…Is totally what I would’ve titled my Am Law Daily article on “The Economic Value of a Law Degree” if I didn’t have to waste words explaining it. Instead you’re getting:
There are two things, among many others, I wanted to add to the article that didn’t make it to the final cut:
(1) On page 44, it says,
Thus, on average and ignoring obvious behavioral changes, the federal government would hypothetically profit from legal education even if it provided legal education free at the point of service.
This is about the moment that I opened to the possibility that “Economic Value” was a hoax like Alan Sokal’s famous “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” because it’s the exact kind of absurd policy proposal that a satirist would put into an article claiming law school is worth the money. Just hedging my bets. (Please be a hoax. Please be hoax. Please be hoax.)
(2) Otherwise, “Economic Value” is the “Reinhart and Rogoff” of legal education. I’m surprised I haven’t seen the parallel made elsewhere, and we really should have seen it coming. Sure, it’s probably not going to contain any MS Excel errors or strange weightings, but it’s causal theory is equally nonsensical and should not be taken any more seriously than “Growth in a Time of Debt” is taken today. If anything it should be less so given that we can find graduates and drop outs who did not benefit from law school even as we can find countries that struggle with debt and low growth.