Law School Free for UC Irvine’s Entering 2009 Class

Law Schools

Law School Free for UC Irvine’s Entering 2009 Class

Posted Oct 22, 2008, 08:34 am CST

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Students who enroll at the University of California’s new law school in Irvine next fall will get their legal education for free.

The law school is giving full tuition scholarships worth about $100,000 to its first 2009 class of about 60 students, the National Law Journal reports.

Charles Cannon, assistant dean of development and external affairs at the law school, told the publication UC Irvine hopes to attract high-quality students with the offer. The free tuition is expected to cost the school about $6 million, he said.

The school is seeking donations to cover the scholarships and has so far raised about a third of the money.

The story also reports that the law school had originally called itself the Donald Bren School of Law in honor of a $20 million donor, but the school is dropping the name. It will be called the University of California, Irvine, a name that is parallel to other UC schools.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by J.D. - 2 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 11 hours, 20 minutes ago

I hope they can get enough donations, otherwise the “free” education will be paid for by California taxpayers, even though the state is BILLIONS in debt.

The result would be middle class families (perhaps unable to afford college for their kids) paying for 60 kids to go to law school.
Posted by Al Tidom - 2 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 19 minutes ago

The price is right. Too bad I am already out many years from school. It would be nice to not to have to pay for law education. Perhaps the states to make retroactive?
Posted by Irwin Ironstone - 2 months, 2 weeks, 18 hours, 4 minutes ago

Rather than law school, they should try this in medical schools to reduce the costs of health care!

Obviously, we have more foreign doctors than lawyers. In some ways, it stops the brain drain by encouraging immigration of some of the brightest.
That might be one reform in any immigration policy… I know Phd students who could not stay in this country - We as a nation subsidized their education, and then kicked them out! Not too bright
Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 2 months, 2 weeks, 17 hours, 29 minutes ago

I agree. Mabye if we have to many LAWYERS, we should have FREE SCHOOLS DOCTORS.

With all of the bad weather, people will get sick and will NEED more good DOCTORS.

Also, WE need to fix the health care CRISIS too. Free medical schools means more Doctors, and if they are good, we can be HEALTHIER. That is a GOOD thing.

My boyfriend got a FREE flu shot where he works, because they dont want him to be sick with the FLU. I asked the managing partner to give FLU shots too, because last year I got sick at work.

This is better than free law school for me since I already graduated.
Posted by RJC - 2 months, 2 weeks, 16 hours, 50 minutes ago

You might want to correct your headline. Tuition at Irvine is free. If you’ve paid for a law school education lately you’ll know that there are other expenses. “Law school” is not free, even at Irvine.
Posted by Brad - 2 months, 2 weeks, 16 hours, 29 minutes ago

Ellen,

you crack me up. You are certifiably insane.
Posted by Older Guy - 2 months, 2 weeks, 16 hours, 16 minutes ago

Great deal. You get to call yourself an Anteater, and get your pick of the undergrad hotties. I’ve been to that campus and believe me, the OC rocks.

Oh, and you get what I expect will be a decent legal education too.
Posted by Craig Albert - 2 months, 2 weeks, 16 hours, 16 minutes ago

The idea of free tuition for the first entering class is to kick-start the school and attract a good group of students who might otherwise be wary of attending a startup. Erwin Chemerinsky is assembling a great faculty and has brought them on board to work together in the year preceding the opening of the school for students so they can gel as a group and produce work under the UC-Irvine banner even in advance of the arrival of students. So this is a great idea.

As to JD’s point (#1), law schools typically operate at break-even or better for their universities. They’re not subsidized in the way that undergraduate programs and medical programs are subsidized, so there’s no reason to fear a giveaway.
Posted by Moderator HELP!!! - 2 months, 2 weeks, 16 hours, 15 minutes ago

Can who ever is moderating the ABA Journal comments please stop ELLEN from writing COMMENTS that make absolutely no sense! I’m sick of reading about her BOYFRIEND and looking at the random ALL caps letters.
Posted by JAF - 2 months, 2 weeks, 14 hours, 42 minutes ago

Has the school been approved by the ABA? Maybe that’s why the tuition is free. Without ABA approval, good luck.
Posted by Rocco - 2 months, 2 weeks, 14 hours, 13 minutes ago

Free tuition rocks. Living in Southern California sucks.
Posted by Toby - 2 months, 2 weeks, 13 hours, 6 minutes ago

I don’t know if free tuition is worth the price of going to a new and unaccredited law school. Sure, down the road Irvine will likely come to meet the likes of the other UC Law schools, but in the meantime, i wouldn’t want to be part of the first class to graduate…especially not in this economy.
Posted by NewestEllenFan - 2 months, 2 weeks, 13 hours, 1 minute ago

No, please don’t block Ellen! She gives many of us (who did not receive free tuition OR a free flu shot), a much needed chuckle. Go, Ellen!
Posted by AL - 2 months, 2 weeks, 13 hours ago

In response to Ellen - doctors don’t make people healthy.

I agree a health care crisis exists, but doctors are not to blame. As for a person’s health, well, genetics and lifestyle are the strongest contributing factors.

I am a lawyer and my husband is a doctor and the two professions are hardly comparable.
Posted by JME - 2 months, 2 weeks, 12 hours, 51 minutes ago

Ellen- doctors can get their debts paid by Uncle Sam. All they have to do is commit to a certain number of years in some remote area that is underserved and underprivileged. A friend of mine did that, and that was also the reason why “Joel” on “Northern Exposure” was a NYC lawyer living and working in Alaska. They’d do it for lawyers, except lawyers happen to be in demand as a tasty treat where the demand is greatest. All that lard fries up nicely. Uncle Sam isn’t into providing nourishment to cannibals, so lawyers don’t venture outside the big city.
Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 2 months, 2 weeks, 12 hours, 22 minutes ago

“Free” is just about the right market value for tuition at an as-yet unaccredited law school whose students will have to jump through lots of hoops (e.g. passage of a “baby bar” exam after the first year) that students at accredited schools need not bother with. Passage rates for the California bar by students at unaccredited schools also are markedly lower than pass rates by those who went to accredited schools. Chermerinsky is a bright, talented lawyer and may well be able to attract a telented faculty and build a reputable law school over time. But right now, enrollment there instead of at an accredited school is a crapshoot.

I’m beginning to wonder if Ellen’s boyfriend is imaginary or inflatable. He can’t be an human adult with a Y chromosome.
Posted by Tony - 2 months, 2 weeks, 12 hours, 7 minutes ago

What a joke. We are economically on the verge of death and an almost bankrupt state is giving free tuition on taxpayers dollars while other linger in there law school debt. A vision a what’s to come
Posted by sean - 2 months, 2 weeks, 12 hours, 6 minutes ago

If I had a hundred thousand dollars sitting around, I would bet it all that UCI gains ABA accreditation its first time out. UCI will attact excellent students and will gain a national reputation in short order. UCI is able to piggyback on the reputation of the parent institution and essentially ‘buy’ its first class. That, and having excellent financial resources, is the dream of all new law schools seeking accreditation.
Posted by larry - 2 months, 2 weeks, 11 hours, 11 minutes ago

We have way to many lawyers. Go to medical school.
Posted by ellenyes - 2 months, 2 weeks, 11 hours, 8 minutes ago

I agree, don’t ever block Ellen. She is the ONLY reason I read these articles.
Posted by Pam Cichon - 2 months, 2 weeks, 9 hours, 26 minutes ago

Ellen B—-Are you related to Charlene Barshevsky from the Clinton administration? If so, you and I are cousins.
Posted by Erik - 2 months, 2 weeks, 8 hours, 32 minutes ago

To some extent I feel sorry for those 60 kids. How many of them have a real understanding of what the legal job market is like? I suspect a good number of them will pursue a law degree simply because they won’t have to pay for it, only to find that they either a) can’t find a job after graduating or b) hate the idea of being a lawyer. On the other hand, it will be a far less costly mistake than the one I made (turned down a free ride at a “lesser” school and ended up at a more “prestigious” school but now owe tons of money and regret going to law school).
Posted by The BOYfriend - 2 months, 2 weeks, 7 hours, 23 minutes ago

Comment removed by moderator.
Posted by Alan J. Weisbard - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 hours, 54 minutes ago

Starting up a new institution is always a challenge, particularly so in a profession as status conscious and (often) risk averse as law. And while Dean Chemerinsky seems to have given considerable thought to the vision for the UCI law school and assembled a very interesting and talented initial group of faculty to get things underway, much depends on the quality of the student body (and how they do in the early years on bar passage). Thus, the subsidized education for the initial cadre of students should be seen as a critical investment in the future of the school. It should also be noted that several other law schools started with high aspirations have been successful in attracting unusually talented and adventurous initial classes—and I suspect this group will have an exciting and rewarding experience in setting key patterns as UCI gets under way. I would not bet against Dean Chemerinsky, and I urge adventurous beginning students to give this serious thought. The value of the degree is likely to rise as the school establishes itself.
Posted by happyblubird - 2 months, 2 weeks, 4 hours, 7 minutes ago

I would be thrilled if we even had a law school in Alaska. Get my drift?
Posted by r - 2 months, 2 weeks, 51 minutes ago

All law schools ought to be free because they are a worthless waste of time and money to begin with. Most of the professors are clueless fools who never practiced law. I went to Temple Law School in the early 1970’s. They just named a new dean ,Joanne Epps, who is described in Temple’s newsletter as a “universally regarded scholar.” Now just think about it. Can you think of ANYONE worthy of such praise?? We’re talking “UNIVERSAL” here!!!! Article also says she tried 50 or so cases as asst US atty in CA and argued a case in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. So I looked this “universally regarded scholar” up in WESTLAW and found that she has 4 reported US District Court cases to her name (one of which involved a prisoner) when she was an asst US atty and NO 3rd Circuit cite attributed to her..!!! She wrote 1 or 2 articles and supposedly contributed to a book with 2 other authors. The point is—-law school is a scam run by people with little or no experience just to extract money from other people so they can practice law. So I applaud UC for acknowledging its worthlessness by giving its law school education out for free. I hope Temple will follow suit. But with a “universally regarded scholar” at the helm, I doubt it.
Posted by Capt. Bob Vinik, Ret. USMM - 2 months, 1 week, 6 days, 15 hours, 5 minutes ago

Donald Bren should sue for the thenty mil. When they agree to name the school after him for his donation and then ignor their promiss it says what kind of law they will teach. But then the rest of the legal profession is just like that and the grads will fit right in.
Posted by DCEsq - 2 months, 1 week, 6 days, 14 hours, 47 minutes ago

This is embarrassing. The quality of discourse on this site has declined steeply in recent months, as reflected by the great number of posts here showing breathtaking ignorance, bitter bile, or elementary grammatical errors. Now I’m beginning to see comments that have been removed by the moderator. It’s almost as if I’m reading comments on the Washington Post website or on some young activist’s blog. I hope that lawyers can remember that the impact of their words is not limited to the office or the courtroom.
Posted by grammarpolice - 2 months, 1 week, 6 days, 8 hours, 41 minutes ago

Ellen, it’s “too” not “to.”
Posted by r - 2 months, 1 week, 6 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes ago

DC—I assume that you’re not referring to my post. I would like to know so that I can respond to your statement accordingly.
Posted by Donald J. Tedesco - 2 months, 1 week, 6 days, 6 hours, 2 minutes ago

I enjoy looking for and reading the posts each week by Ellen Barshevsky. I don’t understand some of the venom coming out of some of the lawyers as to this young girl. Yes, she is not the best speller, but what difference does that make in the end? If the ABA wanted us to be perfect, they would have installed a spell-check. I think she brings a fresh woman’s perspective to the issues. And while some of her comments are over the top, I always find myself smiling—not something typical of our profession. Keep up the good work Ellen!
Posted by LOL @ Ellen - 2 months, 1 week, 5 days, 6 hours, 11 minutes ago

Ellen is obviously not a genuine poster. She’s a troll. How can you be half-educated in reading comp and not pick this up? LOL
Posted by Al Tidom - 2 months, 1 week, 5 days, 4 hours, 30 minutes ago

#32, how can you make such a statement? A troll is a hideous little mannequin. There are no pictures of Ellen B, so unless you are familiar with her looks, you should not be so quick to judge her looks. Moreover, she has a boyfriend who puts up with her outspoken nature, and that, to me signifies she must be attractive. Finally, she tells us she is very pretty. My experience is that ugly people do not go around telling others they are very pretty. No, I believe she must be very pretty.
Posted by Rob - 2 months, 1 week, 4 days, 11 hours, 23 minutes ago

The University of Central Florida is doing the same for Medical School. The entry level class is getting a tuition free education.
On the other hand - Why do you leftists think something should be free?
Posted by J.D. - 2 months, 1 week, 4 days, 9 hours, 57 minutes ago

^ Things should be “free” because it means that wealth is being redistributed from one person to another. It fits perfectly into Obama’s socialistic agenda. That is the ultimate goal of leftists.
Posted by r - 2 months, 1 week, 1 day, 4 hours, 44 minutes ago

#35 is right. Just think—we have gone from “a chicken in every pot” under Roosevelt to “a college degree on every resume.” under Obama. The scary thing is that most Americans don’t even understand what it means to be a “socialist” or even a “communist” or anything anymore. All of the old labels have gone by the wayside in favor of the mantra of “change.” But “change” to what? Does every American born really have a birthright to a college degree? Who is going to pay for it? I worked 3 jobs to pay for my daughter to go to the University of Michigan. Are the rest of the college -age Americans in this country whose parents are not willing to make such a sacrifice “entitled” to go there or some place else on tax dollars? If so, then that is “socialism” or probably more accurately “communism”. In case you younger folks don’t remember , a lot of American soldiers lost their lives in Korea and Viet Nam fighting “communism.” I have to work every day to pay for health care. Does every American have a birhtright to free health care courtesy of the government? Says who? The truth is that Obama has had everything given to him his whole life. He coasted through undergraduate school, law school , 11 years as a law professor where he didn’t write a single scholarly article!!, community organizing (which was registering people to vote for HIM!!), and a hop skip and a jump to the U.S. Senate where he served a few months before running for president. No wonder he thinks every American is “entitled” to everything. He has had a charmed life and so has his wife who wasn’t proud of America until people started voting for her husband. Why wasn’t she proud of the America which provided affirmative action from which she and Obama have benefited so much from? Scary people!

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Law Schools