IU Maurer, Rose-Hulman create IP scholars program

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A new program established by Indiana University Maurer School of Law and Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology will allow select Rose-Hulman graduates to study at the IU law school at a reduced tuition rate.

The Rose-Hulman Intellectual Property Law Scholars Program will offer at least two Rose-Hulman graduates admitted to the law school a scholarship amounting to 50 percent of annual tuition, plus access to a formal mentoring program and a research assistant position at the Center for Intellectual Property Research at IU.

According to a release from the law school, the scholarship will lower the cost of law school over three years by approximately $45,000 to $75,000, depending on the student’s residency and other factors.

“Intellectual property law is one of the fastest-growing areas of the profession,” said Austen L. Parrish, dean and James H. Rudy Professor of Law at the IU Maurer School of Law. “We have one of the strongest intellectual property law programs in the nation and are delighted to join forces with one of the country’s leading engineering schools in finding pathways for talented students to advance their professional interests."

"The Rose-Hulman Intellectual Property Law Scholars Program will create outstanding opportunities for students to gain a technical and legal education that will enable them to make significant contributions to an economy driven by technological innovation,” said Richard E. Stamper, dean of faculty and professor of engineering management and mechanical engineering.

Rose-Hulman will nominate current students or alumni for the program beginning with the class entering in the fall of 2014.


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. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.