Multiple Visions
While listening to crappy 70s music, I wondered what other Boalties see in the future of this school (and the University). The Dean has made his plans known (here), but now I'm curious what the students think of the school's future. Feel free to react to Edley's plans but I'm more interested in gripes and praises that school should deal with or emphasize.
Labels: DE, Legal Education Costs, LRAP, Rankings And Associated Bullshit
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 1:00 PM
28 Comments:
we are going to need subsidized housing to attract top teaching talent. the next generation of great legal minds won't want to cram their family in a one-bedroom above top dog.
Predictions? It will take about 10 years for Boalt to stabilize as a great school that is also a good value for the tuition money. With a new building, a decent endowment, and a somewhat revived California economy, Boalt will shine, even if it costs private school rates. Northern California is that good!
Does the school even have enough money to launch an effective fund-raising campaign? I also wonder whether Dean Edley is the guy to bring Boalt to the promised land. Early on, he expressed deep frustration and the doubts of a hedging academic about leading the school:
"I'm at the point in my career where I'm not that worried about failing. If it happens, it happens," he said at his first public appearance at Boalt the spring before he took office. Not very inspiring. At the same time, though, he did say that now's the time for bold action.
At a town hall meeting in the subsequent fall, he said, "If my director of development -- she's great -- were run over by a bus, then I'd quit the next day." Sure, it's a jokey line and perhaps the embodiment of the "straight-talkin', intellectually honest, no nonsense, warts-and-all, 'we wear our insecurities on our sleeves'" dean of the 21st century, but, if the line had an ounce of sincerity behind it, Edley sounded like an academic who had taken the business reigns of the law school and felt overwhelmed.
But that was then. And this is now. Perhaps the position of dean has truly emboldened Edley. A year in a position can do that.
In any event, it's the alumni of Boalt that need to step up, regardless of the dean. It shouldn't matter who the dean is. The alumni, if they hear the message, should give to the institution that gave them so much for $700/year.
1:55-
Berkeley already provides housing assistance for new faculty hires. Perhaps they could do more but they already realize they need to be doing it.
It's likely that Boalt will stay a top school, but I hope it will improve in a few ways. Edley is right that it needs an independent source of $ that the state or the rest of the UC system can't touch. It means the disgruntled alumni who believe Boalt plays an important role in the legal community need to set aside their bitterness and cough up some cash. Boalt also needs to provide better support for its students. Both because it's the right thing for the school to do and because not doing it just pisses students off and ends up costing the school alumni dollars. This means fixing the little things people always complain about. Mostly, it means better support from the CDO, more funding for public interest/public service work, a better LRAP program, and more support for people who know they want to specialize in a particular area (and aren't planning on being IP lawyers). I've seen some improvement in all these areas except LRAP, but it needs to continue.
Boalt's short-term is not so bright. The crappy facilities, the poor central planning (why do so many great classes meet at 10:00 or 11:00 AM? Can't Boalt get its professors to teach at 9:00 AM or 2:10 PM so that so many basic courses don't all pile up in the same slots?), and the daily frustrations of getting public school value for private school money will continue to mar the short-term. As committed as Boalt's faculty and students are to social justice, you're better off going to HLS, Stanford, and some of the other more well-heeled law schools if you actually want to be able to afford a career in public justice. Yes, it's sad and ironic that the House of Edley isn't in much of a position to offer loan amnesty to those pursuing social justice careers.
While Boalt has been fluctuating in the rankings for years between 3rd place and 15th, the tuition has never been so high. So, for all of those who say that Boalt is not in any decline but rather this is part of a cycle where Boalt jumps around the rankings, that's only so true. The real issue here is that Boalt's ranking is fluctuating AND the tuition has jumped to private school rates. That's not a good combination for attracting the best students.
If it's 1989 and Boalt is ranked 11th while the year before it was ranked 7th, you still might take Boalt over Stanford because you'd rather pay $700/year than $15,000-$20,000/year, or whatever Stanford cost then. The calculation is MUCH different now. Perhaps professors don't respond as much to US News rankings and tuition increases, but students sure do.
I'm interested in knowing some more facts about the alumni. Edley wisely said last year that he would need to change the culture of California alumni giving. Boalt alumni, in the aggregate, obviously aren't used to giving to their alma matter. Many of them chose Boalt because it was a cheap, great deal. It's imaginable that they came from families with far less wealth than at the east coast law schools. The question is now that some of them are quite wealthy, whether they can adopt more of an old school "Let's give to the alma mater hundreds of thousands of bucks" mentality. I sure hope they do.
We need to change the attitude of the current student body. I don't know how many times I've heard a classmate express bitterness toward Boalt for having, say, lackluster career services, and that they'd "never give money to Boalt" as a result. I am certain that I am among the less wealthy students here, but I am committed to supporting our school.
Maybe this means we need to start admitting students who are more likely to give back to the school, rather than being ungrateful leeches.
The focus on US News rankings by some posters is idiotic. If you think US News tells you anything about where to go to school, you belong at Duke or Penn or Cornell or Northwestern or whatever random lesser schools they have ranked ahead of us this year. And enjoy having a career office that can't deliver a great job if you're not in the top half of the class.
Whatever Boalt's rankings are, somebody at our school has to get course selection and scheduling under control. We cannot be competitive if we cannot get into Civ Pro II until our 3L year because we are either waitlisted and don't get in or conflicted out by other classes that we must take. This is not only true of Civ Pro II. It's true of a huge number of core classes here. The school does not run its course offerings well and, until it does, students will continue to be disgruntled. Unhappy students don't help the school, make its ranking go up, or make it more competitive with Stanford et al.
The best part is the Civ Pro II is one of the classes bumped to make room for the electives, and becomes the most popular elective. How about we take the same Civ Pro as EVERY OTHER LAW SCHOOL IN THE COUNTRY, and just enjoy one elective.
12:08, I agree with you in spirit, but I think there are a few things wrong with what you say. First, those who want to go into the corporate practice probably don't give a rat's ass about personal jurisdiction or the Erie Doctrine (except for those who plan on taking every bar course). Second, the Civ Pro II courses that are offered have enough space in them to more than accomodate eveyrone who is interested in taking it as an elective. The problem is that there were 20 people in Vetter's class last semester. If Vetter taught at 11:15 and Bundy was 8:30, I would think enrollment would even out a bit. But until then, I don't think that's an issue of CP II being offered as an elective vs. a mandatory first year course. The same applies to Evidence, which IS a mandatory first year course in some law schools.
I wouldn't suggest that folks go around saying that Civ Pro II (jurisdiction) has no relevance for transactional/corporate lawyers. Getting the jurisdictional issues right in a contract are extremely important - more important than knowing first-year Torts and Criminal law.
Put Civ Pro II back in the first year curriculum. Everyone (pure litigators, regulators, dispute resolvers, counseors, and transactional lawyers) needs it to avoid malpractice, because we're living in a country of federalism.
It's kind of funny. One of the reasons why Boalt bumps Civ Pro II to make room for electives is as a sellling point to prospective students. "Come to Boalt - we give you 2 electives in your first year - that's freedom of choice! Don't go to Chicago or wherever where you're a prisoner of the schedule!"
Prospective students have no reason to understand what they're losing in having two electives and having to scramble to take Civ Pro II in their second and third years. But it isn't good for the students that they get this choice (ooh yes, paternalism rears its head!). One elective is enough.
It's kind of like bad parenting - giving your teenage kids beer so that they like you more, when you should be giving them milk (or calcium-fortified soy) like other parents do.
Armen, in theory your are right. I should have taken Civ Pro II has an elective the second semester of my first year. But, I didn't realize until this summer how much I needed it. I tried to take it this fall but it conflicted with the one class Boalt offers that teaches the exact kind of law I want to practice. That left me with this spring. As number 4 billion on the waitlist I just didn't get in.
Maybe it is parternalistic to force students to take Civ Pro II first year, but we don't necessarily know what it good for us and we need some direction. As a school trying to prepare us to be lawyers, Boalt should be directing students to the right path where course offerings are concerned. This is not a Vetter/Bundy problem. This is problem with how courses are scheduled and when we are required to take them.
Vetter's not teaching Civ Pro II this semester. Students only had one option (Bundy), and Boalt refused to add another section, leaving at least 80 people out in the lurch.
Boalt doesn't even try to convince students to take Vetter for Civ Pro II or Evidence. They should make an effort to persuade students to take Civ Pro II in the fall, when Vetter seems to teach it. I mean, they make a lame effort through email to tell you to take Professions in your 2L year. They should do the same with Civ Pro II. The class had, what, like 30 people in it? That's just wrong.
And if students are so convinced that Vetter mumbles too much and is unclear in speech (as brilliant as he is) and Boalt can't dissuade students from this perception (I cast no judgment on whether it's true or false), then they should hire more Civ Pro II teachers.
I agree with 2:37. (c'mon Armen, didn't you read Bundy's course recommendations sheet he handed out in Civ Pro I last year? Civ Pro II was marked as a "Must" for transactional practice.)
I could see jurisdictional issues being very important for corporate attorneys-to-be (like myself). Most corporate law is actually state, rather than federal, so juridictional conflicts and choice of law can be a major issue in M&A and in financings.
Look I'll grant you that everybody and their mom should take Civ Pro II if you want, that still doesn't change my point that the school currently offers more than enough seats for anyone who wants to take the class to take it. It just so happens we're a tad picky about which seats we want (or alternatively the some of the seats are so crappy that they can't be said to exist in the first place). However you cut it, CP II as an elective vs. mandatory is not the cause of the problem. At least I haven't seen anyone show me how it is.
If Civ Pro II is so essential, then Boalt shouldn't let people dodge Vetter and wait for Bundy. The school should make Civ Pro II mandatory for graduation, forcing students to take Vetter when he offers it. The guy can wear a microphone.
Why is Con Law mandatory but Civ Pro II isn't? Makes no sense. You can go through your life as a litigator and definitely as a transactional attorney not knowing what the hell Marbury v. Madison means. But I don't see how you could be a litigator or even a tranactional attorney and not understand the basics of jurisdiction. Inasmuch as specific coursework is a necessary part of a legal education (and, whether you agree with it or not, that's the operating assumption behind making any of these courses mandatory), Civ Pro II is more essential for practice of any kind than Con Law.
I think this thread has gone astray. Ultimately the status of civ pro II is a very minor issue compared to other problems that the school is facing. For instance, the Lrap program should depend purely on donor not tuition dollars. Legal education is expensive for everybody these days, not just those who want to go into less worthwhile practices. If society doesn't value your work enough to pay you for your education it means you should use your education for something else.
Stop taking my money!!!
Also it will be hard for Edley to fundraise from those of us who incurred tens of thousands of $ in law school debt to come to Boalt in the past three years.
As a 3L, I plan to give money back partly because it's in my own self interest (to keep perceived rankings up) and partially because I think we need to make a comment to public law schools. But, since I accepted at Boalt, my tuition has more than doubled. That hurts & there's no way around that.
Relying solely on alums may not be enough for Edley to revamp our school.
As a bitter student, I think Boalt can reduce the bitterness by not raising tuition every semester - ie, plan ahead so that entering class of 2003 pays X all 3 yrs; if an increase is needed, then 2004 pays Y all three years; and so on. The tuition increases piss me off b/c they are done w/o warning at the last minute, at a time when we are all captive. It's BS!
I hope some Boalt and UC Berkeley administrators are reading these comments so that they realize the depth of student bitterness on a variety of issues.
The students above who express bitterness toward the school should just be grateful that their lame ass mid 160s LSAT score got them into a fucking awesome school. Would you rather be attending Fordham for $37,000 a year? (Please don't respond by posting your LSAT scores or admission to some higher ranked school; I'm painting with broad strokes here, but I think it's essentially accurate.) Blame the government for tuition increases, blame the citizens, even -- don't blame Boalt Hall.
Having said that, I'll be contributing to the class of 2006 campaign (I don't recall seeing a post about this? -- I assume because Armen is a 2L.), but I'm earmarking all the money to go to the school, and not to other students. I've heard too many stories of students with rich parents buying new wardrobes or braces with their summer grant or financial aid money. Fuck that. Capital improvements and faculty recruitment are where it's at.
I agree 100% with the above poster. You swine are all lucky to be here, and its not as if the school is getting rich off of our tuition.
If Boalt's letting people like 8:16 a.m. in, I think we should all be worried about the future of this school, and I say this not from some bleeding-heart point of view - it's just plain dumb. ("Legal education is expensive for everybody these days, not just those who want to go into less worthwhile practices. If society doesn't value your work enough to pay you for your education it means you should use your education for something else.")
7:40 pm, I'll admit that my wording was perhaps harsh, but I believe my point to be a valid one. I am all for the "public interest" to be advanced, but I would like some say as to how my money is spent to advance it. For instance if you wanted to go work for Green Peace or PETA I would be horrified that my money was in any way supporting what I consider to be fringe groups little better than eco-terrorists.
Secondly, Boalt is in trouble not when it admits contrarians, but when it begins admitting students who (a) use "Boalt's" to mean Boalt is, and (b) whos argumentation skills amount to "it's just plain dumb"
11:15 - semantic arguments don't (do not) make you sound smarter.
Your tutition went up because law students (and grad students in general) are not a sympathetic bunch in Sacramento. Live with it. Better yet, live with it - on a $135k starting salary.
That said, I know many of you have trouble processing the economics of law school when tuition enters a certain stratosphere (read: over $20k/yr), but last time I checked Boalt is still more than $10k less than Stanfurd annually (and yes, I misspelled Stanfurd purposely, you dipshit!)
Post a Comment
<< Home