Nobody would disagree with the assertion that obtaining higher education is beneficial.  Unfortunately, maybe a J.D. should no longer be included in that consideration.  Only 55% of J.D. students in 2011 had a job in legal services nine months after graduation.  In an already stagnant economy that saw only a 1.4 percent increase in jobs in 2012 over 2011, the legal services sector job growth was but half that—an anemic 0.7 percent.  The frustration is obvious.  More than a dozen law schools have been slapped with class action lawsuits over misleading employment data.

Attorneys argue that some of these issues stem from the fact that today’s law schools do not provide enough technical training, leaving graduates unprepared and unqualified for real world legal work.  As 2011 graduate of NYU Law Aikta Wahi notes, small firms and public interest organizations do not have the resources to train new attorneys and the larger firms have few entry level openings.  If graduates came out of school with more experience, though, they might be able to better market themselves.

New York Chief Judge Jonathan Lippmann, has a simple solution: make law school shorter.  By allowing students to take the bar exam after their second year of law school, a host of issues can be solved.  The first and most obvious benefit is the lower cost.  Two years means only two years of tuition, a significantly easier financial burden for students to bear.  The second benefit is that the traditional third year can be replaced with an apprenticeship program that would better prepare graduates for a career in a legal profession.

There are downsides, though.  Some law schools would not want to participate and would refuse to issue J.D.s after only two years, potentially creating an entirely new set of problems where a student passes the bar exam but fails to earn a J.D.  Additionally, those schools that do adopt the proposal might be incentivized to increase their admitted class sizes to make up for the lost revenue from dropping the third year, thereby flooding a job market already oversaturated with J.D. earners.  The other side to this accelerated, job-oriented approach is that not everyone gets a J.D. to practice law.  Many go on to become educators, business leaders, and politicians.  To them, a three year program that takes a more academic approach to law would be more beneficial.

Law schools should simply offer both a two and three year program.  The first track would be aimed at preparing those who wish to become practicing attorneys.  After two years, students would take the bar exam and graduate into a third year apprenticeship, after which time a J.D. would be awarded.  The second track would look like the current traditional three year curriculum and be tailored for those looking to pursue a career in a business or academic profession.

Whatever the answer, unless law schools change, earning a J.D. will likely continue to be seen as a career gamble for the foreseeable future.