A counterintuitive thought on the value of a law degree

If the Simkovic & McIntyre analysis of the value of a law degree is correct, there are two somewhat counterintuitive implications.  First, law schools have been massively undercharging for tuition in the past. If what is now a $150k investment produces $1M increase in income, why are law schools permitting students to capture all of that benefit? Presumably there'd still be plenty of takers for a $300k investment that produces $1M in benefits. And recall that the study is using data from 1996-2011, but that tuition in 1996 was hardly $50k/year.  

The second implication is that if Simkovic & McIntyre are correct about the system basically holding going forward, it also suggests that law schools should be raising their tuition. To the extent that it reduces enrollment, it might only boost the value of the degree by constraining the supply of lawyers. Still, I can't imagine any schools going this route (competition is apparently keeping tuition in check).  

I aslo wonder if we're seeing a bit of a behavioral economics phenomenon with the concern over law school economics:  if Simkovic & McIntyre are right and the fundamentals of the industry have not changed, what would seem to be occuring is that prospective students are facing an earnings benefit is spread out over time, but up-front costs. As there is greater uncertainty about future earnings now, the up-front costs are more salient, making a JD appear to be a less good investment even if it really remains a fundamentally sound investment for most students.