ILNews

ABA: Valpo Law enrollment surges; McKinney, ND down; Maurer ticks up

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

First-year law school enrollment jumped 28 percent this academic year at Valparaiso University Law School, according to data from the American Bar Association.

Valparaiso’s percentage gain was the seventh-greatest among the 199 ABA-accredited institutions for which data was compiled. Valpo was among just 62 accredited law schools that posted enrollment gains. The ABA reported in December that 1L enrollment nationwide declined 8.1 percent in 2013 compared with the prior academic year.

ABA figures released this week show about three-quarters of law schools reported enrollment declines. The number of first-year law students nationwide at accredited institutions fell from 43,155 in 2012 to 39,674 in 2013.

Here are the statistics the ABA reported for Indiana Law schools:

  •     Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Bloomington: Enrollment rose 2 percent with 205 1Ls in 2013 compared with 201 in 2012.
  •     Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Indianapolis: Enrollment fell 12 percent, with 227 1Ls in 2013 compared with 259 in 2012.
  •     Notre Dame Law School: Enrollment declined 8 percent, with 162 1Ls in 2013 compared with 177 in 2012.
  •     Valparaiso University Law School: 1L enrollment rose 28 percent, from 163 in 2012 to 208 in 2013.


Among schools reporting the largest declines in first-year students, 13 reported declines of 30 percent or more. Only six reported gains of at least 30 percent.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT