Duke Law Journal

VOLUME 1987 APRIL NUMBER 2

LEGAL EDUCATION IN AN ERA OF CHANGE:

THE CHALLENGE
A. KENNETH PYE*

Legal education has changed significantly during the last quarter

century. It has met significant challenges-many successfully, some less
so. The number of students, faculty, and schools has multiplied. Minor-
ity enrollment has increased modestly and the number of women has
increased extraordinarily. The quality of students has improved. Curric-
ula have expanded. Clinical education in different forms is now an inte-
gral part of legal training, as are seminars and interdisciplinary courses.
Audio-visual and computerized techniques of teaching and research have
been introduced. Teaching methodology has diversified, buildings have
been constructed, library collections have been expanded, administrators
have proliferated, faculty salaries have increased, budgets have soared-
in sum, a quiet revolution has occurred. Few would question that legal
education has been greatly improved in the course of a generation.
But new challenges have arisen at a time when resources are argua-
bly inadequate to sustain what law schools are currently doing. This is
not the Island of Patmos, but legal education faces more than four horse-
men and they are just over the horizon: a diminished demand for legal
education, as measured by the quantity and quality of applicants; the
threat of a diminished demand for the product of legal education, re-
flected in increased placement difficulties for some graduates; a dimin-
ished mobility of some graduates faced with the necessity of repaying
significant loans; aging, overtenured faculties who are increasingly un-
easy about what they are teaching; the inability to attract and retain
quality faculty; the risk that an increasing number of the most important
issues facing legal education will be decided outside law schools; and the
threat of reduced resources resulting from lower enrollments and recent
changes in federal law.

* Samuel Fox Mordecai Professor of Law, Duke University.

 DUKE LAW JOURNAL [V/ol. 1987:191

These issues, occurring almost simultaneously, combine to form a

formidable challenge. This symposium will discuss some of the compo-
nents of the dilemma facing legal education: admissions, financing, at-
tracting faculty, curriculum, autonomy, and placement.

I. ADMISSIONS

The quality of the education provided by any school is obviously

related to the quality of the student body. The practice of using the case
method in large classes may make the quality of the student body more
important in law school than in other disciplines. Quality in any single
law school-except perhaps at the very best schools-is affected by the
size of the applicant pool: the number of seats is finite and the quality of
admissions and enrollment at less prestigious schools is determined in
part by the number of applicants who remain after more prestigious
schools have made their selections.
How serious is the problem of the applicant pool? Is the decrease in
applications affecting all schools, or only the weaker schools? How many
students are now being accepted who would previously have been re-
jected? When do applicants decide to come to law school? Can their
initial disposition be affected? What explains the apparent decrease in
popularity for the study of law among the best college graduates? What
percentage of law school applicants are recruited from the work force,
and what impact do the numbers have on traditional recruiting strategies
and the nature of law school student bodies? What projections can be
made for the future? Should the problem be left to individual schools, or
is there a need for external action?
Minority enrollment poses a special issue. Despite major efforts, the
number of minority students in law schools is still small. Law schools
continue to experience internal and external pressure to increase minor-
ity enrollment, but the number of minority applicants meeting traditional
admissions criteria does not seem to be growing at the rate law schools
had hoped. At the same time, private law schools may have gone about
as far as they can afford to go in financing opportunities for minority
students out of tuition recycled from middle-class students-who must
incur loans to pay tuition that escalates at a rate faster than inflation.
What are likely projections for the future? Professor Vernon and Mr.
Zimmer address these vital issues in their provocative paper.1

1. Vernon & Zimmer, The Size and Quality of the Law School Applicant Pool: 1982-1986 and
Beyond, 1987 DUKE L.J. 204.
Vol. 1987:191] LEGAL ED UCA TION

II. FINANCING-STUDENT LOANS

Much of the improvement in legal education in recent years has re-

sulted from increased resources. Student tuition is the principal source
of income in private schools, and is second only to state support in public
schools. Tuition income is obviously dependent upon (1) enrollment and
(2) tuition rates. As Professor Vernon indicates, enrollment increased
dramatically during the 1970's and early 1980's.2 Dean Kramer observes
that tuition rates rose no less dramatically. 3 As Dean Kramer points out,
the ability of students to pay the increased tuition has been due primarily
4
to the availability of federally guaranteed and subsidized loans.
We are well past the era when most students could work their way
through a full-time law school, or parents could provide the difference
between full costs and what students could provide from their own earn-
ings or scholarships. One of the least noted changes of the last two de-
cades has been the change from pay-as-you-go legal education,
underwritten by small debt, to legal education as a capital asset, paid for
by substantial borrowing. Legal education has become almost as depen-
dent upon the federal government as the farming and welfare sectors,
with little appreciation of what has happened.
Prerequisites of a workable system for student loans are ready avail-
ability of comparatively large loans (at least for students in private
schools), and the existence of insurance or guarantees against default suf-
ficient to attract lenders. It is probably necessary to provide some sub-
sidy to lenders, if they are to be expected to handle a large volume of
small transactions; it also may be desirable to provide some subsidy to
borrowers when interest rates are high. If the most needy are to receive
assistance, eligibility for loans should be based exclusively on need rather
than the criteria (such as risk of default) usually used by lenders. The
period of repayment must be long enough to avoid hardship on the
young lawyer going into practice. It is highly desirable that students be
able to consolidate undergraduate and law school loans under different
federal programs for repayment.5
As Dean Kramer points out in his thoughtful piece, 6 many of these
objectives have been realized to a remarkable degree by the Higher Edu-

2. Vernon & Zimmer, supra note 1, at 217 n.20.

3. Kramer, Will Legal Education Remain Affordable, by Whom, and How?, 1987 DUKE L.J.
240, 240.
4. Id. at 252.
5. Pye & Kramer, Solvency and SurvivalAfter the Boom-A Different Perspective, 34 . LEGAL
EDUC. 462, 465 (1984).
6. Kramer, supra note 3, at 254.
 DUKE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 1987:191

cation Amendments of 1986.7 Nevertheless, problems remain. Someday,

Congress must seriously attack the problem of balancing the budget.
Appropriations for the guaranteed student loan program, although
dearly beloved by middle-class constituents, may not be immune. The
Secretary of Education has already indicated a desire to limit financial
assistance to students in schools where tuition increases do not exceed
cost-of-living increases.8 If Congress ever faces the issue objectively, sub-
sidizing the education of additional lawyers at public expense in a nation
that already has 650,000 lawyers might receive a relatively low priority.
Dean Kramer makes a persuasive argument that costs to the government
will be effectively transferred to borrowers under the new legislation.9
Hopefully, Congress will accept the proposition. Dean Kramer also
makes a persuasive case for why it is to the financial advantage of many,
if not most, law students to borrow whatever they need to finance their
legal educations.10
Nevertheless, large loans have significant implication for disadvan-
taged students-particularly those who will attend less prestigious
schools or finish low in their classes. Although some law schools can
place almost all their students in jobs producing income sufficient to de-
fray loans, many cannot, and the students most in need of large loans
may be the most difficult to place in high-paying, large firms in large
cities. The prospect of entering a small firm in a small city while manag-
ing a debt of $50,000 is clearly unattractive. Obviously, loans of such
size will discourage work in public defender or legal aid offices.
Although availability of loans makes it possible for law schools to
raise tuition and improve the quality of instruction, it has also en-
couraged a twentieth-century version of the South Sea Bubble. Top stu-
dents are attracted by large scholarships awarded without reference to
need. Merit scholarships are financed by raising tuition beyond the level
necessary to compensate for inflation and qualitative improvement. In
turn, the presence of the cadre of top students produces a favorable ad-
missions profile for the school and attracts law firms recruiting new asso-
ciates. Less able students pay higher tuition to gain access to this
placement market, financing the cost through government-guaranteed
loans. The school facilitates the process by requiring all law firms to
interview students without information regarding class rank. Significant
numbers of students not originally recruited through scholarships ulti-

7. Pub. L. No. 99-498, 100 Stat. 1268 (1986).

8. Bennett Calls for Controls on College Costs, Higher Educ. & Nat'l Affairs, Dec. 1, 1986, at
1, col. 1.
9. Kramer, supra note 3, at 260.
10. Id. at 248.
Vol. 1987:191] LEGAL EDUCA TION

mately receive high paying jobs because (a) they achieved better law
school records than did colleagues who had better undergraduate creden-
tials, or (b) their personalities impress recruiters. Everyone benefits from
the government financed program so long as the school continues to oc-
cupy a preferred status in the placement market, and so long as the gov-
ernment continues to assure access to the loans. Any change in either
condition could be disastrous to the standing of the school-as would
adoption of a policy of allocating all scholarship aid on the basis of need,
if the result would be a lowering of the admissions profile of the class.
The implications of recent legislation are not yet clear. The defini-
tion of dependency was altered in the Higher Education Amendments of
1986.11 Any law student can now claim independent status, thus exclud-
ing available parental support from calculations of need. Whether this
change will result in decreased parental contributions (and expectation of
increased law school contributions), as is typical with respect to students
in most other graduate disciplines, remains to be seen. Moreover, the
Tax Reform Act of 198612 will undoubtedly have a significant impact on
both ]aw schools and students. Charitable gifts of appreciated property
will be subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax.1 3 The lowering of mar-
ginal tax rates will probably reduce the willingness of some donors to
contribute as much as before. Taxpayers who do not itemize will no
longer receive charitable deductions. Student costs will also increase be-
cause scholarships in excess of tuition and related expenses will be taxa-
ble, 14 and interest on student loans will no longer be deductible.15 What
will be the impact of the new legislation, especially the Tax Reform Act,
on law schools? Dean Kramer thoughtfully introduces the reader to the
nuances of financing legal education. 16

III. AT'RACTING AND RETAINING FACULTY

The need to attract new blood to law school faculties poses yet an-
other problem. Most law schools are heavily tenured. Relatively few
new positions will become available in the near future, in ]arge part be-
cause the rapid expansion during the 1960's, following the post-World
War II retraction, has produced an age imbalance in faculties. The ]im-
ited number of current openings, combined with the prospect of having
to replace a significant percentage of existing faculty during a relatively

11. Pub. L. No. 99-498, § 401(a), 100 Stat. 1268, 1326.

12. Pub. L. No. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085.
13. Id. § 701(a), 100 Stat. at 2320-39. Such gifts account for 40% of all gifts over $5000.
14. Id § 123(a), 100 Stat. at 2112.
15. Id § 511(b), 100 Stat. at 2246.
16. Kramer, supra note 3.
 DUKET LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 1987:191

short period, makes faculty recruitment a crucial issue for law schools.
Law schools are understandably concerned that it may become increas-
ingly difficult to attract the best and the brightest. Many recent law
school graduates will be in debt for a long time, and may feel compelled
to reject teaching careers in favor of higher paying jobs. Additionally,
the reservoir of first- and second-generation Americans who placed a spe-
cial value on professorial status may no longer exist.
Professor Christie discusses the factors that discourage some of the
best students from entering the teaching profession: the economic sacri-
fices involved, the nature of the profession, and the diminished sense of
accomplishment felt by some law teachers.17 He points out that salaries
are not competitive with those paid in other branches of the legal profes-
sion. The median salary of a full professor is considerably less than that
of a partner in most urban firms. The median assistant professor's salary
is less than the beginning salary of associates in the major firms in many
cities. The gap between the median salaries of assistant and full profes-
sors is miniscule when compared to the difference between the salaries of
associates and partners.
Professor Christie graphically describes a major weakness in the na-
ture of the professoriat. The job description of a law professor is the
same at age seventy as at age twenty-five. Unlike a partner in private
practice, the law professor has little opportunity for professional growth,
except through legal scholarship or moonlighting. Recognizing that this
drawback is a very real one, Professor Christie nonetheless eloquently
states the challenges and opportunities that teaching offers to those with
the capacity and the disposition.
How should legal education address these problems? Should it try
to approximate the salaries paid in private practice? If it doesn't, can it
recruit people of the same quality as in the past? Should law schools
consider permitting faculty to carry on outside practices, as is typical in
academic medicine? To what degree will the significant increase in wo-
men in the profession alleviate the problem? To what degree will the
movement towards more labor-intensive forms of instruction aggravate
the problem? Are overtenured faculties now denying tenure to younger
colleagues who are more able than their evaluators? What will be the
impact of the law prohibiting mandatory retirement of faculty at age sev-
enty? What is the impact of the increasing disparity in salaries between
junior law school faculty and junior faculty in other disciplines? Profes-
sor Christie addresses some of these issues in his perceptive article, sug-

17. Christie, The Recruitment of Law Faculty, 1987 DUKE L.J. 306.
Vol. 1987:191] LEGAL EDUCATION

gesting inexpensive changes that would make legal education more

attractive to those with options to do other things.

IV. CURRICULUM

Law schools face a perplexing variety of competing demands for

curricular reform. As Professor Weistart points out, they are urged by
the bar to provide better skills training, provide better instruction in pro-
fessional responsibility, and assume their yet-undefined obligation to offer
post-J.D. continuing legal education.' 8
Many within legal education are concerned that law schools may
not be doing enough in the area of teaching students how to perform the
tasks that will be expected of them by clients. Most people would recog-
nize that although law schools have made progress here, they cannot as-
sure that every graduate will perform competently in a courtroom two
decades after graduation. Yet it remains true that many students leave
law school with little or no instruction in the skills that will be required
of them. It is frequently the case that one's education is completed
through the experience of working under the supervision of senior practi-
tioners; unfortunately, an increasing number of students who graduate
from less prestigious schools may be practicing in environments devoid
of such supervision. In such a context, the practice of law acquires a new
meaning.
It is difficult to argue that law schools should not require some in-
struction in the fundamental skills critical to lawyer competence: the
ability to write effectively, communicate orally, gather facts, interview,
counsel, negotiate, and plan innovative solutions to clients' problems. It
is equally difficult to determine how this can be done when faculty-stu-
dent ratios are still extremely high as compared with any other discipline
within a university, and when existing faculty in many schools are ten-
ured and lack the expertise required to teach such skills.
Law schools should be in the vanguard in recognizing that legal ed-
ucation does not end with graduation-that it is a lifelong enterprise. It
follows that some institutions or organizations should have the obligation
of assisting graduates in post-J.D. efforts to refresh knowledge, develop
new expertise, and specialize. Whether this enterprise should be under-
taken in the form of formal degree programs-part-time or full-time--or
in the form of less formal continuing legal education programs, and
whether it should be conducted solely by law schools, jointly by law
schools and the bar, or by the bar in cooperation with individual law

18. Weistart, The Law School Curriculum: The Process of Reform, 1987 DUKE L.J. 317.
 DUKE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 1987.191

school faculty members, will depend on various circumstances. Un-

doubtedly, however, additional resources will be required.
Self-reflection by faculty has also produced doubts in some quarters
concerning whether law schools are too professional and insufficiently
academic in their approach. A major report on legal education in Can-
ada, where curricula and teaching methodologies parallel the American
pattern, calls for a separate track for the scholarly study of law. 19 The
report asserts that law schools provide an education that is neither as
effectively professional nor as broad and humane as it aspires to be, while
scholarship and intellectual study are diluted and marginalized by the
predominance of professional concerns, i.e., training for the practice of
20
law as distinguished from learning for learning's sake.
Even the most conservative law school faculty recoguize a need to
provide education in new fields spawned by recent social legislation in
the areas of age, sex, and race discrimination, health law, and environ-
mental law, and to increase coverage of older fields that have become
more complex as they have evolved. The necessity of mastering new
techniques of legal research, such as Westlaw and Lexis, requires instruc-
tion, capital, and ongoing service expenditures, yet results in no immedi-
ate decrease in the sums needed for hardbound volumes or constantly
expanding library services. Interdisciplinary approaches to some sub-
jects become increasingly important if the student is really to understand
the material. But interdisciplinary approaches are expensive. They usu-
ally involve marginal courses with limited enrollments or the addition of
social scientists to the law faculty. Demands for small unit instruction in
seminars and better instruction in legal writing have not abated.
Most, but not all, legal educators dream of a law school faculty that
teaches at least some of the basic principles of the legal order, explains
the manner in which the legal process operates, including those factors
that preclude the certainty that the uninitiated might expect from stat-
utes or case law, provides an understanding of historical antecedents that
underlie the strengths and weaknesses of contemporary institutions, and
suggests the areas ripe for reform. Ideally, these goals would be accom-
plished by introducing students not only to the methodology of tradi-
tional legal research, but to social-science methodology, the decision-
theory methodology taught in the best public policy programs, and the
intensive case-study methodology used by the best business schools. Si-
multaneously, the ideal curriculum would develop skills in research and
writing and teach techniques of interviewing, negotiating, counseling,
19. SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANiTIES RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA, LAW AND LEARN-
ING 133-63 (1983).
20. Id. at 47-59.
Vol. 1987:191] LEGAL EDUCA TION

and planning. It would provide opportunities for perfecting oral and

written expression, and introduce students to trial and appellate advo-
cacy and the use of computers for legal research and case preparation. 21
Legal educators are acutely aware that contemporary curricula fall
far short of realizing these goals. Some of the most strident demands for
change come from within the law schools-and reflect the diversity of
perspective that characterizes the professoriat. Indeed, a perusal of the
recent editions of the Journalof Legal Education suggests that legal edu-
cators appear to be at a point midway between introspection and self-
flagellation. One distinguished critic of American legal education asserts
that the typical law school curriculum is deficient in structure, insuffi-
ciently diverse, neither sufficiently theoretical nor sufficiently practical,
and not always sufficiently demanding.2 2 Another commentator argues
that "the curriculum is excessively committed to doctrinal learning as
differentiated on the one hand from theoretical learning and on the other
hand from practical learning. ' '2 3 A distinguished clinician has opined
that the "law school is empirically irrelevant, theoretically flawed, peda-
gogically dysfunctional, and expensive."' 24 One law professor sees the
need to transform the law school into a self-contained university with a
25
set of miniature graduate departments in the various disciplines. Yet
another urges that the curriculum be divided into three roughly equal
components: (1) doctrinal analysis, (2) closely supervised field-based
clinical experience, and (3) advanced training in cultural and social anal-
ysis, i.e., political economy, anthropology, philosophy, and similar stud-
ies.2 6 On the far left, there is a call to use law schools to build a "left
bourgeois intelligentsia that might one day join together with a mass
movement for the radical transformation of American society. '27 The
difficulty of achieving agreement in a single faculty becomes apparent
when it is appreciated that three of these six approaches come from
members of a single law school faculty. Professor Weistart places these
demands for change into a historical and conceptual framework. He also

21. Pye, Book Review, 1984 WINDSOR Y.B. OF AccEss TO JusT.389, 390.
22. Crarnton, The Current Stage of the Law Curriculum, 32 J. LEGAL EDUc. 321, 327-32
(1982).
23. Michelman, The Parts and the Whole: Non-Euclidean CurricularGeometry, 32 J. LEGAL
EDUC. 352, 352 (1982).
24. Bellow, On Talking Tough to Each Other. Comments on Condlin, 33 J. LEGAL EDUC. 619,
622 (1983).
25. Priest, Social Science Theory and Legal Education: The Law School as University, 33 J.
LEGAL EDUC. 437, 441 (1983).
26. Klare, The Law Curriculum in the 1980" Whats Left?, 32 J. LEGAL EDUc. 336, 343
(1982).
27. Kennedy, LegalEducationand the Reproduction ofHierarchy, 32 J. LEGAL EDUC. 591, 610
(1982).
 DUKE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 1987:191

points out the frequently ignored factors that limit the likelihood of fun-
28
damental change-faculty autonomy and costs.

V. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND CURRICULUM

One desire, often unarticulated, of many faculty is to make major
contributions to scholarship through research and publication. Yet re-
search priorities are affected by concepts of appropriate curricula and
orientation. In most institutions, conditions conducive to research are
still unfavorable.
To most faculty, the utopian instructional program-however de-
fined-would take place in an environment that encourages and facili-
tates research of all kinds. Faculty would be able to write articles or
treatises, conduct empirical research and subject it to evaluation, ex-
amine the theoretical underpinnings not only of law, but of society itself,
or do work of a comparative or historical nature.
Yet as Professor Christie points out, efforts to conduct research are
frustrated by a number of factors. 29 Law professors must spend a great
deal of time grading examinations. Research assistantships are fre-
quently limited to students who qualify for college work-study assistance.
Secretarial assistance may be meager and individual word processors are
found only in the most affluent schools. The library may be adequate for
student work, but hopelessly inadequate for anything but doctrinal re-
search by faculty. Travel funds, research leave, and support for empiri-
cal research are a low priority in the law school budget, if present at all.
The primary law school support for research is reflected in the limited
number of hours of class instruction required, and few schools make any
attempt to estimate costs relating to the creation of knowledge through
scholarship as distinguished from its dissemination through teaching.
Few ever question why external sources-individuals, foundations, the
government, or the legal profession-are reluctant to fund legal research,
unlike the practice in science, engineering, medicine, and, to a lesser de-
gree, the humanities and social sciences. Fewer still are prepared to dis-
cuss whether it makes sense to continue the trend of increasing the
percentage of law school expenditures for library acquisitions in schools
where seminal research is unlikely. Discussion of these issues must await
research and, perhaps, another symposium.

28. Weistart, supra note 18.

29. Christie, supra note 17.
Vol. 1987:191] LEGAL EDUCATION

VI. AUTONOMY

Law school autonomy is a unique issue. To what degree should a

law school faculty be permitted to decide basic issues of legal educational
policy free from external influence? The sources of external control are
several: the university, the profession (as reflected in the accreditation
process of the American Bar Association Section on Legal Education
and Admissions to the Bar), the Association of American Law Schools,
state and federal governments, and the courts. Dean White analyzes the
role of each of these external institutions in the determination of law
30
school policies.
Private universities commonly determine tuition rates and the
amount that law schools will be charged for services provided by central
administration or costs that cannot be attributed to a single division.
Some universities unilaterally determine the extent to which revenue
from law school tuition will be used to defray costs in divisions of the
university that are not "profit centers."' 3 1 Some universities have general
policies governing matters such as affirmative action, the manner in
which faculty searches are to be conducted, and review of administrative
performance. Most significantly, some vest in a university committee the
responsibility of reviewing law school decisions on faculty rank and
tenure.
The government also invades the autonomy of law schools. State
governments impose regulations, primarily on state universities, in areas
such as enrollment levels, out-of-state enrollment, tuition, purchasing,
and aesthetics. Federal regulations governing National Direct Student
Loans, Guaranteed Student Loans, College Work-Study Funds, student
privacy, and protection of the handicapped directly affect law school
decisionmaking. Recent legislation prohibiting mandatory retirement at
age seventy is a classic example. As pointed out earlier, federal tax laws
may have an indirect but significant impact on the ability to raise funds,
particularly funds for the construction of buildings or the endowment of
chairs or scholarships.
Additionally, as Dean White notes, individual courts, such as the
Supreme Courts of Indiana and South Carolina, have on occasion man-
dated curricula for applicants to their bars. 32 Moreover, both state and
33
federal courts have discussed mandatory training for trial practice.

30, White, LegalEducation in the Eraof Change: Law SchoolAutonomy, 1987 DUKE LJ.292.
31. See A. HAUPTMAN, STUDENTS IN GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION: WHAT
WE KNOW AND NEED TO KNOW 65-66 (1986).
32. White, supra note 30, at 297.
33. Id. at 298-300.
 DUKE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 1987:191

Dean White quite correctly points out the accomplishments of the

American Bar Association in improving legal education. Enforcement of
its accreditation standards has unquestionably assisted many law schools
whose revenues were being exploited by parent universities, and has con-
tributed on occasion to better student-faculty ratios, higher faculty sala-
ries, and better libraries. The ABA standards affect policy in
quantitative terms, by telling universities what they must provide for
their law schools, and by legislating social obligations for schools.
Simultaneously, the ABA is regarded by some as a major threat to
law school autonomy. ABA standards governing issues such as whether
a law school should have a placement office or a clinical program,
whether a church-related school should be able to discriminate on
grounds of religion, or whether a school must engage in affirmative ac-
tion in admissions have proved controversial. Few would disagree with
Dean White's conclusion that although the external authorities have a
legitimate interest in the nature, quality, and scope of American legal
education, "effective autonomy for law schools... can be preserved only
by balancing these legitimate interests in a way such that they do not
'34
impede or hinder the intellectual enterprise.

VII. PLACEMENT

Suitable placement is the goal of most law students. The salaries

paid at Cravath, Swaine & Moore are discussed more frequently in law
school corridors than are the Senate hearings on the confirmation of
Chief Justice Rehnquist. Concern about the "lawyer glut" is reflected in
the media.
But is the "glut" real? To what degree is the placement problem
affected by quality of school attended or class rank? To what degree are
graduates who find jobs doing work in which they are basically uninter-
ested and for which they are overqualified? Is the increase in the number
of graduates likely to increase bar failure rates in the future? Is there a
greater problem in "secondary placement," particularly in the placement
of associates who are not made partners, and, if so, what, if anything,
should law schools do about it? Has there been an increase in the
number of persons opening their own offices? What is the impact of the
disparity between salaries of lawyers employed in the corporate sector
and the salaries of other lawyers on the future of the "unitary profes-
sion"? Is the tendency of some corporations to promote from within
rather than recruit lateral transfers from private practice likely to in-
crease, and, if so, what are the implications of this trend? To what de-

34. Id. at 305.

VCol. 1987:191] LEGAL EDUCATION

gree is the practice of law becoming more like "big business," and what
are the implications of this trend? What is the impact of changes occur-
ring in the size and structure of law firms and the manner in which they
are recruiting and promoting? Will students want to practice in the
kinds of law firms that are evolving?
Aspects of this complex topic are discussed by Dr. Thorner.3 5 In
particular, she discusses the impact of graduate mobility on the place-
ment function and the degree to which the placement function becomes
entwined with alumni relations and continuing education.3 6 Her percep-
ive article, when read with Dean Kramer's article, raises real issues
about the degree to which government loans and placement combine to
exert a low visibility influence on law school policy.

VIII. CONCLUSION
These issues pose a formidable challenge to legal education. How
law schools should respond depends in part on self-evaluation by each
school because some of the challenges pose peculiarly local issues.
Others require a response by legal education, and still others require con-
sideration by the profession as a whole. Neither legal education nor the
legal profession is known, however, for a capacity to provide unified ap-
proaches to difficult issues. Nor is either prone to move swiftly into un-
charted seas.
The first step is to recognize that some changes may be needed in
what we do, how we do it, and how we pay for it. It is the purpose of this
symposium to ventilate these matters. Change doesn't come easily to
those who have seen efforts to reinvent the wheel several times and who
remember the 1950's and before.
It is unlikely that the Armaggedon in legal education will take place
in the near future, if ever. Hopefully, exploration of issues discussed in
this symposium will provide insights and motivation for action that will
permit us to look back in coming years and conclude that although these
may not have been the best of times, neither were they the worst of times.

35. Thomer, Legal Education in the Recruitment Marketplace: Decades of Change, 1987
DUKE L.L 276.
36. Id. at 288-91.