Amazingly (and perversely), law schools have been able to continue to raise tuition while producing nearly twice as many graduates as the job market has been able to absorb. How is this possible? Why hasn’t the market corrected itself? The answer is that, for a given school, the availability of federal loans for law students has no connection to their poor post-graduation employment outcomes.
Of course, outcomes do not matter when it comes to government support for higher education, or for home ownership. Intentions matter (“everyone needs access to higher education and to home ownership”). And what really matters is rent-seeking.
The statement, “the availability of federal loans for law students has no connection to their poor post-graduation employment outcomes”, is hyperbolic and must be false at some margins.
In fact, looking at the data, law school admissions are down 42% from 10 years ago. Admitted applicants are down also, although only 22%. Which is interesting, if intuitive.
http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/lsac-volume-summary
The market is responding. In fact, I might be inclined to question the motives of people calling for further reductions in admission to the legal guild.
What is the connection of the availability of federal loans to the drop?
Interesting isn’t it that the law schools are not subject to the same “oversight” as that directed towards the for profit schools.