The Case For Diploma Privilege

I get so sick of folks asking the wrong questions and fighting the wrong fights in education.  

Case in point, "diploma privilege" - more folks are challenging the fact that you have to have a law degree from an accredited college before you can even take the bar exam in most states.  Is that really necessary, they ask, to be able to practice law?  Why waste all those years?

Or the requirement that you have an undergrad degree before going to law school in the first place.  What, they demand, does that have to do with the practice of law?  

STOP.  We're asking the wrong questions.   

The better questions are these: 

        1.  Why did the system develop the way it did?  

Don't give me the cop out about greedy college administrations - we see the same pattern played out in lots of other areas.  For example, you have to have an undergrad degree before going to medical school.  

To get an undergraduate degree you don't just take your major classes, but also a wide range of general undergraduate requirements.  And it isn't a set list of classes that every student takes; usually you get to pick one from column A, two from column B, and so on.  

In most cases, you have to have a college degree before becoming an officer in the military.  

Why is that?  That's not a rhetorical question.

Remember - at some point, someone said "This approach makes sense" and a whole bunch of people agreed.  Why? Did they have a point, or were they full of shit? Have the key circumstances changed in a material way?    
 

        2. What education and experience do we think someone should have before practicing law?

Is it enough for someone to know the local practice rules, and practical basics like how to file a motion?  

Or do we want well-rounded, intelligent and empathetic problem solvers for whom learning to file a motion is a piece of cake?  Is there a benefit to spending a year studying Constitutional Law if you're not going to actually practice that type of law?  Are there good reasons for a criminal defense attorney to take Trusts and Estates, or Contract Law?  

Again, I go back to the military example.  Did you know that the service academies like West Point offer degrees in English Literature and other so-called "useless" subjects?  Why do you think that is?

How will reading Little Women or Oliver Twist make you a better soldier?  Shouldn't they all stick to studying engineering or leadership?  If you asked the academies why they offer those degrees, what do you think they would say?

        3.  Is all this really just a way to say "it's a money issue"?

If college were free, would we be objecting to folks taking more education?  Especially folks who may be working with vulnerable populations?  I get that the cost can be a serious barrier; especially for BIPOC who are already so underrepresented in the practice of law.  

But is lowering the bar the only way to address that?  Or would we be better served helping more folks get the resources they need?  

So...

Let me finish by clearly stating that I'm open to changing the system.  And the LSAT, SAT, ACT, etc.  

I'm very open to ways to revamp the system to be more fair and inclusive.  

But fair and inclusive doesn't necessarily mean lowering our standards.  

Criminal attorneys, trusts and estates attorneys... these are just some of the practitioners who hold other people's entire lives in their hands.  

Do we really want them to have less education and training?  

Let's stop reacting to the current system, and start asking better questions about how to build a better system.