The Devil Was An Angel, Too
[Note: I originally posted this as a comment to Armen's preceding post, but I thought it might be more useful for discussion on the main page.]
I have many thoughts on the topic of Armen's previous post. Good article find, Armen.
Firstly, I think that while the situation at Boalt has been bad for the past several years, I don't particularly like how Edley seems OK to air the school's troubles publicly. Looking at things from Edley's perspective, I understand why he's doing it: political opponents and UC board folks know he's serious about reform and serious about calling them all out for their roles in the problems at the school.
But it's a high risk strategy, and I worry that the risks haven't been adequately weighed. While ending on a positive note, the article -- and others I've seen like it -- spends a lot more time chronicling the decline of Boalt (which, as it is in the past, is "verifiable" and "fact" and therefore easier to report) than on the opportunities Edley promises (as these are only speculative at present).
So the problem is that Boalt is being repeatedly and at length depicted as a school long on the decline, and Edley is characterized as the savior. That's great for Edley. Not necessarily so great for Boalt Hall. Whether or not the school has truly been on the decline is a subject for legitimate debate. True, human and physical resources have taken a hit and tuition has risen precipitously as a result of Cal's budget woes. But the most important elements of a law school -- the students and faculty -- have remained fundamentally as strong as ever, and some programs at Boalt built over the last decade are unquestionably among the top 2 or 3 in the country (here I am thinking specifically of the law and technology stuff).
I worry that the real risk to Edley's strategy for Boalt is in the impact his tactics this year will have on future applicants. They read these articles, and they see a school with major structural administrative problems. Those aren't likely to be solved in the next three years> And so those wonderful applicants read about a school on the decline and decide to go elsewhere -- even though many of Boalt's problems won't really impact the quality of a Boalt education over the next three to five years(only the price; woe is my out-of-state tuition bill!). So Boalt might miss a generation or two of top applicants. And in a decade, when it's problems are worked out, Boalt may not be on the list of "top ten" schools that everyone applies to anymore.
Is it possible for Edley to pursue a different PR course -- to focus on the opportunities rather than the obstacles ahead, to accentuate the positive accomplishments of the past decade rather than the negative? I think it is, and I wish he'd do it. Not so that I felt better about the school -- I love it. But so that those still to come would feel more confident that in coming to Boalt they are coming to a truly special place.
I have many thoughts on the topic of Armen's previous post. Good article find, Armen.
Firstly, I think that while the situation at Boalt has been bad for the past several years, I don't particularly like how Edley seems OK to air the school's troubles publicly. Looking at things from Edley's perspective, I understand why he's doing it: political opponents and UC board folks know he's serious about reform and serious about calling them all out for their roles in the problems at the school.
But it's a high risk strategy, and I worry that the risks haven't been adequately weighed. While ending on a positive note, the article -- and others I've seen like it -- spends a lot more time chronicling the decline of Boalt (which, as it is in the past, is "verifiable" and "fact" and therefore easier to report) than on the opportunities Edley promises (as these are only speculative at present).
So the problem is that Boalt is being repeatedly and at length depicted as a school long on the decline, and Edley is characterized as the savior. That's great for Edley. Not necessarily so great for Boalt Hall. Whether or not the school has truly been on the decline is a subject for legitimate debate. True, human and physical resources have taken a hit and tuition has risen precipitously as a result of Cal's budget woes. But the most important elements of a law school -- the students and faculty -- have remained fundamentally as strong as ever, and some programs at Boalt built over the last decade are unquestionably among the top 2 or 3 in the country (here I am thinking specifically of the law and technology stuff).
I worry that the real risk to Edley's strategy for Boalt is in the impact his tactics this year will have on future applicants. They read these articles, and they see a school with major structural administrative problems. Those aren't likely to be solved in the next three years> And so those wonderful applicants read about a school on the decline and decide to go elsewhere -- even though many of Boalt's problems won't really impact the quality of a Boalt education over the next three to five years(only the price; woe is my out-of-state tuition bill!). So Boalt might miss a generation or two of top applicants. And in a decade, when it's problems are worked out, Boalt may not be on the list of "top ten" schools that everyone applies to anymore.
Is it possible for Edley to pursue a different PR course -- to focus on the opportunities rather than the obstacles ahead, to accentuate the positive accomplishments of the past decade rather than the negative? I think it is, and I wish he'd do it. Not so that I felt better about the school -- I love it. But so that those still to come would feel more confident that in coming to Boalt they are coming to a truly special place.
Labels: DE, Law School, Rankings And Associated Bullshit
posted by Anonymous at 8:00 PM
1 Comments:
I'm not so sure Edley has that much influence on the Boalt-in-decline angle. You say that the media focuses on the only easily measured facts available - tuition increases & the drop in the U.S. News ranking. Right, but they'd be doing that regardless. What Edley adds is a way to put those facts in a context that might not scream out impending doom. Without the Edley-as-savior line, what would the story look like? It could say that there are a few bad numbers but not enough information yet to know what they can tell us aboout the future - but that just doesn't make for a publishable piece. Maybe there would be no media response at all, but it's more likely that we'd end up with a doomsday piece without anything positive about the future direction of the lawschool.
Post a Comment
<< Home