Where will UMASS-Dartmouth law be ranked?
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:03 pm
Will it be a TTT?
No.
a TTTT
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=112166
Wwwhhaat? Top 20? What makes you this confident?Kohinoor wrote:Dartmouth Law will def be in the top 20 in my lifetime.
I think he means Dartmouth the Ivy League school which doesn't have a law school as a joke.darknightbegins wrote:Wwwhhaat? Top 20? What makes you this confident?Kohinoor wrote:Dartmouth Law will def be in the top 20 in my lifetime.
Ah, in that case, Princeton Law should crack the T14.hiromoto45 wrote:I think he means Dartmouth the Ivy League school which doesn't have a law school as a joke.darknightbegins wrote:Wwwhhaat? Top 20? What makes you this confident?Kohinoor wrote:Dartmouth Law will def be in the top 20 in my lifetime.
Lulz @ practicing law in Massachusetts.soullesswonder wrote: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 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.darknightbegins wrote:The only public law school in the state.
People mistakenly assume that publics are cheaper and more accessible to applicants with weaker numbers.vanwinkle wrote: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.darknightbegins wrote:The only public law school in the state.
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.)vanwinkle wrote: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.darknightbegins wrote:The only public law school in the state.
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.
i hope soMVPson wrote:This flame, right?
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.soullesswonder wrote: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/
MrKappus wrote:clueless law students... will continue to apply in record numbers even if you promise to build the school out of human excrement....
lolconcurrent fork wrote:Good - MA needs more law schools. Only 75% of our starbucks baristas have JDs.