Search

Thursday, October 15, 2009

No Public Massachusetts Law Schools

Tim Cahill is right, Massachusetts does not need a public law school. Sure, the idea of getting to go to law school without incurring that much more debt is appealing, but students to the proposed UMass law school would not be getting much for their dollar.

For one, Massachusetts should not be spending tens of millions of dollars to get the Southern New England School of Law up to snuff for ABA accreditation. UMass-Dartmouth says it won't be spending state money, only university money to get the law school improved, but university money comes from the state one way or another. Massachusetts does not need to spend the money because there are already a myriad of choices of law schools in Massachusetts, whether they are Harvard, Boston College, Suffolk, Western New England or the others. If a student can't spend the money for law school and does not care about ABA accreditation, Mass School of Law in Andover is an option to go to law school inexpensively without sacrificing the ability to take the bar exam in Massachusetts. For the first few years, the proposed law school would likely not be even provisionally accredited by the ABA, a status given to most new law schools like Drexel and Cal-Irvine that are likely to be accredited on the standard ABA timetable.

The UMass law school is not needed because there is no need for more lawyers than the current law schools provide. A UMass law school would be a patronage dump for legislator/attorneys who leave office. UMass claims that the $24,000 tuition would more than cover the cost of attendance, and would turn the law school into a profit center, which would create more patronage hires in UMass. If students have a legitimate financial need in attending law school, the current private law schools already have many aid packages available for qualified students, from need based grants to zero interest loans to loan repayment assistance. A UMass law school is likely to not offer any of these options. People who go to law school have many options to cut their tuition expenses down, and don't need to resort to going to a public law school.

The UMass law school will be in Dartmouth. This will put the students at a severe disadvantage. All other ABA accredited Massachusetts law schools are in major population centers, either Boston or Springfield, giving law students ample opportunity to supplement their education with internships and employment after the first year. A law school in Dartmouth will be too far from the Boston market and the Providence market to give the students any real chance to participate in meaningful clinics, clerkships and other externships. UMass law students will graduate with fewer skills than current law students because of this.

It is a huge red flag that the law school UMass wants to acquire, Southern New England School of Law, is willing to turn over all its assets to UMass, including its cash, for $0. This makes clear that the administration, the physical plant, the facilities and the people clearly are nowhere close to making the law school ABA ready, and it will cost much more than the tens of millions that UMass claims will take to get the school accredited. Accreditation will still make the law school the worst ABA law school in Massachusetts, and without replacing almost the entire faculty and facilities, will ensure that a UMass law school will be a symbol of mediocrity. A mediocre UMass law school would bring down the reputation of all other UMass schools, from UMass-Amherst to UMass Medical School.

As a UMass-Boston and Suffolk Law School graduate, a UMass law school will cause much more damage to the UMass name than challenge Suffolk Law for law students. A Suffolk Law school will thrive even if UMass creates a law school because of its location, faculty and huge alumni base located within Massachusetts. UMass-Boston will only be lumped in with another mediocre school and will be guilty of mediocrity by association with a UMass law school. A public law school in Massachusetts is a mistake for these, and many other, reasons.

1 comment:

  1. I just want to clarify a couple things.
    1) UMass will NOT need to spend that much money to get the school "up to snuff" as you put it. In fact, it won't need to spend much money at all.
    2) This will not be adding more lawyers, since the law school already is there, turning out lawyers. This will just make the school public, not private.
    3) The location is actually really good for some people. Not everyone lives near Boston, or Providence, and a lot of students enjoy having an option that isn't in Boston. There are LOTS of people, and businesses, that exsist in Southern Massachusetts, and the current students find ways to get practical experience and internships.
    4) you also claim that the faculty of SNESL needs to be replaced - do you know anything about them or their teaching skills? have you sat in on classes?

    ReplyDelete