« What about the First Amendment? | Main | Reforming Legal Education's Finances: Cut Tuition or Class Size? »

Monday, November 12, 2012

Reforming Legal Education's Finances: Questions for the Week

This week PrawfsBlawg will be hosting an open forum on legal education's finances.  Each day we'll have a fresh set of alternatives to debate as we consider ways to reform law school spending.  As I posted last week, the intent of these questions is to pose these issues not in the abstract, but in contrast with other possibilities.  The hope is to get people talking about the costs and benefits of different avenues for actual change as schools face hard choices.

Here's our schedule for the week:

  • MONDAY: Is it better to cut tuition or class size?
  • TUESDAY: If tuition is to be cut, is it better to cut the sticker price or increase aid to students?  And if increasing aid to students, should it be through merit scholarships or loan repayment assistance?
  • WEDNESDAY: If a school is cutting costs, is it better to cut positions or cut salaries?
  • THURSDAY: If salaries are to be cut, is it better to have an across-the-board cut or cuts based on different principles?
  • FRIDAY: Should the faculty be responsible for implementing a cost-cutting plan or is that best left to administration?

 Thanks for your suggestions thus far, and I look forward to hearing your constructive comments.

Posted by Matt Bodie on November 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM in Life of Law Schools | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef017d3d8e97d8970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reforming Legal Education's Finances: Questions for the Week:

Comments

This forum is an excellent idea. I wonder why your agenda does not include the question whether law schools shouldn't persuade the ABA to allow accreditation of two-year schools.

Posted by: Mary Campbell Gallagher, J.D., Ph.D. | Nov 12, 2012 5:07:25 PM

I am a lawyer and I don't want to see more (potential) lawyers. I am not for lower tuition, so cuts in class size seems like a great idea. While we're at it, let's raise the Bar passage requirements. The fundamental problem that I think that you in the Ivory Tower fail to realize is that there are more than 100 new law schools since I graduated 10 years ago. The prospects are still good if you are at the TIP-TOP of your law-school class or graduate from the top 15 law schools, but the rest of the market is saturated. The AMA has successfully kept doctors salaries high through minimal growth in schools and the ABA should follow the AMA's philosophy.

Posted by: Kris Dunn | Nov 12, 2012 7:14:53 PM

"This forum is an excellent idea. I wonder why your agenda does not include the question whether law schools shouldn't persuade the ABA to allow accreditation of two-year schools."

Second. Please have a post about the need for a third year of law school.

Posted by: Dean | Nov 13, 2012 12:57:47 AM

This series of posts is about financial reforms that law schools can enact within the current system of regulation. Cutting a year of law school is more of an overall reform to the entire system, not a financial choice that individual schools can make.

Posted by: Matt Bodie | Nov 13, 2012 10:39:02 AM

Post a comment