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increasing tuition, high debt of graduates, inadequate preparation for practice, schools’ obsession with rankings, outdated accreditation standards and more.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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.