IU Maurer partners with out-of-state schools for students

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana University Maurer School of Law is expanding its partnership program to further its goal of ensuring the Bloomington institution enrolls top law students.

The law school has established scholarships and mentoring programs with Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., and Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. Each year, IU Maurer will offer at least two Knox College and Georgia Tech graduates scholarships equaling about 50 percent of the annual tuition.

Over three years, the scholarships will reduce the cost of law school for each student by $45,000 to $75,000.

The partnership is similar to the programs IU Maurer has created with Indiana’s Wabash College and Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. In an interview with the Indiana Lawyer, IU Maurer Dean Austen Parrish said the goal of these programs was to recruit bright undergraduates to come to Bloomington to pursue a law degree.

Like the scholarship at Rose-Hulman, recipients from Georgia Tech will be eligible to serve as research assistants in IU Maurer’s Center for Intellectual Property Research.

“…we look forward to welcoming Georgia Tech’s outstanding engineering graduates to our intellectual property law program,” Parrish said. “In a world where technology and innovation touches every aspect of our daily lives, Georgia Tech students are particularly well equipped for success as law students.”

Gary May, dean of the College of Engineering at Georgia Tech, called the program a “wonderful opportunity” for students. He said scholarship recipients will obtain the knowledge to handle the intellectual property that engineers produce.

At Knox College, Parrish credited the school’s thriving academics and intellectual student body with making students well-prepared to pursue a law degree.

Laura Behling, vice president for academic affairs and dean of Knox College, pointed to the school’s strong ties to the legal profession.

“Knox graduates have gone on to become some of the nation’s leading legal experts, arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court, advising presidents, and leading national and international law firms,” she said. “We are excited to enter into this agreement with the Indiana University Maurer School of Law and look forward to providing Knox students and alumni with this opportunity to attend one of the nation’s leading law schools.”



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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?