Jim Greif drew attention last Friday to the op-ed published in Bloomberg by Daniel Thies, a practicing lawyer in Illinois and the Chair of the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar: “ABA Accreditation Protects Law Students, Leaves Politics Aside.“

I want to draw attention to some characteristically sharp but respectful critiques of the op-ed by Derek Muller (Notre Dame).

More after the jump.

Thies:

Equally as misleading are claims that the council’s work impedes innovation and limits competition. The council prescribes less than one fifth of the law school curriculum, and law schools have demonstrated a variety of innovative ways to meet those minimal requirements consistent with their missions.

Muller:

Respectfully, the second sentence is not responsive to the first. Prescribing any content does impede innovation and increase homogeneity. The question is one of degree. And the “less than one fifth” is, in part, because more costly and onerous regulations have been shelved this year.

Thies:

Claims that council accreditation imposes undue burdens and increases costs are misleading. Several accredited schools charge less than $15,000 per year in tuition, showing that a quality legal education need not carry an excessive price tag.

Muller:

Again, respectfully, the second sentence does not follow from the first. Any regulation adds cost; the question is degree and kind. And the fact that tuition prices might be quite low because they are heavily subsidized elsewhere (e.g., legislative allotments, endowments, etc.) is misleading.