Rutgers Board Authorizes Law School Merger

[Scarlet Pride]

Re: Why is Rutgers merging its law schools? The deans answer your questions

Perhaps Rutgers views law as a lower priority. They are making huge investments in business, science, and honors program. You can't make everything a priority. Rutgers Law turns out good graduates and plays an important role in NJ - perhaps that's the appropriate place for the school right now.

 

[retired711]

Re: Why is Rutgers merging its law schools? The deans answer your questions

Originally posted by Scarlet Pride:
Perhaps Rutgers views law as a lower priority. They are making huge investments in business, science, and honors program. You can't make everything a priority. Rutgers Law turns out good graduates and plays an important role in NJ - perhaps that's the appropriate place for the school right now.

The odd thing is that it takes relatively little money to have a first-class law school as opposed to building up reputation in, say, science. But RU has hardly ever been interested in the law schools, except in Edward Bloustein's last year when he had a very active Acting Dean to deal with in Camden. I have to think that some of the problem is that the law schools are away from the central administration, and out of sight is out of mind. That is an excellent argument for a law school in New Brunswick, but the university is certainly not interested in that Central administration just isn't that interested in legal education.

BTW, I thought Ole Cabbagehad's comments are good. It has been very difficult for the deans to articulate a vision of what this is all about. I'd admit, though, that the format of the Q and A made it hard to do that.

 

[Scarlet16E]

Re: Why is Rutgers merging its law schools? The deans answer your questions

For those of you struggling to see the benefits of the merger, please see the huge improvement in rankings the merged Nursing school has already seen.
And rankings are very much a priority, with Law being one of the targeted programs.

Simple. What's the first thing you do if you have two underperforming entities that do the same thing?
Merge them into one and then emphasize the strengths from each.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[NotInRHouse]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the nursing ranking was really helped by the RWJ merger.

Right now I'm not sure what the strengths of the RU schools are, especially vis a vis the competition.

 

[retired711]

But notice that the law deans don't feel they can say in public, "we're doing this to increase rankings." So that makes them look inarticulate. They would be better off saying, "we're building on each other's strengths." Barchi did a better job of articulating the vision in a few sentences than the law deans did in the interview linked above.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Why wouldn't they emphasize rankings...is it politically incorrect to want recognition, in a field where one set of rankings is essentially a bible?

Plenty of higher ranked schools place emphasis on public service and recruiting minorities. It's almost like the RU-N side feels like if it says it has any mission other than those it it will turn into Liberty U overnight...it's really baffling

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Why wouldn't they emphasize rankings...is it politically incorrect to want recognition, in a field where one set of rankings is essentially a bible?

Plenty of higher ranked schools place emphasis on public service and recruiting minorities. It's almost like the RU-N side feels like if it says it has any mission other than those it it will turn into Liberty U overnight...it's really baffling

NIRH, no law school dean anywhere wants to admit that he or she pays attention to U.S. News. After all, law deans insist that U.S. News is worthless, so the deans hardly want to seem to be craving approval. And if U.S.News is "a bible," then we're all in trouble. Every informed person knows they're nonsense.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I think there is a difference between ignore and place all emphasis though. I had, up until this year, every year since graduation, gotten an email from Fordham telling me where we ranked and how fantastic it was. The year we were #25, I was in school and everyone was talking about it. That doesn't mean that the dean was crowing about it every two seconds- just that it mattered in terms of getting the best and brightest.

And surely RU is not immune to this phenomenon as I got an email from them as well when were ranked #33 (IIRC) best in the world in an international ranking, and I got another one about how we got the most apps ever, etc.

I think RU-N law is just not concerned with any metric aside from how many minorities or underprivileged students they have. That can be a metric but it shouldn't be the main, or even top 5, for a law school at B1G, AAU, university. I'm as liberal as they come but the current philosophy is PC to point of shooting yourself in the foot, as the most qualified minorities and underprivileged and interested in public interest work, will keep going to other schools because they too do not ignore rankings.

 

[retired711]

I understand Newark's law school to be departing from that admissions philosophy as part of the merger.. We'll see.

This post was edited on 4/12 6:42 PM by camdenlawprof

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Re: Why is Rutgers merging its law schools? The deans answer your questions

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by Ole Cabbagehead:

Originally posted by Tango Two:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Here is some information about the holodeck so that you can see the bells and whistles.

This post was edited on 4/10 1:25 PM by Tango Two

That article is telling. Even the deans cannot seem to explain why this makes sense. No cost savings, no rankings boost. Duplicative classes will continue to be offered in both places, professors will not be required to travel.

Library will now purchase 1 copy instead of 2 - this is a cost saving measure, but is a negative. One of the biggest factors harming Rutgers in the rankings is already library size. Holodeck to offer unique courses does not require a merger to be used.

If there are advantages to this, they certainly don't want to make them public. They seem very content to give half answers. I have a funny feeling they are just using this as part of a 20 year plan to either kill the Camden campus, or consolidate the schools in NB.

The stupid thing is that Rutgers has consistently shown that they do not care about the rankings, with their ludicrous admissions practices and their ambivalence toward big NYC firms. Now they are paying the price for that arrogance. All but the top ranked schools are getting absolutely killed in the current legal economy.

Since RU wouldnt be a topped ranked school either way, perhaps their underinvestment over the years was just ahead of the curve.

I think your reply is sarcastic (I hope -- if not it's a pretty douchey thing to say to people who are alums who graduated "ahead of the curve"), but just to address the underlying point, I never said anything about underinvestment in law or about Rutgers being a top tier law school.

My gripe with RU-N (as NIRH mentioned) has been the administration's borderline criminal disregard for the rankings (and really the quality of the education being offered) in favor of pursuing an independent goal that Rutgers have the most diverse student body in the nation. For years now, the Deans have run the law school as their own personal social experiment, going so far as to utilize two sets of admissions procedures depending on a student's background. As a result, RU-N's mission has really transformed from being the best law school it can to providing a legal education to the most diverse student body it can find. IMHO, this is a tremendous disservice to all students and alumni, as it is not designed to maximize the value of the education received. Diversity is obviously a critical part of a law school education, but it has to be achieved in conjunction with an overall goal of providing a high quality education.

 

[derleider]

Re: Why is Rutgers merging its law schools? The deans answer your questions

Originally posted by Ole Cabbagehead:

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by Ole Cabbagehead:

Originally posted by Tango Two:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Here is some information about the holodeck so that you can see the bells and whistles.

This post was edited on 4/10 1:25 PM by Tango Two

That article is telling. Even the deans cannot seem to explain why this makes sense. No cost savings, no rankings boost. Duplicative classes will continue to be offered in both places, professors will not be required to travel.

Library will now purchase 1 copy instead of 2 - this is a cost saving measure, but is a negative. One of the biggest factors harming Rutgers in the rankings is already library size. Holodeck to offer unique courses does not require a merger to be used.

If there are advantages to this, they certainly don't want to make them public. They seem very content to give half answers. I have a funny feeling they are just using this as part of a 20 year plan to either kill the Camden campus, or consolidate the schools in NB.

The stupid thing is that Rutgers has consistently shown that they do not care about the rankings, with their ludicrous admissions practices and their ambivalence toward big NYC firms. Now they are paying the price for that arrogance. All but the top ranked schools are getting absolutely killed in the current legal economy.

Since RU wouldnt be a topped ranked school either way, perhaps their underinvestment over the years was just ahead of the curve.

I think your reply is sarcastic (I hope -- if not it's a pretty douchey thing to say to people who are alums who graduated "ahead of the curve"), but just to address the underlying point, I never said anything about underinvestment in law or about Rutgers being a top tier law school.

My gripe with RU-N (as NIRH mentioned) has been the administration's borderline criminal disregard for the rankings (and really the quality of the education being offered) in favor of pursuing an independent goal that Rutgers have the most diverse student body in the nation. For years now, the Deans have run the law school as their own personal social experiment, going so far as to utilize two sets of admissions procedures depending on a student's background. As a result, RU-N's mission has really transformed from being the best law school it can to providing a legal education to the most diverse student body it can find. IMHO, this is a tremendous disservice to all students and alumni, as it is not designed to maximize the value of the education received. Diversity is obviously a critical part of a law school education, but it has to be achieved in conjunction with an overall goal of providing a high quality education.

Yes, it sarcastic.

On the other hand - were you mislead into going to RU Law because you thought they focused on rankings? Maybe they feel that their role as a state school isnt to be elite but to offer access to legal education to those who couldn't get it elsewhere. That is ACTUALLY more in line with the role that state schools were generally founded for, and since RU is the only state law school in the state, its actually not nearly as unreasonable, as long as you, the potential student, know going in that RU isnt trying to necessarily give you the best legal education they possibly could.

Of course this all plays into the whole discussion of the meaningfulness of rankings in general. Do they say more about the school, or simply the students the school lets in? IN this case, Im guessing its the latter. Basically, the only reason RUs diversity (as opposed to underinvestment) would matter is because RU is taking underperforming students and then churning out equally underperforming lawyers, giving RU a bad name going forward. That would indicate that the rankings are really just telling you how good of a student you need to be to get into a school, not whether the school actually teaches you more (which on the other hand should mostly be a matter of investment, where RU also fails.)

 

[virginiaru]

I graduated the law school in Newark in 1975. At that time the school was very social conscious (perhaps inordinately so) and its nickname was the " Peoples Electric School". Despite that, the schools reputation was high nationally as well as with the major New York law firm community. If law school ratings were being kept, I suspect Rutgers Newark would have been in the top 40 range (I can't speak for Camden). It has been a steady decline in reputation over the years, most of which is self induced, if you consider the location of the school and the University resources available. This devaluation of a degree encourages folks like to me contribute to RU, but not the law school. As others have noted, a law school is a low investment offering with a high return.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I think if you asked the deans at NYU or Columbia or Michigan- or even a "target" peer like Minnesota or Iowa- they would invetiably say they value social consciousness and activism as part of the mission.

Fordham's mission is "in the service of others" and really pushed public interest internships, clinics, etc. You will rarely see anything from them saying xyz people at white shoe firms. You will always see, this judge, that volunteer, Geraldine Ferraro, this dean that cared about helping, that clinic that staved a foreclosure, etc.

Also, by being the state U, every RU apparatus will inevitably be top 10 if not 5 or 3 in diversity (damn Hawaii and California). RU undergrad is what, 55% white, in NB? In the AAU who can beat that outside of the UC schools? Who even comes close in the B1G? It's just very silly.

 

[retired711]

As I said above, Newark Law is going to *change* its previous admission policies. Even they realize that what they're doing is constitutionally suspect. One of the interesting things about the merger is that it seems to have been the spur for Newark to undertake a much-needed reform of some aspects of the institution. Still, I'm sure that an applicant from a minority group is going to get a boost from that fact, just as happens at virtually all institutions of higher learning.

 

[NotInRHouse]

That's good to hear. We can debate the national policy all day, as you said, no need to go beyond it.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
I think if you asked the deans at NYU or Columbia or Michigan- or even a "target" peer like Minnesota or Iowa- they would invetiably say they value social consciousness and activism as part of the mission.

Fordham's mission is "in the service of others" and really pushed public interest internships, clinics, etc. You will rarely see anything from them saying xyz people at white shoe firms. You will always see, this judge, that volunteer, Geraldine Ferraro, this dean that cared about helping, that clinic that staved a foreclosure, etc.

Also, by being the state U, every RU apparatus will inevitably be top 10 if not 5 or 3 in diversity (damn Hawaii and California). RU undergrad is what, 55% white, in NB? In the AAU who can beat that outside of the UC schools? Who even comes close in the B1G? It's just very silly.

Diversity and access are not the same thing.

 

[NotInRHouse]

They aren't. But lack of access to higher ed is a financial, not a racial issue.

The state's atrocious treatment of RU equally effects everyone who can't afford the 40k a year, at least, tab, at private schools.

 

[retired711]

Lack of access is not just a financial problem. The worse the high school one attends, the harder it is going to be to do university-level work. (I doubt that many Camden high school students are ready for Rutgers, no matter how how high their grades.) That's why Barchi is putting a lot of emphasis on helping eighth-graders and up prepare for college.

 

[RUnTeX]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Lack of access is not just a financial problem. The worse the high school one attends, the harder it is going to be to do university-level work. (I doubt that many Camden high school students are ready for Rutgers, no matter how how high their grades.) That's why Barchi is putting a lot of emphasis on helping eighth-graders and up prepare for college.

Barchi is championing the Future Scholars Program and that's good to see after it got started toward the end of the McCormick tenure. At some point maybe they can expand it to other disadvantaged NJ communities beyond the host municipalities of Rutgers' campuses.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by RUnTeX:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Lack of access is not just a financial problem. The worse the high school one attends, the harder it is going to be to do university-level work. (I doubt that many Camden high school students are ready for Rutgers, no matter how how high their grades.) That's why Barchi is putting a lot of emphasis on helping eighth-graders and up prepare for college.

Barchi is championing the Future Scholars Program and that's good to see after it got started toward the end of the McCormick tenure. At some point maybe they can expand it to other disadvantaged NJ communities beyond the host municipalities of Rutgers' campuses.

Yes, if the program proves successful, it definitely should be scaled up. I don't know if we know one way or another yet.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Sure, but that's also a financial issue. Plenty of formerly Abbott designated high schools are mostly white- Keansburg and Philippsburg are two I'm thinking of.

 

[retired711]

It's not a financial issue in the way that affordability is. In fact, I wonder if it's a financial issue at all -- it's not at all clear to me that more money for the former Abbott districts would have much effect. Rather, it's an issue of helping kids who are being miseducated. And I don't know why you're injecting race into it. I wasn't trying to make a racial point, just emphasizing the need to help kids who are in terrible schools.

 

[TonyLieske]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by RUnTeX:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Lack of access is not just a financial problem. The worse the high school one attends, the harder it is going to be to do university-level work. (I doubt that many Camden high school students are ready for Rutgers, no matter how how high their grades.) That's why Barchi is putting a lot of emphasis on helping eighth-graders and up prepare for college.

Barchi is championing the Future Scholars Program and that's good to see after it got started toward the end of the McCormick tenure. At some point maybe they can expand it to other disadvantaged NJ communities beyond the host municipalities of Rutgers' campuses.

Yes, if the program proves successful, it definitely should be scaled up. I don't know if we know one way or another yet.

I agree with you both and it absolutely should be scaled up if its working...but IMHO I think other State Universities and Colleges should get in on the act. I think Barchi said the same thing.

From a practical POV Rowan would do a better job running a program like this in Gloucester County than Rutgers would, simple due to proximity I think.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by RUnTeX:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Lack of access is not just a financial problem. The worse the high school one attends, the harder it is going to be to do university-level work. (I doubt that many Camden high school students are ready for Rutgers, no matter how how high their grades.) That's why Barchi is putting a lot of emphasis on helping eighth-graders and up prepare for college.

Barchi is championing the Future Scholars Program and that's good to see after it got started toward the end of the McCormick tenure. At some point maybe they can expand it to other disadvantaged NJ communities beyond the host municipalities of Rutgers' campuses.

Yes, if the program proves successful, it definitely should be scaled up. I don't know if we know one way or another yet.

I agree with you both and it absolutely should be scaled up if its working...but IMHO I think other State Universities and Colleges should get in on the act. I think Barchi said the same thing.

From a practical POV Rowan would do a better job running a program like this in Gloucester County than Rutgers would, simple due to proximity I think.

At the same time, a Rutgers degree is a better motivation than a Rowan degree (also - we have a campus in Camden that could run that program.)

 

[TonyLieske]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by RUnTeX:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Lack of access is not just a financial problem. The worse the high school one attends, the harder it is going to be to do university-level work. (I doubt that many Camden high school students are ready for Rutgers, no matter how how high their grades.) That's why Barchi is putting a lot of emphasis on helping eighth-graders and up prepare for college.

Barchi is championing the Future Scholars Program and that's good to see after it got started toward the end of the McCormick tenure. At some point maybe they can expand it to other disadvantaged NJ communities beyond the host municipalities of Rutgers' campuses.

Yes, if the program proves successful, it definitely should be scaled up. I don't know if we know one way or another yet.

I agree with you both and it absolutely should be scaled up if its working...but IMHO I think other State Universities and Colleges should get in on the act. I think Barchi said the same thing.

From a practical POV Rowan would do a better job running a program like this in Gloucester County than Rutgers would, simple due to proximity I think.

At the same time, a Rutgers degree is a better motivation than a Rowan degree (also - we have a campus in Camden that could run that program.)

Rutgers Camden could run it in Camden county, for sure.

It was more of a general observation. Its a great program, but Rutgers has neither the resources or presence to run such a program for an entire state (IMHO).

However, if each state school had a similar program and ran the program in their local area, you would cover a large chunk of NJ.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by RUnTeX:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Lack of access is not just a financial problem. The worse the high school one attends, the harder it is going to be to do university-level work. (I doubt that many Camden high school students are ready for Rutgers, no matter how how high their grades.) That's why Barchi is putting a lot of emphasis on helping eighth-graders and up prepare for college.

Barchi is championing the Future Scholars Program and that's good to see after it got started toward the end of the McCormick tenure. At some point maybe they can expand it to other disadvantaged NJ communities beyond the host municipalities of Rutgers' campuses.

Yes, if the program proves successful, it definitely should be scaled up. I don't know if we know one way or another yet.

I agree with you both and it absolutely should be scaled up if its working...but IMHO I think other State Universities and Colleges should get in on the act. I think Barchi said the same thing.

From a practical POV Rowan would do a better job running a program like this in Gloucester County than Rutgers would, simple due to proximity I think.

At the same time, a Rutgers degree is a better motivation than a Rowan degree (also - we have a campus in Camden that could run that program.)

Rutgers Camden could run it in Camden county, for sure.

It was more of a general observation. Its a great program, but Rutgers has neither the resources or presence to run such a program for an entire state (IMHO).

However, if each state school had a similar program and ran the program in their local area, you would cover a large chunk of NJ.

The thing is - it should be a state wide initiative paid for by the state. But I guess failing that - the 4 year schools (and even CCs) could join a kind of consortium to run the program in their regions.

I just think that kids in Gloucester County shouldnt have to settle for Rowan as their reward just because they happen to live closer to it.

Basically - for whatever the scope of the program, it should be that the closest university runs it, but if you succeed in it, you get full scholarships to any state school that you can get admitted to, including Rutgers.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I was referencing the diversity point. But overall I think RU does a great job, better than most, no matter how you are slicing either diversity or access, especially considering the financial restraints imposed by the state.