Two years ago, UH President Kenneth P. Mortimer delayed selection of a new law dean because of the possibility that the school would be shuttered because of university budget cuts. Lawrence C. Foster, then the interim dean, developed a plan for tuition increases that averted the closure and resulted in his appointment as permanent dean last May.
At that time, annual tuition at the law school was an extremely low $2,426, and it was doubled to $4,800 in the last school year. The plans were to increase it to $7,000 next year, and to more than $9,000 for residents and $15,576 for nonresidents by the turn of the century.
That would be a steep hike, but it would bring UH up to the same levels charged at competitive teaching facilities. Annual tuition already is an average $10,800 at law schools in the University of California system, is $11,172 at Hastings Law School in San Francisco, and is $18,482 at Santa Clara.
Some underrepresented factions of the population may be unable to afford the increased tuition, and that is of some concern. UH has always prided itself on the diversity of its students. Those who need financial assistance to obtain their legal education may be forced to forgo lower-paying jobs in public-service law immediately after graduation in order to repay those loans. To soften the financial hardship, the UH law school was considering lifting its rigid prohibition against students holding part-time jobs during their first year of classes.
The cost of a UH law degree, as well as other disciplines of study, has been heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Of the school's $3.1 million budget last year, only $680,000 came from actual tuition fees. The planned increases were estimated to pay for a more reasonable two-thirds of a reduced budget of $2.8 million in fiscal 2001.
The student body seemed to have begrudgingly accepted the hikes. Darien Ching, president of the UH Student Bar Association, said its members recognize that "if that's what has to be done to keep the school going, then obviously we'll live with it."
Despite such acceptance, regents have unexpectedly shelved the proposed increases for one year, asking for more details and alternatives. They instead should restore the planned increases while looking for alternatives, and the allocation of tax dollars to the university should reflect their presence.
While the Education Week project is only one subjective assessment, it is a sobering reminder of deficiencies. The short-term outlook for an improved education report card is not good.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor