Last summer, Cooley Law - which was recently renamed Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School – announced that it would not matriculate any 1L students to its Ann Arbor campus this fall. (Cooley has five campuses.) Yesterday, the other shoe apparently dropped and Cooley posted an "Intent to Close" notice on its website. It will now be required to follow the ABA's teach-out provisions. In a sense, this is small news. (Indeed, the matter has thus far gotten trace coverage on the web other than the newsbreaking story over at ATL.) But I expect the news to gain traction over the next few days because it fits well into both the real story, and the media frame, surrounding the state of legal education.
The full text is as follows:
Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School has notified its students that it intends to cease operations at its Ann Arbor campus on December 31, 2014, subject to the approval of teach-out plans submitted to its accrediting agencies, the Higher Learning Commission and American Bar Association – Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar.
This action follows implementation of a financial management plan announced July 1, 2014.
Anticipating the possibility of the closure, the Law School told its Ann Arbor students in August of accommodations it would provide them should the campus close. Those include:
• early registration at other campuses
• $1,500 cash stipend to help cover costs of attending a different campus
• $3,500 stipend for a bar review course for graduates
• specialized advising for registration, financial aid, housing and other issues
• possible adjustment to available financial aid
• additional consideration to students with special circumstances.
Starting January 2015, the affected Ann Arbor students may choose to take their classes at any of the Law School’s other campuses, including Lansing or Auburn Hills located about an hour away from Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids located about two hours away, or at its Tampa Bay, Florida campus. Travel to other campuses has historically been common amongst students, with more than 60 percent of Ann Arbor-based graduates over the last three years taking classes at more than one campus. The Law School has always admitted students to the school as a whole and not to a particular campus.
Announcement of the intent to cease operations at Ann Arbor awaited the required formal notice recently given by the school to its accrediting agencies, which must review the arrangement. The school and the accreditors will ensure that the affected students are provided the full range and quality of curriculum, instruction, and student services as all other students receive.
How does this square with the wonderful news from Widener, and the fact, according the Ben Barros, students there are "in support" and now everyone will "thrive" because the law school is undergoing mitosis.
Here, the opposite is happening, and the law school apparently believes it must accommodate its students because of this.
There are other campuses within a short drive, the law school never admitted to a certain campus, and 60% of students were already attending classes at more than one campus. What's the reason for all the accommodations?
Is this the way that law schools garner "student support" for whatever decision is made, for whatever reasons? And, what role does and should the ABA play here?