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.