Friday, April 18, 2014

New Law School Only Taking Right-Minded Lemming Superheroes

Judge Royal Furgeson is the founding dean of UNT-Dallas.  But is he going gung-ho on the stupid lemming-harvest like law schools are often criticized of doing?  Nope.  Law schools need diversity.  This one wants people who are going to be lawyers for the right reason.  No greedy future slicksters here:
When Furgeson retired last year from his prestigious post on the federal bench to become founding dean of the UNT Dallas College of Law, he wasn’t interested in maintaining the status quo. He wanted his law school to subscribe to an unconventional ethos — to cultivate lawyers as public servants. 
Finally, we're going to get an unconventional law school devoted to cultivating public servants.  MANNA FROM HEAVEN.  If we get THOSE kind of lawyers, obviously there's a substantial need for them:
Launching a new law school presents plenty of obstacles, especially considering the droves of law graduates who face massive debt and dismal job prospects each year. ...Furgeson disagrees. “My view is, there needs to be more lawyers,” he says.
Unmet legal needs!  And of course, to find such lawyers in a sea of avaricious shitbird applicants, UNT-Dallas has to seek out a special kind of student:
Furgeson and his admissions staff are relying less on GPA and LSAT scores — the gold standard for most law school admissions because of the impact high scores have on schools’ national rankings — in favor of recommendations and life experience. They’re actively recruiting a different kind of student, those with meaningful life experiences that are ingrained in their communities.
Tuition at this Taj Mahal of legal servitude is starting at a very-affordable $14k, and their scholarships are going to be based on need instead of rankings.  Unmet legal needs!!!  Even if you pay full sticker, the 75-90k in debt should be easy-peasy to pay off representing impoverished families and small businesses.

Obviously this school is going to go through growing pains, particularly its efforts to offer too-low tuition and eschew the role of well-compensated faculty devoted to educating the next generation of lawyers.  Unmet legal needs!!!  I suspect they'll learn their lesson on that point.

But it'shard to fault a brand new law school for wanting to produce public service lawyers.  There are only two hundred law schools, and I can't remember the last time I saw one touting public service and a different kind of lawyer, much less even mention unmet legal needs, although I did bash my head rather hard against a jagged brick wall earlier today.
"[Our students] see lawyers as people who can go to bat for others, who won’t stand idly by while some injustice happens. They kind of see us as caped crusaders.”
Mister Trouble never hangs around 
When he hears this Lawyer sound. 

"Here I come to save the day" 

That means that SuperLawyer is on his way. 
Yes sir, when there is a wrong to right 
SuperLawyer joins the fight. 
Who cares if he's got debt or bills?
Repping poor folk gives him thrills!


  1. Tuition at this Taj Mahal of legal servitude is starting at a very-affordable $14k

    That's still $14k too much for a degree with zero economic value.

  2. "Different kind of student".... "Unconventional law school" .... "[not] interested in maintaining the status quo", "Caped crusaders".... with an "unconventional ethos — to cultivate lawyers [to work for free]".... WTF! Haven't we heard any of this mindless and transparent propagandist drivel before from every single school out there? $pecial in$titution, indeed!!!

  3. Wasn't UC Irvine supposed to be focused on public service too? Aren't there enough unemployed grads from UC Irvine to become the different kind of lawyers we need?