The standard for competence is generally considered to be passing a test. If this is true and if you can pass the State Bar exam, the test in this case, why should we require 3 years of law school? Looking at the law school curriculum, can we truly say that this learning (e.g., 3 years vs 2 years) will help to better serve clients? Is it not true that the 3rd year is more fluffy or elective than essential to the practice?

The customer (client) is the market; the education system is the distribution system. Yet, schools seem to focus on classrooms and housing rather than the market being served, students and then clients. The net result is that the education is so expensive that fewer and fewer people can go to law school because it takes 5 to 10 years to pay off the student debt accumulated while going to school. And in today’s economy, with so many licensed lawyers unable to find work, these debts may stay on the books for a very long time with devastating psychological impact on the “student.”