RE “PATRICK backing UMass law bid: Commends plan’s ‘financial sense’ as foes intensify fight’’ (Metro, Dec. 3): The article on the progress of the University of Massachusetts toward acquiring a law school was refreshing in its accurate portrayal of the opponents’ motivation (“private law schools wary of the added competition’’). Following a declaration by the relevant UMass committee that the proposal to acquire the Southern New England of School of Law is fiscally responsible, the opposition has renewed its claims that the numbers don’t add up.
What they don’t say is that the exorbitant cost of legal education generally is fueled by law schools’ efforts to increase their rankings by spending more money than is required for a quality education. A recent US Government Accountability Office report found that law schools overspend in order to climb the rungs of ratings issued by US News & World Report. In addition to high faculty salaries, spending per student and library resources are weighted favorably in the rankings. The report also found that American Bar Association accreditation requirements are not to blame for the high cost of legal education.
So perhaps the real financial fiction here is that the cost of education at Suffolk University, New England School of Law, and Western New England School of Law is more than it needs to be. No wonder they are afraid of the competition.
Justine A. Dunlap
Dartmouth
The writer is a professor of law at Southern New England School of Law, which would be acquired by UMass-Dartmouth under the proposal.
