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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT