Who's at Fault for the High Cost of Law School?
The Government Accountability Office has concluded that the U.S. News Best Law Schools rankings are one the key factors behind skyrocketing law school tuitions. That's according to an October report by the GAO entitled "Higher Education: Issues Related to Law School Cost and Access."
The GAO said that, "according to law school officials, the move to a more hands-on, resource-intensive approach to legal education and competition among schools for higher rankings appear to be the main factors driving the cost of law school, while ABA accreditation requirements appear to play a minor role. Additionally, officials at public law schools reported that recent decreases in state funding are a contributor to rising tuition at public schools."
In addition, the GAO points out that "officials at most of the ABA-accredited law schools we spoke with and student representatives reported that schools compete to attract students and faculty and to increase their U.S. News and World Report ranking. This competition has had an impact on cost because: Rankings are determined in part by such cost-related factors as per student expenditures, student-faculty ratio, and library resources; according to law school officials, schools offer clinics and diverse elective courses to compete for students; to attract the best faculty, school officials reported that they may offer higher salaries."
There are weaknesses in the report's methodology. The GAO primarily relied on the views of a very small number of law school academic insiders and the American Bar Association. The law school academic community should have taken more direct responsibility for its own administrative actions that boost tuitions. Many legal educators believe that the ABA's accreditation process, which has numerous standards for faculty and school facilities, plays a far more significant role in adding to the rising cost of legal education than GAO gives it credit for.
The GAO did not mention another factor that is increasing tuitions: Many law schools are viewed as "cash cows" at universities. The central administration of each university gives a portion of a law school's tuition dollars to other parts of campus, and the law school has to run the school on less than the full amount the students paid.
The GAO also did not point out that law is a very popular, high-demand profession with high starting salaries. That has meant that law schools have had little resistance when they raised tuitions.
The GAO did not seek or receive input from U.S. News for its report.
The report is causing a great stir in the legal blogosphere:
- Tax Prof: GAO: U.S. News Rankings, Not Accreditation, Key Driver of Law School Tuition
- ABA Journal: GAO Puts Blame on US News Rankings for High Law School Tuition
- Above the Law: New Villain in Law School Debt Tragedy
- The Chronicle of Higher Education: Law-School Cost Is Pushed Up by Quest for Prestige, Not Accreditation, GAO Survey Finds
- Huffington Post: While Law School Tuition Skyrockets, Government Student Loan Limits Remain Stagnant
- Inside Higher Ed: GAO Plays Down Accreditation's Role in Driving Up Law School Prices
- The Shark: More Rankings, More Problems: US News to Blame for High Tuition
- University of Chicago Faculty Blog: Law School Costs at the Margin
Searching for a college? Get our complete rankings of America's Best Colleges.
Tags: graduate schools | law school | tuition | rankings | paying for college | paying for graduate school
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (5) | Print
Reader Comments
USNWR Rankings DOES influence ....
.... the incentives according to which law school act. To ignore this would be foolish. However, this is the one time I side with USNWR (for the most part). A lot of the law schools outside the 30-40 elite institutions do, as Bob Morse asserted, function as "cash cows." The recent upheaval at DePaul University, where close to 25% of law students' tuition revenue is raided, is a good example. USNWR, if it does anything, serves as a check AGAINST raiding revenues by giving schools credit for spending more money on the law school.
That being said, there is no doubt that USNWR is partly responsible for the sky rocketing tuition at UC law schools. Contrary to popular opinion, UC law schools lost much of their public funding during the budget crisis of 2003 and have been operating at a disadvantage to peer institutions since that time. UCLA and Boalt were justifiably aggrieved that their standing suffered in the rankings as a result. The current move to 'market pricing' was part of a plan approved back in 2006, and not in response to the current fiscal disaster.
USNWR's law school rankings are deeply flawed and create perverse incentives, but this (overhead$/student) isn't one of them.
Some possible improvements.....
(1) Get ride of the acceptance rate, as a selectivity metric. 'Purchase decisions' are easily measured by the LSAT/GPA of the incoming classes. I see no reason to penalize a school for not receiving a truckload of applications from sub-par applicants. Moreover, this metric is easily fudged. Its no secret that NYU and UVA send fee waivers to people so that they can reject them.
(2) Get rid of the employment numbers. Working at Starbucks should not count as much as working at a law firm. Instead, report the median private sector salary for graduates, i.e. exclude clerkships, government and public interest employment from this pool. People aren't going to take on $100K in debt for a school where the median private sector salary is $40K.
(3) Give more weight to grant aid offered by schools. If USNWR is going to reward skyrocketing tuition, maybe start rewarding schools more for making the experience affordable.
Professors teach half time
I am a former law school instructor and my weekly teaching load was 6 hours of classroom instruction and 5 office hours. I was expected to spend about 1/2 of my time on research. The same expectations applied to professors. Therefore, it seems to me that about 1/2 of law school tuition is going to pay for faculty research and publication. And I have great doubts about how much of the published research is ever read by anyone. So one way to get the tuition down is to make the teachers teach more and do less research. I do not think the legal academic community or practicing lawyers would suffer.
laughable
I think this is a laughable claim by the GAO. It is akin to saying that restaurant reviews influence the price of an evening out at a fine establishment. Sure there are costs associated with improving the 'services' of an educational program, but at the end of the day it is the institution itself that sets the price tag.
advertisement
