June 10, 2014
U of Minnesota provides $2 million to offset law school's deficit
Story here. If a major state law school, perenially top 20ish, is in this situation, I would imagine many other law schools are as well.
June 06, 2014
UC Irvine Law School now fully accredited by the ABA
I was just forwarded the e-mail confirming that milestone. Not a surprise, of course, given all that's been accomplished in a remarkably short time, but this also means that UC Irvine will be subjected to U.S. News.com ranking next year. The lawyer/judge reputation survey results are very hard to predict; it will be interesting to see how the academic reputation survey comes out (UCI ought to get a top 20 score there, but we'll see if that happens).
May 28, 2014
U Arizona cuts non-resident tuition
Blog Emperor Caron has the details. I suspect that part of the plan is to make up lost revenue with the new B.A. in which law faculty will teach. All-in-all, some interesting strategic moves by U of Arizona that will be watched closely by schools nationwide.
May 21, 2014
LSAC settles ADA lawsuits
Good news for students with disabilities considering law school.
More thoughts on legal education
This time from Chapman's Richard Redding.
May 07, 2014
A new B.A. in law at the University of Arizona
An interesting development, that I'm sure other schools will watch carefully. Marc Miller, Arizona's very savvy Dean, has taken the lead in developing this program.
April 24, 2014
Chat room devoted to law school bashing asks how grads from "Tier 2" and lower law schools fared
And lo and behold, lots of them are actually doing quite well (as someone reading Simkovic & McIntyre would have expected--economic/professional success isn't really measured nine months after graduation). Thanks to a colleague elsewhere for forwarding this remarkable thread:
Of course, encouraging anecdotes do not tell us much about the long-term career outcomes of gradautes of low-ranked law schools. But the critics of law schools have nothing more than discouraging anecdotes about the long-term career outcomes either.
UPDATE: Professor Simkovic writes:
FYI, After the JD does have outcome data for graduates of Tier 3 (100-150) and Tier 4 (150 to 200) law schools from the class of 2000/2001.
AJD II (6 years out) shows average incomes of around $83K-$92K among those working full-time in 2006 (inflation adjusted, this would be around $97K-$108K today).
ADJIII (~10 years out) should be released soon. Of course, these figures are only:
1) Bar Passers
2) Those working full time (whether or not as lawyers)
Frank and I include non-bar passers and those working part time or unemployed.
ANOTHER: The proprietor of "JD Underground" tells me the original thread, above, came from that website.
April 18, 2014
Not the kind of law school trustee who builds good will
At NYU, but the Law School is defending the students.
April 17, 2014
Signs of the times, Oregon edition
A dispute at Oregon about whether to eliminate faculty raises, in order to use the money in other ways (appraently, to bolster the school's falling US New.com rank by funding more jobs for grads) has burst into public. I'm sure similarly unpleasant fights over scarce resources are going on at other schools. Although some sites linking to this are using it as an opportunity to attack Prof. Illig, there is no doubt he articulates concerns that many others probably share. (University of Oregon is chronically underfunded, and its salaries also lag that of other AAU schools, so that's part of the background here.)
April 16, 2014
Chemerinsky & Menkel-Meadow opine in yesterday's NY Times...
...that things aren't as awful as the various charlatans and other law-school haters claim, and, predictably (given the social psychology), the charlatans and haters go crazy. I won't link to the hysterical reactions (they are easy enough to find with Google), but they boil down to one complaint: Chemerinsky & Menkel-Meadow cited NALP data without treating it as bogus (e.g., that JD Advantage jobs are really jobs [actually many of them are, but never mind]). That's true, they linked to the NALP data, but they didn't spend the rest of their piece debunking that data based on speculation, skepticism, and occasionally other actual evidence. This has certainly been a standing problem in the debate about American legal education, as when serious data analysis showed that legal education was a sound economic investment for the vast majority of students, and critics refused to believe that was true, though without any contrary evidence or analysis. So we can all agree that we should be more careful about how we present data and its import.
That being said, my main disagreement with Chemerinsky & Menkel-Meadow is about the necessity of three years of legal education, as I've said before: two years could work, and work very well for many students. In reality, the biggest obstacle to reducing costs in legal education, however, is unnoted in their op-ed: it remains the lax tenure standards and the unwillingness of universities to terminate tenured faculty for cause, i.e., when they manifestly do not do their job.
Imagine, for example, a law school that pays a six figure salary (closing in on 200K) to someone with almost no legal experience and an M.A. in literature who teaches the same couple of substantive courses year in and year out, courses in which he has no experience, whose teaching evaluations are consistently below average, who hasn't written any serious legal scholarship in years, who is regarded as a joke by his colleagues at his own school and in the academy at large, and who mostly spends his time insulting, defaming, and blackmailing colleagues who do their jobs. It endangers the institution of tenure when universities do not initiate proceedings to terminate malevolent charlatans like this. Many law schools, as we've noted before, are offering financial inducements to "buy out" senior faculty, most of whom are not charlatans. Real cost reduction, however, will require universities to move against the charlatans and the de facto retired in their midst, even those who have tried to insulate themselves from termination for cause by setting up frivolous retaliation claims.
UPDATE: More thoughts on reforming legal education from Michael Madison (Pitt).