professors who post here are willing to respond to Former Editor's point that the Chair of this committee is also the Chair of Infilaw. Is there anyone short of Paul Campos among law school faculty willing to say a single negative thing about even the worst of all law schools? Do any of you have a shred of integrity when it comes to this subject?

PaulB: Have you regularly read comments on this site? Then you would know the answer is yes. But I guess you haven't even read the comments in this post, let alone the rest of the blog.

In fact, if you read deeply enough, you'll find a few instances of "law school critics" actually extolling the for-profits because they reduce faculty governance in favor of a more corporate style.

Market forces are driving down the cost for lower tier law schools.

ATL prof, so the problem with the Infilaw schools is that "they reduce faculty governance in favor of a more corporate style?" That's like saying Bernie Madoff was a bad man because he had a mistress. What I am saying is that I'm waiting for you or any of the other professors who post here say that when the ABA appoints the Chair of Infilaw to chair its committee that it has surrendered any moral authority to participate in the conversation. As to the problem being solely one of for profit schools, let's talk about Luke Bierman and how Elon has dropped its LSAT scores by 5 to 7 points in order to keep a school that charges tuition in excess of $37K with an employment rate of 32% in business.

Have you no shame?

PaulB: "Have you no shame?"

Have you no ability to read and comprehend?

I didn't say the problem with InfiLaw schools is that "they reduce faculty governance in favor of a more corporate style." I did not say and have never claimed that for-profit schools are the only problem. I have been a critic of the cost of law school for more than a decade -even before the employment crisis following the economic collapse in 2008.

Did you read my comment in this thread where I explicitly agreed with FE's statement pointing out the problem of having a task force on cost headed by an InfiLaw board member?

I've never really thought the ABA had any moral authority. I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything.

To cut tuition, you need to cut cost. To cut cost, you need, to address faculty compensation, which is a large piece of a law school's fixed costs. But to address faculty compensation, you have to have some sort of faculty performance/evaluation measures with an administration that has spine to enforce it, especially for those faculty that are out to pasture who don't engage in a law school's mission and who will sue for breach of a tenure contract, etc. At this point, I think we need congressional or Department of Education intervention to authorize law schools (and other graduate programs) to have greater flexibility to deal with non-performing faculties.

The current reliance on "merit" scholarships to finance legal education is a moral and economic disaster and I am glad the ABA is finally turning its attention to it.

Merit scholarships are immoral because they result in students with the worst prospects paying the costs of educating students with the best prospects (who are the students most likely to be able to repay loans and therefore least in need of scholarships).

They are an economic disaster because they force law schools into ruinous competition for students with the GPA and LSAT scores the schools need to maintain their USNews rank. As a result law school can't afford to offer need based aid and may have to raise tuition further.

The ABA needs require schools to stop offering merit scholarships. That is the only thing that will enable schools to bend the cost curve and moderate tuition increases.

Former Mayor of Detroit giving financial advice? You have to be kidding, right?

"At this point, I think we need congressional or Department of Education intervention to authorize law schools (and other graduate programs) to have greater flexibility to deal with non-performing faculties."

Absolutely! But, there will be hue and cry in the academy about measuring performance, just as some law profs actually believe there is no way to measure the performance of a law school itself.

Trade schools, and other schools occupying particular niche markets have been refused eligibility for federal student loans by the governing authorities. (This was a topic on another thread, where some seemingly stunned profs asked, in so many words: "Yeah, like when? I never heard about that." … Exactly.)

These enforcement actions can be brought based on the outcomes for students: on the bar, in finding JD required employment, etc., and the level of a school's revenue that is NOT derived from student loans.

If the ABA is wise, it will get ahead of the curve and redirect its efforts to setting standards for accreditation that address declining admission standards, unconscionable tuition increases, unacceptable employment prospects, bar pass rates, etc.

The argument that all woes are traceable to the Great Recession has lost all salience. It is time to act to withdraw ABA accreditation if a law school does not serve its students and fulfill its mission to prepare students to participate meaningfully in the legal system in JD required employment.

Too many law profs still can't figure out what this simple standard requires. Too many can't recognize failure when they see it; indeed, too many can't even agree that measurable and observable failure exists (except, of course, the failure to allow law faculties to run failing institutions without interference).

If the ABA is likewise clueless, then perhaps the ABA is the hopeless resource that many believe it to be.

Among other standards, ANY INSTANCE of the misrepresentation of ANY data, including unqualified forward looking statements that are stated with "expert" confidence that is inherently misleading, should result in probation, and upon repetition, immediate loss of accreditation.

Apparently, for the law school critics the only thing worse than the ABA doing nothing is the ABA doing something.

Steve Diamond, did you read the article?

The ABA "taskforce" on financing legal education is being chaired by the chairman of Infilaw, which, in case you forgot or were not aware of, is the company that runs a few bottom-feeding law schools.

It would be as if the Obama administration were to put Tom Daschle in charge of an "independent" review of the Affordable Care Act.

It is outrageous and insulting. The task force should be nearly completely devoid of law school administrators, faculty, and employees of for-profit corporations which rake in millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars.

And wasn't Phil Schragg the one who stridently defended IBR?

Steve

Cute, but inflammatory, simplistic and incredibly misguided. Your comments always ring the bell for the most unbelievably condescending attitude.

No, Steve. Those are not the alternatives ("do nothing or do what is described").

Some alternatives are spelled out in the comments above.

And, we can't overlook the composition of this panel, can we?

Or, should we accept this latest gambit as a timely effort, sincerely meant to actually address the causes, and not merely once again half-heartedly address (but do nothing about) certain of symptoms of problems that have haunted legal academia all these years?

In short, Steve, is this just politics as usual (yours and the ABA's)?

Steve–It would be nice if the ABA did take some meaningful steps to address law school cost. Instead, the ABA has appointed a committee whose head is chair of a for-profit law school chain that doesn't even manage to be cheap, someone who is also the former mayor of the nation's largest bankrupt city (did no one even think of the optics!?), and appointed as a member someone else who has in the past argued that there is no real problem with law school costs because loan repayment programs will apparently be around forever.

The ABA does not represent the American Bar anymore. Lewis Powell and William Howard Taft weep.

I recently refused free membership in the ABA from some telephone solicitation. They tout 400,000 members. I'd be curious to learn how many are dues paying, non-students. I'd be surprised if it were more than 100,000, almost all in biglaw. I have exceedingly little faith in an organization that once served the bar and the public so well. In the last 40 years it has become politicized, and then focused on side missions rather than its core mission.

What do I mean? Well, the ABA has a standing committee on climate change and sustainable development. It has another on international human rights. Important issues? Of course. Issues directly relevant to the American bar? No.

The ABA has become a law school like pseudo salon of left-leaning preferences on American policy rather than a bar association. Worse still, its dues paying members are biglaw corporate guys, so it avoids biting the corporate hand on issues of banking reg, etc. In short, the ABA is useless. Don't pay dues and don't accept free membership. Even their cles are bad.

Steve Diamond,

Serious question. Don't you think the main topic here will be how to reduce merit scholarships in order to generate more revenue for schools?

No amount of condescension could be too much for the stupidity of the law school haters that this blog permits to ruin every comment thread.

"In fact, if you read deeply enough, you'll find a few instances of "law school critics" actually extolling the for-profits because they reduce faculty governance in favor of a more corporate style."

[Citation missing]

It's true that if you read deeply enough, you can find just about any view, no matter how absurd, expressed by a random commenter on a thread somewhere. (The technical cyberterm for this is "nut-picking.")

A couple of comments:

(1)This committee makes about as much sense as appointing a panel made up of the CEOs of the major investment banks to investigate the 2007 meltdown of the financial markets. Putting an Infilaw hack at the head of it was a particularly audacious flourish.

(2) That said, contra Paul B's comment, there are in fact a lot of critics of the status quo now inside of law schools, and the number is growing all the time. These people vary a good deal in regard to the pervasiveness of their criticisms, their rhetorical styles, their suggested reforms, their general politics, etc. But the law school reform movement is real, both inside and outside of legal academia — and it's becoming increasingly easy to distinguish the sheep from the goats, both within particular institutions and in the public discourse.

"Apparently, for the law school critics the only thing worse than the ABA doing nothing is the ABA doing something."

I would prefer that the ABA do "nothing" than to engage in a whitewash, which is exactly what it is doing. Congratulations law faculty who do not want reform. You have regulatorily captured the American Bar Association. Well done. You care about your jobs more than outsiders care about reforming the legal profession. You win, gold star to you.

I suspect that the silent majority of law faculty have a conscience and care about their students and feel increasingly dirty about their chosen profession.

anon400

"No amount of condescension could be too much for the stupidity of the law school haters that this blog permits to ruin every comment thread."

You are in rare form today! Your comment, unlike all those haters, adds value to the discussion!!! Not a hater, you. No, no, no. You are admirable.

And, apparently, proud to be condescending!

ATLProf: "In fact, if you read deeply enough, you'll find a few instances of "law school critics" actually extolling the for-profits because they reduce faculty governance in favor of a more corporate style."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhht.

Steve Diamond: "Apparently, for the law school critics the only thing worse than the ABA doing nothing is the ABA doing something."

To others – is the fallacy of the excluded middle? Or just a strawman? Or just generic BS?

(sigh) The ABA isn't even trying anymore. Let's just cut through all the political theatre and raise law school tuition (and lower LSAT standards) 4evah.

Remember folks, the prior task force recommended that we also need additional "not-law" institutions and "not-JD" degrees due to the "large" "unmet" "need" for legal services out there. It not like there are thousands of unemployed or underemployed JDs out there who would love to assist because they have student loans, or anything.

Oh, right, legal services are "too costly", and that is, of course, the fault of all those over-produced grads. They should have done their "research", amirite?

As No,breh stated: ALL the task forces!

Paul Campos

"the law school reform movement is real, both inside and outside of legal academia"

Absolutely true. And, it would appear, thankfully and finally, that many are losing interest in the efforts by a few to simply demonize you and others in order to resist change.

Instead, and this is admittedly an impression, it appears that many in legal academia are gaining an understanding that the best alternative to any particular set of proposed reforms is not maintaining the status quo, but rather, instituting other reforms that can garner a consensus.

And, as you propose, I suspect that a consensus is forming that the status quo must be addressed with serious and thoughtful CHANGE.

Every so often, someone enters the room, lifts a leg and sprays. When the smell clears, however, we are left with certain inescapable conclusions about conditions in legal academia that compel action.

Regrettably, the ABA is probably not the vehicle to lead anything like real reform. The key is to use the student loan flow to regulate.

If there is a real law school reform movement, can someone name its members, individual and institutional, and their actual accomplishments to date?

Another anon

Good question. Really. Brilliant. It is impossible within the time answering your questions merits, and would be unproductive in any event to spend too much time answering. But here are a few examples.

First, reporting by law schools is taking a much deeper, and more accurate look at reality than it did before the hue and cry that was raised about misleading nature of much of it. Would you prefer to return to the "good old days"?

Second, more accurate reporting, combined with the analyses of many law school critics has, to a large extent, resulted in more serious deliberation by college grads before deciding to attend law school. To be sure, I can't cite a study on this. However, one can reasonably attribute the sharp decline in applications to a growing awareness that law school is not for everyone, including for economic reasons. Would you prefer it to be otherwise? (Perhaps. S&M, right?)

Third, the ABA task force above-described was likely created because of the efforts of law school critics. While likely an inadequate and misplaced effort (for the reasons stated above) the fact is that it is an effort. And, this is just one effort, among many other efforts, that appear to be in recognition of the truths espoused by those calling for "reforms" of the legal academy. Do you support the status quo in every respect?

If not, what changes would you make? Educate us, dear educator. Light a candle in the darkness.

As for the id of every voice here and elsewhere, I think you know the reason that is a loaded question. But, the efforts of the ABA above could be described as part of an effort to "reform" as are the innumerable studies by State Bar associations that have been cited here in the FL. And, the "watchdog" sites that have grown up to police transparency have also been cited and engaged with respect. And, on and on.

One suspects you know this. Your rhetorical gambit is just a bit too childish to go on much further. You undoubtedly know that your questions were just meant to be "cute" and "clever."

Ok, Another Anon. You asked some really tough questions. There is just no answer to your probing and cutting analysis.

Feel better?

Do you have any evidence at all for any of your claims? Correlation is not causation.

Another anon.

Read my comment. Think about it.

You are right. Correlation is not causation.

How about answering a few of the questions I asked, Another Anon, instead of answering with another "clever" question.

But, before you do, start here: do you contend that the hue and cry about legal education in the past few years has had nothing to do with any of the phenomena cited?

If so, do you have any evidence for that claim?

(See, two can play! Fun!)

The ABA changed its tune when Barbara Boxer started sending angry letters. Then the NY Times ran its series on the lousy job market for new lawyers. Everything changed after that. The blog stuff was just noise. Possible, right? Any contrary evidence? Or do you think Barbara Boxer was reading the blogs?

You demanded evidence, but now present "possibilities" backed by nothing.

Perhaps your comment is intended to be humorous.

If so, very funny! Well done!

And, by the way, you have not even attempted to respond to the questions posed above; your answers will expose your position far better than your comments have to date.

So far, it just seems that you are very confused and angry that there has been criticism of the status quo in legal academia. You apparently believe all of this criticism has been entirely off base and without merit or effect.

If that is your position, then you must be, IMHO, not only angry and confused, but uninformed – perhaps willfully so.

We can't determine this until you make a good faith attempt to read and address some of the reasonable inquiries above.

Read this?

http://qz.com/206705/the-us-lawyer-bubble-has-conclusively-popped/

You didn't answer any questions or produce any evidence or respond in good faith, so stop your childish posturing.

The ABA acted because of the Barbara Boxer letters, go back and read the news accounts. Once the ABA acted, the real employment data started coming out. Then the NY Times ran its series about the terrible job market, and then applications plunged. The timing, together with the wide reach of the NYT, and the fact that there have been many prior cases where front-page NYT stories affect events in the real world, supports that hypothesis.

By contrast, you have no evidence of a law school reform movement, you have named no one in it, and named none of its achievements. It's nice for people ranting on blogs to think their ranting matters. But absent evidence, it seems far more likely that it doesn't matter at all, and that the two events noted above were decisive. Sorry to consign you to irrelevance, but that is probably where you belong.

@ another anon

So, is it your contention that the reform movement had no relationship to Boxer writing letters and the NYT covering the market decline as well? It seems to me that information that reached the general law school applying public (as the reform movement had begun to do at the time that I was applying, as it affected my choices) probably also reached people like Boxer and the NYT. For the record, several NYT articles refer to or quote Campos and Tamahana (just search their names on the NYT website and you will see this).

My contention is there is no "reform movement" at all. Changes (not reforms) are being brought about by market pressures, namely, the huge decline in applications. Barbara Boxer was not reading blogs. Senators pick up issues when they get constituent pressure, so obviously some constituent who mattered got her ear. The NYT did quote Tamanaha, whose book appeared around this time, I remember that. There was an interview with David Segal, the NYT reporter, in which he said he got interested in the topic because of friends and friends of friends who went to law school and were unemployed. Once he got interested in the topic, unsurprisingly he began interviewing people like Tamanaha and Campos. Tamanaha's book definitely had influence and was widely reviewed.

I guess I just don't see any causal connection between better disclosure requirements and market pressure from the decline in applications. Why would law schools (or the ABA) think that giving better data, but data that makes their degrees look less valuable, would increase the rate of applications in response to the decline?

If your point is that there is no reform movement within law schools, I'd have to disagree based on personal experience. There are a real number of reformers out there. I'd agree that we would do well to avoid overstating the force that movement can currently exert. Real reforms are slow in coming in no small part because those types of reforms are (a) often antithetical to the personal interests of a significant cohort of law faculty and administrators, and (b) would require painful and potentially risky financial restructuring by many institutions.

Ha, another anon has no idea what was going on behind the scenes from 2010 and on. Not with the journalists and not with the ABA and not with the Senate. But because it wasn't seen, it didn't happen.

Note that I don't think it had anything to do with comments or blog posts, but a full on strategy was indeed in place. That said, I know that a number of those involved were influenced at times even if not originally by a lively community of concerned students and alumni.

No doubt, Kyle McEntee did it all, "behind the scenes"! Come on! You did useful work, and deserve more credit than most for making transparency about employment data an issue. But the two decisive events were Boxer's taking on the ABA and the Times articles. Crazy scam blogging was irrelevant, and still is.

Another Anon,

I'm confused. Do critics like McEntee deserve some credit "for making transparency about employment data an issue" or was their work "irrelevant"? I don't really see how you can have both at the same time. Even assuming that Boxer and the NYT's involvement were the "decisive events", that doesn't mean that there is "no reform movement at all" that had some impact, as you claimed up thread.

FE

Exactly.

First Another Anon claims that there is "no reform movement" and that "no institutions or individuals" can be named who are a part of it, and then Another Anon proceeds to identify the individuals and institutions Another Anon believes led or are leading it. To deny the existence of all other efforts to spark reform and improve transparency is sort of insane, and perhaps stated here just to provoke and divert attention.

Another Anon's contention that Barbara Boxer, the ABA and NYT have been the leading an effort to institute reform in legal academy to the exclusion of all others is bizarre.

Another Anon also contends (if serious) that the hue and cry in so many venues and the information that has been developed outside the sources Another Anon mentions has had nothing to do with declining enrollment. This is ludicrous. Ask Steve Freedman about that. He can explain the reasons for his posts here and on TLS.

As said above, Another Anon is confused and angry. And, based on the level of projection evidenced in AA's comments, an irrational voice perhaps all too familiar is seen here, whose true purpose may be only to provoke and incite and contribute nothing.

So far no one has identified any individuals or organizations that are part of the "law school reform movement." While there are some individuals who made a difference, like Kyle McEntee, there is no "movement."

Boxer's letters to the ABA prompted the ABA to change the job reporting requirements. The NY Times articles brought the terrible job market to national attention. Students could now see, thanks to Boxer, how bad placement was at many schools. Applications tanked. Schools have been trying to adjust to that market reality. Meanwhile, blog ranters rant and think they have something to do with all this. You can believe what you want.

Another Anon

You are a blog ranter, fixated on condemning blog ranters. Very funny, actually.

Further, the self contradictory nature of your claims has been noted.

As this point, you are just venting, arguing about semantics and basically adding nothing but "You are all worthless" to the discussion.

Include yourself in the worthless blog ranter category, Another Anon. You are accomplishing nothing.