Earlier today someone sent me a clip from an Internet discussion group about law schools. I don't know the full context but I gather from the content that this is a place where people who are considering law schools can go for advice from other law students or other applicants. Someone had posed a question about where they ought to go to law school in Chicago and the response was very encouraging.
It didn't say that Chicago-Kent was the best law school in Chicago; maybe before too much longer people will say that and be credible. What it did say is that the University of Chicago and Northwestern are sort of the icons and then you got to think about Chicago-Kent, Loyola, DePaul, and John Marshall. The consistent message was that everyone in that group is either uninteresting or is slipping and that Chicago-Kent is the most interesting of that bunch because it's on the move, because it's been getting better, because it's exciting, because it's entrepreneurial. That has been our image for at least ten years.
I think it was almost exactly ten years ago when an national magazine referred to Chicago-Kent as the law school on the move. We are on the move. I think it's an important part of our self image as well as our image to our various communities that this is an exciting place, that we are getting better, and that we are creative and imaginative. I'd like to talk to you about my perception of why this has been a good year, to talk a bit about strategy and about some threats as well as some accomplishments. Then I'd like to talk about how we are doing on themes, niches if you will, that help differentiate us from other law schools. Then, also in a strategic sense, talk about our relationship with the main university. Then after that strategic focus, I'd like to make a few fairly specific remarks on our faculty, on our alumni base, and on our students. I hope to do that in about 25 minutes.
There is no question where to start in terms of strategy for the law school. The faculty, and I, and the administration of the university including the Board of Trustees of the university made a fundamental decision about a year and a half ago to focus our strategic energies on a very particular objective. That is to improve our student quality and increase our selectivity. Now let me tell you why that is an appropriate strategic focus. One way to think of law schools and surely one way to think of Chicago-Kent is as a kind of triad-or three-legged stool if you want. One leg to the stool is faculty quality. Another leg in the stool is physical infrastructure. And a third is student quality.
What happened to Chicago-Kent from about 1970 to about 1990 was that it experienced a revolution in terms of faculty quality. It went from being a law school that was a fairly typical and traditional evening law school that catered to part time students and had a faculty that was very linked with the practice community. Those are not bad things but those are not ways that law schools earn distinction in the minds of people whose opinions count. By 1990, this was a completely different place in terms of faculty quality. By then, we had a faculty much like the faculty you know today. People who appear on 60 Minutes, people who write the cutting edge scholarship in multiple fields of law, people whose names are the first that occurs to someone when they want an expert in a particular area. When you look at our U.S. News ranking, you see that we are exceptionally well thought of in the legal academy. Our reputation rank, for example, among other law professors is high and it's higher than it is among practitioners and judges. So that was a major accomplishment in terms of that first strategic leg of the triad.
When this building was built and occupied that was a major step forward, thereby addressing the second leg of the triad.
But at almost exactly the same time that the faculty had been built up and was being sustained at a high quality level and that the building was occupied something funny happened in the marketplace. There began to be a dramatic decline in the pool of law school applicants nationally. I'm not just talking about Chicago-Kent; I'm not just talking about Chicago; I'm talking about the entire United States. From 1992 to 1997 the number of people who applied to law school in America declined by 40%. That's a big drop. Now half of that was purely demographic. There were just fewer people born 23 years before 1997 than there were born 23 years before 1992.
The other half, people think, has to do with the booming economy. When people have very attractive job opportunities right out of undergraduate school, a smaller proportion elect to go to law school, business school, and medical school, and so. But in any event, there was this dramatic decline and that meant that everyone was forced to become less selective unless they wanted to get smaller. Well no one wanted to get smaller. No one did get smaller; everyone stayed the same size. You had relatively speaking too much supply of seats in law schools in the face of declining demand and that affected us just like it affected everybody else. That meant that we were not making progress on the student quality part of that stool. That was the thing that we needed to address strategically and dramatically. Now why is student quality important to you now? It's important to you now because it affects the environment in the classroom. We want some diversity. It's reality that there will be diversity around almost any measure. If the measure that we are looking at is people who have quick tongues in the classroom, there is going to be some dispersion about that. Some people will talk a lot and be very good. Some people will talk very little, others will talk a lot and not be very good in the classroom. But we don't want too wide a dispersion between the top of the class and the bottom of the class because that will interfere with the kind of experience that you ought to expect and the kind of education that you will get.
It also matters a lot to all of us over time because the reputation of a law school in the long run is driven by the quality of its graduates. All of us have Chicago-Kent on our resumes, either because we work here or because you are going to school here. That will be the case all the rest of our lives. So to the extent that Chicago-Kent's reputation increases over time, even if it takes five years, ten years, or twenty years, that benefits all of us.
If on the other hand there is some particular part of our strategic environment that is problematic that we don't address and that causes our reputation to suffer because our graduate quality declines, that would hurt all of us over time.
So it was extremely important for us to address this. During this ten year decline in the pool of law school applicants almost no one got smaller and that's because it's very hard for institutions to make strategic decisions to get smaller. Faculties don't have the courage to do that or faculties have the courage to do it and universities don't have the courage to let them do that.
This place was different.
Once we brought that strategic issues into focus, the faculty here voted almost unanimously to adopt a downsizing plan that had us taking almost a hundred fewer students a year--210 in the full time division instead of close to 300 at the peak--and to pay for the loss in revenue by shrinking the size of the institution on the expenditure side. We weren't just foregoing revenue and keeping everything else the same size, we were shrinking the scale of the institution, which we thought was also desirable. It makes us--if not exactly intimate compared to before--at least it makes it somewhat more intimate. We thought it would permit us, and it has permitted us, to reduce class size somewhat, and the university supported that. There are a lot of universities that say, "No." Law schools have to stay big and if possible get bigger so that they can throw off cash to support the main university. That's not what our president and our trustees did. They applauded this effort and frankly have held us up as an example for the rest of the university on how to engage in strategic decisionmaking and have the faculty working hard to make the strategy come true.
We are in the first year of this downsizing plan. Last fall was the first time that we took a smaller class, we will take the same smaller class this coming fall and the fall after that. So by the time we are at the end of the three year period, we will have--roughly speaking--about 300 fewer students in the law school. We were rewarded very handsomely for the first year of this effort. Our average LSAT score went up two whole points, from 153 to 155. Our selectivity improved from an acceptance rate of almost 70% to a far more respectable acceptance rate of about 40%. Our classes are somewhat smaller. My information anecdotally both from what I've seen directly and from what is the first order hearsay the experience is changing in the classroom. We are getting positive reinforcement that that this was exactly the right thing for us to do. There just isn't any doubt in my mind that it's at the core of our strategy and that it was the right thing and the courageous thing for the law school to do. It will benefit you and everyone associated with the institution handsomely.
We also experienced an improvement in our performance on the Illinois Bar exam. It can't be attributed to this because the smaller class hasn't graduated yet. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but one might suppose that as we attend to quality measures of all kinds, maybe there is some kind of very indirect effect. In any event, we were substantially above the state wide average for the July exam. That's the first time since 1996 that we have been above the state average. Over the long term our history is to be close to the state wide average, sometimes a little bit above it and sometimes a little bit below it, but it's very encouraging that we were significantly above it. We were also above 80% which is the first time we were above 80% since about 1996.
Now there is a strategic threat and that flows from the proposal that the University of Illinois in Chicago acquire the John Marshall Law School. The internal discussions at UIC say that the plan is to acquire John Marshall and to spend from $12-15 million dollars a year, in our dollars, taxpayer dollars, to subsidize the John Marshall Law School so that it can substantially improve its faculty and so that the tuition would be about a third of what it is now. The notion is that the Illinois taxpayers would subsidize legal education at John Marshall.
Now the problem with that is there isn't any known need for a further public subsidy of legal education in Chicago or in Illinois. The competitive structure of legal education in Chicagoland has been stable for several decades. There are enormous resources that are spent by the existing law schools in Chicagoland on providing opportunities for people who are financially disadvantaged and might be disadvantaged for other reasons. We have already talked about this decline in the national pool of applicants to law schools and so it's just not clear why anyone would want to do this as a matter of public policy or as a matter of public finance.
In any event, there is a process under Illinois law for evaluating the need for university mergers. There is an institution called the Illinois Board of Higher Education and existing statute law requires that any proposals like this UIC/John Marshall merger proposal go through that process. That process no doubt would illuminate whether there is a need for this merger and this taxpayer subsidy. The early proponents of this apparently had intended to just leap frog that whole IBHE process and just go directly to the legislature and get some sort of statutory authorization and initial appropriation for this. We are encouraging our public officials to honor the statutory process and to make sure that before we make this kind of commitment of taxpayer money that we understand what the need is.
I would encourage you to communicate that idea to people as you think appropriate. There is no doubt that this kind of massive subsidy for one law school in Chicagoland would destabilize the competitive structure, and who knows what equilibrium would be after all is said is done. It seems to me it would just kill DePaul very quickly. I don't mean that it would cease to exist, but in terms of its program and its admission policy it seems to me it would be a body blow to DePaul.
It seems to me that the effect on us would be somewhat delayed because of downsizing. One thing that downsizing does for us is it puts in a better position to respond to threats like this. But it could only have a serious detrimental effect on our program as well.
I think over the long term it would have an adverse affect on Northwestern and furthermore it might have a significant adverse affect on UIC and the University of Illinois system because the notion that the Illinois General Assembly is year after year after year going to give $12-15 million dollars in new money to UIC for this program is far from assured-to put it mildly. The likelihood is that there would be an initial shot of public money to get this thing started and then after the first year or two the folks at UIC and elsewhere in the University of Illinois system would have to take it out of their hide. It's entirely conceivable that almost every other program in the University of Illinois system would be hurt by this because they would have to generate internal subsidy to continue this thing after it is begun.
That's something for us to be concerned about but I think to the extent that we can control our position, downsizing is exactly the right defense for that.
Now to shift focus a little bit, one of things that's in my stump speech for all audiences is that we are different from most other law schools in that we appreciate the need always to work hard to balance our responsibilities as a professional school with our responsibilities as a graduate program in a university.
We certainly attend to our responsibility as a graduate program and a university. That's what the emphasis on scholarship is all about.
We also understand that most of you are going to end up practicing law or being business executives, as opposed to being law professors. We want to make sure that we structure our program so that we expose you to the richness of the legal profession and that we give you an opportunity to be excited by all the different kinds of things that you can do as a lawyer.
That's why two years ago we changed our orientation program so it wasn't just a week of people sitting in this room and other classrooms listening to lectures and having discussions. It began this year, as it did the year before, with a mock trial which then put our entering students in the position of sitting as jurors on mock juries and actually deciding the case. Then the week concluded by a visit to the Circuit Court of Cook County where our entering students could see actual jury trials and talk to some judges.
The reason for that is that law is exciting. For most people, the peak of the excitement is when you first enter the door of the law school and you are about ready to be a law student. We wanted to reinforce that by exposing people to some of the exciting things that go on in the real world. We try to take advantage of every opportunity to do that.
It's not just litigation oriented. One of the aspirations that we have had for some years is to try to expand our excellent clinic program so that people who are interested in transactional law, as opposed to litigation, could have a clinical experience. We managed to put that together this year. It's on a trial basis. We are not sure that we are going to make it work under our fee generating model, but I think it's off to a good start. There certainly is a lot of student interest-as those of you know who have talked to Lance Williams, our visiting clinical professor who has launched this high tech start up business clinical program.
We have two stakes in the ground, if you will, that help people understand why we are something special. (This is in addition to the reputation for being on the move and innovative and entrepreneurial.) Technology is in our name. It's Illinois Institute of Technology. Chicago-Kent for almost 20 years has been correctly perceived as being in the forefront of helping lawyers and policymakers understand the impact of information technology on law and legal institutions. One of the stakes in the ground has to do with technology, and particularly information technology. I think we are doing very well to make sure that that reputation for excellence and specialness continues. Lori Andrews just does a superb job in her capacity as Director of the Institute for Science Law and Technology. She is a phenomenal combination of really thoughtful creative rigorous scholarship and the knack that somebody needs to be able to communicate that to the general public and get along with the media and the press. She does a wonderful job of representing us as an outstanding person in the important field of biotechnology and ethics and law.
As many of you read, when the United States Department of Justice wanted somebody to evaluate the FBI's Carnivore electronic eavesdropping system that had caused a lot of heat and flame on Capitol Hill, they came to us. One of the reasons they came to us is that we had a strong reputation as a law school for understanding technology and related policy issues and also because we put together a very unusual proposal that had the law school teaming with the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute--"IITRI." We were the only interprofessional proposal and the Assistant Attorney General that selected us said that was a big reason why we were picked over 15 other people.
The point is not whether you agree with what we had to say about Carnivore or what you think about Carnivore, but the point is that we were picked to help people address an extremely controversial matter that was receiving attention at the highest level of the executive branch and the legislative branch.
When the legal services community in Illinois, and when George Soros' Open Society Institute, and when the National Center for State Courts decided (with some persuasion from our side) that they should invest almost a million dollars in trying to understand how ordinary citizens can access the legal system more effectively with appropriate use of information technology, they came to us and came to Ron Staudt and IV Ashton. As a consequence we have a major program, to try to address this problem and generate some new ideas. Once again interprofessional; it's a joint effort between the law school and the Institute for Design at IIT.
When Chief Judge Harry Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit got to thinking that they were about ready to hear the Microsoft appeal and he was worried that some of his colleagues on the bench didn't know much about information technology, guess whom he called to see if someone could be identified to do a tutorial for the judges. He called me. We put him in touch with--and also prepared--our Chief Technology Officer, Michael Hites, to brief the judges on the information technology that they would need to know. Now in the end, the government and Microsoft couldn't wrap themselves around this novel idea of educating judges on technology so it didn't happen. But the point is that the Chief Judge wanted it to happen and he thought of us just immediately as the right place to help understand that technology.
You all know about the central role that we played in the American Bar Association's effort to understand jurisdictional issues associated with the Internet.
The other stake in the ground that helps distinguish us is globalization. We are hardly the only law school in the United States that is interested in globalization; everybody is, after having ignored it for 75 years in the last century. It seemed to me when I came here that the challenge for Chicago-Kent was to help people in our market area take us seriously as players with respect to globalization issues. There was a tendency for people, when they thought of globalization, to think of University of Chicago and Northwestern and then to stop thinking. Or, if they were thinking nationally, to think of NYU and to stop thinking. We had substantial assets in the international arena, they just weren't very widely known.
One of the things that I set about to do was to try to stitch together the assets that we had, fill in the gaps, do some new things that would get people's attention like what Charles Rudnick and many students have done in Bosnia and Kosovo, and increase our visibility and reputation.
I think we are making real progress on that. When the MacArthur Foundation decided to invest $600,000, and persuaded the Chicago Community Trust to invest another $300,000, and persuaded Mayor Daley to appropriate $75,000 of city money to launch the Global Chicago initiative, guess where they came to host it. They came here. And they came here because they thought we--of all the law schools--had demonstrated a capacity to deal with the new kinds of problems creatively, to work interprofessionally, and to work across institutional boundaries. That was a major step forward in terms of our credibility in Chicagoland as a leader institutionally on some of the globalization issues.
Now a word about our relationship with the university. Law schools tend to have tense relationships with their parent universities. That's true all over the country. It's relatively rare for law schools--whether the law students or the faculty--to be heavily engaged in things that the rest of the university is engaged in. It seemed to me that that was a mistake for us. There was opportunities for us that we could take advantage of by getting more engaged with the overall university activity. I think we have done that in a substantial way. There are at least a half dozen IPRO's--the interprofessional courses--that have been led from the law school and have had substantial law student participation. The faculty and the administrators and I are very much involved with the other officers of the university in shaping the overall effort. Just before I came here for this event I was with Lew Collens and Stuart Cooper and some of the other vice presidents of the university with the Ogilvie and Mather advertising firm, where we spent about three hours brainstorming about the overall message for the university from a marketing standpoint. One of the things we talked about quite a lot was whether the professional units like the law school, especially the law school, are better off to be "Chicago-Kent" with almost no one knowing that we are part of IIT or whether we would be better off if the IIT linkage was emphasized more.
We don't know what the answer is. We just talked about that as a legitimate issue. There is room for argument that one might be better than the other. It is clear to me that, at least in some audiences, the fact that technology is part of our name can be helpful for Chicago-Kent. We need to do a better job of understanding how to get that technology linkage message across to the appropriate audiences without scaring that part of our family that considers itself to be out of the arts and letters tradition and is not interested in becoming tarred with the technology brush.
In terms of raw dollars as many of you know the university just completed--ahead of schedule--a $250,000,000 capital campaign that was triggered by a gift by the Pritzker and Galvin families of $120,000,000 on a matching basis. The law school benefited substantially from that. Donations to the law school while the campaign was in effect were matched on a dollar for dollar basis. We got several large gifts that were twice as much for us as they would otherwise have been. We are now in the process at the university level and the trustee level to try to understand what the university does next. In fact there is a trustee retreat this weekend. Not just in a fundraising sense but in a strategic sense. So we are very much engaged in that and I think that is good both for the university and for the law school. After all this law school became a part of IIT in 1969 because it thought there would be some synergy with the Illinois Institute of Technology. We should make sure that that happens.
Now let me mention a couple of faculty developments, a couple of alumni developments, and one particular student development. I talked already about Lori Andrews. She continues to do a wonderful job of getting us visibility. She is not alone. For those of you that look at the listing of faculty that appear in the press and the media, it's phenomenal. There are two or three or more faculty appearances in general audience media every week.
Some of that is do to the very good efforts of Susan O'Brien and Gwen Osborne in our Public Affairs Department. But you can't get exposure for faculty unless they are doing interesting things and unless they give a good account of themselves when they are on the tube or in the paper.
We have two new intellectual property faculty that have joined Professor Mickie Voges to make for a very, very strong core faculty for our intellectual property program. That's quite important to us because technology is part of our name and a lot of the people who think well of us because technology is part of our name are interested in intellectual property law. Anyone that's interested in a relationship between law and technology needs to understand at least something about intellectual property. Graeme Dinwoodie and Tim Holbrook being part of our faculty have substantially increased our capacity in that area.
Among our alums and friends, Terry Lavin, who has been a very active alum, is now the Second Vice President of the Illinois State Bar Association. That means he will automatically become president not next year but the year after that. Tom Fitzgerald, who is not an alum, but who has been a very active participant in our various programs, orientation, professionalism day, was elected to the Illinois Supreme Court. I know, because he has told me, that he will continue to be a close friend of Chicago-Kent, as his judicial duties permit.
On the student front, I will mention two things to you obviously excluding a much longer list of equally interesting items. Our trial practice teams have really been outdoing themselves. I'm not sure that I completely understand the competitive structure of the National Trial Team Competition but one way to interpret what happened two weeks ago when both of our teams won the semifinals is that they will be competing against each other in Texas. That's not exactly the way it works but the fact that you might interpret it that way sense of how unusual it is for two teams from one law school to get to this level. As you may have noticed on the sign out in the atrium, our team won the regional ATLA Competition. So year after year that program continues to provide extraordinary opportunities for our students that are interested in being trial lawyers and it does that because of the great investment of time and energy and caring that Justice Warren Wolfson and Dave Erickson and the other people in that program bring to bear.
Two other things I want to mention on the student front, and then some questions. The downsizing plan was the result of an enormous effort by faculty and administrators and others to try to figure out how sensibly to do those expenditure reductions. You don't just want to cut everything across the board. For example if you are trying to pull in better quality students you may want to increase your expenditure on admissions and recruitment. So that was a great challenge, to put that downsizing plan together. The leadership of the Student Bar Association was very much a part of that. What I did toward the end of the process when the issues began to crystallize, was I asked the President of the SBA to get his key leadership team together and to come in. I shared with them the downsizing plan even-if my faculty colleagues would stop up their ears-even before the entire faculty had seen certain pieces of it, or least simultaneously with its release to the faculty and asked the students to help evaluate some of the choices that were yet to be made as to how this ought to work. They did a wonderful job. Out of a group of about a dozen students we had the notion that we should designate each person as a kind of special master to look at a particular program. You couldn't be a special master for a program that you loved; you could only be a special master for a program you didn't know much about or that you were somewhat skeptical about. That just worked great.
This year as well, I am working with the Student Bar Association leadership and so your classmates have substantial input and are very much a part of helping make decisions. I have responsibility to make certain decisions, and the faculty has responsibility to make certain kinds of decisions; we're not transferring that to the students, but the input is useful and we pay a lot of attention to it.
The other thing that I want to mention, I kind of alluded to but I want to emphasize it more. We understand that you are very different, in terms of what you are interested in, in terms of what you are good at, and in terms of what you are going to do with your lives. We also understand that at the core of our academic program is a system that gives a handful of people A's and gives a whole bunch of people grades in the middle and below the middle. When you look at class rank, It's in the nature of a ranking that only a quarter of the folks are in the top quarter, right? Well, if you are not careful you send the message to people who are not in the top quarter that there is nothing in this for them. Either that there's nothing in it for them in terms of the rest of the law school experience and they just have to endure it, or worse than that, there is just nothing for them in the law.
Well that's not true.
There are all kinds of things that can be in it for the people that are not in the top quarter academically. That's why we commit so much to things like the trial practice program, and the moot court program, and to all the student activities, and why in the four years since I have been here I can't think of a single time when a student has come to me and said, "I got a great idea, I want to do X," that I didn't sit down and try to figure out a way for the student at least to have a chance to try to do X.
We want to encourage all of you to stretch and to live up to your full potential and to understand that nobody is good at everything. Even if you aren't real good at the more academically oriented analytical stuff you may be just terrific as a trial lawyer or an appellate lawyer or in some other kind of role. These things that are referred to as extracurricular activities are in my mind-and I think the mind of the faculty generally-a very important part of our overall program and our overall educational philosophy.
Well, that was substantially in excess of 25 minutes and I apologize for that. I get sort of excited about some of these things and say a few more things than perhaps I intended to. What's on your minds?
Dean Perritt's Response
Now there is in all of our materials, all of our application materials, a reservation of the power to change the rules. There has to be because you couldn't possibly imagine a university program that froze everything at the point that someone first saw some kind of communication about the school. You got to be able to change your course offerings and the course requirements and all that kind of thing. So everyone, as a formal matter, everyone was on notice that these things could be changed. Now before there could be any sort of reliant conduct on whatever the standard was and I mean I guess if you tell me that people spend a lot of time scrutinizing the flunk out standard and calculate how close they can get to it without flunking out, I mean if you tell me that people do that I have no basis to say that they don't. But if people were doing that, before they had an opportunity to rely on that by taking their first final exam they had explicit notice that the standard as it applied to them would be 2.3. It did disqualify some people. It is a tragedy when people want to be lawyers and don't meet the academic standards to stay in law school. The human aspect of that is substantial and I'm not indifferent to that but the fact remains is that academic programs of quality have to have some standards. If people don't meet the standards it's a long part of our tradition that they have to leave the school. And so for us to take the position that because someone is terribly disappointed that they weren't able to meet the standard and therefore we just ought to keep them anyway, I think would be a completely unsound policy on our part. Not everyone agrees with me. Some people disagree with it enough to file lawsuits, but that's the rationale of what we are doing.
[Unable to hear question]
Dean Perritt's Response
Dean Perritt's Response
Well, I'm sorry, I disagree with you. It's kind of like, sort of like the Federal Register if you know about administrative law. The Record is like the Federal Register. Because there might still be something in the Code of Federal Regulations that hasn't been completely updated yet if an organ, if a journal is designated as the way of giving official notice and you put something in there that's how you get official notice and that's the Record here. Now I don't mean to say that mechanisms for communicating things can't be improved and that we should, I mean we can emphasize this more, and in fact we did emphasize it more in the orientation this year, so I'm not trying to say that we did everything perfectly but what I mean to say that this was not an irrational or irregular thing to do and that we implemented it in a regular way. That's my position.
Dean Perritt's Response
Dean Perritt's Response
I also agree with you that lawyers who end up being deal lawyers need to know a lot more about the deal than most law school curricula give them. So I think, in terms of educational content, that the people in our student body who are interested in transactional law would be better off if they took some courses that most people associate with standard MBA courses. They for sure ought to know accounting and they probably ought to know a bit of finance from the business perspective in addition to the securities regulation perspective.
The problem is to find the right institutional mechanisms to promote that without forcing people to do things that they don't want to do. Now one obvious mechanism is the joint J.D./MBA program. We get about 25 students per year in that program but the reality is that it isn't a program. It's just a cross listing of courses. And so we have had a number of discussions over the last year and a half about how to make that a real program. I asked the Downtown Campus Faculty Council, we had a discussion about that and the Council appointed a committee of business school and law school professors that are looking at that. One of the things that I asked Chris Matheny to do as he moved up to be an Assistant Dean and, to take on a campus wide responsibility for the registrar function, was to become the advisor for that joint program. He has a comparative advantage because he is a Stuart School graduate; he has an MBA. He was working for the law school and now he is working for the downtown campus. Professor Voges and I and others have talked about whether a focus on the strategic management of intellectual property might be an interesting theme for that program.
So I agree with you that we should do more. The vehicle that I have identified that we might be able to use most quickly is the joint J.D./MBA program. Other questions or comments?
[Unable to hear question]
Dean Perritt's Response
[Unable to hear question]
Dean Perritt's Response
Other questions or comments? OK.
Well this is not the only forum in which you can express your views to me. I would encourage not to be bashful-I know that not many of you are. Or at least I know a lot of you are not bashful. That's fine and so when you got something on your mind and you want to make a suggestion or you have a problem, let us know about it and we will try to fix it or tell why not.
Thanks a lot.