Posted on 01/13/2017 6:21:52 AM PST by reaganaut1
On December 19, the U.S. Department of Education announced that as of the end of the year, it would no longer allow students to use federal aid money at the Charlotte School of Law (CSL). The reason for this unprecedented move was the decision by the American Bar Association in November to place CSL on probation because of the low passage rate among its students on the most recent administration of the North Carolina bar exam.
...
Instead of an administrative decree that one (or even dozens) of the schools with low bar passage rates will be denied federal student aid money, the right move would be to stop subsidizing law students entirely. If there was ever a case for using federal aid to encourage people to go to law school (I think not), that case evaporated years ago. It makes no more sense for the government to help a student with a 175 LSAT pay for Harvard than to help a student with a 145 LSAT pay for CSL.
Congress should change the law so that federal student aid money may not be used for law school, perhaps with a three-year phase-out. Schools will then compete as best they can for those students who can arrange to pay for their degrees with money from willing funders. (That would also put pressure on the ABA to relax its rules that drive up the cost of legal education, a serious problem that law dean Lawrence Velvel addresses in this article.)
No doubt there will be attrition among law schools, but far better that it come from market competition rather than bureaucratic diktats.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
My law school doesn’t do financial aid.
Well, it’s a good thing he doesn’t live in California. THAT state has the MOST difficult state bar to pass in the country.
No, too extreme. We do need good lawyers. Any school that has low pass rates should be put on short probation and then denied federal funds. I recall back in 80s when I was looking at law schools, the same occurred at American University. Not sure about the funding, though I recall that they were on probation. This should be more visible and for low pass rates, intolerance (to all viewpoints), PC facism, etc. Bad schools should be put on public notice.
Simply Reinstating the Original 13th Amendment would FIX the Over Population of Lawyers OVERNIGHT and would go A long way towards Saving the Republic.
The Missing 13th Amendment: *No Lawyers Allowed In Public Office*
Alaska doesn’t have any.
I think it’s paternalistic to discourage students from going to law school. No one is really educated anymore without going to grad school. Anyone that graduates from law school is markedly more valuable in any endeavor than previously, to themselves and to the market.
There is no human endeavor that doesn’t need accountants, bankers and lawyers. Of course, there should be no federal grants for students to go to grad school either.
“Well, it’s a good thing he doesn’t live in California. THAT state has the MOST difficult state bar to pass in the country.”
And yet, they elect “lawmakers” whose comulative IQ appears to struggle to reach double digits.
To say nothing of the resulting laws.
The same is true of the medical license exam. The AMA and the ABA are two of the strongest unions in the country. Two of the most difficult exams are CA and FL and one of the easiest is ND. You don’t suppose that has anything to do with retiring lawyers and doctors and the need to control the supply of both in those states, do you?
Whatever it takes, anything it takes and anything that works to thin the herd of lawyers is fine by me. I can only assume it is the possibility of riches that encourages most to attend law screwl.
Right now lawyers are a dime a dozen and most seem to be chasing ambulances or liability claims of any sort or defending against those who make the claims.
Sounds like a racket to me. Sue randomly to create work for your profession?
Abolish the U.S. Department of Education
Probably true, but the issue is: How many? The US has 1.22 million lawyers while Japan has 23,119, yet they seem to function ok in business. If we adopted the British system of civil law where, if you sue someone and lose, you pay their legal fees plus your own, the demand for lawyers in the US would drop dramatically. If you're dumb enough to drive a car with a steaming cup of hot coffee between your legs, do we really need to subsidize the lawyer who wants to sue McDonald's because of your stupidity?
Further discrimination against North Carolina by the DOE? Speaking of thinning the herd, I look forward to Trump’s cutbacks on the DOE.
Law schools are such money mills for universities. They cost a fortune and don’t have many expenses, other than the exorbitant salaries of the professors. Most graduate schools, for that matter, are money mills for universities. I agree 100% that all financial aid for any graduate degree should be cut off. There will still be people getting them but the costs will plunge.
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”, Henry VI, Part2, Act IV, Scene 2
I dunno, they may be right - we certainly have too many lawyers. Personally, I’m thinking some sort of Hunger Games/Running Man or other trial by combat games should be required before entry into law school is permitted.
Why is the federal government giving anyone these “loans”? It’s just more redistribution.
The good news is a bus load of lawyers went over a clff.
The bad news is there was an empty seat.
I would go further. If the case is declared frivolous, the plaintiff AND the lawyer are on the hook for the winner's costs.
There should be no federal money available to aid students at any school. There should be no federal money to go to any school at all except for schools on military bases and for US personnel in foreign venues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.