Norse Elephant
Image [cc] kaiban

President Obama made an off-the-cuff remark last week when he was quoted in The Washington Post, “that law schools would probably be wise to think about being two years instead of three years.” Apparently he knew this would cause some controversy, but he took solace in the fact that he doesn’t have to run for a third term and can make controversal statements like this.

Now, remember that the President is on his “College Affordability Bus Tour” so the topic is focused on the overal cost of school, not the actual numbers of lawyers that our 200+ law schools are pumping out into the industry these days. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t have a little fun/conversation on the comment and what the overall outcome would be of removing the 3L class out of law schools and just releasing fresh faced 2L’s out into the world.

Therefore, this week’s Elephant Post question is simply:

What Could Possibly Go Wrong With Reducing Law School To A Two-Year Program?

Here are the rules for answering the EP:

  • Fill out the form below, or email me (xlambert at gmail dot com) with your answer
  • You can give us your real name or stay anonymous
  • I’ll put out the answers on Friday
  • See what others have answered


  • I don't think there is something wrong about cutting it off for a year less. As long as their is actual application of what was being taught in school then I think that will do it. I think that's way better than just purely learning things theoretically. Also,
    It could probably give opportunities for students who can't afford a longer education.
    And we'll never know the results if we don't give it a try.