4 ms·

It is easy to teach and learn the practicalities of a profession. But it is the difficulty to enter, the amount of abstract thinking and study required plus the

It is easy to teach and learn the practicalities of a profession. But it is the difficulty to enter, the amount of abstract thinking and study required plus the prestige that gets you higher salaries in the end. It is like saying, look I have made it so far so I am pretty able to do anything if you train me more. If Universities were employee factories then salaries would be lower, service prices would be lower (most people think this is a good thing) and requirements from students would be practically non-existent. Take another example. A 30 year old nurse gets far more practical training than an M.D. but after she masters the practicalities, it is simply an endless repetition. MDs on the other hand are trained to solve problems and in just 4-5 years of practical training are able to do that in a higher degree. Apprenticeship has been established in the service provider's section from the beginning of time, it is hard to beat with some extra classes in the University PS: My first comment on HN, hello to everyone, you have a great community here

jseliger 15y ago
"But it is the difficulty to enter, the amount of abstract thinking and study required plus the prestige that gets you higher salaries in the end." The problem is that the "difficult to enter" is artificial and exists primarily as a way of ensuring high salaries of current lawyers through the law school requirement; Clifford Winston explains as much in First Thing We Do, Let's Deregulate All the Lawyers, (http://www.amazon.com/First-Thing-Lets-Deregulate-Lawyers/dp/0815721900?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957 http://www.amazon.com/First-Thing-Lets-Deregulate-Lawyers/dp...) which is worth reading for anyone interested in the issue. It used to be that one could "read" for the bar and hang out a shingle announcing that you're a lawyer. This didn't seem to hurt anyone except existing lawyers. People are reasonably good at figuring out who might be okay at a job and who won't be; the nominal "protection" they get in the form of law-school credentialing is not that far from the "protecting" they might get from Tony Soprano. P.S. Solid first comment; welcome to HN.
- rayiner 15y ago
  You can still apprentice and then take the bar in California, without attending law school, and that hasn't seemed to do anything positive for the price of legal services in that state. Winston presupposes that increasing supply will decrease costs, but he fails to understand that it's not the ABA that's limiting supply. The DOJ smacked them down in the 1990s for trying to limit supply--the accredit law schools as quickly as people can open them up. Rather, what limits supply is how many students Harvard, Yale, etc, are willing to enroll. Big firms hire almost exclusively from the top 15-20 national schools, plus the very top students at the regional schools. The limitation in supply of those people drives the firms' cost structures. And people keep bringing their business to these firms because they're afraid of losing litigation or screwing up a deal and are willing to pay for the abstract comfort of the credentials.

jseliger 15y ago

"But it is the difficulty to enter, the amount of abstract thinking and study required plus the prestige that gets you higher salaries in the end." The problem is that the "difficult to enter" is artificial and exists primarily as a way of ensuring high salaries of current lawyers through the law school requirement; Clifford Winston explains as much in First Thing We Do, Let's Deregulate All the Lawyers, (http://www.amazon.com/First-Thing-Lets-Deregulate-Lawyers/dp/0815721900?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957 http://www.amazon.com/First-Thing-Lets-Deregulate-Lawyers/dp...) which is worth reading for anyone interested in the issue. It used to be that one could "read" for the bar and hang out a shingle announcing that you're a lawyer. This didn't seem to hurt anyone except existing lawyers. People are reasonably good at figuring out who might be okay at a job and who won't be; the nominal "protection" they get in the form of law-school credentialing is not that far from the "protecting" they might get from Tony Soprano. P.S. Solid first comment; welcome to HN.

rayiner 15y ago
You can still apprentice and then take the bar in California, without attending law school, and that hasn't seemed to do anything positive for the price of legal services in that state. Winston presupposes that increasing supply will decrease costs, but he fails to understand that it's not the ABA that's limiting supply. The DOJ smacked them down in the 1990s for trying to limit supply--the accredit law schools as quickly as people can open them up. Rather, what limits supply is how many students Harvard, Yale, etc, are willing to enroll. Big firms hire almost exclusively from the top 15-20 national schools, plus the very top students at the regional schools. The limitation in supply of those people drives the firms' cost structures. And people keep bringing their business to these firms because they're afraid of losing litigation or screwing up a deal and are willing to pay for the abstract comfort of the credentials.