ILNews

IU Maurer partners with Oxford for new program

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana University Maurer School of Law has signed an agreement with the Oxford Internet Institute, a department of the University of Oxford, creating a new program that will allow students to earn a certification in information law and policy from the British university and a Master of Laws degree from IU Maurer School of Law.

Aimed primarily at international students, the new program will give students with an American law degree or non-U.S. equivalency the opportunity to take 14 to 16 credit hours of existing regular law courses in the broad area of information and intellectual property law.

Students admitted to the program will spend the fall semester in Bloomington and the spring term at Oxford, where they will take specialized courses and complete a 10,000-word thesis. The thesis provides students the opportunity to apply the methods and approaches covered during their coursework and carry out a substantive piece of academic research on an information law and policy-related topic of their choice.

Students who complete 24 credit hours from IU or the equivalent and an acceptable thesis will receive a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree from the IU Maurer School of Law and a Certificate in Information Law and Policy from the OII.

A faculty member from the Bloomington law school will spend most, if not all, of the spring semester in Oxford overseeing the students' work. Students are expected to complete the program within one year.  

Distinguished Professor Fred H. Cate, who directs IU’s Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, and Oxford’s Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, professor of Internet governance and regulation, will lead the program, which has an initial term of three years beginning in the fall of 2012.

In 2001, the University of Oxford founded the OII as a department for the study of the societal implications of the Internet. The Institute's faculty members are engaged in a variety of research projects covering social, economic, political, legal, technical and ethical issues of the Internet in everyday life.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT