法学院为什么这么招人恨？

    这种理论固然有一定道理，但它无法解释另一个事实：大量的法学院毕业生纷纷倒戈，猛烈抨击这套体系。像“我认为上法院纯粹是浪费生命”这样的声明肯定不会挽回法学院的面子。

    一位毕业于波士顿学院(Boston College)、现年28岁的民事诉讼律师有一套不同的理论。“这其实就是一种精神宣泄——终于有人说破这一点了，”本杰明•温特哈尔特说。温特哈尔特曾经为网络杂志《石板》(Slate)撰写过一篇文章，探讨法学院面临的危机。在他看来，毕业生相互间的怨恨情绪早已有之。一旦经济形势不再有利于律师，这种怨恨就会全面爆发。

    温特哈尔特说，自上世纪70年代以来，一场名为“法律经济学”(law and economics)的思潮开始悄无声息地席卷各大法学院。这场思想运动主张，法律的有效性应该由它能够在多大程度上帮助市场平稳运行来衡量。“我认为，意识形态的这种转变意味着，人们往往觉得批判法学院是一件很难做到的事情。原因是，走进法学院，他们听到的是，‘哦，这是自由市场，每个人都在选择，我选择上法学院，所选即所得，’”他解释说。“这种思维方式很有诱惑性，但它也导致一些人产生一种无力感……许多人怒火中烧，这种成因复杂的情绪过去被压抑了，我觉得它现在爆发了。”

    科克里坚称，在约翰•马歇尔法学院，获得一份高薪工作从来都不是交易的组成部分。“我们从来没有承诺过这一点，现在也没有承诺，”他说。“我们的承诺是，你可以获得极具品质、对你的前程非常有利的法学教育。”

    法学院不是从天而降的仙女，它并不拥有无边的法力，可以赐予所有毕业生熠熠闪光的工作机会。然而，专业院校的存在就是为了帮助人们进入某个行业（从而帮助他们攀登事业高峰），无视这个事实其实就是在故意装傻。不然的话，为什么每一份备受认可的法学院排行榜都把毕业生就业率纳入考量范畴呢？【根据《美国新闻与世界报道》( U.S. News)提供的数字，约翰•马歇尔法学院2011届毕业生的就业率仅为18.7%。】

    更糟糕的是，科克里的说法与艾米•克莱默的叙述存在分歧。从约翰•马歇尔法学院毕业时，克莱默背负着25万美元未偿贷款，此后差不多两年都没有找到全职工作；她最近刚刚创办了自己的公司。这笔惊人债务基本上都是在攻读法学硕士期间欠下的。她当时追求的是雇员福利。“在他们的引导下，我当然相信，随着奥巴马医改方案(Obamacare)的实施，雇员福利将成为未来的潮流，而且会不断有人主动上门，邀请我为他们工作，”克莱默说。“这一幕还没有发生。我不知道这是不是迟早的事，但我并没有看到奉行奥巴马医改方案的工作机会。毫无疑问，这种境遇令人非常失望。”

    那么，如果接受法学教育与找工作无关，为什么法学院还要以毕业后能够找到好工作为卖点呢？

    攻读法学博士当然不便宜。我几乎从未听说过有哪位学生不借一大笔贷款就能读得起法学院。更重要的是，法学院学生的平均债务负担一直在攀升：2001至2002学年，公立法学院的在读博士人均举债46,500美元，私立法学院的这个数字为7万美元；到了2011年，这两个数字分别为75,700美元和125,000美元。

    But while there's some merit to that theory, it doesn't explain the fact that plenty of law school graduates have spoken out against the system. Statements like "I consider law school a waste of my life" don't exactly save face.

    A 28-year-old civil litigator and graduate of Boston College has a different theory. "It's sort of cathartic -- someone finally said it," Benjamin Winterhalter says. Winterhalter, who's written for Slate about the law school crisis, describes longstanding resentment among graduates -- resentment that has exploded in the face of economic conditions that no longer favor lawyers.

    Since the 1970s, an intellectual movement by the name of "law and economics" has steadily crept through law schools, Winterhalter says. The idea is that the law's usefulness should be measured by how smoothly it lets the market function. "I think that ideological shift means that it's often very difficult for people to feel able to critique law school, because they sort of go to law school and they hear, 'Oh, it's the free market, everyone makes choices, I made a choice to go to law school, you get what you get,'" he explains. "There's something very seductive about that sort of thinking, but it also leads to some people feeling kind of powerless.... There's this whole complex repressed anger, and I think that comes out."

    Corkery maintains that getting a well-paying job has never been part of the deal at John Marshall. "We never promised that, and don't promise it," he says. "What we promise is that you get a really good legal education that can serve you well for the rest of your life."

    Schools aren't fairy godmothers with the power to bestow sparkly jobs upon all of their graduates. But placing little weight on the fact that professional schools exist to help people enter aprofession -- to help people move up in the world -- amounts to willful ignorance. Why else would employment rates factor into every popular school ranking? (For the record, only 18.7% of John Marshall's class of 2011 was employed at graduation, according to U.S. News).

    Even worse, Corkery's statement is at odds with the account of Amy Cramer, a John Marshall graduate who left with $250,000 in loans and spent almost two years without full-time work; she just recently started her own firm. She owes much of her staggering debt to an LL.M. she pursued in employee benefits. "I was certainly led to believe that employee benefits was the wave of the future with Obamacare, and that people would be knocking down my door to get me to work for them," Cramer says. "And that has not happened. I don't know if it's a matter of time, but I don't see those jobs out there for Obamacare, and so that has certainly been a disappointment."

    So, then, if getting a legal education isn't about getting a job, why bother selling it like it is?

    J.D.s certainly don't come cheap. It's almost unheard of to attend law school without taking out significant loans. What's more, the average debt load is mounting: in 2001-2002, JDs borrowed on average $46,500 at public law schools and $70,000 at private law schools; by 2011, those numbers rose to $75,700 and $125,000, respectively.