80 Comments - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:06 am: Bad idea. Chicago already has plenty of law schools for every level of ability. Why add another? - Ravenswood Right Winger - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:07 am: Awful idea. JMLS is really low in the law school rankings. Law school enrollment nationwide has been trending downwards for many years now. - Anon E. Moose - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:08 am: Enrollment is likely to increase simply because of the University of Illinois reputation. It’s not like they’re adding a new law school - so the number of law schools in Illinois will stay the same. I think it’s crazy not to have a public law school in the largest city in Illinois. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:09 am: ==a good question to ask is whether the new Chicago school will pull students away from UIUC’s law school== UIUC is a top 50 law school. John Marshall is…not. They’re two different universes in terms of who applies and who is accepted. If tuition is lowered towards what other public law schools are in the State, it could be a good move, but my guess is it will have a big negative impact on NIU’s law school. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:10 am: Why is the public bailing out a failing law school? John Marshall is on life support, with applications down and enrollment cratering. How much debt is UIC absorbing? Lots of questions need to be answered. I can’t believe the General Assembly has no say in the matter either. - Red Ranger - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:13 am: Agree on the impact on NIU law school in the near term and this is not a new law school. I think adding the UIC name to JML will help it in the long run and the real loser will be DePaul. If UIC and DePaul get to about the same level, but UIC is 2/3 of the price, its going to take a lot of scholarship money for DePaul to keep up. - thechampaignlife - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:13 am: It does not bother me. A little bit of competition (and collaboration/coordination) can be a good thing, and it serves the population better. The declining enrollment trends just means we got a good deal and can be poised to build up a great Chicago-based public law school. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:16 am: I actually think that this is a good idea. Turning John Marshall into a public institution should improve its enrollment numbers, if for no other reason than the cheaper tuition. I believe John Marshall (and most of the other private law schools in the area had tuition and expenses up to $50k a year). I don’t think this would negatively impact UIUC. UIUC is a top 50 law school in the nation and will continue to draw excellent students for that reason alone. The new John Marshall at UIC would provide a more affordable option than DePaul (which I attended, but probably would not have had a public option existed in Chicago), Chicago-Kent, & Loyola. The new school will not be drawing students away from Northwestern or U of C. In the end, we are not adding a new law school - we are re-branding an existing one in a way that could provide real benefits to both the school and prospective students. - Anonimity - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:17 am: Good idea. It has always been odd that a large public university in a city the size of Chicago did not have a law school. - TinyDancer(FKASue) - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:19 am: =In addition to providing current and prospective students with a more affordable legal education…= How’s this for affordable… I buy my own books, pay a fee to take the bar exam and if I pass, I’m a lawyer. Why do law schools have a monopoly on the law profession? - Downstate - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:20 am: John Marshall has always been known as a law school that produces graduates able to practice law from day 1. Others are less practical, but produce great lawyers. The draw for an urban offering is that professionals can access the evening classes so much easier. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:22 am: ==I buy my own books, pay a fee to take the bar exam and if I pass, I’m a lawyer. Why do law schools have a monopoly on the law profession?== Because if you don’t you’re likely not going to pass the bar, or have any real connections or experience to get a job. The last thing the legal profession needs is unemployed lawyers. There’s enough of those in a glutted market already. California example proves this. - Fax Machine - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:29 am: UIC hasn’t hurt UIUC undergraduate or PhD programs so I don’t see why UIC Law will hurt UIUC Law. - TinyDancer(FKASue) - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:29 am: =Because if you don’t you’re likely not going to pass the bar…= What’s the harm? Why not democratize education? Take down the toll booth denying exceptional students entry into professions in which they excel but can’t afford. If an autodidact (think Abraham Lincoln) can pass the test, open the door. - Mr.Black - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:39 am: California has a large system of competitive public universities, why not Illinois? Short term, tough, but good in the long term. - Amalia - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:41 am: there is a big discussion to be had about law schools in general, including whether the legal profession should adopt an approach to training lawyers like that of training doctors . but to this particular school. don’t know what the stats are now, but once upon a time this school had a higher percentage of students passing the bar on the first try than others in the chicago area, U. of C. being the lowest. the reputation of the school is easiest to get in, most punishing to finish. UIUC has a much higher ranking, so no competition. - thechampaignlife - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:42 am: ===Because if you don’t you’re likely not going to pass the bar=== So what? If I want to waste my money, why not let me? ===have any real connections or experience to get a job=== What if I want to start my own practice? Or I already have connections? No love for the entrepreneurial spirit? ===The last thing the legal profession needs is unemployed lawyers.=== Again, it is their dime. If it only costs a couple grand to get a law degree but they do not find work as a lawyer, they are not out that much and can go into another field. Look, licensing makes sense so that clients know that their lawyers have a baseline of knowledge. But, beyond a knowledge exam, the rules specifying the method by which that knowledge is acquired are purely designed as a barrier to entry for potential competitors and to prop up law schools. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:46 am: ===California has a large system of competitive public universities, why not Illinois?=== Because Illinois apparently prefers to have its public universities compete against each other. If this merger is allowed to happen, what will happen to enrollment at the law school at NIU? If Illinois needs another public law school, did anyone consider putting one in Springfield? Would Randy Dunn still be president at SIU if he proposed moving its law school to Edwardsville? Is anyone in charge or coordinating this stuff? Does anyone in the General Assembly want to speak up and put a stop to the cannibalization of public higher education in Illinois, or are we going to let the fortunate universities thrive while the geographically challenged collapse? This isn’t about UIC. It’s about Illinois higher education policy and how best to protect and enhance the investment taxpayers have made in public universities. - Chicago Cynic - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 10:50 am: “How’s this for affordable… I buy my own books, pay a fee to take the bar exam and if I pass, I’m a lawyer. Why do law schools have a monopoly on the law profession?” Why do Med schools have a monopoly on the medical profession? Because it’s a profession that requires extensive training, not just passing a test. Look, I’m a non-practicing lawyer and I hated law school (I went to another Chicago law school but spent a lot of time at John Marshall) with the passion of a thousand suns. But the idea of having lawyers who didn’t go to law school is daft. - siriusly - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:02 am: Politically speaking I’m a little surprised that Rauner didn’t try to own this and take some credit for finally bringing a public law school to Chicago . . . did the administration not know this was happening ? - Tom - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:04 am: Great idea. It gives all students in and around the Chicago area an affordable way to get a law degree. They do not have to pay housing and transportation costs if they were to go to U of I. Competition is a good thing. - TinyDancer(FKASue) - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:06 am: =Why do Med schools have a monopoly on the medical profession?= Not equivalent. People die when doctors make mistakes. Cases are lost when lawyers make mistakes. Disclose educational background. Win cases. Charge less. Let clients decide for themselves. - Mr.Black - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:10 am: “What will happen to UIUC/NIU?” is a poor argument. What about people working in Chicago who cannot afford to leave their jobs and families to relocate for law school? These people are also geographically challanged. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:14 am: Mr. Black, do you have any evidence that there are Chicagoans who are qualified and want to go to law school but are not because of the cost of the private law schools in Chicago? Also, if a public law school is needed in Chicago, why not consider giving a law school to Chicago State? U of I already has a law school afterall. - Ron Burgundy - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:14 am: I think this has the potential to go either way. There are 6 law schools in Chicago proper (not counting NIU) — U of C, Northwestern, Loyola, DePaul, IIT-Kent and John Marshall. The last 4 have evening programs popular with people with day jobs. Adding the UIC name to John Marshall will likely help its enrollment and reputation, which is currently last of those 6. The cross-departmental possibilities and relative affordability of tuition also could provide niches for its future. This move will have absolutely no effect on UIUC’s law school as they are competing for different students academically and in terms of location. Obviously the debt and financial situations would be a concern, especially with having to lower tuition as a public school. Still, JMLS has produced many good lawyers and judges in Chicago, and there certainly remains a place for it. - Honeybear - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:18 am: I am thankful. For middle class law school aspirants like me it’s such a tremendous blessing. I hope they will also have a part time program. I wish the new school success - Ron Burgundy - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:21 am: –I hope they will also have a part time program.– They have for a long time. - Mr.Black - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:31 am: 47th Ward, nothing concrete. Only anecdotal from friends and colleagues. The declining applications for law school, would be law students with crippling student debt already, job prospects in general and specifically within the law field. UIC, UIUC, and UIS are all different schools. Only one school was going to get John Marshall. Would you be saying “why not UIC?” had Chicago State absorbed John Marshall? - hisgirlfriday - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:35 am: As someone else said, this move affects Loyola/DePaul/Chicqgo-Kent way more than UIUC. An applicant who has the grades/test scores to get into UIUC, Northwestern or U of C will still go to those schools for the rankings. But for someone who can’t get in those schools and just wants to be in Chicago while attending law school (which makes perfect sense given the importance to clerk at law firms during school and most law jobs in Illinois being in Chicago), UIC Law may wind up being the most attractive by next decade with UIC meaning more affordability and more attractiveness to better faculty. As to the crack about moving SIUC’s law school to Edwardsville, I know politically it would never happen, but that actually would make a bit of sense given the litigation industry that exists in Madison County (at least for a few more years until SCOTUS anti-plaintiff decisions on jurisdiction wind up shutting it down). A law school in Springfield could only have government law jobs to offer really (although the way law school externships work maybe it would be a boon to taxpayers… a public law school could charge students tuition then say they will give school credit for legal externships but still charge tuition dollars to be in the externship program and then use the law school students to do work without it costing the state anything in pay or benefits for the extern to work for it). NIU law may be undercut at the margins depending on cost but I anticipate UIC law to charge a little less than DePaul, Loyola, Chicago-Kent, but not that much. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:39 am: ===Would you be saying “why not UIC?” had Chicago State absorbed John Marshall?=== Maybe, but my point is that the University of Illinois already has a law school. And moreover, if there is a public university in Chicago that desperately needs a boost, I’d argue that Chicago State, despite its many problems, could benefit most from this kind of state investment. If we’re not going to invest and try to enhance Chicago State, why do we keep subsidizing it? You could make the same case for Northeastern too. It’s just that nobody seems to be thinking about what’s best for the entire statewide system of higher education. UIC is doing what all universities do. That doesn’t mean it should be doing this though. How does the added “prestige” of adding a law school improve UIC’s ability to teach undergraduates? This seems like a diversion of resources in an era when resources for public higher education have been cut. I’m sure a public law school will do well in Chicago, but what will be the impact on the public law schools we have in Urbana, Dekalb and Carbondale? Has anyone even looked at that question? Or are we just going to let the UIC board decide this matter for everyone else? - Lake County Voter - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:40 am: ===once upon a time this school had a higher percentage of students passing the bar on the first try than others in the chicago area, U. of C. being the lowest. === This is no longer true, to say the least. UChicago Law has the highest first-try bar passage rate in the country. - Practical Politics - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:47 am: This is an interesting development as the law school trust agreement appears to have been broken at long last. The monopolistic trust kept the private law schools in charge of the Chicago market and allow them to fix tuition prices without fear of public university competition. Law students wanting to save money by enrolling in a publicly supported law school needed to enroll at U of I (Champaign) Northern (DeKalb) or Southern (Carbondale). - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:52 am: The licensing board sets standards of education, experience, and professional conduct. That is why there are licensed professions, like law, medical, engineering. - Soccermom - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:57 am: thechampaignlife — I thought Illinois still allowed would-be shysters to apprentice with a licensed attorney and take the bar without a law school degree, specifically because of the Lincoln precedent. Is this no longer true? - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 11:58 am: Isn’t the bar passage rate at John Marshall down to around 60 percent? Why would UIC want to be associated with that. It has always been the school of last resort for those denied entry everywhere else. - Soccermom - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:04 pm: I WAS MISINFORMED. I HATE WHEN THAT HAPPENS. https://www.shareable.net/blog/how-to-become-a-lawyer-without-going-to-law-school - hisgirlfriday - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:05 pm: 47th Ward, you are typically one of my favorite posters here but I can’t tell if you are trolling or serious with your talk about giving a law school to Chicago State. Besides the whole lack of public law schools in the city, UIC is one of the biggest public research universities without a law school. There are lots of research areas with legal implications that can benefit from cross-discipline scholarship. Also while I think UIC prestige could save John Marshall while John Marshall gives UIC a new facet, Chicago State and John Marshall linking up would be like tying another heavy anchor to a sinking boat - Soccermom - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:05 pm: This is so much more interesting than what I am supposed to be doing today. “The requirements for legal apprenticeships vary by state. In California, for example, apprentices are required to work and study with a practicing attorney 18 hours per week for four years. Supervising attorneys must also give monthly exams and bi-annual progress reports. Apprentices also take a law students exam after the first year. At the end of their apprenticeship, they’re eligible to take the bar exam. The fees associated with the apprenticeship route are a tiny fraction of law school tuition. Christina Oatfield, who apprentices with SELC co-founder Jenny Kassan, breaks down the costs in California: Initial registration fee: $150 Fee paid to the California Bar every six months: $30 First Year Law Students Exam: $500-$900 (The pass rate is around 20% so many students take the exam more than once.) Bar exam at the end of the four years: $1000 Books and other study materials: This can run up to $1000. The total cost can be as low as a few thousand dollars. As Oatfield says, “Not bad compared to law school tuition.” - lake county democrat - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:07 pm: I think it’s a great idea: no reason the ability to practice law (e.g., in the public interest) shouldn’t be extended to people who can’t leave Chicago or pay private school tuition. JMLS will attract better applicants and I bet even a few who would otherwise go Champaign-Urbana or the other state schools will prefer to commute from home. - lake county democrat - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:09 pm: 47th - Yes, I know several personally. Ended up going to business school (one at UIC). - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:13 pm: OK, I was trolling a little with the Chicago State thing. Lol. But again, if this is going to happen, there will be impacts beyond UIC and John Marshall. Public money is at stake too. I just have a hard time understanding how the General Assembly, which seems to micromanage higher education (among many other things) has no say-so about this. Does anyone else think that’s strange? - Southside Markie - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:17 pm: ==Not equivalent. People die when doctors make mistakes. Cases are lost when lawyers make mistakes.== And innocent people go to prison as a result of ineffective counsel. Or lose life savings. Or any number of other life altering consequences. If the only thing standing between you and a cell or some other life altering consequence was a lawyer, would you want one that was self-taught? - JP Altgeld - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:32 pm: People are making the big assumption here that the UIC/JM tie up will offer lower tuition. I would be surprised. JM assumed a lot of debt and charged very high tuition - not sustainable once enrollment started to drop due to increased transparency of employment outcomes. Either the tuition price is going to stay the same or UIC will somehow have to float the law school financially in order to subsidize the decrease which is a bad outcome for UIC. I know a large number of tremendous lawyers from JMLS. Doesn’t change the fact that their employment numbers were suspect which has started to be the downfall of for-profit law schools in their peer group. Here’s hoping they start shifting to smaller class sizes with lower tuition to really be a law school deserving of a public school affiliation and public mission. - City Zen - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:33 pm: Southside Markie, I’m sure if you replaced “lawyer” with “teacher” in TinyDancer’s example, he/she would have a fit. But as TD states, no one will die, so it’s OK. - JP Altgeld - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:34 pm: Also, the above poster saying JMLS once had a higher IL bar passage rate than UChicago must be part of the White House communications staff. - titan - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:47 pm: I think it will eventually be viewed as a good idea … although it may take some time (and UIC is going to have to tend and nurture it well). Chicago should have a public university law school most large cities do). This seems like a good way to achieve that. - JP Altgeld - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:51 pm: Quite curious why everyone is so gung ho that Chicago needs a public law school. What difference does it make? Do people realize that JMLS is roughly $68,000 per year for tuition and room & board? Is this magically going to decrease after they renovated the entire building and have to pay for that? Law schools serve the public when they enable students to get legal educations that can then be used to further the public good through government work, public interest work, etc. Very hard to do that when a student has nearly $300k in debt afterwards. If UChicago Law gives a law student a full ride, that’s a greater potential contribution to the public good than a public law school charging a student full tuition. It’s not like the courses are taught differently. - Ron Burgundy - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:55 pm: –People are making the big assumption here that the UIC/JM tie up will offer lower tuition.– From the UIC Chancellor in the Trib article: Amiridis said they plan to “significantly” reduce tuition but no numbers have been finalized. “It doesn’t make sense to have a public law school with private law school tuition,” Amiridis said. I can’t speak to actual numbers but there was a time when U of C’s bar passage rate did lag some of the less prestigious schools in the state. They’ve since corrected that. Based on my experience I’d attribute that to U of C then providing a less practical and more esoteric/philosophical education than the others at the time. One preparing people to be law professors and federal clerks, while the others prepare people for 26th and Cal and the Daley Center, etc. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:59 pm: ===Amiridis said they plan to “significantly” reduce tuition but no numbers have been finalized.=== Great. So that means either the undergrads at UIC or the taxpayers will pay the difference. Who represented the taxpayers in this negotiation? - the Patriot - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 1:07 pm: To reduce tuition you need public funding. Last time I checked the State was not exactly flush with cash. IL probably needs to close 2 law schools now, not create another one we can’t afford. - JP Altgeld - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 1:07 pm: @Ron Burgundy: I would very much like to see actual numbers reflecting the bar passage point. Every law school prepares its students to think and be disciplined. That’s all that is required for bar passage. “Esoteric education” has nothing to do with it. As for the lower tuition - I certainly hope that pans out but someone is going to be left holding the bag. JMLS wasn’t charging what they were charging without a reason and those obligations will overhang a bit… - Santos L. Halper - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 1:07 pm: Chicago-Kent became part of IIT in 1969 and it was a positive for both schools, both in reputation and finance. Interdisciplinary tech-business-law programs are a great draw. JMLS-UIC can be in the same position. - Three Dimensional Checkers - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 1:09 pm: John Marshall says it has no debt, and they are giving their valuable downtown property to UIC. After 5 years, if everything goes well, all that downtown property will be UIC’s. I think the money part works in UIC’s favor. - Ron Burgundy - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 1:11 pm: –I would very much like to see actual numbers reflecting the bar passage point. Every law school prepares its students to think and be disciplined. That’s all that is required for bar passage.– Not if you haven’t taken Secured Transactions or Commercial Paper, for examples. If you aren’t taught the “bar courses” properly or don’t take them, it can have an effect. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 1:12 pm: ==So that means either the undergrads at UIC or the taxpayers will pay the difference. == As stated above by moi, the difference is already accounted for by the budgetary surplus JMLS is already running. As an independent institution, a few years of incorrect low rates could mean closing up shop, so small independent law schools have a financial impetus for over-realizing revenue,which in turn puts upward pressure on tuition. A UI financial backstop should give JMLS a lot of wiggle room in lowering tuition costs alongside their surplus, while removing risk. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 1:15 pm: ===I think the money part works in UIC’s favor.=== It’s not that I have any reason to doubt Amiridis, but somebody really should drop a few FOIA’s on this. There are a lot of unanswered questions. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 1:21 pm: ===As an independent institution, a few years of incorrect low rates could mean closing up shop, so small independent law schools have a financial impetus for over-realizing revenue,which in turn puts upward pressure on tuition.=== I have no idea what that means. If UIC retains JM’s expenses, including facilities and faculty salaries, and lowers tuition, how does that not require more revenue to balance? Will JM faculty be retained? At what rate? Will they be Tier II? How does this compare to faculty salary at UIUC? I sure hope the UIC Board had answers to all of these questions, because the public certainly doesn’t know any of these financial implications. You mention “removing risk.” Lol, what you really mean is transferring risk to the taxpayers or to the undergraduate students whose tuition is the primary source of UIC’s revenue. - Arthur Andersen - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 1:21 pm: Long term, I think this will be positive for UIC, but I share 47’s surprise that the GA doesn’t have to sign off on the merger. - Columbo - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 1:27 pm: Agree with 47th that it is interesting that the IBHE or GA isn’t interested in this move by the U of I. And in this case, buying an existing law school is likely easier than creating one, in the sense of the regulatory hoops of program approval and accreditation. Historically, the law school faculty at Urbana would have screamed bloody murder about this, arguing that it would tarnish their brand. (Even if they are going after a different profile of student). Not sure what’s different this time. And the argument that this won’t entail additional state resources is laughable, especially given the lack of demand for new lawyers right now, which explains why John Marshall is on the block in the first place. My guess is that having a law school in Chicago compliments UIC’s ambitions to be recognized as a quality Research 1 institution. Still, a curious move that deserves scrutiny. - JP Altgeld - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 1:40 pm: A good model for this relationship could be the Indiana University system. Indiana University-Bloomington has a law school similar to UIUC as the flagship and IU-Indy has a law school in Indianapolis that is larger and has a night program catering to urban students. That arrangement could work well but there are already three very good law schools in Chicago with night programs. - DarkDante - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 1:46 pm: ==If UIC retains JM’s expenses, including facilities and faculty salaries, and lowers tuition, how does that not require more revenue to balance?== Moi was me. My first post never posted, but the convo has moved on there anyway. 2 things: 1) Synergies will be realized in the merger (business parlance, read: people from JMLS will be laid off and their duties subsumed by current UIC administrative departments [think HR and IT]). 2) JMLS is operating at a structural surplus currently, and this surplus will only grow as expense are trimmed due to the “realization of syneriges (read: JMLS layoffs)”. This gap (too high revenues, falling expenses) can be immediately closed by lowering tuition prices without taking a single penny from UIC or the state or taxpayers, per se. The risk is minimized to JMLS as they get the financial certainty of being part of a larger, more financially secure system, while UIC has its risk minimized by receiving valuable assets (South Loop building plus a multi-million dollar endowment). This type of M&A merger is the kind of safe bet that is made in private industry all the time, with the only difference being that private M&A is usually financed by risky debt. To this layperson’s eyes, this is a financial slam dunk of a merger. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 1:52 pm: ===JMLS is operating at a structural surplus currently=== Says who? - DarkDante - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 2:04 pm: ==Says who?== Inside Higher Ed article talks about this. Note that I was incorrect: JMLS is “operating at a surplus on a budget of about $40 million,” not running a surplus of $40M (which, come to think of it, would be an INSANELY high number for a school of 1000 students). Disclosure: I work in finance at UIC, but am not privy to any info about the JMLS merger other than what has been publically released. - A guy - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 2:07 pm: ==OK, I was trolling a little with the Chicago State thing. Lol.== Thank God for this revelation. You were trolling a lot with this one. This merger is a good one. Both entities will benefit. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 2:09 pm: Inside Higher Ed is quoting UIC’s vice chancellor. None of this financial info is available to the public, so I guess we’ll just have to take her word for it. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 2:13 pm: ===This merger is a good one.=== How do you know? This adds more employees into already underfunded retirement systems, takes on who knows how much debt, and adds additional state university health care costs. Aren’t you one of those Republicans who always wants to hold the line on new spending, lol? - DarkDante - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 2:14 pm: ==so I guess we’ll just have to take her word for it.== Ad hominem or just sarcastically trolling at this point? My point was that this merger is, financially speaking, a good deal for UIC, JMLS, and local law students. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 2:18 pm: ===Ad hominem or just sarcastically trolling at this point?=== Neither, simply pointing out that the public has been given no access to audited financial statements associated with this proposed merger. Which is why I’m surprised the General Assembly isn’t involved. - TinyDancer(FKASue) - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 2:50 pm: =If the only thing standing between you and a cell or some other life altering consequence was a lawyer, would you want one that was self-taught?= I would want the best lawyer I could afford and if that lawyer happens to be a self-taught lawyer with a winning track record that’s ok with me. I don’t put much faith in a piece of paper. - A guy - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 2:52 pm: ==This adds more employees into already underfunded retirement systems, takes on who knows how much debt, and adds additional state university health care costs. Aren’t you one of those Republicans who always wants to hold the line on new spending, lol?== Hold on Speed Racer. Let’s see how the merger actually shakes out on the personnel side. Since UIC doesn’t currently have a law school, one assumes those faculty will come from JM. I doubt all of them would shift over. Many of the administrative costs are likely already in the infrastructure of UIC. The pensions will have to be sorted out, you’re totally right about that. It strikes me that there is an efficient way to get this done. Let’s see what they do. These are two wonderful institutions that have done a lot of good for a lot of students who have received first rate educations at an affordable cost. This merge makes total sense to me. Anything can go sideways, but this should be a really good match. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 2:54 pm: ===Let’s see how the merger actually shakes out on the personnel side.=== Too late. It’s already been approved. - Save NIUCOL - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 2:58 pm: Many people do not know that NIU College of Law has graduated more state judges than any other law school in Illinois and a large percentage of its graduate go into public service. It’s a small school with around 100-130 students in each 1L class. A new public law school in Chicago will likely devastate NIUCOL because the type of student who would normally seek out a place like NIUCOL will be diverted to UIC/JMLS. NIU College of Law was created when NIU acquired Lewis University’s law school. That action required legislative approval. I’m not sure why this merger wouldn’t require legislation. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 3:05 pm: ==I’m not sure why this merger wouldn’t require legislation.== IBHE approved the merger of JMLS and UIC. IBHE did not approved the merger of Lewis’ CoL and NIU, necessitating legislation. - Columbo - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 3:17 pm: Anon@ 3:05 Must have missed it, when did IBHE approve? - Columbo - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 3:21 pm: DarkDante @ 1:46–1) Synergies will be realized in the merger (business parlance, read: people from JMLS will be laid off and their duties subsumed by current UIC administrative departments [think HR and IT]).– As OW likes to say, this is restaurant quality stuff. Realization of synergies, financial certainty, without taking a single penny (well, true, as it will takes lots of pennies), risk is minimized, M&A merger. If I didn’t know better, this sounds like the work of a BTIA team member. And your take that M&A is usually financed by risky debt is unsubstantiated. Private investors aren’t using state monies (OPM), so I would argue their assessment of risk is different than the state’s. And if it’s such a good deal, why haven’t private investors lined up to take this over instead of our flagship public. As the old song says, things that make you go hmmmm…./s - Veil of Ignorance - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 3:49 pm: I’d be really interested to see if this move could coincide with a more public interest law tilt for John Marshall by reducing the overall costs of the law school. Generally, law school rankings are based on a lot of metrics that have little to do with the social impact that graduates make or the quality of the legal education they received: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/law-schools-methodology - Arthur Andersen - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 3:53 pm: Well, if those duties are “subsumed by UIC administrative departments,” does that mean the law school gets a nice bill from the campus for services rendered, ala CMS? - chad - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 3:54 pm: The UIC-Marshall merger was tried when Daniels was speaker (he is a Marshall alum)and LaTourette was NIU President (a strong leader who was willing to take a stand). NIU was able to block the move, because of LaTourette and because back then IBHE had policy influence. These many years later each university does its own thing with little public policy constraint. NIU now has “acting” leadership and its board is afraid of its own shadow. Its law school will pay a big price. Too bad Pritchard arrived too late. - Arthur Andersen - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 4:12 pm: FWIW, the IBHE has not yet approved the merger, according to the News-Gazoo. However, IBHE’s Director issued a very supportive statement for the same article - DarkDante - Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 4:32 pm: ==does that mean the law school gets a nice bill from the campus for services rendered, ala CMS?== Pretty much. Generally, there is a charge back for services provided. This is what happened with the Hospital and CoM on the West Campus at UIC; until recently, they maintained their own HR operations, but they were switched to a newly created, centralized UIC HR department. In return for these services, the hospital was charged. Overall, both HR costs and HR-based FTE’s declined. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.