It is funny really. The great liberal State of Massachusetts does not want a public option when it comes to a legal education in the state.
You see, Massachusetts is law school rich, but not one of its ABA or non-ABA law schools are public institutions. This means, of course, that a legal education in Massachusetts is expensive.
According to The Boston Globe, the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education rejected the idea of a public law school four years ago.
The new plan, however, calls for the University of Massachusetts - Dartmouth to take over the private, non-ABA, approved Southern New England School of Law, which is located in North Dartmouth. The state will be given the campus and all assets of the law school free of charge, which is a package valued at $22.6 million.
It would seem to stand to reason that a state that has a number of non-ABA law schools (but schools whose graduates can take the Massachusetts Bar) has a dearth of cost effective law school spots in the state. It also stands to reason that the affiliation with a large public university would improve this cost effective education as the newly positioned law school achieves its ABA accreditation.
The cost of starting a new law school is always associated with the start up. It takes years for the law school to start covering its overhead. Acquiring an existing law school not only adds assets, but it avoids this costs. It is not much different than when a large donor giving the university a large endowment to start a law school. It is actually better.
The other issue is that you cannot have a great public university if it is does not provide a legal education somewhere in its system. It's position is to serve the interest of the state. Like it or not, lawyers serve that interest. It is an education that college graduates desperately want, and it is only now provided at a high cost in Massachusetts. This cost, if nothing else, increases the cost of legal services for consumers in the state.
The repositioned UMass-Dartmouth law school would charge just $24,000 a year in tuition, fees and for books, which is far lower than the $40,000 it costs to attend Suffolk University Law School, for example.
The critics of course are primarily the other private law school in the state. Maybe for this reason, the criticism of the repositioned law school is a bit disconnected from the truth. The argument is that (1) Massachusetts does not need any new law school seats, and (2) as a result of the perilous economy that new lawyers are not needed.
But, economies do not stay in a funk forever and in three or four years when the law school graduates a class, the market will likely be better.
Regardless, the problem with the argument is that no new law school seat is being created. The law school already exists, has substantial assets, has 235 students already, and not one penny is being expended to create a new law school from scratch.
As to the economy, what the law students of Massachusetts need in perilous times is not fewer law school seats, but more law school seats that do not costs $40,000.00 a year in order to achieve a law license. Is it not the state's responsibility to provide an affordable education to its citizens? I think so.
The the question is, if the issue in Massachusetts is the number of overly expensive law school seats, should not one or more of the private law school shut down?
This reminds me of the times in which Texas A&M University and South Texas College of Law attempted to merge to afford Texas A&M its own law school, its students a better education, and a lot of paid off assets. The politics of the situation just would not seem to allow it. That did not then, and does not now, make any sense either.
Comments