There
are
many
reasons
that
law
schools
cost
a
shit
ton
of
money
to
attend.
Books
are
expensive
and
inflation
plays
a
role,
but
the
largest
contributing
factors
are
a
combination
of
easy
money
in
the
form
of
federal
loans
for
grad
school
and
high
overhead
—
like
paying
professors
six
figures
to
teach
from
those
pricey
books
we
mentioned
earlier.
And
while
I’m
usually
for
whatever
cost-saving
solutions
people
proffer
to
fix
the
cost
of
learning
crisis,
the
most
recent
solution
from
the
FTC
doesn’t
really
seem
like
it
would
move
the
needle
much.
Reuters
has
coverage:
The
U.S.
Federal
Trade
Commission
on
Tuesday
called
the
American
Bar
Association’s
accreditation
of
law
schools
a
“monopoly”
that
increases
the
cost
of
a
law
degree
and
limits
the
supply
of
new
lawyers.
…
The
FTC
said
the
organization
requires
law
schools
to
“conform
to
controversial
ideological
views
prevalent
among
the
legal
elitists.”
It
cited
the
ABA’s
diversity
and
inclusion
rule
for
schools,
which
requires
law
schools
to
demonstrate
their
commitment
to
diversity
in
recruitment,
admissions
and
programming.
The
rule
has
been
suspended
since
February,
and
the
ABA
has
proposed
eliminating
it
altogether.
First,
let’s
get
in
to
the
FTC’s
cost
increasing
monopoly
designation.
Is
it
a
monopoly?
I
mean
yeah
—
it
is
the
only
recognized
law
school
accreditation
hander-outer,
but
merely
being
a
monopoly
doesn’t
justify
antitrust
intervention.
Some
monopolies,
natural
ones
for
example,
are
so
good
at
doing
what
they
do
that
their
normal
function
is
actually
beneficial
to
consumer
interests.
The
ABA
is
a
good
example
—
the
Department
of
Education
has
long
recognized
the
ABA
as
the
national
accreditor
of
law
schools,
hinging
loan
eligibility
on
attending
ABA
accredited
schools.
When
the
ABA
lets
people
know
which
schools
are
actually
good
at
getting
their
students
to
pass
the
bar,
students
are
more
likely
to
make
better
investments
and
the
government
is
more
likely
to
recoup
on
the
student
loan
money
once
the
graduate
gets
that
nice
Biglaw
job.
That
saves
consumers
money.
Might
be
a
monopoly,
but
everyone
wins;
it
is
a
waste
of
time
and
resources
to
go
after
a
model
like
that.
An
issue
only
arises
if
the
monopoly
is
operating
in
ways
that
are
anti-competitive
and
the
reasons
the
FTC
give
just
don’t
get
at
that.
To
the
argument
that
the
ABA
is
anti-competitive
because
it
limits
the
supply
of
new
lawyers,
you’ve
got
the
wrong
guy.
The
ABA
requires
law
schools
to
disclose
their
sizes,
but
it
does
not
set
minimum
or
maximum
class
size
—
bottlenecks
in
lawyer
output
have
more
to
do
with
how
many
students
law
schools
admit
than
it
does
with
the
ABA.
Blame
U.S.
News
for
the
fixation
on
class
sizes.
And
to
the
point
that
the
ABA
is
anti-competitive
because
it
encouraged
policies
that
tend
against
White
male
only
classes,
that’s
just
good
economics!
Diversification
is
just
a
normal
consequence
of
Capitalism
and
globalizing
markets
that
benefits
consumers.
A
commitment
to
diversity
has
purely
economic
benefits
with
more
long
term
value
than
whatever
pennies
could
be
saved
by
a
demographic
suggestion.
But
more
to
the
point,
that
rule
hasn’t
been
in
effect
for
nearly
a
year,
and
is
likely
on
its
way
permanently
out
of
the
door.
The
real
explanation
for
why
the
FTC
would
pick
now
to
go
after
the
ABA
has
nothing
to
do
with
its
monopoly
status
and
everything
to
do
with
the
fact
that
the
ABA
is
a
thorn
in
the
side
of
an
administration
that
likes
to
punish
its
political
enemies.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
what
are
the
“controversial
ideological
views”
the
ABA
is
pushing?
A
commitment
to
the
rule
of
law?
The
idea
that
the
profession
is
made
better
by
Women,
Latinos,
Blacks,
Asians
and
everyone
else?
Antitrust
shouldn’t
be
used
as
a
bludgeon
to
push
right-wing
culture
war
issues.
Using
the
FTC
to
attack
the
ABA
is
cover
to
solve
a
right-wing
first
mover
problem.
As
it
stands
Texas,
Florida
and
Tennessee
are
some
of
the
few
states
that
have
made
concrete
efforts
to
come
up
with
their
own
law
school
accreditation
system.
Even
if
they
come
up
with
their
own
individual
standards,
the
lack
of
reciprocity
between
their
standards
and
the
rest
of
the
union
would
be
a
disincentive
for
other
states
to
move
toward
adopting
their
own
requirements.
Why
reinvent
the
wheel,
right?
If
the
FTC
smashes
it.
The
antitrust
challenge
would
risk
throwing
the
working
accreditiation
system
in
disarray,
pushing
states
that
saw
no
need
to
drum
up
their
own
system
to
figure
out
how
they’ll
evaluate
if
their
law
schools
are
still
in
working
order.
Frankly,
the
effort
that
would
require
seems
like
it
would
lead
to
an
increase
in
costs
for
law
students
rather
than
lowered
tuition
—
it
isn’t
like
this
year’s
tuition
costs
were
that
much
lower
because
of
the
diversity
standard’s
moratorium.
FTC
Says
ABA
Is
A
‘Law
School
Accreditation
Monopoly’
[Reuters]
Earlier:
ABA
Diversity
And
Inclusion
Standard
Looks
Like
It’s
On
Its
Last
Legs
Florida
Still
Stumbling
Through
Trying
To
Replace
ABA
Accreditation
Texas
Plans
To
Cut
Law
School
Accreditation
Ties
With
The
ABA
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.