Priorities -- a law school? By Matt Rexroad on Monday, March 19, 2007 @ 9:45 PM :: 0 Comments :: Blog   I subscribe to a service that sends me the stories at 8pm that will appear the next day in the Sacramento Bee. It is great.  It means I nolonger need to read the newspaper in the morning. I know what is there. Dan Walters has a great column in the paper tommorrow about UC Irvine getting a new law school.  He comes to the same conclusion I came to about ten years ago. California does not need another publicly funded law school. California doesn't need to subsidize legal education in the state.   Instead, they should subsidize the practice of certain kinds of law and other professions. I have a couple really good friends that went to UC Davis Law School that are pulling down $300,000 plus a year in Sacramento area law firms.  Good for them.  Why is it that California taxpayers needed to subsidize their legal education? They shouldn't in my opinion. California professional schools (medical, dental, law, and business) should charge the true cost of the service provided.  The money should then be used to pay the loans of those people that practice certain types of medicine and law are more needed than others.  Pubic defenders and general medicial practice doctors in rural areas could then be compensated for the service they provide. Law schools in particular are something that allows private providers to enter the market easily.  We don't need to be taxing California families to provide a subsidized legal education to those that are going to be able to earn an income that more than justifies them to invest the full cost of their education.

Comments Currently, there are no comments. Be the first to post one! You must be logged in to post a comment. You can login here