November 19, 2011
Akhil Amar & Ian Ayres: Law Schools Should Pay Students to QuitAkhil Amar (Yale) & Ian Ayres (Yale), Paying Students To Quit Law School (Slate):
A crisis is threatening legal education. In constant dollars, tuition at private law schools nearly tripled over the last quarter century. Many a graduate faces a six-figure debt and can’t find a job paying enough to service that debt. Especially troubling are allegations that some schools admit students they know are unlikely to repay their loans--leaving taxpayers (who guarantee some of these loans) holding the bag. ... [W]e have a few ideas for dramatic reform.
First, give applicants better information about how past graduates have fared. All students who received federal loans should be required to report whether they passed the bar as well as their annual salary for the first 10 years after graduation. Law schools should be required to disclose this information in a standardized format, enabling applicants to better assess what their degree will be worth, long-term. This reform directly addresses the current problem of woefully incomplete disclosure. Law schools usually only report how well their most successful students do, and only for the first year after graduation. ...
But more transparent information at the threshold of law school is only the start. Many an entering student believes that he will beat the odds and win the lottery. Once in law school, many may be inclined to double down on a bad bet unless schools intentionally structure a system of sober second thought.
Consider the innovative employment policy of the Internet shoe seller Zappos. At the end of a four-week training course, Zappos offers new employees a one-time offer of $3,000 to quit. In part, the company uses the offer as a screening device. If you’re the type who prefers a quick three grand to the opportunity to work at a great company, then Zappos isn’t the place for you.
Law schools might analogously offer to rebate half of a student’s first-year tuition if the student opts to quit school at the end of the first year. (If the student has taken out government loans, this rebate would first go to repay this debt.) A half-tuition rebate splits the loss of an aborted legal career between the school and the student. Each has skin in the game, so students will not go to law school lightly, and law schools will have better incentives not to admit students likely to fail.
The idea is to mark the end of the first year, after students have received their grades, as a salient decision-making point. At that time, students will have learned more about their legal abilities and inclinations. Law schools will also have learned more about each student’s abilities, and schools could now disclose how previous students with similar first-year grades fared after graduation. Students accepting the offer would be choosing to quit not just their school, but the pursuit of a law degree. ...
After a few years, law schools could disclose what proportion of students, with varying grade profiles, accepted the rebate offer. They could even disclose the salaries of the former students who had accepted the rebate offer and left the school. This comparative disclosure would provide applicants with powerful new information to make better decisions about whether to continue their legal careers.
In making this proposal, we might be accused of having an institutional conflict of interest. We’re pretty confident that few students at Yale (like few employees at Zappos) would take the bribe to quit early. But if we’re right, this is something about which to be proud. If 20% of the students at another school took the offer, applicants might think twice before enrolling. And if the percentage taking the rebate becomes too large, government should think twice before lending. ...
We’re lobbying our dean to unilaterally offer our students a bribe to quit. Like Zappos, Yale could gain a first-mover advantage.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Akhil Amar & Ian Ayres: Law Schools Should Pay Students to Quit:
Silly article. Schools like Yale have a large endowment and can afford to give everyone a free ride to law school if they wanted to (but they don't). Or give refunds whenever they want to. Or give loans directly to students without worrying about whether they can pay back. Most schools are not in that position. Yale is always going to be #1 in US News because the rankings favor rich schools; they do not have to actually be good at teaching students. It is another message from the top schools saying "all the schools behind us in the rankings should be shut down."
Posted by: Jester | Nov 20, 2011 8:47:42 AM
All degrees should require this kind of candid rigor.
Posted by: blitznstitch | Nov 21, 2011 1:39:30 PM
While the title of the article misleads somewhat, the underlying proposition that we need to readjust the risk and incentive structures within law school admissions is sound.
The article then proposes one mechanism for operationalizing the principle that law schools (LS) and not only students need to bear a risk of financial loss for marginal students who do not reach median performance standards after the first year.
Further thought and tweaking would be needed to ensure the proposal not return law to a profession of affluent Caucasian males.
Posted by: Candice Hoke | Nov 21, 2011 3:09:07 PM