The principle of Occam’s Razor, named for the philosopher and theologian William of Ockham, suggests that "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones." How do we apply Occam’s razor to the current debate regarding the future of legal education?
The current criticism of graduate legal education in the United States falls roughly into three categories: it places undue financial burdens on students, fails to prepare them adequately to practice law, and no longer tracks many of them into legal work.
Here’s the problem. These three challenges appear insolubly complex in the context of graduate legal education. To decrease the cost of legal education, law schools would have to dramatically reduce faculty salaries, cut the number of faculty, and slash support services, such as libraries and career planning. On the other hand, better preparing students to practice law requires spending more money because of the smaller classes required to provide skills training and the need to hire additional faculty who are qualified to provide that training. Last, the number of jobs providing legal services seems inevitably limited in light of foreseeable developments in the market for legal services, especially given the salaries law graduates need in order to repay the high costs of graduate legal education.
Here’s the Occam’s Razor solution. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Northwestern Law School Professor John O. McGinnis and Chicago lawyer Russell D. Mangas recently proposed that the United States should allow undergraduate law degrees that include two years of legal study, with “[a] one year apprenticeship after graduation.” They would keep the three year J.D. program for those who want it.
I would modify their proposal to track the United Kingdom model more closely. Make the undergraduate degree the basic degree. Provide a one year concentrated course for college graduates who want a basic law degree. In addition, continue to provide graduate legal education for those who desire it and for those employers who would require it -- but track the two year M.B.A. model more closely than the current J.D. program.
Under either my proposal or that of McGinnis and Mangas, the three challenges to legal education are addressed more simply than through reform of graduate legal education. First, the undergraduate law degree drastically reduces costs. McGinnis and Mangas suggest it would save law students between $150,000 and $275,000. Second, the apprenticeship year builds in at least one year of skills training. Third, the lower costs to law graduates make it possible for them to afford to work at salaries that would permit the development of new law practices that could serve the large number of low and middle income consumers who cannot currently afford to purchase legal services.
Let’s follow the wisdom of Occam’s Razor and make the basic law degree an undergraduate degree.