ILNews

Dean's Desk: Value and delivery in law school education

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Jay ConisonCriticizing law schools is the new national pastime. The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and National Public Radio have joined the game. So, too, have many bloggers, opinion writers and recently even plaintiff’s lawyers. Some criticism is thoughtful; some is emotional and uninformed.

The criticisms are wide-ranging. They include steadily increasing tuition, high debt of graduates, inadequate preparation for practice, schools’ obsession with rankings, outdated accreditation standards and more. While all of these criticisms have been raised before, two features are new. One is the level of vitriol, a consequence of the weak economy. The other is the theme that students are consumers of legal education who are not being well-treated as such. I will focus on the latter feature in this article.

The claimed deficiencies in the treatment of students as consumers do not result from a lack of concern for students’ welfare. Rather, they result from a structure for law schools that was chosen nearly a century ago, problems created by that structure, and institutional impediments to change. A full explanation is very complex, but even a sketch can help one understand the problems and possible solutions.

At the beginning of the 20th century, there were two main types of law schools. One type followed a low-cost, low entry-requirement model and emphasized training lawyers for individual practice. Many schools of this type were proprietary and served immigrant populations. The second type followed an elite education model. They usually were attached to universities, required some college education for admission and generally sought to prepare students for sophisticated business practice in larger law firms. Over time, leaders in the profession and in legal education channeled all accredited law schools into the latter model. The other model was largely eliminated. The successful format was not adopted because of considerations of how best to deliver value to students. Rather, it was adopted because of institutional considerations, including that of protecting the status of the legal profession.

As a framework for doing business, the prevailing format has significant weaknesses.

First, at its heart is a business model with an undiversified revenue stream. Although there are academic reasons to focus on a single program — the J.D. — from an economic perspective, it is risky not to diversify. Many law schools are struggling today as a result of the dwindling J.D. applicant pool.

Second, J.D. tuition inexorably increases. It is common to blame this on supposedly self-serving elements in the law school, but at the root of the phenomenon is an economic condition known as cost disease. A law school’s cost structure is based overwhelmingly on compensation, and these costs inevitably increase along with the general rise of labor costs in the economy. Every enterprise is affected by this tendency toward labor cost increase but law schools have limited ability to offset it through productivity gains. The core services of a law school must be provided by faculty members working directly with students. This type of service cannot easily be made more efficient without changing its quality and character. Yet, without offsetting increases in productivity, total costs inevitably rise and are passed through as higher tuition.

Third, legal education is based on third-party financing. Students borrow heavily to pay for their education and so the entity paying the bills — the lender — is different from the customer. One result is to reduce the price sensitivity of the customer, thus facilitating price increases. Another is to allow the lender enormous leverage and put it in a position to extract concessions by threatening to constrict or cut off payments.

Fourth, the J.D. program of education is highly commoditized. Since schools cannot easily compete on price, they attempt to compete through differentiation. One such approach is to compete on the basis of status. Unfortunately for most schools, this approach fails because of a well-known phenomenon known as the cumulative advantage effect: those that already have higher status tend to increase their advantage at a higher rate than those with lower status. Stated more simply: the rich get richer and the less rich fall farther behind.

Fifth, schools are shielded from failure. Most law schools are attached to universities, which are invested in the prestige associated with having a law school. Hence, the typical pattern in the economy of progress through weeding out unsuccessful models is not effective, and the business of law schools remains conservative and shielded from change.

These issues affect every law school, although in varying ways and degrees. Each school needs to develop its own solutions appropriate to the school’s particular mission, strengths and culture.

At Valparaiso, our faculty, staff and alumni leadership are at work to improve services and ensure sustainability. As part of this, we have begun to develop strategies to address the challenges described above. Our full set of solutions is complex, but we have identified two components that are fundamental. I believe every law school should address these same two components as part of any effective solution.

First, a school must shift its strategic focus from the narrow question: What is the ideal J.D. curriculum? to the broader, practical question: What are the valuable services and outcomes we are offering? A good deal of the current criticism of law schools results from schools not giving a clear and compelling reason for students to purchase their services. Law schools are business enterprises — academic ones to be sure — and success and sustainability require starting with an understanding of a school’s students and the value to be offered them. At Valparaiso, we understand that our students want a bundle of services that includes not only instruction but also broad support for obtaining and succeeding in desirable jobs. For this reason, what we offer students centers on the extensive opportunity to build a wide range of lawyering skills and the extensive opportunity for professional and career development and success.

Second, once a school has determined the value offered, it must determine the key activities to support the offer and then deliver them. At Valparaiso we are delivering, among other things, an extensive program of clinical and experiential education (with faculty, staff and facilities to support it) and a school-wide system of personalized professional and career development services (with faculty, staff and facilities to support it).

This is a somewhat business-oriented approach. Many will resist thinking of a law school as a business enterprise. A common fear is that business considerations detract from adherence to the academic mission. Yet it is dangerous not to think of law schools as business enterprises, albeit mission-driven ones. In the end, focusing on value and its delivery is the best way to integrate academic and business activities, properly serve students and ensure that a law school’s pursuit of mission is sustainable in the face of challenges.•

__________


Jay Conison has been dean of Valparaiso University Law School since 1998. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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)

ADVERTISEMENT