In recent months, the three Arizona law schools have issued announcements that bolster their offerings. The approaches vary, and they are aimed at two significant subsets of their products’ consumers: potential law school applicants, and soon-to-be and recent graduates.
Both of those categories are increasingly skeptical of the ability of law schools to provide a degree with value commensurate to the purchasers’ outlay.
I am curious what you think about the three most recent announcements. As you consider them, view them through the eyes of those two categories of people, and ask: Would this changed policy or additional program have been a deal-maker in my choice of schools? Does this new initiative make me look differently at the law school?
Here are the approaches and initiatives:
- Last week, the University of Arizona Law School announced a tuition cut.
- This spring, the Phoenix School of Law announced a new flexible schedule that makes use of a term structure.
- The ASU College of Law announced that it will open a “teaching law firm,” which will employ some of its graduates to pay them a salary, develop their skills and serve an underserved client population.
And then, just to make your choice more complex, is the elephant in the room: an Arizona pilot program that would allow certain law students to take the Bar exam during the third year of law school.
Which of these, if any, would have affected your decision to attend a school (or attend law school at all)?
Does pricing trump all? Or does saving a few thousand dollars mean not that much when amortized over a career? Would having a schedule that allows students to work (and maybe graduate sooner) help attract them? Or does the possibility of the school itself employing you as a lawyer sweeten the pot sufficiently?
Let me know what you think. Who, if anyone, is on the right track?Follow @azatty