Golden Bear 11 wrote:Indiana Tech Law School = UC Irvine Law
Different goal, different methodology, different flawed assumptions, same result.
Irvine was Chemerinsky's attempt to create an elite national law school from scratch by gaming the USNWR system. If enough of a momentum could be gained with an initial class with high numbers and good employment outcomes, the school would keep enrolling top students.That students will continue to remain price insensitive, that you can't run a "decent" law school without charging huge tuition to attract the best faculty and deliver a ton of admin support, and that employers will hire students based solely on the strength of the faculty (not that the schools employers tend to hire from also tend to have elite faculty) were some very bad assumptions. The result is going to be a school that must charge at least as much as Davis/Hastings, but probably not any better employment outcomes. I also wonder how much he knew about the real employment situation at places like Davis/Hastings before he made his move.
Indiana Tech seems to be a more typical law school. The justifications as stated in the media are similar to Duncan and Lincoln law schools and the obvious retorts are similar (I believe, for example, that Duncan touted it's affordability relative to other law schools when there are much cheaper, much more established in-state options available.)The feasibility study also nicely skirted the question of whether jobs would be waiting, but I think they are targeting different jobs.
That said, the end result of either situation will probably be a lot of kids with no FT legal job and a massive amount of student loan debt.