The New York Times business section profiles Brooklyn Law School, as Dean Nicholas Allard takes the bold move of refusing to play the U.S News & World Reports ratings game.

Brooklyn will hold tuition at its current level — $1,800 a credit, or $53,850 a year — for the class entering this fall. Next year, it will introduce an across-the-board 15 percent cut in tuition. It is also reducing some kinds of merit aid, increasing need-based aid and offering a curriculum that allows some students to graduate in two years rather than the standard three. “It’s still expensive, and I wish we could do more,” Mr. Allard said.

While holding tuition at current levels isn’t exactly radical (or inexpensive), the cut in merit aid is the kicker.

The risk for Brooklyn Law School, or for any school trying to break ranks by reducing merit aid, is that their rivals will pick off the best applicants with better offers and they’ll drop in the U.S. News rankings, which rely heavily on average test scores and grade point averages.

Once law schools got on the ratings carousel, it was essentially impossible to get off. After all, people love ratings, which is such an easy substitute for thought, and these became the driving force in legal education, to gain (or game) a couple of places so that the law school would suddenly become wonderful where it was decidedly mediocre the year before.

Kudos to Allard for taking the risk, even if it’s a monumentally tepid change and doesn’t really do much of anything to reduce the cost of attending Brooklyn.  But then he goes into marketing mode:

“If you ask who can afford to go to law school, or who can afford a lawyer, the answer is: not most people in America,” he said. “Those who do manage to graduate from law school end up with excruciating debt. They feel compelled to take jobs with the highest paycheck to find some relief. They don’t feel free to work in jobs that fit their interests or that meet a critical demand. The result is most people can’t afford quality legal services and millions of Americans are deprived of access to qualified lawyers.”

Eh, no. While this may play in Peoria and Academia, the real world doesn’t work this way.  They take jobs with the highest paychecks because they want to make money, which is why they went to law school in the first place. Those who became lawyers because they felt a desire to help others always had the opportunity, like public defenders, but that’s not what you’re talking about, is it? Come on, let’s tell the truth.

On the other hand, holding tuition at current ridiculously high levels doesn’t quite do much to end the debt burden, while serving that “underserved population” isn’t just about law school debt, but the ability to make a decent living.  Most law students expect to be able to eat, maybe buy a house, after becoming a lawyer. They take an oath to defend the Constitution, not to live in poverty.

And while maintaining current tuition levels is better than a 10% increase, let’s not pretend that you’re giving students a gift. It still costs a fortune to go to Brooklyn Law, and the fact that you are now targeting those too stupid to realize the game you’re playing doesn’t mean you are going to get away with it unnoticed.