????這種理論固然有一定道理，但它無法解釋另一個事實：大量的法學院畢業生紛紛倒戈，猛烈抨擊這套體系。像“我認為上法院純粹是浪費生命”這樣的聲明肯定不會挽回法學院的面子。

????一位畢業于波士頓學院(Boston College)、現年28歲的民事訴訟律師有一套不同的理論?！斑@其實就是一種精神宣泄——終于有人說破這一點了，”本杰明?溫特哈爾特說。溫特哈爾特曾經為網絡雜志《石板》(Slate)撰寫過一篇文章，探討法學院面臨的危機。在他看來，畢業生相互間的怨恨情緒早已有之。一旦經濟形勢不再有利于律師，這種怨恨就會全面爆發。

????溫特哈爾特說，自上世紀70年代以來，一場名為“法律經濟學”(law and economics)的思潮開始悄無聲息地席卷各大法學院。這場思想運動主張，法律的有效性應該由它能夠在多大程度上幫助市場平穩運行來衡量。“我認為，意識形態的這種轉變意味著，人們往往覺得批判法學院是一件很難做到的事情。原因是，走進法學院，他們聽到的是，‘哦，這是自由市場，每個人都在選擇，我選擇上法學院，所選即所得，’”他解釋說?！斑@種思維方式很有誘惑性，但它也導致一些人產生一種無力感……許多人怒火中燒，這種成因復雜的情緒過去被壓抑了，我覺得它現在爆發了。”

????科克里堅稱，在約翰?馬歇爾法學院，獲得一份高薪工作從來都不是交易的組成部分。“我們從來沒有承諾過這一點，現在也沒有承諾，”他說。“我們的承諾是，你可以獲得極具品質、對你的前程非常有利的法學教育。”

????法學院不是從天而降的仙女，它并不擁有無邊的法力，可以賜予所有畢業生熠熠閃光的工作機會。然而，專業院校的存在就是為了幫助人們進入某個行業（從而幫助他們攀登事業高峰），無視這個事實其實就是在故意裝傻。不然的話，為什么每一份備受認可的法學院排行榜都把畢業生就業率納入考量范疇呢？【根據《美國新聞與世界報道》( U.S. News)提供的數字，約翰?馬歇爾法學院2011屆畢業生的就業率僅為18.7%?！?/p>

????更糟糕的是，科克里的說法與艾米?克萊默的敘述存在分歧。從約翰?馬歇爾法學院畢業時，克萊默背負著25萬美元未償貸款，此后差不多兩年都沒有找到全職工作；她最近剛剛創辦了自己的公司。這筆驚人債務基本上都是在攻讀法學碩士期間欠下的。她當時追求的是雇員福利?！霸谒麄兊囊龑拢耶斎幌嘈?，隨著奧巴馬醫改方案(Obamacare)的實施，雇員福利將成為未來的潮流，而且會不斷有人主動上門，邀請我為他們工作，”克萊默說?！斑@一幕還沒有發生。我不知道這是不是遲早的事，但我并沒有看到奉行奧巴馬醫改方案的工作機會。毫無疑問，這種境遇令人非常失望?！?/p>

????那么，如果接受法學教育與找工作無關，為什么法學院還要以畢業后能夠找到好工作為賣點呢？

????攻讀法學博士當然不便宜。我幾乎從未聽說過有哪位學生不借一大筆貸款就能讀得起法學院。更重要的是，法學院學生的平均債務負擔一直在攀升：2001至2002學年，公立法學院的在讀博士人均舉債46,500美元，私立法學院的這個數字為7萬美元；到了2011年，這兩個數字分別為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.