On having no budget impact:
1) They are going to have to make millions worth of physical upgrades. Expanding the class size from 230 to 550 requires space for all those people. And now that its public, youre doing to have to do a PLA and it will cost 40% more than it should. And then you’ll have to make all the bathrooms fully accessible and add braile to the signs.
2) the UMass system will (perhaps justifiably) not allow the school to remain unaccredited, and to get the ABA’s nod, they are going to have to pour millions more into the library and faculty.
3) Labor costs will undoubtedly increase when this is a public institution. The law profs will be in line for massive state pensions and the janitors will join AFSCME and demand $65k per year.
4) I shudder to think how many “Community Relations” and “Intergovernmental Affairs” people will be added to the payroll when this becomes a public institution. I think I just found Sen. Pacheco’s retirement plan.
On serving an ummet need:
5) the price tag is outragous for what what you’re getting. At $24k, with books, living expenses, etc., you’re talking about going 100 large into debt to graduate from this shithole, even if you live at your parents’ house. This is more tuition than all but a handful of top public law schools in the US — http://grad-schools.usnews.ran… — all to graduate with your top job prospect of becoming a Bristol County hack who makes less than a plumber. If they were pitching this at 10-15k per year in tuition, I might be less skeptical of the need for a “public” law school to teach working class folks who arent going to make law firm salaries. Not to mention the fact that, independent of tuition issues, adding 300 more attorneys into the pipeline every year will further lower the salaries for those at the bottom of the pay scale.
6) it’s in Dartmouth, Mass. Perhaps I have an irrational dislike of Bristol Co (I appreciated Howie Carr’s line that if it had palm trees, it would be a third world country), but by locating here, the paltry job prospects to be enjoyed by putative UMass Law students will be even that much more difficult. Vs. the Boston schools, where you can do internships, networking, etc.
Worse than a land war in Asia? Worse than starting such a war while implementing massive tax cuts? I think you’re overstating the case a little a lot.
<
p>1. “40% more than it should” – what do you mean by “should”? Are you sure the bathrooms are not accessible now, and what are your objections to making them so?
<
p>2. “…they are going to have to pour millions more into the library and faculty” – can you substantiate that?
<
p>3. More state employees, OH NOES!
<
p>5. “the price tag is outragous for what what you’re getting.” – The article you linked to says the costs are half what Suffolk and NESL get. That looks right. “This is more tuition than all but a handful of top public law schools in the US…” According to the USN&WR list you linked to, you’ve got really big hands.
<
p>6. Are there no law offices in New Bedford, Fall River, or Providence, then – all of them are in Boston? And Dartmouth is an impossible distance from Boston, even if all of the internships and networks are there?
<
p>I see that you do not like the idea. I don’t really see why. According to Chancellor MacCormack, the school would “operate free of taxpayer dollars.” I assume that means it would not cost the taxpayers anything. Do you deny that?
I think the worst idea ever is the one that suggests that Massachusetts doesn’t need a state law school. I wonder if those same naysayers also decried the establishment of UMass Medical School in Worcester? Now THAT was a TERRIBLE idea. Good grief.
My inclusion of 1-4 are questions precisely about this supposed “zero budget impact” claim. I am, for many reasons, skeptical about this. Do I object to making the bathroom accessible? Yes, if it’s yet another funding mandate put upon the state right now. Do I object to six-figure state pensions for law professors (similar to those being collected by UMass Medical profs) and new six-figure jobs for ex-state reps? Yes, if it hasn’t been budgeted for in this plan (and yes as a general matter).
<
p>I realize Chancellor MacCormack says UMass Law will operate “free of taxpayer dollars.” Like all organization leaders, he is interested in empire building. He may even think this will be a cash cow. But if he’s just looking at the organization’s current P&L statement (and thinking he can more than double the revenue, er, student body), there are some downstream costs that I am skeptical are included in the plan.
obviously, this impacts a budget, just not the state of Massachusetts’s budget. The budget that will be impacted is the UMASS system’s, which is autonomous from the state. It will NOT be “another funding mandate put upon the state right now.” Before you decide to write about “the worst idea ever,” may I suggest that you actually learn the basic facts about the issue?
<
p>
<
p>Chancellor McCormick is, in fact, a woman. You think this is the worst idea ever, yet you do not know a damn thing about this issue. You post the most dubious descriptions of the Chancellor, as if you knew who she was, yet didn’t even know that she’s a woman. EPIC FAIL.
I see a lot of appropriations from the state to the system in every year’s cap and op budget. It’s not as simple as saying these are separate organizations.
<
p>This is analagous to the GIC debate. In one sense, this is none of the state’s business because it’s 100% on the local budget. On the other hand, because the state provides local aid and because the premiums keep growing and diminishing the ability of local aid to actually serve a productive purpose, the state has an interest. So yes, I think the state does have an interest where the UMass system spends its money and whether it’s going to take on a massive new venture.
<
p>I didn’t know the Chancellor was a woman. B.F.D.
Our state funds our public universities 49th out of 50th per capita in the entire freaking country. What our state gives the UMASS system is a pittance. The UMASS system funds the UMASS system, what the state contributes to it is a joke.
<
p>
<
p>I’m sorry, but it showed your complete ignorance on this issue. It was not the only example, just the most hilarious one. Your overall ignorance of this issue, when you decided to post a “worst ever” diary about it, was, indeed, a B.F.D. You could have taken that criticism constructively, but I see you’ve just dug your heels in. Keep stepping on it, though. You do yourself no favors.
<
p>
<
p>If the system wasn’t solvent, then it would. But the system’s perfectly solvent, so it doesn’t. The only “state interest” in the UMASS Law School are the lobbyists and PR people the private schools are pushing to get the state to do all in its power to stop a UMASS Law School, because they don’t want to lose their cash cow. If UMASS made even modest investments to their potential law school, it would quickly become a quality system which would drive many students from the private expensive schools to the affordable public one, including some of the very promising students. There’s a reason why the expensive, private law schools have been driven into a frenzy to stop UMASS… and it’s not “the greater good.” It’s their pocketbooks.
<
p>This whole new “our state can’t afford it” meme is just the latest one the adversaries have been spreading, praying on the people who just don’t understand how the UMASS system is funded. Tell ya what — get the state to fund the UMASS system 25th out of 50 per capita and then maybe I’d be more willing to let legislators decide what’s good or not good for UMASS, instead of the actual system itself and their student body.
Well argued, in MHO.
<
p>I believe that UMASS is largely underfunded in a substantial part because the state doesn’t have a law school.
<
p>I did my undergraduate at NC State University, a solid, large, research I ag and tech school. In state tuition is $5527 a year. That doesn’t include room & board, fees and books, but relative to places like in-state at UMASS, it’s dang inexpensive. It turns out places like NC (and VA, TN, GA, SC, FL, etc) fund their public universities. So, how did that happen?
<
p>
<
p>Check out which schools the state legislators attended. A huge percentage attended public college or public law school, or both. Sure enough, a large percentage of the state lege has an affinity for state public universities, and they make sure that they’re funded. Our MA lege didn’t attend public universities at the same rate, and none of them can go to a MA public law school. Sure enough, the MA lege has an affinity for BC, BU, Harvard, Suffolk, etc.
<
p>State universities are important for local and regional growth and industry, are important as another attainable rung in the social ladder, and are important employers in regional economies outside of Boston. States like MA, NY, CT, and NJ are notorious for underfunding them. I believe that, in the case of MA, a lack of a public law school is one of a few reasons why, and we have the chance to address that vacancy right now.
Your post and comments reveal that you have no idea about UMass Dartmouth, its Chancellor, student enrollment or anything else. You are right about Dartmouth though, it is a hellhole to be avoided by people like you at all costs.
It’s only now that you mention it I realize UMASS didn’t have one.
Most New England states don’t have public law schools – only Maine and Connecticut do. UConn law is actually pretty good, too. Maine is almost purely a small regional school.
<
p>I agree about the location. I think having a law school in Dartmouth makes it much harder for the school to create institutional or industry synergies. The school should be in Amherst or Boston. Some of the problems of accreditation would likely be relieved from this, too. UMass already gets all the journals and reporters necessary to have a satisfactory library.
<
p>Maybe UMass could take over New England Law – that school could benefit from the institutional and name support UMass provides.
<
p>As lightiris suggests above, if UMass could duplicate the success we’ve had with the medical school to a public law school, it would absolute be worth it.
<
p>The bigger issue for me is not whether UMass has a law school or not (though I think having one at it’s flagship campus or in the city would be helpful in raising the quality of the overall UMass system), it is about the Commonwealth’s commitment to public higher education.
<
p>Public funding for higher education in this state is an absolute joke. I think we’ve moved up a bit, but I know we were 49th out of 50 in per capita higher ed spending only a few years ago. UMass is a great system, but it could be incredible if it received even an average level of support. Something like 70% of UMass-Amherst students stay and work in MA (higher proportions at the other campuses), so supporting the school is an economic development no-brainer.
<
p>Also – UMass should fire its ineffectual President, Jack Wilson. He never should have pushed out the former Chancellor at the Amherst campus, John Lombardi, now President of LSU. Maybe Marty Meehan would take the job. He’s got that perfect mix of commitment to education, political skills, and network of powerful friends to really excel in the post.
Let’s put the Law School at the Lowell Campus. Marty Meehan would love to do that, I’m sure, if he becomes president as you suggest.
I bet ULowell would be a lot more economic than UBoston. It is a very easy place to navigate ready made for students to take electives in health care law or Environmental law in tandem with the colleges Health and Environment or college of engineering. I dont know how feasible the whole idea of a state law school is in general — when state is near broke. If feasible, I agree with Christopher that it would fit nicely into ULowell. (shameless plug–I went there too)
at least if it’s at Dartmouth. This project is very feasible, because we have a major public UMASS university in Dartmouth and a law school in Dartmouth that wants to merge with Dartmouth at no cost to the state. The UMASS system would have to cough up some dough to make the law school better, so it’s accredited beyond the New England region, but it’s nothing that the UMASS system can’t handle. It would be a very modest investment, which again would cost the state of Massachusetts nothing.
<
p>—
<
p>It’s really unhelpful to pit Lowell and Dartmouth against each other on this. I fully support UMASS Lowell, too, but it’s not a feasible location for a UMASS Law School because there’s no partner there willing to merge with the system. If there were, I’d be all for it, but there isn’t.
Mitt Romney thought it was a great idea to make Amherst the “flagship” and shit on all the other UMASS schools, too.
<
p>I think you and he are right. Let’s turn UMASS Dartmouth and Lowell into puppy mills diploma factories, eliminating all research or anything worthwhile there — because why should people from Lowell, Lawrence, New Bedford and Fall River EVER be able to have access to high quality public higher education? I mean, those cities have some of the highest rates of poverty in this state anyway, why should we do anything to help those lazy schmucks? After all, if they had any sense, they’d just move to Boston or Amherst! For reals, dude. Thanks for this amazingly fantastic advice!!!
<
p>/sarcasm off
<
p>As a UMASS Dartmouth alum, home of the UMASS system’s best programs for the arts, nursing and amongst the best in engineering and music, I think your ‘only Amherst and Boston (because that city needs another law school!)’ idea is crap.
<
p>Finally, there’s a reason why it makes sense in Dartmouth: That’s where the damn law school already exists that wants to be a part of UMASS. When next you hear of Suffolk or BU wanting to join UMASS Boston, get back to me. At Dartmouth, it’ll be expensive, but manageable, to add a public law school to the system through the already-existing school in Dartmouth… it would probably be impossibly expensive and difficult to create a brand new one from scratch, especially since there’d be no infrastructure for it at all, institutional or otherwise, no matter where anyone wants to put it in the state.
<
p>I’m sorry if any of this is harsh, but it really, really rubs me the wrong way. UMASS Amherst may be the largest UMASS school in the system, but it is not the only good one. UMASS Lowell, Worcester and Dartmouth all have at least some fantastic programs that are widely respected throughout the state… and they should. We do not need less good public universities in this state… we need more of them. People who go to UMASS stay in Massachusetts — people who go to our state’s private schools generally don’t. Investing in our public higher ed colleges is investing in our state’s future… we should not only be investing in the future of Boston and Amherst. There are other regions in this state that need high-quality public universities, too.
I do agree with Mitt Romney on the flagship campus idea. All the great public school systems (NC, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Virginia) have a clear flagship campus. (California is weird because all the campuses are so large, but LA and Berkeley clearly get the most attention). You don’t have to shit on the other schools to make Amherst the flagship. You just have to be realistic about the goals and limitations of the other campuses.
<
p>I absolutely think that Amherst should get be the research hub of the system. Lowell, Dartmouth, and Boston I think serve a different purpose. They have more of regional focus serving students from the area (including commuters). They do not need to be research hubs to accomplish that job.
<
p>The reasons to have the law school in Dartmouth are clear, but having it there also means that it will be limited. I think one of the reasons Southern NE Law has never succeeded is because of the limitations of its location. Having a public law school there will probably make for a decent law school, but never a great one. It will just be a law diploma mill and not a school that has a serious impact on the state’s legal community.
<
p>If the expectation is to have a law school that only serves the southcoast region, then I think the entire idea does not make sense. I am strongly in favor of higher education having an impact on the state as a whole, and I think having a potentially great school would serve that goal better than a mediocre one.
<
p>Having it in Boston makes sense because it would allow the school to have robust clinical programs, allow students to have greater access to internships, and also give the school greater access to adjunct professors in government and industry. It’s not that Boston needs another law school at all, but what the public law school needs to excel is the things a location in Boston can offer. Frankly, it has nothing to do with making UMass-Boston better – it is about make a public law school better.
<
p>Having it in Amherst has similar, but different advantages. Many of the professors needed for a good law school are already there – coming from the Legal Studies department, Econ, Business, PoliSci, Labor studies, Public Health, Public Policy, and Five Colleges faculty. The library resources also already exist. Students would be able to cross-register in other programs and departments, which would make for a more robust educational experience.
<
p>The biggest problem with those locations is the lack of a building, but I still think a public law school makes sense in one of those cities.
<
p>I agree that we need high quality public education all over the state, but I don’t think we can have high quality research universities all over the state given the limited resources of the state.
<
p>Ultimately, a poor law school does not help the UMass system or the state.
<
p>Because no student could ever drive the hour and 15 minutes (or less, if they’re already commuting to UMASS Dartmouth from further north anyway) to drive to Boston… and Providence offers none of those opportunities, either, 30 whole minutes away from Dartmouth…
<
p>
<
p>Why should Lowell and Dartmouth ever be able to have full-fledged research going on in their campuses? (Ignoring, for a moment, the fact that they already do — or did you miss the giant botulism lab they just built in Dartmouth?)
<
p>The problem you and Mitt Romney share is the fact that you think research at a school like UMASS Dartmouth somehow mystically takes away from research at UMASS Amherst. It doesn’t. UMASS Amherst is already a full-fledged research institution. By trying to deny Lowell and Dartmouth the opportunity do join it, you are indeed shitting on some of the most impoverished students in this state, by keeping those universities down. You’re right, they do serve a slightly different purpose than, say, UMASS Amherst — but it’s not as if empowering them by letting them compete for prestige and research opportunities hurts that purpose. Indeed, making them stronger universities will only help the area students. UMASS Dartmouth and UMASS Lowell are key institutions within both of their areas. Both regions would be dramatically worse off without the UMASS brand name. Both regions would be better off if the two schools were more prestigious, had more opportunities and more research. This is honestly pretty basic stuff.
<
p>You’re creating a class war that need not exist. We should be working toward the betterment of all the UMASS schools, not one at the cost of all the others. Anything less is indeed shitting on the students who attend those other schools, as well as the regions that house them. There is no reason why Amherst can’t improve at the very same time that Dartmouth, Boston and Lowell do.
and almost no one drives or can afford to have a car. I think the Dartmouth location would hugely limit the opportunities I mentioned. Being in a legislator’s office or working at a courthouse in the morning and trying to be back for an afternoon class would be very difficult if relying on public transportation and being a 30-minute or 75-minute drive away.
<
p>I KNOW that the other campuses perform research – please stop talking to people on this board like they are idiots.
<
p>I don’t think that making all the schools great is possible given the limitations of the state. I think having one great university and three other good universities is better than having 4 simply good universities.
<
p>Trying to make the Amherst campus a world-class school on par with a school like Wisconsin (being akin to Berkeley, UVA, Chapel Hill, and Michigan is probably not reasonable) would help the state and the UMass system more than trying to spread the wealth, I think. Investing more in the Amherst campus would increase that campus’s ability to attract notable professors who can bring in more research dollars, create a higher profile that will result in greater merchandising, increase the ability to attract more out-of-state students who are willing to pay much more in tuition, allow for greater fundraising capability, and a number of other benefits. All of these things would help the great Amherst campus more self-sustainable and allow state resources to be spread around to the other campuses.
<
p>You may disagree and think that all these benefits can be accomplished at all the other campuses, but I don’t believe that can work (because it has not been working).
<
p>
We should allow these other universities to aggressively pursue research and their own opportunities. You seem to think they shouldn’t. I don’t understand that. Are they ‘robbing’ Amherst? Do you think we should slash the programs at these other schools so we can provide more to Amherst?
<
p>I would love to see Amherst become the next UNC or Berkley, but that’s not going to happen unless the state decides to get serious about supporting its public universities. The problem is not UMASS Dartmouth, Lowell or Boston. The problem is the private colleges in this state that try to keep the public schools down, the state legislature which won’t support public higher ed and the people who make up mythical arguments that this is somehow contest where all the money has to go to one school or all the others. If the state was even middle-of-the-pack in terms of how it funds public higher ed, Amherst probably could be that world-class institution we both want, whilst Dartmouth, Lowell and Boston became much better schools than they already are, with more opportunities and research.
<
p>
<
p>If you live and go to school in Boston, you a) don’t need a car and b) pay more just to live and go to school there. It would be a different calculus for students who go to schools outside of Boston, especially to schools that would potentially service a lot of people in that particular region.
<
p>For those who would want to move to the Dartmouth area to go to law school there, something probably likely to happen if we invest in that law school and get it nationally accredited, people would almost certainly still save on living expenses, even accounting for the cost of a vehicle. Rent in New Bedford, for example, is dirt cheap, compared to the insane rents of Boston. Dare I say, someone could rent an apartment in New Bedford and pay for gas and car insurance and save literally thousands a year on top of the $45k they’d already save over three years for going to law school there instead of Suffolk.
<
p>
<
p>Going anywhere in Boston, using the T, takes about 30 minutes or longer. I’ve waited 30 minutes for the next freaking subway train to come. 30 minutes is an entirely reasonable commute to go anywhere — stop being ridiculous. Somehow, other law schools manage to exist outside of Boston. True story: there are more law schools outside of Boston than in it! How ever do they manage it?
I think increased higher education spending in the state should be more focused at improving the Amherst campus rather than the other campuses for the reasons I laid out above. I think the other campuses do a much better job at what they set out to do (offer quality educations to those from local communities) than Amherst (be a top-notch research university) does. I think a different allocation of spending would help one school’s mission more than it may harm the others.
<
p>These students in Dartmouth would still likely be living off of student loans and the amount allowed to be taken out would be tied to the costs of living in the area near the school.
<
p>The living expenses I am allotted per year from my student loans is about $15K. Students going to school in Dartmouth would probably only have like $12K to live off of – so having a car is still a very expensive issue. The cost calculus doesn’t change that much regardless of the location. Any savings the students have or any money from part-time jobs would go further in Dartmouth than Boston, but overall the students would have similarly tight budgets regardless of the school’s location.
<
p>What area law schools are truly outside of Boston? Western New England (not very good – almost entirely a western MA regional school), Massachusetts School of Law (really crappy in Andover), and Southern New England. If you look at law schools throughout the country, ALL of the good ones are on the campus of a major university or in a big city.
<
p>
<
p>If not on the campus of a large university or in a big city, I don’t think they do manage it.
<
p>I guess our main difference in opinion is that I only want to have a UMass law school if it will be a very good law school, but you are ok with it being a limited school that mainly serves a small region.
that empowers umass and its students, and you want the magical fairy version that’s literally never going to happen.
Doubleman, if you attended law school in Dartmouth the tuition would be lower and the cost of living would be tiny compared to Boston. Hey, you could probably afford to own a car but, if not, the DART transit van is excellent. UMass Dartmouth already has a campus in downtown New Bedford that is steps away from the 3rd District Court and the state Attorney General’s office. The DART van goes back and forth all day as do the SRTA buses. The trip takes about ten minutes.
Huh?, Wisconsin akin to Berkeley? Why do you think these huge land grant state colleges are the standard to shoot for? A good ball team does not a great university make. SUNY, the State University of New York, has no huge campuses but is a highly acclaimed institution of higher learning.
By the time you graduate high school, you should be able to try cases and write wills, incorporate businesses, determine fundamental liberties, etc.
and it’s a disgrace that we don’t have one. Not everyone can afford the pricy tuition at private laws schools. It’s beyond me that this state is so far behind the curve on this one.
<
p>And you do know that the price tag at Suffolk is $19,775 PER SEMESTER, right? Just under 40K a year. Northeastern isn $36,564 a year. That sounds a hell of a lot more than $24K a year to me.
they can’t cover Roe v Wade, Casey v Planned Parenthood, Griswold v Connecticut, or any religious cases like that Texas football prayer one.
Bill of Rights is pretty fundamental to our legal system.
Actually, law schools are substantial money makers for universities on a per pupil basis. Law schools, unlike medical schools or engineering schools, require relatively little investment in the way of physical overhead or specialized research features found in medical or engineering laboratories. In addition, law school graduates generally make more money, on average, than, for example, education school graduates. Consequently, law school graduates can be tapped by an effective alumni development office to help support the public law school as the public law school develops in the years to come.
<
p>All you really need to build a fully accredited law school is some basic, unadorned classroom space to accommodate the next generation, a mix of part-time adjunct and full-time faculty (which can be weighted for cost purposes towards the former), a half-decent, accredited law library, and a school cafeteria serving copious amount of coffee for those late-night tort study sessions.
<
p>I know it seems simplistic to assert a “if you build it, they will come” Field of Dreams philosophy to building a public law school in Massachusetts, but I will paraphrase what former Boston University president John Silber was reported to have responded when he was advised by the BU comptroller that the university faced a fiscal deficit one year during the 1990s, “Bleep the deficit; just admit another 150 law students to the 1L class this coming year.”
<
p>Finally, Ed, please refrain on denigrating poor, under-appreciated Bristol County. In fact, I’ll let you and all of BMG nation in on a little secret if you promise not too spread it too widely; Horseneck Beach in Westport, MA is the most beautiful, underutilized public beach in all of Massachusetts.
Have an LLM program for international students. Back about 20 years ago BU Law’s JD program was almost twice the size and was significantly lower-ranked. One of the things they did was cut the JD program in half and increase the size of the LLM program. It made for happier JD students and more selectivity for that program. The LLMs almost always pay full price, so the school got more revenue to offer scholarships for JD students. So, in the end, the school got more revenue and were able to attract better students and increase the school’s reputation.
They dropped 30 JD students from overall enrollment, added 30 LLMs. More selectivity, more cash, and they get to build an international reputation.
Massachusetts ranks fourth in the nation (third, if you exclude the District of Columbia) in lawyers per capita. And with the recent wave of deferrals in the big law firms, there are lawyers even at the top private schools who can’t find the big firm jobs they
think theywant and are beingbeing given the once-in-a-lifetime chanceforced to consider jobs at smaller firms. What are the UMass graduates going to do when they get out of school? My guess is there will not be much out-of-state demand for them.<
p>Bottom line–there are a lot of lawyers out there. A lot of good lawyers with jobs, a lot of good lawyers without jobs, a lot of bad lawyers with jobs, a lot of bad lawyers without jobs. A new lower-tier law school is a bad idea.
<
p>TedF
<
p>(By the way, I just figured out how to use the
strike-throughfeature!)only people who can afford private law schools deserve a law school education.
<
p>Another fine BMG example of elitism.
<
p>BTW: The law school already exists — the only question is whether or not we actually want it to be a good one. The people of the South Coast would like you to say yes.
No one “deserves” a law school education. The law is a service profession, and we should consider the number of lawyers that is good for the public before adding to the supply.
<
p>Also, almost no one who gets a private law school education can afford it. The debt burden upon graduation is significant, as it will be under the UMASS plan.
<
p>That said, you’re right that the school already exists. I guess one way of putting my point is that maybe it should not.
<
p>TedF
we don’t live in the Soviet Union. Here in America we get to pick what we want to do. There are some people who would “pick” law who are perfectly intelligent and would make fantastic lawyers, but can’t afford to do so at one of this state’s expensive private law schools. Amazingly enough, some of these people would even go on to be better and more successful lawyers than graduates of the expensive, private law schools. I won’t deny that a lot of people are becoming lawyers and not all of them are ever successful at doing it, but that does not mean we should punish those who are economically disadvantaged. Maybe you should take your anti-laywer bent to Suffolk, BU, Northeastern, etc. and telling them to stop accepting so many law students?
Law schools plainly need to do better on affordability. But if what you’re saying is that there need to be a sufficient number of law school seats so that anyone who wants a legal education can get one, no matter their educational background* or ability to pay because, gosh darn it, this is America, then I think that’s crazy talk, given today’s market for law jobs. I’ll say it again–no one is entitled to be a lawyer (or a doctor, or whatever).
<
p>TedF
<
p>* Your comment focused on economic disparities, not undergraduate educational disparities, but I raise the point here because I assume (from SNESL’s extremely low bar pass rate) that the school is not attracting the cream of the academic crop from whatever socioeconomic background.
<
p>Where did I ever say that? Specifically, my argument was that there are people who are academically well-qualified for law school and who would love to attend, but cannot afford to do so. I have repeatedly stated that many people who would go to law school if they had an affordable option would turn out to be better lawyers than those who are churning out of the expensive, private lawyer mills of this state.
<
p>Does such an argument imply that these would be bad students and that ‘anyone could go?’ No. They’d still have to get in. You tacked on all sorts of giant leaps in assumptions, inserting many words into my own mouth. Straw Man arguments have always been a losing proposition, my friend 😉
actually compete against a lower cost public university for students?
<
p>Every student in the Commonwealth deserves an opportunity to get a preparatory public education in most careers. Whether it’s law or, say, veterinary medicine, the Commonwealth should provide opportunities to obtain these degrees at a public university. Private universities should not be able to monopolize education any more than private health insurance companies should be able to monopolize health insurance. Health care and education belong appropriately in the public domain.
It will just be a different school. Instead of lawyers coming out of a poor, unaccredited school, they can go to a decent accredited school. These lawyers will also pay less for their education so they may be able to pursue different careers rather than the Big Law track, which has become a necessity for many because of the debt load.
That’s true, but as I wrote in an earlier response to Ryan, perhaps we simply have too many law schools. The UMASS merger idea, as I understand it, is a potential way to save a school that otherwise is in trouble. I guess my suggestion is that maybe the school doesn’t need saving. I don’t mean this to come across as harsh, but I really do think we are churning out more lawyers than the market needs.
<
p>TedF
the people who are already becoming the lawyers. The “too many lawyers” problem is not a problem because we’ve made law school so affordable and accessible that anyone could become a lawyer if they wanted. If THAT was the problem, maybe I’d agree with you, but it isn’t. If you want to fix the cause here, don’t whack the stick at the people who can’t otherwise afford to go, but would love to become a lawyer and would probably make better lawyers than many of the people in the next category. Whack the stick on the privileged elites who go because their parents and family thought it was a good idea, or go out of boredom or go because they can’t think of what else they should do. Anyone should have the opportunity to go to law school, even those who come from poor or working class families in communities with widespread poverty like New Bedford and Fall River (the Dartmouth area). If there’s truly a disease here, treat the symptoms of the actual problem, not the made-up problem that doesn’t actually exist.
I think this really hits upon a core issue here. A lot of my post was dedicated to arguing that this won’t really be “free” in the end. But I could be wrong about that. Maybe this will end up being a great cash cow for the UMass system, similar to eddiecoyle and DoubleMan’s refernce to BU using the law school as a cash source for the university.
<
p>Are we ok with that? Contrary to popular opinion, there is not an infinite number of large firm / corporate jobs to fall back upon after gradating from law school. The number of people with that opportunity has always been, outside of the top 15 or so schools, limited to the top 10-20% of a school’s graduating class. Many more in the class are SOL and will take a job that pays less than the one they had before going to law school. Others will take jobs as contract attorneys. And others will not practice law at all.
<
p>Law schools know this, but they go out of their way to avoid letting the message get out. They put out b.s. numbers about graduating salaries, % of students employed (and employed in large firms) at graduation, etc. These schools are, in essence, selling a dream. They know that it won’t work out for the vast majority of its students, who will be stuck in crappy jobs with a suffocating debt burden. But at that point, the checks have cleared and it’s onto a new class in the ponzi scheme.
<
p>This is a fleshed out version of #5 in my list. Yes, tuition would be lower than Suffolk and NESL (two of the biggest purveyors of the biglaw dream). And I welcome anything that dings their bottom line. But tuition would also be higher than at almost every public law school in the country (and those are mostly elite institutions like Michigan, Virginia and Boalt). UConn Law, e.g., charges approximately 25% less than UMass Law would, and you’d be graduating from a top 50 program vs. an unaccredited one.
<
p>You might say the choice to fork over $24k to attend UMass Law is the prospective student’s individual choice, and it well is. But the dilemma here is whether the state should be part of this racket. Indeed, the thing this reminds me most of is the debate over legalized gambling / the lottery. And in the same way we justify taking advantage of people there with the promise of money for education and other social programs, here we will contemplate the promise of more money for worthy projects in other parts of the UMass system.
And on the “big hands” comment above.
<
p>According to my US News link, the only 9 law schools in the country with higher tuition than what UMass Law plans to charge would be: Michigan, Virginia, Penn State, Illinois, Minnesota, and four schools in the UC system.
<
p>- Michigan, Virginia, and UC Berkeley are top 10 programs
– UCLA, Minnesota and Illinois are in the top 25
– UC Hastings and UC Davis are in the top 50. Also, the high price tag of all the UC system schools is a recent phenomenon due to the California budget meltdown
– Only Penn State is not in the top 50, and it is ranked 65
<
p>These rankings are not the be-all, end-all for educational quality, but they are a decent proxy. Asking students to go 100 grand in debt to attend an unaccredited public institution is unconscionable.
have states that actually support public higher education. Massachusetts does not.
<
p>Compare apples to apples. Inside Massachusetts, you’re not going to find a law school for less than $35k. Even some crappy ones cost $39k, including the one in Springfield that doesn’t have national accreditation either. The planned tuition would come in $15k less compared to that Springfield school, a total that ads up to $45k in the time it would take to finish the degree.
<
p>It seems like you’ll come up with any excuse to complain about people being given the opportunity to attend public law school inside Massachusetts.
I assume when you say “the one in Springfield”, you mean Western New England College School of Law (WNEC Law), which is the only law school in Springfield. If you are in fact talking about WNEC Law, you’re wrong on national accreditation.
<
p>Law Schools are accredited by the ABA (American Bar Association), when they meet a certain set of criteria. WNEC is fully accredited by the ABA, and has been for many years. It’s no different from Suffolk Law and New England Law in Boston in that sense. Rankings-wise, it’s on par with New England Law in Boston.
<
p>That doesn’t take away from your larger point, and your various points about why MA needs a public law school, but it helps to get your facts straight about the current landscape of legal education in the state.
<
p>P.S. Link to WNEC Law website: http://www1.law.wnec.edu/prosp…
From your USN& link, UConn charges out-of-state students $38,976, in tuition and fees. That’s what MA residents pay to go there. The proposed school would not charge more than “almost every public law school” – that list has at least a couple of dozen schools that charge nonresidents more than MA residents would pay at a UMDSL. Of course, they could go to school in Newark or Detroit for about the same tuition and fees…
Mass (and other New England) residents get a break at UConn, so it’s closer to $34,000 for the year. But yes, UMass Law would be cheaper for Mass residents than other options… ignoring for the moment that SNE already exists as an option.
<
p>Regardless, what I was trying to highlight was what other states who have made the decision to have a public law school charge their own residents for tuition.
<
p>That’s because those states actually support their public universities. If Massachusetts decided to support its public colleges and universities, the UMASS system and other schools could also tack off thousands in costs, too. Instead, we decide to fund them 49th out of 50 states in per capita student higher ed funding.
was to post this and present these lame arguments.
<
p>This will cost you NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. This will cost taxpayers NOTHING. It will cost the UMASS system some money, a modest sum compared to its access, but it will not cost the taxpayers of Massachusetts anything. So I’m calling bullshit on 99% of what you had to say right away.
<
p>Now, I also find it absurd that you’d rail against an affordable law school education. $24k is not cheap, but it’s probably almost half of what it costs to go to BU, Harvard or even Suffolk. A lot of people are priced out of opportunity; this would help reduce that.
<
p>In reality, you’re being very shortsighted. In other states, there are major public university systems that are on par with the Ivy Leagues. We see examples of that in states such as California or North Carolina. In Massachusetts, we piss on our public colleges — leaving them essentially on their own, funding them 49th out of 50th in per capita state spending. Despite that, UMASS has done a lot with what it’s had, but it could be a much better system. Having a public law school added to the system which, with time, should be whipped into shape so it’s actually a good, reputable law school, would be a serious boon to the whole UMASS system. It would be an even bigger boon to the South Coast region, which is one of the poorest in the entire state. If you’re against this, you’re against UMASS catering to its own students and becoming a major public university system that we can all be proud of. As someone who attended UMASS Dartmouth, I am absolutely offended by what you’ve had to say. Not only is it lame and short sighted, but it does damage to our public university system.
you believe a new law school will add more supply versus shift around relatively inelastic demand.
<
p>anyway, lots of good points on this thread – i promoted the diary b/c it seems like an under-discussed issue, and hope you respond….
The existing law schools turn away a large number of people who apply. Opening up more seats in law schools will mean more people sitting for the bar and thus more lawyers. And that’s even if UMass becomes a very good school and takes the “better” students from NESL, WNE and Suffolk.
<
p>The AMA and medical schools take a different approach with this, by limiting the number of seats and taking a more stringent approach to the quality of the schools, instruction, graduates, etc.
I mean this in the truest sense in “Are we running short of lawyers?”
<
p>Last time I checked we have law schools all over the country graduating lawyers who can’t get a job. This has been going on for a long time too. When deciding on where we should invest “education” dollars, why don’t we look at the needs of the workforce and maybe do some reductions on what jobs will be hard to fill in the future and THEN decide if we need a new Law School, another Engineering school, a “renewable energy focused school” another Medical school since Doctors are in short supply virtually everywhere…
<
p>Let’s not decide to build/buy/convert a Law School just because “everyone else has one”. That’s asinine!!
First, it’s not “another” law school. The law school already exists, just separate from the UMASS system. The idea would be to take this private law school which is only regionally accredited and make it a stronger law school that’s nationally accredited.
<
p>Second, the law school itself and all of its land, buildings and library would be officially donated to UMASS Dartmouth. While some money would have to be spent in improving it, it wouldn’t be nearly as expensive as creating and staffing one from scratch.
<
p>So, your two points don’t really apply here.
I agree with Rye on this one… the facilities are already in Dartmouth, why not go with it?
<
p>Now, once the program gets itself established so that it’s budget is constant, it’s enrollment constant, and it’s ranking constant, then maybe you look to expand.
<
p>A campus elsewhere? Could be. Maybe even do something relatively novel, like have first year classrooms in places like Boston and Amherst too, but 2nd and 3rd year classes only at Dartmouth.
<
p>Don’t let the perfect (and the much more expensive) get in the way of the good.
You’d actually have to flip it, since first year classes in law school are standardized fundamentals (required by the ABA and the various bar examiners around the country) – contracts, torts, property, civil procedure, constitutional law, writing, etc.
<
p>However, 2nd and 3rd year classes at most law schools are primarily electives, and law schools that exist as part of a university (as opposed to standalone schools) usually offer cross-registration with other graduate classes (usually at the schools of education, business, public health, etc). It’s a really great idea – a student could go to Dartmouth to get their basic legal education, and then have the ability to take classes at other UMass campuses as part of their legal education – to really broaden the meaning of their degree.
<
p>If you could add clinical experiences supported by the various faculty of the UMass system around the state, then that would raise the quality and profile of a UMass Law education even further.
<
p>There are other potential things a UMass Law could offer:
<
p>1. LLM degrees to those legal professionals who want to enhance their credential in a specific field of law(tax, health, and intellectual property come to mind, but there are others)
<
p>2. Non-law degree programs for individuals who want a basic understanding of how the law works, but don’t want to be lawyers – a “making sense of contracts” class, perhaps.
<
p>3. Legal training for law enforcement professionals – for those interested in a more thorough understanding of law than what a police officer might get at the academy, or to brush up on new developments in law.
<
p>I’m sure there are other great ideas as well.
<
p>One thing I’m also surprised no one has mentioned:
<
p>Starting salaries for assistant district attorneys and public defenders are in their low 30s, and without much room to grow. The tenure in most of those positions is a year or less – mostly because servicing the 140k of law school debt costs too much. A law school that creates graduates with smaller debt loads could encourage prosecutors and public defenders to stay longer in their jobs, get more experience, and do better work – and that’s something of great value to our Commonwealth.
but the reason why you might be able to do first year in multiple places is precisely because the courses are, relatively speaking, standardized.
<
p>Keeping all of the, ahem, electives in one place allows for people to take the mix that they’re interested in. By splitting the mix, you run the risk that students want to take a course offered in Dartmouth, but another offered in Boston, etc.
<
p>If you just replicate the first year courses offered in Dartmouth in another location, it allows all second year students (which would be exclusively in Dartmouth, for example) to enter with the exact same coursework and all have the same variety of choices. The difference: the kids from Boston (or Lowell, etc) saved a bunch of money their first year by living at home. Another possibility is to break up the first year into two years and do it on nights and weekends, thereby allowing folks to get a law degree while only giving up an income stream for two years instead of three.
<
p>Lots of possibilities…
Good point about the ability to access different interests at UMass campuses. This hellhole that we call home is one of the major fishing ports of the country and I know a few lawyers who make a living taking care of the legal needs of the fishing fleet.
I think this is a great idea for several reasons:
<
p>1) It benefits me
<
p>After paying off my U Chicago debt I think I will be a lot more inclined to go to a state grad program, I am already considering the McCormick School of Public Policy at UMASS Boston and a UMASS law program would be even better.
<
p>2) Benefits UMASS
<
p>Again this will MAKE money not LOSE money, it will elevate the whole UMASS system in national rankings, certainly elevate Dartmouth’s liberal arts programs as feeder programs into the law school, and will make the system stronger and more robust at a relatively small cost that is not funded by the taxpayers
<
p>3) Benefits MASS
<
p>While some could argue that we have some of the best law schools in the country already here, I think this law school could benefit the state by focusing on public interest law, non-profit law, environmental law, con law, etc. basically law that actually benefits society as opposed to just big corporations. And having our public officials come out of a public system will make them more inclined to support it and will make them more community minded in general.
<
p>4) Dartmouth Location is great
<
p>I actually think this is a good location. This will definitely attract Rhodes Island students since they lack a public law school and it is closer/more affordable than UConn Law. Also it is still relatively close to Boston. UConn and Yale graduates tend to go to New York based jobs even though they are CT based, I don’t see why a school in MA with a UMASS moniker will detract potential employers because it is not Boston based. The bar they test for will still be MA, the legal market will still be MA, they won’t be at any disadvantage as far as I see. I think this helps improve the Dartmouth campus which is probably the weakest and most ill served of the various UMASS campuses and lacks a niche program for its own. Also plenty of state schools have two flagships, within IL UI-Chicago is just as prestigious as UI-Urbana. In fact UIC has one of the best medical schools in the country and one that is certainly better than UI-Urbana. Which coincidentally was the result of a public-private merger like the one proposed here. The best public law schools in CA are at the Irvine and Hastings, at least according to the rankings, and those are not at either ‘flagship’ as DoubleMan would claim. Marylands law school is at U-Maryland Baltimore, not College Park. Vermonts law school is nowhere near UVM. Etc. I think flagships matter more from an undergraduate perspective that simply denotes the original campus, I don’t think its necessarily more prestigious, and there are plenty of examples of satellite campuses eclipsing flagships, especially at the law school level.
The best public law schools in California are not Irvine and Hastings; they are Boalt Hall at Berkeley (top 10) and the UCLA School of Law (top 15). Hastings is a top 40 school, but it is also in downtown San Francisco (steps away from 9th Circuit Court of Appeals). The other good public law school in CA (Davis) is on the campus of a major university.
<
p>UC-Irvine is not accurately ranked because it is only about a year old. The experience of that school is also a very instructive story for the creation of a UMass law school. UC-Irvine found a law school dean who is a huge hitter in legal academia and he convinced some of his law professor friends to join the faculty at Irvine – at significant cost to the school. Then the school did something almost unheard of. They promised a FREE education to every student who comes to the school. I think they have promised this for the first few years of the school’s existence. Top students jumped at the chance, and the first class has student stats and a selectivity rating akin to a top 10 law school. Maybe if UMass did something like that, the Dartmouth school would be great and its location would not be a factor, but that sort of plan takes a few hundred million dollars to execute.
<
p>The UC system has a very different set up (which I admitted above) than UMass because each school has about 30-40,000 students and is a major research university. The UMass system has one very large research university and then three universities that are about half the size.
<
p>The Vermont School of Law is a PRIVATE school, and frankly, outside of its environmental law program, is not a very good law school.
<
p>The location of U-Maryland’s law school makes perfect sense and fits with my argument – it is in the largest city in the state.
<
p>All of the benefits you point out seem to depend on the UMass law school being a very good school. My contention is that making it a very good law school (and not one that is really just competing with schools like New England School of Law) will be VERY difficult given the Dartmouth location.
<
p>The UMass name will not detract employers because the law school is outside of Boston, but a bad law school will detract employers, regardless of the name.
<
p>There is another important part of the law school game that has not been mentioned much. One way that law schools stay at their current ranking or move up is by giving out lots of scholarships. The arguments about a self-sustaining school seem to rely on most or all students paying full price. A UMass law school, even at its lower price will have a very hard time competing for students when schools like Suffolk, BC, and BU give out a lot of full scholarships and a lot of half scholarships.
<
p>Northeastern School of Law is a school that primarily focuses on public interest work – one of the few schools to do so in the country. They also give out a scholarship of $8500 to a large percentage of their class (anyone with a 160 LSAT score an 3.5 undergrad GPA gets the scholarship). This brings the cost of tuition down to about $30K. Still a lot, and still more than the proposed UMass tuition, but students at NUSL get the benefit of going to a better school with a strong co-op program.
<
p>Could you please point to a public law school on true satellite campus that eclipses the public law school at the flagship campus or in a large city. I don’t think you can because it doesn’t happen.
Not almost unheard of in California. Before Governor Reagan, all of the UC system offered free educations to state residents.
or simply undergrad?
My impression is that graduate programs were also tuition-free, but my googling didn’t turn up any definite confirmation of that.
UMaryland Law is NOT at the flagship campus, and College Park is closer to DC which is arguably a larger legal market than Baltimore is. Lastly Davis, is not anywhere near a major legal market and is at a satellite campus, their undergrad program is not highly regarded.
The UC system is totally unlike any other state public university system (as I’ve said twice before) because each campus is so large and essentially like a flagship by itself. UC-Davis is not a true satellite like those that exist in most other public university systems.
<
p>Comparing UC-Davis to UMass-Dartmouth is a huge stretch. UC-Davis is a 31,000 student campus that has 7,000 graduate students. Its undergrad program is ranked #42 by USNews (#11 for public universities), so it is one of the best public universities in the country.
<
p>It is clearly highly regarded.
<
p>UMass-Dartmouth is nowhere near that level. Frankly, even UMass-Amherst is not. The level of institutional support available at UMass-Dartmouth simply does not exist in the way it does at UC-Davis.
<
p>No, UMaryland Law is not at the largest public campus, but it is in the largest city in the state (it is also the third oldest law school in the country – in existence before the College Park campus was founded). And being close to a large city v. in a large city is a big difference. Using the UMaryland analogy for the UMass context would be to advocate for a UMass law school at UMass-Boston, not Dartmouth.
<
p>The UC-Davis and UMaryland examples are not examples of law schools at true satellite campuses or outside of major cities.
<
p>I am not saying that having a law school in Dartmouth would be impossible, I am saying that it is very unlikely that the school would achieve a high-level of success at that location as opposed to other locations.
<
p>
I just wanted to address Ed Poon’s concern that if SNESL becomes UMass Law, that the building will have to undergo physical updates such as “making all bathrooms accessible.”
<
p>Ed Poon should drive to Dartmouth for the sole purpose of observing the bathroom facilities at SNESL. Perhaps Ed Poon could meet with Chancellor MacCormack as well so that there won’t be any mistakes regarding her gender.
<
p>There are many people that are saying that this plan does not make financial sense. First, SNESL currently has a student population of 235, and is actually a profitable. The school could continue to remain open as a private law school. SNESL has existed for nearly 30 years so I think the “free market” supports that there is a need for this law school.
<
p>The reason SNESL offered itself to UMass is that although SNESL is profitable, it has its limitations that because it is unaccredited, it cannot attract enough students that will make the school’s profits soar that it could pay for its accreditation (Catch 22). In other words, SNESL could continue to serve student populations for decades but it would remain unaccredited.
<
p>The idea of the donation is that the UMass brand will increase student enrollment and that extra tuition will in itself, pay for the accreditation in less than a decade! If you add just 100 new students at $23,500 = $2,350,000. In the 3 year legal education, that’s nearly 7 million dollars right there. UMass Dartmouth will acquire a law school and it will pay for itself just by increased enrollment.
<
p>Also take into consideration that the $23,500 tuition will be for in-state students. SNESL already has many students from Rhode Island, which only has 1 law school – Roger Williams. Roger Williams also eliminated its evening class division a few years ago. So anyone who lives in Rhode Island and wants to pursue a law degree at night will gravitate to UMass Law, and they will pay the higher tuition.
<
p>The evening program is also helpful for many MA residents that may want to expand their educational options but would otherwise be limited because the commute to Boston would be too far.
<
p>Another view that must be considered is that new hires at a District Attorney’s office makes about $40,000 per year. When law students attend law schools and then have $140,000+ in debt after graduation, they cannot stay at a DA’s office for very long. The constant turnover at DA’s offices will inherently make the prosecution of criminals inefficient. When someone leaves for a new job, the case will be stalled until someone new is hired, and then the new lawyer, has to re-read and learn the information in the case files, re-interviewing the witnesses. It’s inefficient. Now, there are 2 solutions. First, you could raise the pay of the salaries at the DA’s office (which would cost the taxpayers) OR you can provide a lower-cost alternative so that lawyers don’t have as much student loan debt and can stay at the DA’s office longer (which would not cost the taxpayers anything).
<
p>I don’t understand the argument that MA has too many lawyers already. IF this proposition is true, why are you holding it against SNESL and the attempt to create UMass Law? Surely, it was not SNESL that created an abundance of lawyers in this state!
<
p>Why isn’t anyone blaming NESL, Suffolk, NU, BC, BU, etc., for the abundance of lawyers? It is even more comical when those schools, in opposition to the creation of UMass Law, state that there is an abundance of lawyers! What have those schools done to REDUCE the numbers of their student populations to “control” the numbers of attorneys in Massachusetts?
<
p>Finally, for those that have the point of view that this plan does not make financial sense, have you looked at any of the financial records?
<
p>The UMass Board of Trustees is in the best position to make that determination and the Board determined that the plan does make financial sense. The UMass Board of Trustees also have fiduciary duties to the UMass system. It seems to me that if the UMass Board reviewed the relevant documents and the Board determined that the plan makes financial sense, then there is credibility to that determination.
<
p>If you were on a jury and had to weigh the credibility of the UMass Board of Trustees who have fiduciary responsibilities to the school and Ed Poon who does not even know the gender of the UMass Dartmouth Chancellor, well it wouldn’t take much time to deliberate.
The school’s bar passage rate hovers around an abysmal 43 percent for first-time takers; the average for all first-time takers on the most recent exam: 90.4 percent (the Massachusetts bar exam certainly does not have a reputation as the most challenging bar exam).
<
p>So, how do you raise passage rates? Hire professors and beef up your library (including computers, books and law librarians). Sure, you could be a little more selective in your admissions process, but fewer students equal fewer tuition dollars. And, without accreditation from the American Bar Association, those who want to practice in other states won’t even bother applying.
<
p>That’s why I don’t buy the “It’s not going to cost the state anything” argument.
SNESL’s bar passage rate for the July 2009 MA bar exam was 69.2%. Of course it is a lot easier to argue against UMass Law when you intentionally ignore the facts.
<
p>”Nearly 70 percent of the school’s first-time takers received passing grades in the most recent (July 2009) sitting of the Massachusetts Bar Exam.”
<
p>http://www.umassd.edu/communic…
<
p>Also, if you read the plan linked above, you would see that UMass Law would seek provisional accreditation by Fall 2013. That is within 4 years. Certainly provisional ABA accreditation would attract more students until UMass Law achieved full ABA accreditation.