ILNews

Dean's Desk: Legal education is navigating turbulent waters

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dean robertsOn April 24, the McKinney School was privileged to host a plenary session of the American Bar Association Task Force that Randy Shepard is chairing on the future of legal education. It was an eye-opening, interesting and, at the same time, unsettling day. Everyone who reads this no doubt knows that the legal profession is undergoing major change, and this is having a huge impact on legal education. The fact is that paying clients do not need as many high-priced lawyers as they used to. This has dramatically reduced the demand by firms and businesses for recent law school graduates, leaving many unemployed or underemployed while facing substantial (and nondischargeable) educational debts.

Many in the national media and blogs have seized on the tight job market and increasing student debt loads to mount a relentless campaign condemning law school as a scam and administrators and faculty as con artists, or worse, and dismissing the value of a J.D. degree. While there is no doubt that the world is changing, and that legal education must adapt, the hysterical tone of the criticism is over the top and unjustified. The J.D. degree remains the best investment anyone can make for a rewarding career and satisfying life. Nationwide, the unemployment rate for people with J.D. degrees is about 3.5 percent, far lower than almost any other educational category. The skills taught in law school (the ability to analyze, critically evaluate, effectively communicate and solve problems) are the skills necessary for success in almost every walk of life. Law school produces society’s leaders – I often remind people that among the graduates of the McKinney School are Indiana’s governor, chief justice, speaker of the House of Representatives, majority floor leader and minority leader of the Senate, one U.S. senator, and three Congresspersons – a near clean sweep of Indiana’s political leadership – along with at least 80 corporate CEOs in just this state.

Nonetheless, the virulent criticism of legal education has had an impact. Young people have heard the hysteria. There are even stories of pre-law advisers telling undergraduates not to go to law school. The result is that law school applications nationwide have plummeted. In 2010, there were 110,000 applicants to U.S. law schools and 55,000 1L students enrolled. This year, there have been less than 53,000 applicants (a decline of 52 percent in three years), and no doubt the number of 1Ls this fall will be down sharply for the third year in a row. There are some now who predict that soon, several lower-ranked law schools will go out of business.

Ironically, as there will soon be dramatically fewer new lawyers graduating, the job market for new lawyers has started a predictable uptick. How far and how fast this turnaround will occur is uncertain, but it may be that in the not-too-distant future there will actually be a shortage of new lawyers for the available jobs. But that is the future. At present, the sharp enrollment decline, which necessarily translates into sharply reduced law school revenues and looming structural budget deficits, coupled with the pressure on law schools to do more to make graduates “practice ready,” is forcing law schools to rethink their curricula, their structure and their business model.

The McKinney School is not insulated from these pressures. In fall 2011, we enrolled 312 first-year students. The 2012 1L class is 243 today. And applications are way down again this year – we estimate that the first year class in August will have roughly 200 to 220 students. We are accepting this reduction in order to maintain high admissions standards and ultimately to produce highly competent lawyers. But this leaves us with the challenge of balancing our budget while pursuing innovations that will better prepare our students to practice law. So we are reducing costs, which means a smaller faculty and staff, as well as eliminating operating expenses that are not mission-critical.

But we cannot simply cut our way to a balanced budget, so we are looking for new revenues as well. One opportunity comes from the demand we know exists for legal training for people, both in the U.S. and abroad, who intend to pursue other professions, like law enforcement, human resources administration, social work, non-profit management, etc. While people who do not intend to practice law are today less willing to invest three years of time and tuition, many will find that a one-year, 30-credit, masters degree is very attractive. The faculty has recently approved establishing a new Masters of Jurisprudence degree that we believe will both fill the need for legal training from which many non-lawyers can benefit (and thereby enhance the quality and skill level of our workforce) and help to produce new revenues for the law school.

At the same time, we are exploring new ideas. An Innovations Task Force will look at how to restructure the curriculum, particularly in the last year of law school, to prepare better students for law practice. An Online Task Force is exploring ways to integrate forms of distance learning into our teaching. And we are doing a detailed analysis of how we can enhance the quality of the student experience, better recruit more and stronger students, and increase private philanthropy from alumni and others who recognize the importance of the school to the community, state and nation.

At the end of June, I will be stepping down as dean and handing the reins to Professor Andy Klein. These last six years have been exciting, satisfying and just plain fun. I have come truly to love our students, the faculty and staff, our many loyal and generous alumni, and everyone in Indianapolis who have made my tenure as dean so wonderful. I want to thank everyone with whom I have worked and interacted for your cooperation and friendship, not the least of whom is a fellow named Robert H. McKinney. This is a special place and I hope everyone will give the same support and friendship to Dean Klein so that he can take the McKinney School to even greater heights.•

__________

Gary R. Roberts has been dean of the I.U. Robert H. McKinney School of Law since 2007. The opinions expressed are the author’s.
 

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT