Where will UMASS-Dartmouth law be ranked? Forum

[onetimeonly95]

Will it be a TTT?

[baboon309]

No.

a TTTT

[darknightbegins]

Yeah I'm curious about this myself. The only public law school in the state. I could see the state really trying to push it and improve it in the years to come. But TTT seems likely.

[Kohinoor]

Dartmouth Law will def be in the top 20 in my lifetime.

[darknightbegins]

Dartmouth Law will def be in the top 20 in my lifetime.

Wwwhhaat? Top 20? What makes you this confident?

[hiromoto45]

Dartmouth Law will def be in the top 20 in my lifetime.

Wwwhhaat? Top 20? What makes you this confident?

I think he means Dartmouth the Ivy League school which doesn't have a law school as a joke.

[darknightbegins]

Dartmouth Law will def be in the top 20 in my lifetime.

Wwwhhaat? Top 20? What makes you this confident?

I think he means Dartmouth the Ivy League school which doesn't have a law school as a joke.

Ah, in that case, Princeton Law should crack the T14.

[OneSixtySix]

I am so upset at this decision.

UMass-Dartmouth is a mediocre state school to begin with, and the law school they took over was unaccredited and just absolutely pathetic.

Massachusetts deserves a public law school, but does no good by putting forth a T4.

Plus they should have waited for it to be feasible to start a law school in Amherst where the actual UMass is.

[soullesswonder]

protip: any school that has explicitly justified its existence as a revenue-generator for the rest of the university system is probably not a good school.

"UMass Dartmouth chancellor Jean MacCormack had previously laid out plans that said the public law school would operate free of taxpayer dollars and eventually funnel millions into UMass Dartmouth and the state through expanded enrollment. Officials have estimated that the school would grow from 235 students to 559 by 2017."

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/12/umass-tr ... aw-school/

[TTH]

protip: any school that has explicitly justified its existence as a revenue-generator for the rest of the university system is probably not a good school.

"UMass Dartmouth chancellor Jean MacCormack had previously laid out plans that said the public law school would operate free of taxpayer dollars and eventually funnel millions into UMass Dartmouth and the state through expanded enrollment. Officials have estimated that the school would grow from 235 students to 559 by 2017."

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/12/umass-tr ... aw-school/

Lulz @ practicing law in Massachusetts.

[DarkPhantom]

Seeing as this was one of the back up schools - probably better to just wait and re-apply than to attend this school?

[summerstar]

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

[Veyron]

Not as high as Princettton Law.

[vanwinkle]

The only public law school in the state.

I can never understand why people think this matters. The public/private distinction doesn't really matter much in the law school context; if this school places worse than Northeastern, BC, and BU, and costs nearly the same (which ultimately it will), then there's no real advantage to it.

Yes, they're promising it'll be cheaper, but really, by how much? If it's $10K/yr cheaper you're still looking at $25-30K/yr in tuition and $20K/yr in COL expenses; you've ultimately got a debt load over $100K after three years anyway. That's far too much for public service, which is going to be where this school is trying to place people.

Public/private doesn't matter, and given the high minimum that tuition would have to be, saving money doesn't matter much either. Being public doesn't really matter at all from a practical standpoint. Given how tuition at the top "public" law schools has risen to match their private peers, it really doesn't matter anywhere.

[r6_philly]

Yet they continue to play this marketing game, and people are falling for it.

[im_blue]

The only public law school in the state.

I can never understand why people think this matters. The public/private distinction doesn't really matter much in the law school context; if this school places worse than Northeastern, BC, and BU, and costs nearly the same (which ultimately it will), then there's no real advantage to it.

Yes, they're promising it'll be cheaper, but really, by how much? If it's $10K/yr cheaper you're still looking at $25-30K/yr in tuition and $20K/yr in COL expenses; you've ultimately got a debt load over $100K after three years anyway. That's far too much for public service, which is going to be where this school is trying to place people.

Public/private doesn't matter, and given the high minimum that tuition would have to be, saving money doesn't matter much either. Being public doesn't really matter at all from a practical standpoint. Given how tuition at the top "public" law schools has risen to match their private peers, it really doesn't matter anywhere.

People mistakenly assume that publics are cheaper and more accessible to applicants with weaker numbers.

[20160810]

The only public law school in the state.

I can never understand why people think this matters. The public/private distinction doesn't really matter much in the law school context; if this school places worse than Northeastern, BC, and BU, and costs nearly the same (which ultimately it will), then there's no real advantage to it.

Yes, they're promising it'll be cheaper, but really, by how much? If it's $10K/yr cheaper you're still looking at $25-30K/yr in tuition and $20K/yr in COL expenses; you've ultimately got a debt load over $100K after three years anyway. That's far too much for public service, which is going to be where this school is trying to place people.

Public/private doesn't matter, and given the high minimum that tuition would have to be, saving money doesn't matter much either. Being public doesn't really matter at all from a practical standpoint. Given how tuition at the top "public" law schools has risen to match their private peers, it really doesn't matter anywhere.

Eh, it matters at lower-ranked publics who actually keep their tuition low (Texas Tech, etc.)

[MVPson]

This flame, right?

[005618502]

This flame, right?

i hope so

[davidtothej05]

Its kinda silly anyways, Mass residents as is can get a deep discount at both Maine and Conn, both very affordable "state" schools.

And Roger Williams is like, a mile away

[MrKappus]

protip: any school that has explicitly justified its existence as a revenue-generator for the rest of the university system is probably not a good school.

"UMass Dartmouth chancellor Jean MacCormack had previously laid out plans that said the public law school would operate free of taxpayer dollars and eventually funnel millions into UMass Dartmouth and the state through expanded enrollment. Officials have estimated that the school would grow from 235 students to 559 by 2017."

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/12/umass-tr ... aw-school/

I'm amazed that university officials actually branded the school this way. Are they aware that, for it to generate revenue, law students have to want to attend? Then again, I guess if the choice is to offend fiscal hawks criticizing the law school's opening, or clueless law students that will continue to apply in record numbers even if you promise to build the school out of human excrement, it's probably better to offend the latter.

[concurrent fork]

Good - MA needs more law schools. Only 75% of our starbucks baristas have JDs.

[HeavenWood]

clueless law students... will continue to apply in record numbers even if you promise to build the school out of human excrement....

[12262010]

just what we need

[005618502]

Good - MA needs more law schools. Only 75% of our starbucks baristas have JDs.

lol