EDIT: It should be noted that I completely fail, and seem to have fallen victim to an April Fool's prank, and not realized for, like, forever. Wow. (Although, I don't think the idea of online legal education is ridiculous enough to make a good April Fool's prank, but still...)
Eric E. Johnson is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota and author of Blog Law Blog, which I actually quite enjoy. In fact, you can find BLB on the blogroll at right.
However, I feel compelled to call Professor Johnson out for a bit of a ridiculous post on Prawfs Blawg.
In it, he bemoans a new rule propagated by the American Bar Association (Rule 304(g)) which would allow for online institutions to become accredited law schools. Professor Johnson, says:
What objections could someone who seems to support trade liberalization have to this freeing of the legal education market? "I feel like this happened without the kind of considered, deep thinking that the topic deserved." That's it. That's all.
Professor Johnson ends on the weirdest point of all: "It also makes me think that if the AALS were in charge of law school accreditation, this never would have happened."
For those not familiar with the lingo, the AALS is the American Association of Law Schools. So, if the American Association of Law Schools were in charge of accreditation for new law schools, would we see a loosening of regulations surrounding them? Probably not ...
Of course, if we let the Bakery Owner's Association control zoning for new bakeries, we'd probably have pretty strict zoning laws. And if we let Congress set high qualification requirements for non-incumbents, we would probably see pretty high standards for that too.
Self-regulation of an industry by itself is never a good idea. The ABA is already way too invested in things to be a good regulator, but the idea of letting the AALS control things is even more ridiculous.
Eric E. Johnson is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota and author of Blog Law Blog, which I actually quite enjoy. In fact, you can find BLB on the blogroll at right.
However, I feel compelled to call Professor Johnson out for a bit of a ridiculous post on Prawfs Blawg.
In it, he bemoans a new rule propagated by the American Bar Association (Rule 304(g)) which would allow for online institutions to become accredited law schools. Professor Johnson, says:
I understand the strong economic arguments for trade liberalization, and I couldn't blame law students for considering alternative educational opportunities that could radically lower their tuition billsHowever, he still objects to this proposal. Which, of course, may threaten his job – or at least his salary – if online law schools lower the demand for more traditional legal education.
What objections could someone who seems to support trade liberalization have to this freeing of the legal education market? "I feel like this happened without the kind of considered, deep thinking that the topic deserved." That's it. That's all.
Professor Johnson ends on the weirdest point of all: "It also makes me think that if the AALS were in charge of law school accreditation, this never would have happened."
For those not familiar with the lingo, the AALS is the American Association of Law Schools. So, if the American Association of Law Schools were in charge of accreditation for new law schools, would we see a loosening of regulations surrounding them? Probably not ...
Of course, if we let the Bakery Owner's Association control zoning for new bakeries, we'd probably have pretty strict zoning laws. And if we let Congress set high qualification requirements for non-incumbents, we would probably see pretty high standards for that too.
Self-regulation of an industry by itself is never a good idea. The ABA is already way too invested in things to be a good regulator, but the idea of letting the AALS control things is even more ridiculous.
I would actually disagree with you with that letting AALS control things is more ridiculous. No matter what, the accrediting organization is, in theory supposed to refrain from protectionist practices and is subject to governmental oversight. However, in practice, both organizations have strong incentives to set high qualifications for accreditation so as to reduce the competition for their current members. The fact that the ABA draws from the lawyers, while the AALS draws from the law schools, does not fundamentally change that in both cases, the group is placed as the gatekeeper to their own competiton.
ReplyDeleteOn the question of online law schools, I think that as with foreign law schools, if they meet the other accreditation requirements, there is no reason why their online or foreign nature should disqualify them from accreditation.
As I said, I don't disagree that the ABA is a poorly incentivized regulator. However, I still think that the AALS would be worse.
ReplyDeleteThe ABA is a bit further removed from conflicts of interest. It's members are only a portion of the American legal community, and the opening of new law schools has an indirect and dispersed effect on those members' financial interests.
New, low standards schools are more likely to produce graduates who can't pass the bar. Those who do pass the bar will likely end up in the lower end of the legal market, which is inhabited by lawyers who don't form the power structure of the ABA. Sure, more lawyers in general means lower prices for legal services, but the legal market is so bifurcated that flooding it with poorly trained attorneys isn't going to have much of an effect on the lawyers who actually make the big money.
Law schools, however, don't have the added layer of protection that the bar exam provides. And my impression of law schools is that they're part of a much more equal market. Other than the top, national law schools (which could probably charge 30 years of indentured servitude for tuition and still get students), law schools are on a more or less equal footing. In that sort of market, low-standards, low-cost institutions pose a much greater threat to a much more significant part of the AALS's membership than the analogous lawyers do to the ABA's market.
I'm rambling, so I'll end with this: the ABA is an interest group representing individuals, while the AALS represents organizations. My guess is that the latter is more easily captured by the interests of its constituents.