Texas, like most other states, is facing a monumental crises in terms of its budget. That obviously does not lend itself well to starting or funding new public law schools in the state -- at least currently.
According to the San Antonio Express News, the lack of substantial funding for the newly approved University of North Texas Dallas Law School is waning. The law school needs $4 million dollars a year from Texas to fund and begin accepting students. Yet, the Texas House of Representatives is proposing $2 million, and the Texas Senate is proposing nothing. The law school has already put off its entering class.
And, there is a struggle for the funding of a study for establishment of a public law school in the Texas Valley, which is the part of the state that does not have a law school currently.
I understand the argument. There are priorities to set when cuts have to be made, and we know the legal profession has not been a priority of Texas. I think this is unfortunate. The law is an integral part of how Texas and all governments function, and Texas needs cost effective education choices for those wishing to enter the field.
What interest me is the piling on that occurs in addtion to this argument. For example, Charles Cantu, the dean of St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio stating that based upon all economic indicators, the legal market is not absorbing all of current law graduates his school and other law schools are presently generating.
Of course, a public law school in the Texas Valley will not be a help to St. Mary's, which is based in San Antonio, has high tuition, does not much provide any substantial scholarships, and is stuck in 4th Tier status. But, the argument itself is silly. Texas is rapidly growing, and law school seats have not been increasing to keep up. The truth of the matter is that law schools, such as St. Mary's, have been doing an extraordinary bad job of creating a conduit or a bridge for graduates to enter the market. Law schools tend to shoot for the top 10% achieving easier employment, but apart from posting job openings, often tell students to go to Martindale.Com website, a general directly of lawyers, to find a job. It is tantamount to handing someone a big city phone book in times past and tell then to start cold-calling. Let us just say, it is not really a lot of help.
There is no shortage of law jobs. There is a shortage of law school doing anything effective, except for seeing how high they can jack up tuition and to play with rankings. There is no organized effort to create a deep relationship with the Texas bar members so as to get graduates transitioned more easily in the practice of law.
But, even if Dean Cantu actually believes what he is saying, then should not mean St. Mary's Law should stop promoting its law school, accepting as many people, and certainly stop graduating so many students into the market. That would be simply irresponsible for St. Mary's if what Dean Cantu said is correct.
Besides, St. Mary's reports that 89% of its graduates are employed within 9 months of graduating for law school. Now, that statistic is wrong, or Dean Cantu is wrong.
Now, I do have to admit that my youngest daughter applied to St. Mary's recently and was rejected. That is, of course, the schools right. What I found amazing in the process, however, was their website that strongly suggest that they do not accept or reject students just upon their LSAT and GPA. No, they look beyond that to the whole person. Of course the law school makes such claims because it wants to encourage applications for law school seats for which, by the Dean's own comment, there are no law jobs available. So, with a good many of my family having graduated from St. Mary's University, I contacted the Dean concerning my daughter's other qualificaions. The Dean's personnel contacted me back only to state that essentially the only thing that matters in the acceptance process are first the LSAT and then the GPA.
This is only important for this post because it demonstrates again a difference between what has been marketed by law schools, and what is later stated in contradiction.
I tend to believe the law school is engaging in situational facts and analysis. When it wants students to submit applicaitons and large review fees, the facts are one thing, and when they want to oppose a public law school that would directly compete with them, the facts are more gloomy. I get that this happens in life. I am just disappointed that it happened in this situation from the Catholic instituion of higher learning from which I graduated.
My bigger point is that these law schools need competition from public law schools in all parts of this state. I just wish the Texas budget was not getting in the way.
Comments