SNESL Redux: Will UMass Finally Get A Law School?

The State of Massachusetts, so rich in many ways, is missing one crucial piece: a state operated law school.  Or at least that's the perspective the folks at Southern New England School of Law hope pervades the halls of power at UMass...or UMass - Dartmouth, to be precise.  A couple of years ago, SNESL tried mightily to merge with UMass - creating a public law school where only Harvard, BU, BC, Northeastern, Western New England, Suffolk, and New England Law Schools had previously dared to tread.  The upside for the SNESL folks was manifold: more resources, a better brand, and a way to stave off layoffs.  

It seems that little has changed, except the terms of the offer.  Now, according to the Boston Business Journal, SNESL has offered to donate $22.6 million in cash and real estate - including the school's campus.  But the issue is complex.  UMass - Dartmouth wanted to retain tuition for its own campus and the last time the proposal came up, they tried to frame the law school as part of the campus' continuing education program.  The state's Board of Higher Education concluded that that characterization was bogus.

I'm a little skeptical about this maneuver.  I understand the benefits of acquiring an existing free-standing program: the  school avoids a very complex startup process.  But there are huge upsides to launching a new operation in 2009 - particularly given the quality of candidates on the teaching market.  Of course, might guess is that the only way that the UMass - Dartmouth campus will score a law school is through a merger...so there are internal political reasons for making this move.

From the Journal:

UMass will consider the proposal in two steps, according to a university spokesman. First, officials at the Dartmouth campus will review the proposal and, if they approve, it will be sent to the president's office for review. The lack of a law school is a "conspicuous gap' in the state education system, said the spokesman, who noted there are seven private law schools in the state. The offer comes five years after a failed proposal was made to bring Southern New England Law School and UMass-Dartmouth together. In December 2004, the UMass system approved a proposal to bring the law school under the umbrella of UMass Dartmouth's continuing-education program. The proposal went to the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education, where it was defeated in early 2005 by board members who questioned whether the structure of the proposal was legal. If the law school had been placed under the continuing-education umbrella, UMass-Dartmouth would have been able to retain all of the tuition and fees because continuing education programs do not receive state subsidies and, as a result, are expected to be self-sufficient. In contrast, UMass campuses are subsidized by the state and tuition from regularly matriculated students goes directly back to the state, while student fees are kept by each campus that collects them. On the grounds that UMass-Dartmouth could not legally operate an entire law school under its continuing education program, the state's Board of Higher Education rejected the earlier proposal. The UMass spokesman said that what happened in 2005 likely would impact the type of proposal Southern New England School of Law and UMass-Dartmouth would go about crafting this time around.

Comments

[Matt]

The "merger" idea is often a funny one, I think, since in the merger the acquiring school would get not only the "assets" (building, library, etc.) but the, er, "liabilities" as well. My understanding is that this lack of desire to acquire the relevant "liabilities" is what lead the faculty senate (and maybe other aspects of the system) of UCSD to shoot down the UCSD chancellor's dream of gaining a law school by acquiring Cal Western Law School. If the relevant people are smart, it's what will prevent SUNY Stoneybrook from gaining a law school by buying Tuoro, as has been proposed. I don't know if Massachusetts, especially in the western part, plausibly needs a new law school or not. I suspect not but could be convinced otherwise. And I don't know whether the Dartmouth campus is a plausible place for a law school within the UMass system. But at least some parts of the U Mass system are very good, and could plausibly support a good law school. Given this, it seems more reasonable to me that if there's a legitimate need, it ought to start from the ground up.

[Bob]

U. Mass. Dartmouth is actually in the southeastern corner of the state. It would probably serve the Rhode Island market at least as much as it would serve the Massachusetts market. Given the economy and the realities of state budgets, my guess is that the decisionmakers in Massachusetts are choosing between merger and no law school. The start-up costs of a new school make that a non-starter.

[Matt]

Thanks for the geography correction, Bob! For some reason I thought it was in the North Western part.

[Alfred]

The Boston Globe has an editorial opposing this:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/10/16/a_poor_time_for_a_law_school_at_umass_dartmouth/

[buy viagra]

I'm a little skeptical about this maneuver. I understand the benefits of acquiring an existing free-standing program: the school avoids a very complex startup process. But there are huge upsides to launching a new operation in 2009 - particularly given the quality of candidates on the teaching market. Of course, might guess is that the only way that the UMass - Dartmouth campus will score a law school is through a merger...so there are internal political reasons for making this move.

[tadalafil]

Under Article IV of the Constitution, which outlines the relationship between the states,

[lots in costa rica]

I think this blog is pretty cool,it has a lot of good and interesting content about SNESL Redux: Will UMass Finally Get A Law School?,good for you I hope you can add more useful information and upgrade your site,I really like it