A Modest Proposal to Address Tuition

More than ten years ago, then-President Barack Obama suggested shortening law school to two years. Obama is hardly alone, as scrapping the last year is an obvious response to sky-high tuition, yet his proposal has never stood a real chance. With that in mind, I’d like to propose a modification: Schools drop all but the first semester, but, crucially, students pay the same three-year tuition upfront as a lump sum payment. The motivation behind this proposal is to prevent the pushback that has stopped the two-year model from gaining ground. Let me explain. 

The most obvious beneficiaries are the students. To be sure, students would not do as well as under the two-year model because they would pay the same cost as they do now. The benefit is to offset this cost with an additional two-and-a-half years of lucrative work in practice.  

The key is to prevent law schools, which resist the loss of tuition dollars under the two-year model, from blocking change. If my proposal is followed, schools will not only be made no worse off, but will also benefit. With the same tuition, administrators can continue to fund conferences, alumni events, catered lunches, and the like. Meanwhile, professors will be freed of most teaching responsibilities and can focus on producing the scholarship of their dreams.  

Admittedly, scholars would lose the help of research assistants and law review editors. A shift to peer review would be welcome, but since the goal is to get professors on board, rather than scare them with the threat of more work, another tweak will be necessary. For instance, schools might redirect funds now spent on student services to research assistance and publishing.  

Less obvious, but also important, is the support of legal employers. Law firms rely on debt to force graduates into demanding careers—a practice that would be jeopardized under the two-year model. Since overall tuition would be the same, they could still rely on indentured junior associates. 

This is, of course, just a rough suggestion. I’ve kept the first semester in place to ensure that students have time to go through recruiting and acquire key legal skills, but the cutoff can be adjusted up or down if I’ve miscalculated. I also know that some stakeholders will resist my proposal because, although they really are made better off, students spending the same money for less will feel exploited. Irrational behavioral quirks like this sometimes impede bargaining to a Pareto-efficient outcome. But I think my proposal deserves real consideration.