Quick Takes

The damage done by law school accreditation has become a cause célèbre in some public policy circles, notably among libertarian and some conservative commentators concerned about diversity requirements that they perceive to encourage law schools to inequitably, if not illegally, favor applicants from underrepresented minority groups. Another major argument in some legal education circles is that the American Bar Association's accreditation process piles on unnecessary requirements that discourage innovative practices (and stifle competition from new schools) and, more concerning in some quarters, drive up costs for students. "[A]ccreditation standards effectively raise faculty salaries; limit faculty teaching loads; require high numbers of full-time faculty rather than cheaper part-time adjuncts; and require expensive physical facilities and library collections," Sens. Jon Kyl and Orrin Hatch wrote in 2007 in explaining a piece of legislation that year that sought a Government Accountability Office study to examine the topic. "The requirements probably cause law schools' costs to more than double, increasing them by more than $12,000 per year, with many schools then passing the increased costs along to students by raising tuition." That bill didn't pass, but the mandate for a GAO study was incorporated into 2007's renewal of the Higher Education Act. On Monday, the GAO released its report, and Hatch and others who share his view are unlikely to like the results. Law school tuition and fees have risen since 1994, the GAO found, but "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 law school cost, while ABA accreditation requirements appear to play a minor role. Additionally, recent decreases in state funding are seen as a contributor to rising tuition at public schools." Hatch's office did not respond to a request for comment, and ABA officials could not be reached.