Why is it made easier to become a lawyer than a doctor?

[stacy]

<p>“even graduating from a T14 hasn’t guaranteed them anything unless they’re editing the law review or graduating in the top 10% of their class.”</p>

<p>That’s overstating the case quite a bit. At most T14 schools, employers don’t even get to know your class rank before they agree to interview you (at my school they don’t even see your transcript before the end of your initial interview). Much more than the top 10% or the editorial board of Law Review end up with clerkships, jobs at big law firms, or public interest jobs.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414employment_trends.pdf[/url]”>http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414employment_trends.pdf&lt;/a&gt; indicates that there are eight schools where more than half of graduates go straight on to biglaw jobs and nine more where at least a third do. Of those who don’t go to big firms, many will end up there after clerking, or go to smaller firms that still pay very well.</p>

<p>I’m with you on the idea that most lawyers’ careers aren’t like what you see on TV, but the idea that you’ll struggle to make money if you put in a modicum of effort at a T14 (and probably at 15-20 other top schools) is really an exaggeration.</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>

<a href=“http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414e...ent_trends.pdf[/url]”>http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414e...ent_trends.pdf&lt;/a&gt; indicates that there are eight schools where more than half of graduates go straight on to biglaw jobs and nine more where at least a third do. Of those who don’t go to big firms, many will end up there after clerking, or go to smaller firms that still pay very well.

</p>

<p>Certain people who come in with amazing credentials (SC clerkships, law review stuff, very top of the class) are put on fast-tracks for reaching some form of seniority, and there are fewer options comparatively in lateral positions available in law to try and get under another managerial structure for advancement than there are in finance. Yes, anyone who goes to the top X schools will get interviews and more opportunities, but the reality is that there is an overabundance of lawyers and that makes it difficult for people who aren’t already “elite” to advance. There’s good demand at the entry-level, because S-O was and is huge when it comes to clerical and data mining work, which is what a lot of kids out of school are used for.</p>

<p>My main point is that T14 isn’t a ticket to $300k+ salaries with some seniority 5 years out of school anymore, and most “good” positions just above the entry level are amazingly competitive to get into when x amount of years used to be a guarantee of advancement. If you’re in the top of your class then these doors are still open to you, but T14 isn’t enough to guarantee anything anymore. A lot has changed in the last 10-15 years. I think the practice of law, especially in taxation or IP work, is an incredible skill to have and not enough lawyers know how to leverage that skill and move into consulting work, but yearning to practice law right now and going to school for it isn’t a yellow brick road to massive wealth.</p>

[Greybeard]

<p>To recap:</p>

<p>I pointed out that “The ABA has has historically been much more willing to grant membership to new law schools that meet its standards.”</p>

<p>Tetrishead quoted me, and replied: “The ABA has never wanted to seriously open the door to the law profession, which makes this line of reasoning kind of bs.”</p>

<p>Tetrishead, that’s not a term you should throw around lightly. My observation was that the ABA has granted membership to new schools much more often than the ABA in recent years. That’s demonstrably true, not “bs”.</p>

<p>What are the facts?</p>

<p>The ABA has approved 27 member schools since 1988: [ABA</a> Approved Law Schools](<a href=“http://www.abanet.org/legaled/approvedlawschools/year.html]ABA”>http://www.abanet.org/legaled/approvedlawschools/year.html)</p>

<p>How does that compare with the AMA?</p>

<p>“In 2007, seven allopathic medical schools were in various stages of the accreditation process… The rush is particularly unusual for the allopathic medical school community, which has had only one new school open in the past 20 years.”</p>

<p>[AMNews:</a> Jan. 21, 2008. Flood of new medical schools filling accreditation pipeline … American Medical News](<a href=“http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/01/21/prsd0121.htm]AMNews:”>http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/01/21/prsd0121.htm)</p>

<p>The same article points out that since 1981, fifteen schools of osteopathy have been accredited in the US. (Their graduates can also become licensed physicians, but they’re accredited by their own organization rather than the AMA.)</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>

Tetrishead, that’s not a term you should throw around lightly. My observation was that the ABA has granted membership to new schools much more often than the ABA in recent years. That’s demonstrably true, not “bs”.

</p>

<p>BS isn’t a “term,” it’s a word. Although I guess technically an abbreviation, but we know what I meant. If the ABA wanted to open the law field to more people, to make it easier to get an education in law that would lead to a professional degree, they’d allow undergraduate law degrees. Law schools make money, medical schools make significantly less. 90+% of the yearly operating budget for most if not all medical schools is provided by NIH grants. Yes, law schools are going to be more prevalent, and yes, the ABA is going to have to accredit them because it would be difficult to argue against it–but the undergraduate degree is still their practical barrier.</p>

<p>With regards to OD stuff, osteopathy is a joke. I appreciate the idea of manual manipulation, I’ve seen what PTs with a background in active release techniques can do (to me me for one, although I hate chiros), but you can’t build a school of medicine around it–and most holistic methods are bunk. In America, however, OD isn’t a joke because ODs go through a schooling process that is practically identical to allopathic schools.</p>

<p>I don’t disagree that AMA isn’t predatory (less than 20% of practicing physicians are even AMA members)–I’m saying that the ABA is predatory too, but the predatory nature of the AMA actually makes sense for a reason other than the practicality of salary issues. Namely, that we want medical school to be as difficult as possible, and since our high school system isn’t standardized nationally it is impossible to direct admit from high school without amazing credentials. The AMA may even be more predatory than the ABA (although I really don’t think the AMA has the reach in medicine that the ABA has in law anymore), but AMA = predatory does not mean that the ABA isn’t. I never even discussed the AMA when I quoted your post, I was purely talking about the ABA and the reason that more undergraduates make the move to law instead of medicine (greater prerequisites has more to do with it than too few medical schools).</p>

[Chedva]

<p>

but the undergraduate degree is still their practical barrier.

No, it’s not. The “practical barrier” is each state’s requirements for passing the bar. Those requirements are set up by each state’s legislature. Some do have reciprocity with other states, but nowadays many of the most “popular” states, like California, Florida, NJ, do not.</p>

<p>The “practical barrier” is neither the undergraduate nor the graduate education.</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>

No, it’s not. The “practical barrier” is each state’s requirements for passing the bar. Those requirements are set up by each state’s legislature. Some do have reciprocity with other states, but nowadays many of the most “popular” states, like California, Florida, NJ, do not.</p>

<p>The “practical barrier” is neither the undergraduate nor the graduate education.

</p>

<p>Plenty of trades have accreditation tests–which is more or less what the bar is, albeit a very difficult accreditation test. Not all trades require graduate school. Requiring 7 years of schooling, 3 of which are almost guaranteed to cost more than $150,000 is much more practical barrier than the bar exam.</p>

[Greybeard]

<p>Tetrishead,</p>

<p>BS is both a word, and a term of dismissal, one that you applied carelessly to a demonstrably true statement. You then resorted to obfuscation by attacking an argument I did not make.</p>

<p>It’s like trying to refute the statement that “Bill Gates is wealthier than Tiger Woods” with the reply that “it’s absurd to say that Tiger Woods isn’t wealthy.”</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>Also, OD? Optometry?</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>Osteopathy.</p>

<p>Greybeard, I unfortunately lost an extremely long post in a crash of my browser, and while I do actually enjoy wasting my time I doubt I have the patience to go back through everything. If you’ll allow (this is a courtesy, I obviously don’t care about your feelings with regards to this), I’ll post a cliff-notes version.</p>

<p>(1) Term is technically correct to describe a word, but I’m uncomfortable with you using it to describe any word. A term refers to something else, and if you think that the reference can be a definition then any word is a term–and I don’t really feel that’s correct in current usage. Terminology is a language within a language or a vernacular. A singular (a term, as opposed to terms or terminology) lines up with this view, because while a set of terminology refers to other things, a term also refers to other things. Saying those things referenced are only definitions of the terms in question is saying that all language is terminology. That’s a very Zen statement, but we generally use the idea of term in specifics, which is to say a language within a language. BS can be dismissive, although it can also mean to disregard. I am using it in the context of disregarding. I disregarded your statement, which means I feel it is barely even tangential to the discussion we’re having. I cannot be dismissive to something and disregard it at the same time, because one cannot reject and ignore something simultaneously.</p>

<p>(2) Since you are a fan of analogies, what you’re saying (that the ABA accrediting more law schools = the ABA is more “open” than the AMA, and that is one of the reasons you listed for it being easier to become a lawyer in your first post) is roughly equivalent to saying because a company is larger it is easier to get hired by it than a random company that is smaller, and that the first company is nicer and cares more about whether or not people have jobs because there are more positions available.</p>

<p>(3) While the AMA may also be predatory, they have less to accredit because fewer universities are interested in the creation of medical schools. They are trickier propositions, and more than any other graduate field of study they are funded by the government. AMSA numbers have student tuition at public and private medical schools being worth 3% of revenue, and 5-8% of revenue respectively. The ABA is undoubtedly predatory, because there is only one practical reason and absolutely no other reason to make law a graduate-only field of study. There are a multitude of barriers to graduate school, and they are exacerbated by the fact that a JD is a 3-year bachelors degree masquerading as a masters degree (= horrible financial aid) masquerading as a doctorate.</p>

<p>(4) The field of law is generally overpopulated, the field of medicine is generally underpopulated. I use “generally” to make room for the less popular (public service, working in small towns, etc) and more popular (sports medicine and plastics predominately in metropolitan areas) aspects of each field, respectively. The reason it is easier to become a lawyer is because law school is easier than medical school, and because law school in theory (certainly GPA and LSAT matter in practice) has no “hard” prerequisites, while medical school requires certain coursework (another reason law school should not be a separate post-bachelors field). The reason there are more lawyers is partially because law school is easier, and partially because people recognize that you are further away from making money in medicine.</p>

<p>In closing, we are essentially having two discussions. The first is whether or not the AMA is more predatory than the ABA because they accredit fewer schools, and this discussion also involves the topic of the ABA being predatory, and the second is the topic of the thread–why it’s easier to become a lawyer. I expanded the second to include why there are more lawyers.</p>

<p>With regards to the first discussion, all you have is conjecture, because the AMA numbers are easily explained away by the fact that there are fewer universities interested in the creation of medical schools, thus there are fewer medical schools to accredit. To be fair, all I have is conjecture, but my argument is reasonable (that there is nothing in law that cannot be taught at the undergraduate level, and that the refusal of the ABA to accredit undergraduate law programs is their way of creating the barrier you believe the AMA creates), while I don’t see a point to yours outside of the accreditation number argument.</p>

<p>With regards to the second topic, well… I suppose that’s pretty finished now.</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>

Optometric education</p>

<p>Optometrists complete a 4-year program that leads to a Doctorate in Optometry (O.D.) degree. Many optometrists complete a one- or two-year residency to specialize.</p>

<p>A sample curriculum is available from the Inter American University School of Optometry.

</p>

<p>[Optometry</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optometry]Optometry”>Optometry - Wikipedia)</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>Yeah, I’m an idiot. It’s DO. You’d think I’d know the difference since I saw my optometrist yesterday.</p>

[Americanski]

<p>

While the AMA may also be predatory, they have less to accredit because fewer universities are interested in the creation of medical schools.

</p>

<p>Of course, the reality could just as easily be that nobody even bothers trying to open up a new medical school because the AMA is so unlikely to accredit them. This seems sort of like assuming that nobody builds oil refineries in the US anymore because nobody wants to, not because there are insurmountable regulatory and political obstacles to doing so. But with no clear evidence either way, it seems more reasonable to assume that the relative lack of doctors is a result of successful protectionist measures by the AMA, rather than the lack of more than a single credible effort to open a new medical school in the last two decades. Especially considering the level of demand for new doctors. </p>

<p>

The reason there are more lawyers is partially because law school is easier, and partially because people recognize that you are further away from making money in medicine.

</p>

<p>Even if law school and med school were equally difficult, there would still likely be far more lawyers, because there are far more law school seats available. There are only about a thousand more med students today than there were 20 years ago. It’s inconceivable that this is because there’s a lack of qualified applicants.</p>

[Greybeard]

<p>To put this discussion into perspective, it’s useful to look at the number of people practicing these professions. (It’s imprecise to refer to them as “trades,” by the way.)</p>

<p>According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, a total of 633,000 people currently work as physicians or surgeons in the US:
[Physicians</a> and Surgeons](<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm]Physicians”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm)</p>

<p>A total of 761,000 are employed as lawyers, and another 51,000 as “Judges, Magistrates, and Other Judicial Workers”, most of whom were first licensed as attorneys:
[Lawyers[/url</a>]
[url=<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos272.htm]Judges”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos272.htm]Judges</a>, Magistrates, and Other Judicial Workers](<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm]Lawyers[/url”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm)</p>

<p>The differences are small than one would imagine from the disparity in the number of matriculants to U.S. medical schools (about 20,000 in 2004)
[Comparison</a> of MD and DO in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_allopathic_and_osteopathic_medical_schools]Comparison”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_allopathic_and_osteopathic_medical_schools) and the number of matriculants to ABA-accredited law schools (48,867 entolled in the 2003-4 academic year, with 43,518 graduating three years later).<a href=“http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%201.pdf[/url]”>http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%201.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>One difference is the bar exam is another significant barrier to becoming an attorney. Only 79% of ABA graduates pass their state’s bar exam on the first attempt, and the percentages drop for repeat takers. <a href=“http://www.ncbex.org/fileadmin/mediafiles/downloads/Bar_Admissions/2006stats.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ncbex.org/fileadmin/mediafiles/downloads/Bar_Admissions/2006stats.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Licensing exams seem to be less of a barrier for physicians and surgeons: 93% of allopathic students pass the first stage of the medical licensing exam, compared to 76% of the osteopathic students and 71% of test-takers from foreign medical schools.[United</a> States Medical Licensing Examination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USMLE]United”>United States Medical Licensing Examination - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>About 22% of the licensed physicians and surgeons in the US are graduates of foreign medical schools, according to one observer: <a href=“http://www.texmed.org/uploadedFiles/About_TMA/IMG_Section/IMGintheworkforce.final.ppt[/url]”>http://www.texmed.org/uploadedFiles/About_TMA/IMG_Section/IMGintheworkforce.final.ppt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I suspect that another factor for the relatively small difference between the number of practicing physicians and surgeons and the number of practicing attorneys is the job market. There do appear to be more newly minted attorneys every year than there are jobs for newly minted attorneys. Moreover, a legal education often seen as a decent preparation for a lot of jobs in the business world; there probably somewhat fewer such jobs for which a medical degree would be seen as useful.</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>

Of course, the reality could just as easily be that nobody even bothers trying to open up a new medical school because the AMA is so unlikely to accredit them.

I’m aware that it’s a chicken/egg situation. However, what you consider reasonable and what I consider reasonable differs significantly. You believe what you believe, I believe it is logical to assume that for schools that are already cash-strapped and not particularly spectacular undergraduate institutions the creation of a research-focused graduate school filled with laboratories that must reach the most exacting standards (not just AMA) and will have to derive almost all of its’ operating budget from competition for federal grant money each fiscal year is not a very appealing option. If a partnership cannot be made with a local hospital then schools face the prospect of building their own teaching hospital, which is a guaranteed drain on the intellectual and financial resources of a university.

Even if law school and med school were equally difficult, there would still likely be far more lawyers, because there are far more law school seats available. There are only about a thousand more med students today than there were 20 years ago. It’s inconceivable that this is because there’s a lack of qualified applicants.

If there were equal seats available, law school is three, medical school is four. Law schools can have lower student:teacher ratios than medical schools, and the facilities required for even student numbers between a law and medical school would mean that the medical school would have to be significantly bigger. I have no idea what the failure rate at law school is, although at medical schools it does appear to be in the 5-10% range (higher in the UK?), and this is amongst already exemplary students. It would be difficult for there to ever be more medical students without some serious financial maneuvering by the government to incentivize it.

To put this discussion into perspective, it’s useful to look at the number of people practicing these professions. (It’s imprecise to refer to them as “trades,” by the way.)

It’s imprecise but not inaccurate, a trade is an industry, law and medicine are industries. I wouldn’t go so far as to call all doctors and lawyers very skilled laborers, although it wouldn’t really be wrong to call surgeons that.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, a total of 633,000 people currently work as physicians or surgeons in the US:</p>

<p>A total of 761,000 are employed as lawyers, and another 51,000 as “Judges, Magistrates, and Other Judicial Workers”, most of whom were first licensed as attorneys:

Because law school is not lawyer school (God knows Columbia comes close, though), but medical school is doctor school. Unless kids at medical school are in PhD/MD programs the skills they learn are essentially only applicable to work as physicians. The skills learned in law school, namely handling massive amounts of data and crafting arguments that must be within stringent bounds, are skills applicable to a multitude of industries. JDs can also go the LLM route and teach, while medical school professors are normally also researchers or currently practicing physicians within said schools teaching hospital. It’s more likely that a graduate from law school will go into something other than the active practice of law than that a graduate from medical school will go into something other than medicine.

One difference is the bar exam is another significant barrier to becoming an attorney. Only 79% of ABA graduates pass their state’s bar exam on the first attempt, and the percentages drop for repeat takers. <a href=“http://www.ncbex.org/fileadmin/media.../2006stats.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ncbex.org/fileadmin/media.../2006stats.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Licensing exams seem to be less of a barrier for physicians and surgeons: 93% of allopathic students pass the first stage of the medical licensing exam, compared to 76% of the osteopathic students and 71% of test-takers from foreign medical schools.United States Medical Licensing Examination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

</p>

<p>79% of law graduates passing the bar, and to benefit your argument I’m going to completely ignore repeat takers, is still more than 150% the total number of medical students who haven’t even taken their licensing exams.

I suspect that another factor for the relatively small difference between the number of practicing physicians and surgeons and the number of practicing attorneys is the job market. There do appear to be more newly minted attorneys every year than there are jobs for newly minted attorneys. Moreover, a legal education often seen as a decent preparation for a lot of jobs in the business world; there probably somewhat fewer such jobs for which a medical degree would be seen as useful.

I didn’t see this before I wrote my above statements, so yes, generally I agree. You’ve still yet to manage to prove that the AMA is predatory, and that the ABA isn’t. I actually think the AMA is predatory, so you really don’t have much to prove with me (although your train of logic in arguing for why the AMA is predatory is not really congruent with the reality that starting a medical school is an extremely unattractive financial option for a university, worries of accreditation come much further along), but to think the ABA isn’t predatory just because they accredit more schools isn’t particularly convincing.</p>

<p>I still have yet to see a reason why law should be a graduate field of study. The workload for a JD is heavy, but not above undergraduate disciplines, and it’s exacerbated by the fact that it’s condensed into 3 years. I don’t think you could seriously say a 4 year law degree would be any more difficult than any other 4 year social science degree.</p>

[Chedva]

<p>

I still have yet to see a reason why law should be a graduate field of study.

OK, as an attorney, let me give you a couple of reasons:

1. Dealing with the issues and the personalities involved in most legal matters, one needs a certain degree of maturity not usually present in 21 year olds.
2. The purpose of law school is to teach a specific method of thinking. That does require 3 years in which one is not necessarily studying specifics of a subject matter. That depth of study is done in undergraduate school as one’s major.
3. Many areas of law require specific undergraduate study, such as intellectual property and patent law. That study cannot be melded into law school’s curriculum.
4. Study of law requires the ability to learn a lot about different subjects in order to practice effectively. That ability is honed in undergraduate study. For example, I’ve had to learn the physics of basketball, the structure of the optic nerve, the use and misuse of table saws, the IRS code, how to build a house, the toxic effects of certain drugs, all for the various cases I was handling. And I’ve had to learn these things all at the same time. Without a firm undergraduate education, which taught me how to research and how to learn, I would not have been as effective an advocate.</p>

<p>It is possible that I could have learned all these things if law school were combined with undergraduate school and perhaps extended for six years, but in 4, straight out of high school? No way.</p>

[im_blue]

<p>All your points seem valid, but then why is it that foreign countries have undergraduate law degrees?</p>

[Americanski]

<p>

I believe it is logical to assume that for schools that are already cash-strapped and not particularly spectacular undergraduate institutions the creation of a research-focused graduate school filled with laboratories that must reach the most exacting standards (not just AMA) and will have to derive almost all of its’ operating budget from competition for federal grant money each fiscal year is not a very appealing option.

</p>

<p>First, I’m curious as to where you are getting the idea that the vast majority of a medical school’s budget comes from grants, when the only sources I can find show that grants are responsible for only a minority of med school revenues: [Medical</a> School Tuition: Frequently Asked Questions](<a href=“http://www.amsa.org/meded/tuition_FAQ.cfm]Medical”>http://www.amsa.org/meded/tuition_FAQ.cfm)</p>

<p>Additionally, if it’s such an expensive and daunting prospect to open a new med school, why have so many osteopathic schools opened in the same time period? Ten times as many have been accredited in the last 20 years. You said yourself that the curricula are basically the same, so what would make an osteopathic school so much more attractive as an option? I am assuming that the vast majority of med school applicants would choose an allopathic school over an osteopathic school if given the choice. </p>

<p>

You’ve still yet to manage to prove that the AMA is predatory, and that the ABA isn’t.

</p>

<p>I don’t think that anyone has claimed that the ABA is not “predatory” (I think you probably mean “protectionist,” but no matter), just that it is far more open to accrediting new schools than the AMA is. Obviously both organizations exist in part to protect their membership by restricting the supply of new professionals. The AMA just does a much more thorough job of it. </p>

<p>

The skills learned in law school, namely handling massive amounts of data and crafting arguments that must be within stringent bounds, are skills applicable to a multitude of industries.

</p>

<p>Most of what you learn in law school isn’t even remotely related to the practice of law, let alone other fields. JDs often have better long-term prospects, both in terms of QOL and salary, in non-legal positions, while the best long-term prospects for MDs are probably in medicine. This doesn’t mean that the positions are very lucrative, just that they’re more attractive than doing temp work or working for legal aid.</p>

<p>

JDs can also go the LLM route and teach

</p>

<p>Not only do few professors have LLMs, but becoming a law professor is virtually impossible from most schools, and extremely difficult even coming from HYS. </p>

<p>

I still have yet to see a reason why law should be a graduate field of study.

</p>

<p>Why should medical school be? In most countries, it’s a five- or six-year bachelor’s program. Why should it have to take eight years?</p>

[Greybeard]

<p>OK, one final posting on this topic.</p>

<p>“You’ve still yet to manage to prove that the AMA is predatory, and that the ABA isn’t.”</p>

<p>I didn’t set out to prove any such thing. Let’s look again at the two sentences of mine that triggered your original response.</p>

<p>“There have long been allegations that the American Medical Association has deliberately tried to limit the number of physicians produced by US medical schools in order to keep physician pay high.”</p>

<p>To note the existence of allegations is not the same thing as declaring them to be founded.</p>

<p>“The ABA has has historically been much more willing to grant membership to new law schools that meet its standards.”</p>

<p>I’ll grant that I haven’t proven this statement, although I have cited circumstantial evidence that it is true (the 27 to 1 ratio of new ABA-accredited law schools over AMA-accredited medical schools over a recent 20-year period).</p>

<p>Regarding your statement that “I still have yet to see a reason why law should be a graduate field of study. The workload for a JD is heavy, but not above undergraduate disciplines, and it’s exacerbated by the fact that it’s condensed into 3 years. I don’t think you could seriously say a 4 year law degree would be any more difficult than any other 4 year social science degree.”</p>

<p>Given that you described yourself a couple of months ago on another thread as an “incoming college freshman,” you will perhaps understand why I’m a little surprised that you would even have an opinion on the matter.</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>

1. Dealing with the issues and the personalities involved in most legal matters, one needs a certain degree of maturity not usually present in 21 year olds.

An assumption that cannot be quantified. There is nothing a lawyer deals with that is more complex emotionally than the work a child welfare worker would do, and that only requires a bachelors. The work most entry-level lawyers do at big law is all data mining and paralegal work anyway, it’s not exactly like people just out of law school are litigating capital murder trials.

2. The purpose of law school is to teach a specific method of thinking. That does require 3 years in which one is not necessarily studying specifics of a subject matter. That depth of study is done in undergraduate school as one’s major.

I have absolutely no idea what you’ve said here. Philosophy teaches a specific method of thinking, computer science teaches a specific method of thinking, mathematics and physics teach methods of thinking and proofing. There is nothing inherent to law school study that cannot be done at an undergraduate level, or that requires anything other than a sound mind, a command of the English language and determination.

3. Many areas of law require specific undergraduate study, such as intellectual property and patent law. That study cannot be melded into law school’s curriculum.

Intellectual property does not require specific undergraduate study. There are technical and non-technical aspects to IP litigation. Patent law does require a technical background, but it’s one aspect of law. There are 3-2 joint BA/BS-BEng programs all over the place, generally agreements between LACs and research universities, and getting a BEng is often far more difficult than getting a BA/BS in physics, biology, chemistry or computer science (most schools seem ABET accredited). Many 3-2 students place out of electives through AP credits and can immediately begin study in their chosen BA/BS field, the same thing could easily be true for law. Alternatively a multitude of institutions offer dual degree programs between undergraduate colleges, Cornell is a good example off the top of my head. Patent law is one facet of law, and to look at it and say that as a result law must be a graduate field is not logical. Architecture also often requires 3 degrees (an undergraduate or master of architecture, an march, an march II), but urban planning or structural engineering does not. It’s a specialized form of law, and there are plenty specialized forms of other fields that require extra study.

4. Study of law requires the ability to learn a lot about different subjects in order to practice effectively. That ability is honed in undergraduate study. For example, I’ve had to learn the physics of basketball, the structure of the optic nerve, the use and misuse of table saws, the IRS code, how to build a house, the toxic effects of certain drugs, all for the various cases I was handling. And I’ve had to learn these things all at the same time. Without a firm undergraduate education, which taught me how to research and how to learn, I would not have been as effective an advocate.

The idea that undergraduate schooling teaches you how to think is something I largely disagree with. Engineering filters out students constantly, there’s no reason law at the undergraduate level wouldn’t do the same. If a student wasn’t up to the intellectual rigor of an undergraduate law program they would either take long to graduate or drop it. There are plenty of young people who are capable enough to “learn a lot of different subjects in order to practice effectively.”

It is possible that I could have learned all these things if law school were combined with undergraduate school and perhaps extended for six years, but in 4, straight out of high school? No way.

There is no reason for law school to be combined with an undergraduate college. It’s not a 3-2, it’s not an accelerated BA/BS+MA/MS 5 year program. Law could be an undergraduate subject itself, because there is nothing in the study of it that requires preexisting high-level proficiency in a specific subject that can only be explored sufficienctly at the undergraduate level. The first year for most students is an exploratory period, and distribution/core requirements (not necessarily things I agree with) exist to teach students how to research and write effectively. You do not need four years to prepare yourself for the use of LexisNexis.</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>

First, I’m curious as to where you are getting the idea that the vast majority of a medical school’s budget comes from grants, when the only sources I can find show that grants are responsible for only a minority of med school revenues: Medical School Tuition: Frequently Asked Questions

Federal Appropriations 0.3
State and Local Government Appropriations 7.1
Total Grants and Contracts 31.7

[NIH</a> Awards to Medical Schools by Rank, FY 2005](<a href=“http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/rank/medttl05.htm]NIH”>http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/rank/medttl05.htm)</p>

<p>Practice plans are more than 50% of medical school yearly revenue according to the AAMC, but that is not an instantaneous revenue generator for a new school. I’m curious as to what you think operating budgets are for most of these schools, as obviously not all revenue is directed to the operating budget. From everything I’ve heard the NIH money listed above is heavily responsible for the operating budget of many schools, although I am sure I could be incorrect.</p>

<p>

Additionally, if it’s such an expensive and daunting prospect to open a new med school, why have so many osteopathic schools opened in the same time period? Ten times as many have been accredited in the last 20 years. You said yourself that the curricula are basically the same, so what would make an osteopathic school so much more attractive as an option? I am assuming that the vast majority of med school applicants would choose an allopathic school over an osteopathic school if given the choice.

</p>

<p>I was under the impression that most osteopathic schools do less research, since they have fewer researchers (and fewer full-time staff and specialists) and since primary care work is more popular in osteopathy schools ( [Comparison</a> of Osteopathic and Allopathic Medical Schools’ Support for Primary Care](<a href=“http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1496864]Comparison”>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1496864) ). I don’t know if this is consistent across the spectrum, but I’m aware of the fact that many osteopathic schools that are affiliated with universities that offer MD/PhD’s offer them in conjunction with the graduate biology departments of said schools, not that the doctoral program exists solely within the medical school. Biomedical research is also inherently more expensive than pretty much anything else in medicine.</p>

<p>

Not only do few professors have LLMs, but becoming a law professor is virtually impossible from most schools, and extremely difficult even coming from HYS.

</p>

<p>I don’t doubt that becoming a professor right out of school is difficult, although law seems similar to everything else in that academic achievement in research is the primary criterion for success in becoming a member of faculty. What about fellowships where you earn an LLM for overseeing JDs? I thought those were supposed to be tracks to teaching. Looking through some faculty listings it also strikes me that many people who went to less prestigious law schools for their JD went for an LLM at an “elite” school. I guess LLMs are more prevalent abroad than they are here, then.</p>

<p>

Why should medical school be? In most countries, it’s a five- or six-year bachelor’s program. Why should it have to take eight years?

Maybe it shouldn’t. It’s worth note that in those countries, where schooling from the bottom up is better standardized than the United States (and is why we often have core requirements that are spread amongst a multitude of departments), law degrees are the same length as the humanities, social sciences and non-eng sciences.</p>

<p>

I’ll grant that I haven’t proven this statement, although I have cited circumstantial evidence that it is true (the 27 to 1 ratio of new ABA-accredited law schools over AMA-accredited medical schools over a recent 20-year period).

Circumstantial, as you said. You can say that there are fewer medical schools because the AMA won’t accredit them, I can say there are fewer medical schools because they’re more expensive (in more ways than money) endeavors for a university.

Given that you described yourself a couple of months ago on another thread as an “incoming college freshman,” you will perhaps understand why I’m a little surprised that you would even have an opinion on the matter.

If you’re going to go through my post history, you ought to dig a little deeper. If I had to guess I’m roughly 2-5 years older than other incoming freshman, and I’ve been working in a professional capacity (in real estate, and for a short time in private wealth management) longer than it takes to complete a bachelors degree, if you catch my drift.</p>