The Massachusetts Board of Higher Education voted unanimously on Tuesday to approve a plan in which the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, a public institution, will acquire the Southern New England School of Law, a private institution, making Massachusetts one of 45 states with a public law school.
Under the plan, the Southern New England School of Law, which has failed to receive accreditation from the American Bar Association, will donate its campus and assets to the state.
"A public law school means that law students will graduate with less debt and will have more flexibility in making their career choices," said Jack M. Wilson, president of the University of Massachusetts system. "We will combine quality and affordability in a school that will be a beacon of opportunity and develop a national reputation for legal-education excellence."
The University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees approved the plan in December.
The Board of Higher Education had rejected a similar proposal in 2005 over concerns that it would be too costly for the state system — concerns that critics of the current proposal reiterated.
Comments
1. cu_alum - February 02, 2010 at 03:38 pm
If the proposal was too costly a few years ago in a stronger economy, why isn't it too costly now?
2. phinellie - February 02, 2010 at 03:44 pm
As a former MA resident who had to pay dearly for my law school education (because there was no state law school), I say...IT'S ABOUT DARN TIME! Yes, I know the economy is bad. Yes, I know the market is GLUTTED with lawyers. However, I've always thought it was an embarrassment to MA that it didn't have a state law school, especially with such lofty schools as Harvard, BC and BU in the state.
3. teddysdad - February 03, 2010 at 06:14 am
It is amazing how tone deaf academics and politicans can be. This costly misuse of public funds in a time of such economic despair will come back to haunt the governor and others at re-election time.
4. rchill - February 03, 2010 at 07:32 am
teddysdad - why is training lawyers at state institutions a misuse of public funds, but training medical students (UMass/Worcester) or teachers (Bridgewater State) or engineers (UMass/Lowell) is not? I honestly don't see the difference, or why this is a negative. I need more information regarding why they thought it too costly a few years ago before I can reject the proposal now.
5. cleverclogs - February 03, 2010 at 09:12 am
In 2005, Mitt Romney was the governor. State education suffered throughout his term since Mitt probably couldn't understand why everyone just didn't go to Harvard. Deval Patrick, who has been mostly lackluster as a governor, is trying to actually follow through on his campaign promises, especially since the election of Scott Brown scared the bejesus out of Mass Dems. A month ago, the university system was looking at a 10% across the board cut; yesterday we heard that Patrick put the money back in the budget and no cuts would be required. To make up some money, he's also proposing a soda and candy tax as well as bottle deposits on water bottles. We'll see what passes the legislature, but I think what we're seeing in education is out-and-out fear of the MA electorate.
6. teddysdad - February 03, 2010 at 10:08 am
To Rchill - Given that cities and towns in Massachusetts are facing drastic cutbacks in basic services, given that the MBTA faces massive repair & maintenance needs as well as huge debt, given the infrastructure needs of the state, I feel that public dollars could be better spent for purposes other than saving a failing private law school. That is what I meant by a misuse of funds.
7. esselan - February 03, 2010 at 12:15 pm
The "too costly" argument was simply a smokescreen put forth at the time by the PR machines of prestigious, private and COSTLY law schools in Massachusetts. It's about time this proposal finally moves forward to create greater competition in the Massachusetts law school market, not to mention creating greater opportunity in one of the most economically troubled areas of the state.