Indiana Tech Misses Memo; Will Open Law School

Indiana Tech's dim-witted Board of Trustees unanimously approved the building of a new law school after "careful research." I wonder what that "research" consisted of, since it's fairly obvious that the market for legal education is shrinking rapidly.

“There are potential students who desire a law school education who cannot get that education in this area, and there are people in our state who need legal services who don’t have access to them,” President Arthur Snyder said. “Indiana Tech can help close those gaps.”

This notion that every geographic subregion just has to have its own law school is laughable. Fort Wayne is about a two-hour drive to South Bend, where students can get a pseudo-T1 legal education. For those shooting lower, Indiana's crappiest law school, Valparaiso, is a mere two hours and twenty minutes away. IU-Indianapolis is roughly the same distance. Toledo is two hours to the east. Michigan State is a two-hour drive up I-69.

I cannot seriously believe that local demand for a school is that high. The number of working professionals in Fort Wayne who want a legal education who can't move down the road simply cannot be at the level to sustain a law school. Fort Wayne is roughly the same size as Reno, NV; Springfield, MO; Shreveport, LA; or Anchorage, AK. None of those places needs a law school, and in-depth studies of Anchorage show the demand just isn't there despite not being able to find a law school without going to the lower 48. Thus, I'm highly, highly skeptical of the Indiana Tech "research."

And this idea that more law graduates can suddenly provide legal services to poor people is one of the biggest lies told by head-up-their-asses administrators, and it's got some pretty stiff competition. Arthur, if you think the lack of access to legal services is caused by a labor shortage, you're an idiot who deserves the fate of one who builds into a declining bubble.

If there was any kind of legitimate labor shortage in northeast Indiana, you would see a flood of unemployed graduates and laid-off attorneys pouring in from the oversaturated surrounding areas, from places like IU-Indianapolis, IU-Bloomington, Notre Dame, Valpo, the Chicago schools (U. of Chicago, Northwestern, DePaul, Marshall, Chi-Kent, Loyola), Wayne State, Michigan, Michigan State, Cooley, Toledo, Ohio State, Dayton, Cincinnati, etc. Are you really so obtuse as to think piling another generic fourth-tier on top of the pile will open new doors? Roughly 40-50% of recent graduates from these schools lack full-time attorney positions!

If I were an Indiana citizen, I would be furious at this development. Indiana has one of the lowest lawyer per capita ratios in the country, thanks in part to its universities' restraint in not building new law schools in a state whose population has stagnated. Now Indiana Tech wants to ruin that by pumping out 100 more at 28k a pop.

Hopefully, these very foolish well-credentialed muppets will wake the heck up. Perhaps Indiana is like the Iowa of South Park and it's 3 years behind the rest of the country. Maybe in a few years they'll start to realize what those in Delaware already did, that it's downright stupid (and immoral, given the consequences to a majority of graduates) to build a law school on the current ABA model. I recognize that Indiana Tech's tuition will be low for a price-gouging private schools, but it's not low enough to justify market entry, and it's not going to offer a damn thing that isn't filled by the numerous other schools flooding the legal labor market.

"Great World University" Binghampton Contiues Its Streak of Idiocy

As law school plans are being sensibly scrapped elsewhere, Binghampton University has decided to continue its pursuit of building a law school.

If ignorance is bliss, these guys must live on a natural orgasm-on-crack-level high.

"A law school at Binghamton would be very good academically and affordable, which are two great strengths," said John Appelbaum, pre-law adviser at BU. "I do think there is a need for a legal education that comes at reasonable price — that would be a public law school."

You mean like SUNY-Buffalo, which charges about 55-60k in tuition for in-state residents for a degree that may increase earning power only minimally and decrease other opportunities? You mean that kind of "reasonable" price?

And I'm sure Pace and Touro are "very good academically," too. It doesn't stop them from being completely unnecessary places and inefficient wastes.

"I think Binghamton has taken a number of steps over the past couple of decades not only toward becoming a great regional school but a great world university," said John McNulty, a political science professor at BU. "Providing law degrees is important for this expansion."

Yes, because that's exactly what schools like Princeton and M.I.T. needed to become "great world universit[ies]." And when I think of Binghampton, I think of a "great world university" like Yale, Cambridge, or the University of Tokyo.

[Prof. Jonathan] Krasno said he believes that the state could use more affordable graduate school choices.

"Almost every state has public law schools. I think New York state is way below the national average," he said.

New York state currently has two public law schools: University at Buffalo Law School and CUNY Law School.

That's the standard? Whether you're not as saturated with public law schools as other places? How did these people make it through grad school?

In any event, California has five public law schools. Virginia, Florida, Texas, and Ohio have four. Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have three. After that, everyone is at 2 or less, so I don't think New York is below the national average. Even if they were, their private schools make up for it. And for the record, many of those public schools (e.g., UC-Irvine, Texas Southern, Wayne State, Northern Illinois, Florida A&M) have no real reason for existence, and are hardly a list you'd want to be associated with.

But there's more garbage Kresno has to spout:

"This is investing in public education, which is an effective way to spend money," he said. "There is also economic development for the city, and it will bring in more students. But more than anything else, turning out lawyers with less of a debt load after three years of public law school, who tend to stay in the state, will be a very good thing."

If we could close down Touro or Pace or Albany and replace it with a public school, that would be true. But it's not, because those places aren't going to close. What will happen is that they'll continue to spit out debt-ridden students while Binghampton adds more debt-ridden students to the pile.

To go to a public school like Binghampton, one would still have to take out 55k+ for tuition (in-state) and would probably need to take out an additional 60k+ for living expenses. Students who go there sans scholarship will regularly carry debt loads north of 100k (excluding undergraduate debts) with little to no increase in earnings potential.

New York is the most saturated state in the union. Can the Binghampton idiots not read that? Somehow, New York doubles the saturation of California, Texas, and Minnesota. That's impressive.

There is no reason for this, and it will bring nothing of value to the Binghampton area compared to the damage of indebtedness and unemployed people who can't find work in their chosen profession, all depressed at burning three years out of their prime.

These people are as bad and delusional as 0Ls who still think they'll go to law school and wind up driving a Mercedes and arguing thrilling trials every day. Either that or they're just dishonest.

No, UCSD Does Not Need a Law School

The good news is that UC-San Diego has scrapped its plans to take over 4th/5th/6th-tier Cal-Western School of Law and turn it into a more attractive option by virtue of the UC appellation (still waiting for UC-Irvine to start filling Supreme Court clerkships every year).

The bad news is that we have to put up with dim-witted propagandists for the education sector like John Davies, who thinks UC-San Diego really, really needs a law school.

Just 50 years old – young by major university standards – the University of California San Diego rivals some of our nation’s most prestigious universities and is listed among the top 10 public research universities in the nation.

Yet one thing would make this research powerhouse even greater. A law school at UC San Diego would offer substantial benefits for the university, the UC system and the region as a whole.

Already we're in trouble. But it gets worse:

Very few public universities have achieved or sustained greatness without offering professional legal education. And most outstanding law schools reside within public universities. That is why four of the major research campuses in the UC system have established law schools, and why the San Diego campus should also do so.

Huh? Of the consensus (e.g. US News and World Report) top 15 law schools, 4 are public universities, and they're all major first-choice state flagships. UCLA, Illinois, Iowa, etc. have good law programs, but claiming that most outstanding ones are at public school is an outright lie. So if THAT'S why there's a law school at UC-Irvine, someone forget to read the precious rankings carefully.As an attorney and a former regent of the University of California, I know that the benefits of a university-affiliated law school are significant.
Cash?

One discipline – law – has traditionally lagged behind the development of new scientific breakthroughs in terms of creating policies and regulations. This places innovators at a disadvantage since law is a critical component of all new knowledge.

Wait - are you saying you want MORE policies and regulations? And that it places innovators at a disadvantage when there are no politics or regulations? Or am I just reading your senseless argument wrong? Because if I'm not, that's the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.

Academic research today will shape our society in unimaginable ways tomorrow. Such research is rife with legal, social and policy issues. Graduates of universities that offer legal education will lead, while those from universities that lack legal education will play catch-up. (emphasis mine to accent the dumbness).

Readers, did you know that if you get an engineering degree from somewhere, the value of your degree will go up or down depending on whether the school offers JDs? I bet all those kids spending money at M.I.T. and Princeton are pissed. Sucks that they and the crowds at Dartmouth, Brown, Cal-Tech, Johns Hopkins, Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, [pick favorite random liberal arts college], etc. are doomed to never lead because their schools lacked the foresight to set up a law school.

A UC San Diego law school would enjoy a unique focus. This would be a law school focused on research that defines the future. It would graduate practitioners and researchers who understand the social and policy implications of innovation. Such a school would benefit the region’s most promising economic sectors, including biotechnology, telecommunications, nanotechnology, health care, oceanography and international relations.

Who wrote this, the admissions department at Florida Coastal? Is debt collection a "promising economic sector" now? Unemployment? Because very, very few Cal-Western/UCSD law graduates will be working in any of those areas, unless strained personal injury claims classify as "health care," and representing illegal hookers who crossed from Tijuana counts as "international relations."

In the long view, tough times are no excuse to forego great opportunities. Tough times just demand greater certainty about the benefits.

This ain't no great opportunity for anyone.

This profession is already oversaturated, especially in San Diego, where elite Thomas Jefferson graduates are not able to find their chosen work, but the school keeps raking in enough dough to be the envy of other law schools.

If there's one thing that I'm certain about, it's that there's no need for UC-SD to add a law school, whether it's Cal-Western or one they pull out of their butt. The market doesn't need it, and a law school adds nothing to the scholarly abilities of anyone else on campus. Seriously, John, MIT and Princeton have no law schools. Look it up. They're both doing fine.

Another New Law School Being Explored

From the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette:

FORT WAYNE – The Indiana Tech Board of Trustees announced Friday the creation of a committee to look at the feasibility of opening a law school in Fort Wayne.

The committee will submit a preliminary report and recommendation to the board May 13, according to a written statement from the university.

Let me give you my recommendation: no.

Often, you'll see people list reasons not to go to law school, and I feel like someone should start making a list of reasons not to start a law school.

Here's one:

The American Bar Association has a rigorous accreditation process, [Allen County Bar Association President] McNamara said, and if a law school can successfully attain that, it would be worthwhile to the community.

"It might get accredited" is not a good reason to start a law school, not that the ABA actually has "rigorous" standards, anyway.

Here's another silly justification for law schools:

The state has four law schools now...

That, McNamara said, is about average for a state this size.

The creation of a law school, though, would fit nearly perfectly with the mission statement of the local bar association, he said.

Is your bar association's mission to have a second unemployment office just to cater to indebted and unemployed lawyers?

I'm personally surprised existing schools aren't looking at opening satellite campuses a la Cooley. But at this point, I'm not even sure I can take these articles seriously, because wanting to open a new law school is worse than buying suburban real estate in 2006.

Study Immigration Law Near the Scenic Rio Grande: Another Law School Proposed!

I swear, I couldn't make this up if I tried. People are trying to build law schools faster than the federal government can process the financial aid stuff. Yet another political group is attempting to get a law school in a place that doesn't need one. This time? South Texas. From the Texas Tribune via the New York Times:

Texas produces more law school graduates than it has jobs for. But that has not stopped some lawmakers from proposing that the state build a public law school in the Rio Grande Valley.

Supporters of a new school say there is geographic inequity. The public law school nearest the state’s southernmost region is more than 300 miles away, at the University of Texas in Austin. In addition, they point out, the Rio Grande Valley has one of the lowest lawyer-to-citizen ratios in the state.

Also cited in the article are the state's alleged shortage of attorneys that can cater to low-income people and the possibility that a more southern public college of law would increase the ranks of minority lawyers.

Of course, never mind the fact that Texas has severe budget problems and a new law school costs $80 million. Never mind that their state higher education board is against it. Never mind that Texas pumps out an excess of graduates for the jobs available. And never mind that there is already a South Texas College of Law and a Texas Southern Thurgood Marshall College of Law, both in Houston. With those choice names gone, what's this fourth-tier monstrosity going to be called?

Are we seriously now building law schools just because some small percentage of the population has to move to go to law school? Are there actually elected officials out there who think this harebrained strategy is a good approach to higher education?

Texas already has four public law schools (Texas, U. of Houston, Texas Tech, and Texas Southern), two well-regarded private schools (SMU and Baylor) and a trio of bottom-tier private schools (St. Mary's, Texas Wesleyan, and South Texas). Another public, North Texas, is opening next year in Dallas, since the people there had to drive all the way to Austin or Lubbock to go to public school. Are they in some sort of competition with Florida or New York or flood their state with lawyers? Is the next Civil War going to be fought using the Federal Rules of Civ. Procedure or something?

I understand Texas has a growing population, but the reasons for building law schools become more silly and ripe for satire by the month. "Geographic inequity?" My God, this is law school, not buying groceries or voting. It's not really a big deal that some people might have to move if they want to take such a large career step.