The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

My Son-in-Law’s Law School in the News

Posted on | July 30, 2011 | 7 Comments

Readers will recall Martin — a/k/a, the Argentine Romeo — who married my daughter last year. He will attend University of Baltimore Law School this fall and, via Instapundit, we have the news that the UBLS dean just resigned:

University of Baltimore School of Law Dean Phillip J. Closius resigned today as a result of conflict over the university raking off 45% of law school revenues.

In his letter of resignation, Dean Closius explained that when he took the job, he was “aware that, historically, the University retained a high percentage of the revenue generated by the law school.” However, the university president assured Closius he would work on the problem, which the dean saw as “the inequity of charging law students increasingly high tuition and fees if a significant percentage of those funds were not directly benefitting the law school.”

So, how bad was the problem? Dean Closius said he had difficulty obtaining financial data, but when he did, it showed the disturbing scope of the problem:

The financial data demonstrates that the amount and percentage of the law school revenue retained by the University has increased, particularly over the last two years. For the most recent academic year (AY 10-11), our tuition increase generated $1,455,650 in additional revenue. Of that amount, the School of Law budget increased by only $80,774. I do not know of any law school in the country receiving such a small percentage of its generated tuition revenue. A recent article in The New York Times noted that a 25-30% revenue retention by a university was considered high by national standards. As of academic year 2010-11, the University retained approximately 45% of the revenue generated by law tuition, fees and state subsidy.

Exactly what this means to my son-in-law’s legal education, I don’t know, but when the law school gets only 18% of the additional revenue generated by a tuition increase . . . yeah, that’s a problem.

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    Hmmm . . . surely this school was founded on the Democratic economic model.

    You pay
    We play

  • Anonymous

    Maybe the University administration learned math at Harvard.

  • john lichtenstein

    Good for Dean Closius. The 18% in your last paragraph seems off. 80774 out of an increase of 1455650 is 5.5%.

  • Pingback: Fausta's Blog » Blog Archive » Saturday afternoon roundup

  • Joe

    Exactly what this means to my son-in-law’s legal education, I don’t know…

    His education is probably fine.  Let’s face some realities, law school is a necessary thing to become a lawyer (for the most part) but it only trains you to be a begining lawyer and pass the bar exam (and not so much at that).  Lawyers become good once they get out of school and start working and it takes around 5-10 years to be reasonably proficient. 

    But when he is still paying off those student loans twenty or more years from now, he might remember that when they call every few months for an alumni pledge.  An appropriate four letter word response, followed by off may be appropriate to that telephone solicitior. 

  • Quartermaster

    It means your SIL will be getting ripped off. Increasingly, a university education means you have been cheated quite a bit. Not only has the quality declined, but you will be paying more for it.

  • http://www.haemet.blogivists.com Roxeanne de Luca

    Exactly what this means to my son-in-law’s legal education, I don’t know, but when the law school gets only 18% of the additional revenue generated by a tuition increase . . . yeah, that’s a problem.

    Um, I don’t know about the legal education aspect – Baltimore isn’t my alma mater – but it does mean that you shouldn’t hold your breath waiting for grandchildren.

    It means that, fifteen years from now, money will be coming from Martin and Kennedy’s salaries to fund a lavish new dorm or music building at the undergrad side of Baltimore’s campus.   That’s money that could go to their home, helping Kennedy to not work while she has kids, saving for the kids’ college, et cetera – but it’s money that’s being sucked up by an undergraduate school.

    As conservatives, we know that money taken by the government is money not working its way through the private sector, or money not in the pockets of people who need it.  Why do we not worry nearly as much about money that gets sucked up, en masse, by universities to pay for shiny buildings and ever-more administrative positions? Money taken from young people who are starting out?