FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W226777777> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W226777777 startingPage "375" @default.
• W226777777 abstract "Professional Responsibility: ABA Accreditation Standards for Law Schools PANELISTS: DOUGLAS W. KMIEC, MODERATOR THOMAS D. MORGAN JOHN S. BAKER JR. SAUL LEVMORE JOHN A. SEBERT LAW SCHOOL ACCREDITATION: RESPONSIBLE REGULATION OR BARRIER TO ENTRY? Good afternoon, ladies and gendemen. My name is Doug Kmiec from the Pepperdine Law School in Malibu, California. You may be asking yourself what is this topic, the accreditation of law schools, doing in a symposium on limited government. After all, the ABA is not a government, and it is not limited. Indeed, some opponents of ABA accreditation would say look up regulatory monopoly in the dictionary and that is where you will find it. And, of course, therein lies the rub. The ABA may not be a government or state actor, but in practical reality it exercises extensive authority over the nature of legal education and derivatively the provision of legal services. The debate this afternoon is a debate over whether ABA accreditation standards serve or disserve the primary purposes of legal education. And so we begin, what is the primary purpose of legal education? In true multiple-choice bar examiner fashion, is it: (A) the provision of competent legal services to the general public; (B) an opportunity to take on massive student debt, which in turn necessitates finding a professional position which precludes all meaningful social engagement; (C) a chance to become a member of the Federalist Society and thereby defend the Constitution as written, while simultaneously ending your career for the judiciary; or (D) none of the above, and simply an opportunity to devote significant monetary resources to the study of catching foxes on wild and uninhabited lands, the rule against perpetuities, the shooting of spring guns, and the unfortunate lot of children with thin skulls. More seriously, do accreditation standards ensure legal competence, or are they barriers to entry that simply raise the cost of legal education and, in turn, the delivery of legal services? We have four excellent scholars this afternoon to present several different aspects of this debate. From the more positive side toward regulation, but by no means totally endorsing of every jot and tittle of it, are professor Thomas Morgan, the Oppenheimer Professor of Antitrust and Trade Regulation of the George Washington University, and Dean John Sebert, who until recently had served as the consultant on legal education for the American Bar Association. John's role in that context was as primary administrator and coordinator of the ABA accreditation process. Aligned against regulation, or at least more skeptical of it, is Professor John Baker, the Bennett Professor of Law at Louisiana State University. John is well-known to the Federalist Society, but it may not be as well-known that recently he was also the codirector of a study on accreditation standards for liberal education. And finally, Dean Saul Levmore, from the University of Chicago Law School, whose research focuses on behavioral effects of legal rules, and who has characterized the ABA accreditation standards as, I think the kind way he put it was misguided and excessive. I want to just set the table very briefly with four arguments that are made in behalf of regulation, the four counterpoints one most frequently finds in the literature on this subject, and then turn it over to the distinguished panel. The arguments in favor of regulation go something like this: First, that ABA accreditation is needed to protect the public from inadequately prepared graduates.1 Second, that ABA accreditation standards are necessary in order to promote legal scholarship of the highest quality-invaluable to the long-term health of the American Republic.2 Third, that ABA accreditation standards support the rule of law and are invaluable to it.3 And fourth, that ABA accreditation standards supply valuable consumer information to students and employers alike about the comparative qualities of legal institutions. …" @default.
• W226777777 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W226777777 creator A5087015418 @default.
• W226777777 date "2007-04-01" @default.
• W226777777 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W226777777 title "The 2006 Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention on Limited Government" @default.
• W226777777 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W226777777 type Work @default.
• W226777777 sameAs 226777777 @default.
• W226777777 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W226777777 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W226777777 hasAuthorship W226777777A5087015418 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C181294204 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C2776453310 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C2776713681 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C524211801 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C61521584 @default.
• W226777777 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C138885662 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C144024400 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C17319257 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C17744445 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C181294204 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C199539241 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C2776154427 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C2776453310 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C2776713681 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C2778137410 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C3116431 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C41895202 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C524211801 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C61521584 @default.
• W226777777 hasConceptScore W226777777C94625758 @default.
• W226777777 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W226777777 hasLocation W2267777771 @default.
• W226777777 hasOpenAccess W226777777 @default.
• W226777777 hasPrimaryLocation W2267777771 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W1410827420 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W1503066161 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W1589634255 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W1594652711 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W161390697 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W206860548 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W2106990948 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W2258760728 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W2267995587 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W2775117616 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W2964561052 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W3121680705 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W3122179771 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W3123108703 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W3123694708 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W3123885412 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W3123926988 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W3124071018 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W2553899931 @default.
• W226777777 hasRelatedWork W3126094753 @default.
• W226777777 hasVolume "11" @default.
• W226777777 isParatext "false" @default.
• W226777777 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W226777777 magId "226777777" @default.
• W226777777 workType "article" @default.