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

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT