An Immodest Proposal for Reforming Law-School Admissions

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal ^ | April 3, 2026 | Michael S. Kochin

[karpov]

I am not a lawyer, nor am I a product of the American legal academy. But a patriotic higher-education policy cannot leave the legal profession to the lawyers alone. We all rely on them to manage the legal and constitutional operating system of the Republic.

A patriotic higher-education policy assumes that the goal of government intervention in higher education is to make public and publicly privileged universities advance the cause of America. From that standpoint, there are two features of legal education that need to be taken into account. First, there is the external test of the quality of a law school and its graduates: the rate at which those graduates pass the bar exam and are admitted to the bar. Second, legal education has an important public benefit, as we rely on educated lawyers to represent our interests in court and out of it, draft our laws, and judge our civil and criminal disputes.

The fight about law-school admissions, grown more complex and nastier after the Supreme Court banned racial preferences in university admissions in the 2023 case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, assumes that merit in law-school admissions is sufficiently captured by LSATs and GPAs. The quarrel, as usually conceived, assumes that, apart from merit thus understood, the other central question is how law schools can promote “diversity,” that is to say racial diversity: How can law schools admit an adequate number of black and perhaps other visible minority students?

---

TOPICS: Education
KEYWORDS: attorneys; education; lawschool

[karpov]

I agree that "we should nationalize the rule that allows any person to study for and take the bar exam regardless of whether they graduated from an accredited law school", but the rest of the rules seem like micromanagement to me. Instead, simply end federally subsidized loans for law school. We have enough lawyers.

[neverevergiveup]

"we should nationalize the rule that allows any person to study for and take the bar exam regardless of whether they graduated from an accredited law school"

I think anyone who wants to study law on their own should be allowed to study for and take the bar exam, even if they never went to a law school.

[Reily]

That still exists in some states. Serve an “apprenticeship “ and take the bar exam.

Agree we graduate every year too many lawyers.
Heard this at graduation parties from my day to my children’s.
Question: What are you going to do now?
Answer: Dunno guess I’ll go to law school.

[Leaning Right]

The old humor magazine “The National Lampoon” had the answer. They once suggested that the entire legal profession be abolished.

Then allow barbers to handle all legal matters.
💈

(Funny how I can remember that article from 50 years ago. But I have no idea where I put my car keys from yesterday.)

[sistergoldenhair]

It is supposed that law school is required. That is not necessarily true.However, it’s pretty much impossible to take the bar or get licensed without attending.

[Round Earther]

“I think anyone who wants to study law on their own should be allowed to study for and take the bar exam, even if they never went to a law school.”

Do you also belive that anyone, even those who did not attend medical school, should be able to the boards and practice medicine?

[9YearLurker]

A varsity letter in college athletics?!?

[Reily]

I don’t think that’s a good comparison.

[FlingWingFlyer]

All of this country’s lawyers and judgettes really suck. A lot of them are criminals themselves.

[Cold Heart]

Oregon is bypassing this problem by removing the requirement to take the bar exam.

[StAnDeliver]

"Kardashian, 45, began the process of “reading law,” an unusual path to becoming an attorney that is only available in a few states and involves studying as an apprentice under a licensed lawyer as a prerequisite for taking the bar exam instead of law school. According to interviews she gave at the time, she started this process in 2019, planning to take the California bar exam in 2022."

"It was an unusual path when this attention whore started six years ago, but as of 2025, you can now 'read' for the law in every state of the Pacific coast.

And it is believed there are as many now 'reading' for the law (think of paralegals and clerks who can save nearly half-a-million in law school fees -- and yes this includes illegals, not just LatinX but poojabbers and mudslimes, who could never get admitted to Pepperdine or Stanford), as are currently attending all the Pacific Coast law schools.

Before 2030, this influx of new lawyers is going to crater per hour rates starting on the West Coast, and then flooding the country once they successfully sue to have their law licenses recognized by reciprocity."

ha ha 'lawyers'. S--k it.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

I don’t agree with his proposal but I also agree that the current model isn’t necessary. Frankly, you don’t really need a law degree as currently constituted for many legal practices like corporate, real estate, labor & employment or any other transactional practice. You do need it to go into court.

But many non-elite law schools are getting the message and are changing. Why? Because their students aren’t getting placed. There was a bloodbath in 2009 that lasted until 2012 and then again during COVID. The non-elite schools were forced to start changing. They became much more of tech schools and focused more on coops and job placement. Some became very good at it. The elite schools still have their heads up their a___sses but they probably can do what they want because they place students in clerkships and Wall Street firms no matter what.

[Round Earther]

“I don’t think that’s a good comparison.”

If one is undergoing coronary bypass surgery, one would, without hesitation, select a surgeon who has completed formal medical training.

Similarly, if one is on trial for capital murder and faces the possibility of the death penalty, it is inconceivable that a defendant would entrust his defense to an untrained individual lacking a legal education.

In the final analysis, the defense attorney is as indispensable to the preservation of one’s life as the cardiac surgeon.

[Reily]

Lincoln and other “apprentice style” trained lawyers successfully defended their clients in the past.

[StAnDeliver]

Between PacCoast reading for the law, those mutts winning reciprocity nationwide before 2030, and what Claude Cowork is already doing right now to the legal perfession all the way up to the senior paralegal level, I say...

AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH**koofkoof**AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Dr. Franklin]

That still exists in some states. Serve an “apprenticeship “ and take the bar exam.

It's very few, and subject to many conditions where it is possible. Law profs always say that law is self taught. My reply is that if so, then it should be self graded. Students graduating from a law school should be able to pass that state's bar exam, but that's not the focus of the ABA's law schools. Allow anyone to sit for the bar, and let the best pass. Then the market of students will select the schools that have the highest pass rates even if they aren't accredited by the ABA. End the ABA monopoly on approving law schools, market forces will do the rest.

[clashfan]

You do need it to go into court.

****************************************

That is, to be a litigator versus to be a solicitor.

[PAR35]

I am not a lawyer

Well, I've been a lawyer since this dude was in high school, so I'll make several points.

1) A foreigner shouldn't be lecturing us about patriotic policy.

2) The ABA should have no role in accrediting law schools

3) A quarter of the law schools should be closed. Bar pass rates should be the largest factor in cutting schools. They are cheap to start, and are money makers for universities, but subsidizing universities shouldn't be the purpose of law schools. (It used to be more expensive to set up a law school, with an extensive library needed. Most of the resources are electronic now, so that barrier has been removed.) All you need is a few classrooms with fixed seating , some administrators, a couple of full time faculty, some local lawyers as adjunct faculty, and liberal enough policies to pass muster with the ABA.

[StAnDeliver]

The monopoly is going to implode, but not in the way you are so consistently short-sighted.

These 'read-ins' from CA/WA/OR are going to successfully sue for reciprocity without boards, and they will get the 9th to not only agree but injunct to permit hac pro vice, and that is the END of boards and law schools before the end of this decade. But not the ABA.

HAHAHAHHHHHHHHHAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAkoofkoofAAAHAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

[StAnDeliver]

"1) A foreigner shouldn't be lecturing us about patriotic policy."

AHAHAHAAAAA, etc.