Competitive market illusion.

Karen Streeter's "Let the best man win" approach to the explosion of lawyers and law schools in our state (More Lawyers=Competition, April 30 News) pretends to embrace a street-tough, survival-of-the-fittest approach to the legal market, pretending that our current situation is the result of a "competitive market." It is the result of no such thing. Far from the rigors of the marketplace, attendance at law school is essentially one big government program, with student loans funded by the American taxpayer so that the lawyer factories of which she is so proud can be established. These loans distort the marketplace, funneling students who don't belong into programs where they shouldn't be. "In a competitive market," banks would loan money to students who they thought would realistically be able to pay them back, and they would grow increasingly suspicious of sinking $120,000 plus into students whose chosen field, according to Ms. Streeter, "no longer expects a six-figure salary or a handful of job offers upon graduation."

Maybe, as Ms. Streeter suggests, Thomas Jefferson wanted education of the masses, but did he want law school for the masses? Did he want it at taxpayer expense? Why brag about the dilution of our profession by the invasion of the government-funded masses? Ms. Streeter wrote "I encourage the floodgates to open," but does she realize what she is saying? Does she realize why sane human beings build barriers to floods? Less work, less money, less opportunities, less quality? Is this what we want for our profession?

Quentin B. Fairchild

Ft. Myers