That's a good write-up on the benefits of law school. My biggest problem with the current structure of JD programs isn't that they're useless, but that they're

That's a good write-up on the benefits of law school. My biggest problem with the current structure of JD programs isn't that they're useless, but that they're mandatory. For instance, you can make a case that majoring in Computer Science is a better than majoring in Math if you want to be a programmer, but you can't legally prohibit math majors from writing code. I'd like to see alternatives to JD programs. I think that a lot of the core skills you described are certainly developed in good law schools, but they are also developed well in lots of different academic paths. For instance, suppose someone double majored in mathematics and english literature with exceptional grades, followed it up with a grad degree. Should that person be forced to go through three years of law school? If this person were allowed to pass the bar and was able to do so, should we deny him or her the right to enter the profession? Would this person be ready with a one year course of study (maybe a master's degree)? Even if it would be "better" for this person to do the full JD, is it worth the additional time and money (and deterrence)? Are we better off as a society if this person gives up on law? (People who hold JDs are probably better off, which of course has a lot to do with how rigorously the JD is enforced as barrier to entry). There's a big difference between defending the JD as a good way to prepare for a career in law and defending the JD as the only way to enter the legal profession.