I'm coming (back) to this late, but this is a great post.

My big problem with law school isn't that I think extensive study is unnecessary for law, nor do I think that formal exams and licensing are unnecessary. What I don't like is that law schools have managed to position themselves as gatekeepers that can extract $150K+ from everyone who wishes to enter this profession (to be clear, nothing about this objection is inconsistent with what you've written above).

This is why I'm interested in the actuarial exams. As with law, I'd be highly impressed if someone could learn the necessary math and statistics to pass the exams for this field without formal coursework. Most people probably can't, but some can. However, it's also important to note the you can major in physics, math, engineering, stats, economics from a quantitatively rigorous department, and so forth. You could also, at this point, probably put together a series of on-line courses (such as coursera) to cover this. In short, you need to be rigorously educated to enter and succeed in this field, but there is no institution that has succeeded in installing itself at the gate to collect a huge toll from everyone who wants to enter.

This doesn't really exist for law, but that may be at least in part because it would be illegal anyway. If you simply aren't allowed to take the bar after majoring in law, or getting a masters degree, then why would these programs even exist? But perhaps (and I only mean perhaps, I'm not playing devil's advocate here, I do hold this position, but with a lot of uncertainty), if the bar were replaced with a series of exams, alternative paths to study that are in fact highly rigorous and absolutely valid would emerge, with no risk to people who rely on rigorously educated lawyers (for all I know this filter might be more effective, at a lower cost, expanding the options for affordable legal aid).

This does already exist to some extent - my understanding is that California does allow an on-line law program, with a "baby bar" requirement at the end of the first year. Pass rates are low, but I'm not sure I see that as a problem if the program isn't very expensive. Most people who sign up for a coursera don't finish, but that's not a really big deal if the cost is zero. In fact, the low baby bar and overall bar passage rates may instead show that these programs don't pose a risk to the public, as (again, perhaps) this shows the "bar" is working, ensuring that only those grads who have truly learned the material get through (some who aren't qualified will slip through, and some who are won't, but this is true for regular law school as well).

I read a good article about on line law schools from US News and world report a while back, and one of the people profiled was a structural engineer who specialized in seismic issues. He slowly realized that he was offering not just engineering advice, but legal advice as well. He ultimately decided to go to law school, but his travel schedule prevented him from attending a brick and mortar school. So he enrolled in an on-line program.

It sounds rigorous, if untraditional, and he will be allowed to take the bar exam in California. But the story really pinpointed the problem to me.

Personally, I see a lot of good in allowing this structural engineer to become a member of the bar. Seeing that he still has to take a full on-line law school load (4 years), and that he still has to pass the bar, it seems to me the risk is minimal, and the benefits are considerable - it allows someone who truly understands something from life experience and work experience to function as a lawyer. As far as a glut of lawyers goes, there is no displacement here, a 25 year old history major who went to law school is not losing out on a job that goes to a structural engineer who specializes in seismic issues who is now allowed to offer legal services.

This is probably one of the least objectionable proposals, but even this, the bar seems to be fighting tooth and nail. Very few states allow this. Why? It's hard not to grow cynical, to conclude that the law schools don't want to lose their gatekeeper status that allows them to extract massive amounts of money from people who wish to enter the profession.

Anyway, that's my long post. The tl;dr is that I agree that law education must be rigorous, but that I feel that the cartel-like behavior of the bar is preventing reasonable alternative paths from emerging.