Sunday, December 21, 2003

Dick Law Dean Answers Questions


Patriot-News
Copyright (c) 2003 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

Sunday, December 21, 2003

Review & Opinion

Dickinson's McConnaughay discusses move

Capital Region residents were surprised last month by the disclosure that officials of the Dickinson School of Law, which merged with the Pennsylvania State University in 1997, were considering moving the institution to Penn State's main campus at University Park. Law School Dean Phillip McConnaughay discussed the proposal recently with The Patriot-News Editorial Board. Following are some of the highlights of that discussion. Q: Could you give us a little background on how you got to the point of discussing a potential move?

Let me begin by talking about the past of Dickinson, because I believe that's as much a part of my view of the future as anything. We're 170 years old. I think that a lot of our alumni like to point with pride to the fact that we were 21 years old when Penn State was founded. The graduates we have are really extraordinary: three or four governors; several U.S. senators; many members of the current federal bench in Pennsylvania; Tom Ridge; Lisa Hook, senior officer of AOL Broadband; Louis Katz, owner of the New Jersey Nets; Sylvia Rambo, first chief women judge here. It's an extraordinary history.

I think that occurred for a reason, and that's because for about the first 160 years of our history the Dickinson School of Law was the first-choice law school of top regional students. Dickinson School of Law regularly would, from the top to bottom of its class, place in about the top third of students nationally. And these students were largely drawn from our back yard. They were central Pennsylvanians overwhelmingly. We were the first choice school of very fine students.

In 1990, the Dickinson School of Law had more than 2,000 applicants, and it offered admission to fewer than 25 percent. In 1991, U.S. News and World Report published its first issue of national rankings of law schools. Six issues later, by 1997, Dickinson had barely 1,000 applicants and had offered admission to over 60 percent of them. Students started to look outside of their local vicinity for law schools.

Q: How did that happen? What made the magazine's rankings so important?

I think that they introduced about 186 law schools that maybe previously weren't known to regional students, in a concentrated fashion. I think they focused the attention of prospective students on what the competition was nationally. And I think students started to look broadly at law schools.

I practiced law for over 18 years for a large San Francisco law firm. And I had an interesting practice. I was abroad 10 years, I lived in Tokyo and Hong Kong, and in practice what I found is that the problems you confront and the problems that you have to address draw on multiple disciplines for a solution. You don't just bring law to bear on a particular problem as a lawyer; you bring all sorts of reasoning and all sorts of other people and all sorts of expertise that resides in other people to bear on a particular problem.

I came to the University of Illinois [as a law professor] in 1996. What I found to be most rich about my activities there were that they had mainly to do with other units on campus. The first thing I did was organize a major conference with a renowned historian, one of the leading historians of Africa and African economic history. We put on a symposium dealing with human rights and developments in Africa. I invited law students; he invited history students; we invited professors from throughout the university... It replicated what I had experienced in practice, and I found it incredibly rich, and I think they did too, as a way to draw upon the intellectual researches of the rest of the university, to deliver to law students the subject matter that they are going to confront as lawyers.

So I came to the Dickinson School of Law -- basically the attraction for me was the merger with Penn State. I thought this was going to be a very interesting enterprise because we have a stand- alone independent law school, almost with an unparalleled history of turning out wonderfully accomplished graduates and community leaders, leaders of the bar, leaders of the judiciary, merging with one of the elite universities in the United States in research.

Since arriving, we have, I think, achieved a lot right where we are. Our diversity has increased dramatically from sub-10 percent to 21 percent, the highest in our history. Our applicant pool last year was the highest in our history, and that was a direct result of selling. We hired faculty who just as easily could be at Columbia, Harvard, Yale or some top 25 institution.

Q: Are rankings the only criteria?

There are measures independent of rank. One is how are your students doing on standardized tests like the LSAT. How did they do as undergraduates, and what do those numbers say in an average sense about your class today? You compare those directly to any other law school, if you're an employer, and see what kind of a difference there is. These people are not paying attention just to rankings, they're paying attention to substance. When large law firms interview at some law schools and not others, there's a reason for that. There's a reason that has to do with their perceived likelihood of having a person in their firm who will be one of the best lawyers around, one of the best lawyers possible.

Q: You have a lot of advantages here in this region.

I absolutely agree that the presence of state government and the courts here is an advantage for us, for both experiential learning for students and placing students in externships. It's a highly attractive aspect of our location. We can achieve some of that from State College -- it certainly is not as easy as from Carlisle -- but there are many ways law schools can model their programs to really try and take as complete advantage of this area as we could from Carlisle. Semester-long internships for example.

My personal experience at Illinois, being 21/2 hours from Chicago, I always felt disadvantaged in comparison to city schools, clerkships with federal judges and state judges, government internships, etc. But the way they compensated was, in a couple of ways. For students who didn't want to spend a full semester and residence at one of those locations, we would make scheduling adjustments to make sure they had a full day a week or two full days a week. The other way is to really create more intense externships and clerkships where students actually get more credit than we currently allow for more time in a experienced-based location.

Q: Your options include building in Carlisle. Do you still think the best option is to move to University Park?

My personal position is yes, but I certainly view the law school as having open capacity and great potential in Carlisle, and I will do as I have done the last year, everything possible to achieve great stature and success for our students and school there.

Q: What steps would be needed to restore excellence if you stay in Carlisle?

In terms of a new facility design, I would want to have the capacity electronically to acquire, despite the distance, or to deliver over distance as much educational programming as feasible. Equip classrooms with, for example, screens that can display remotely delivered lectures or classes from other locations. Every seat will have a voice-activated microphone so that the interaction between the people in that room and the people at University Park -- or in Paris -- can interact meaningfully. We have classrooms like that at Illinois. I had a friend of mine teach immigration law who was in Chicago to students in Champaign, precisely because we had classes with that type of equipment. It's not as easy or as complete, it depends on reciprocity. It's a two-way street when it comes to high technology: You have to have buildings that are similarly equipped to have it be easy to deliver things remotely.

The other way is to do what we're doing: We would continue to try and hire people who are exceptional, to diversify in ways that are meaningful, to provide programs for our students that are exceptional and do everything just like that. I think that the immediate future I would almost do the same thing in both places. I would look 30 years out, and that kind of animates my view about preference. In 30 years, where will the Dickinson School of Law be best able to contend with the unknowns of practice, and the unknowns of legal education? Here, apart from the university of which it's a unit or on the campus of the major research university with all of the other units and departments and the 4,000 truly world-class professors that teach up there.

Q: Is this just a philosophical issue?

No, we would not be addressing this issue now but for our rather desperate need for major facilities improvement. I think that's what has caused us even to think about this. It is because of the fact that we can confront an investment of tens of millions of dollars in facilities -- in any location -- that we are confronting location issues. And some of it is the constraints of our current site, but we're happy that we think that we have come up with a feasible plan. It's not optimal because we are in a residential setting -- it was a smaller school -- and you do have to be suitable for that setting. It's easier to design an institutional presence in an institutional area, than in a residential one, but we think that we've come up with some pretty good plans for Carlisle.

Q: New facilities in Carlisle would represent a major commitment, wouldn't it?

I think it would represent significant commitment to remain, long term.

Q: Wouldn't the change in emphasis nationally to specialty practice also help to explain the changes in your enrollment since 1990?

Your point is an excellent one, and I would expand on it a little bit to suggest not only have new avenues of practice opened up, but conventional practices are changing. Retail vendors or retail manufacturers in the Harrisburg area no longer find their markets geographically. They sell over the Internet, they sell any number of ways.

And it reflects as much as anything the future of law practice, to the extent we're connected to commerce, we follow those developments. The internationalization of commerce will result in an internationalization of law practice, even if you are a practitioner who lives in Reading or Harrisburg and stays there. Precisely because your clients no longer view markets as limited by political or geographic boundaries.

And I think that kind of animates where legal education is going, too, that we have to be able to deliver a significant international component. Not only sensitivity to what other cultures, what other people think, what other legal systems require of people, what you might contend with if you are representing a client in international transaction.

The influence of science on practice is another important development. You can be a criminal lawyer and you have got to have a capacity to deal with the scientist who will be your DNA witness. Or regulations in terms of agricultural products. I can't imagine graduating a lawyer who wants to deal with our wonderfully robust agricultural economy in Pennsylvania who isn't equipped with both significant capacity in international dimensions of law practice and science-related aspects of law practice.

Do you have any of that curriculum now?

We have quite a bit of depth in international law, unusual depth, frankly, just in terms of recent hires and existing hires. Lou Del Duca, who has been there for years, is renowned throughout the United States, a leader in internationalizing the law curriculum. We have a young and newer professor, Eileen Cain, who has a Ph.D. in microbiology as well as a J.D., and I think that's a trend you'll see increasingly, to deliver intellectual property or law in biotechnology classes to our students.

Q: What kind of feedback have you received from faculty, students, alums ...?

It's mixed, to be honest. If you read the materials we sent to our alums, it's data-driven. You may not like the outcome, you may value different things differently, but it's data-driven. It's not a strong-arm tactic at all. And I think people increasingly are appreciating that.

I do view as an incredibly indespensable part of my job ... the preservation of the heritage of the Dickinson School of Law. Especially its name. I would love for the Dickinson School of Law to be to Penn State what the Wharton School is to Penn. That's my personal ambition for the law school.

I think our law school deserves that kind of reputation and acknowledgment of its excellence, and I think our students and graduates deserve that level of professional stature and that breadth of professional opportunity. And recognizing in a popular way that level of excellence is what it takes to open doors for our students.

Saturday, December 20, 2003

Higher Ed doctoral Student says DSL Should Stay in Carlisle


Centre Daily Times
(c) Copyright 2003, Centre Daily Times. All Rights Reserved.

Saturday, December 20, 2003


Law school should stay in Carlisle

By John Cosgrove

The CDT recently editorialized (Nov. 26) that Gov. Ed Rendell and other politicians interested in keeping Penn State's Dickinson School of Law in Carlisle should "butt out." The editorial declared: "Whether the Dickinson School of Law eventually moves to State College is a decision for the Dickinson board of governors, (Penn State President Graham) Spanier and the Penn State board of trustees." I disagree, because the state has a vested economic interest in the fate of Dickinson and because PSU and its board invite scrutiny given their frequent predilection not to thoroughly account their decisions to the public.

First, regarding the state's interest: The harm to Carlisle's economy will be much greater than the gain to State College's if Dickinson is relocated.

This alone provides a legitimate reason for public participation. There's a strong tradition of university-community partnerships aimed at improving communities, especially in urban areas.

State governments have historically used colleges and universities to foster economic development. In fact, they are central to the governor's new plan, designed to stimulate urban economic revitalization. Thus, politicians have every right to be concerned.

Second, regarding why Dickinson may be moved from its founding home of 169 years: Philip McConnaughay, dean at Dickinson, has cited a number of relocation factors, including outdated facilities, physical restraints on expansion, and the school's "languishing reputation."

Yet, just a few weeks before relocation talks became known to the public, the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 27) reported that Dickinson graduates had the highest passing rate of any law school in the state among first-time takers of the July 2003 bar exam. Said a delighted McConnaughay, "I'm smiling. ... It's something all law schools worry about. ... It reflects how many students from your school are successful." He further declared that pass rates influence matriculation decisions and that applications to Dickinson last year were up 46 percent from the year before.

Why does McConnaughay seem so enthusiastic about Dickinson in one moment, yet in the next imply its survival is contingent upon moving to State College? I believe two factors may be at play. McConnaughay has, as best as I can determine, few if any ties to this state. He did not attend college here nor does it appear he worked for any state employers prior to becoming Dickinson dean last summer.

Perhaps if he had deeper Pennsylvania roots he might not have only given up on Carlisle so quickly, but also appreciated how numerous Pennsylvania municipalities struggle after a major local employer leaves them for greener pastures.

The rapid response by concerned officials and citizens indicates a public will to find a local solution.

Second, is relocation about improving educational experiences or is it really about trying to elevate Dickinson to elite-level status? Penn State has an obligation to provide all its students a quality education.
It does not have an obligation to be nationally ranked in every field, including law. Dickinson has always been a respectable regional law school.

Though Dickinson may have some infrastructure and other concerns, is a $60 million relocation to State College really the only viable alternative? The school is obviously doing something right under its present structure, evidenced by the bar-exam success rate of its graduates.

There are also benefits of not being a cutthroat competitive elite school. Consider this from the Martindale.com Web site: "Perhaps the most valuable aspect of a Penn State Dickinson education is its intimate learning environment fostered by ready accessibility of faculty. Unlike many larger law schools, Dickinson's academic atmosphere, while competitive, is friendly and cooperative. Students and faculty truly get to know each other and often interact on a social level."

If Penn State wants to behave like a closely held private corporation, then it should forego its state-related status (and along with it more than $300 million annually in state appropriations) and become private.

John Cosgrove is a Penn State doctoral candidate in higher-education administration.

Wednesday, December 17, 2003

Now We're Getting Somewhere! Let's Create a Committee!


The Wilkes-Barre Times Leader (PA)
(c) Copyright 2003, The Wilkes-Barre Times Leader. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, December 17, 2003

breaking

Committee chosen for Penn State study

Penn State: Penn State's Dickinson School of Law has appointed a committee to study location and funding options to meet the school's need for new facilities and more space. Among those announced were Anthony C. Falvello, Sugarloaf; Arthur L. Piccone, Kingston; Sylvia H. Rambo, a U.S. District Court judge in the Middle Distirct of Pennsylvania and Sandor Yelen, Wilkes-Barre.

Saturday, December 13, 2003

Attorney General Maintains the Pretense


Centre Daily Times
(c) Copyright 2003, Centre Daily Times. All Rights Reserved.

Saturday, December 13, 2003


Set record straight on school of law

By LeRoy S. Zimmerman

The Penn State Dickinson School of Law is confronting pressing issues with respect to its beautiful, but aging, facility. To continue to provide our students with the space and services they deserve, we need to consider a plan for renovation or rebuilding and expansion that will enable the school to enjoy another 170 years as illustrious and noble as its first. When we speak of the need for rebuilding and expansion, we are not talking about an increase in our student body. We are planning for a facility that anticipates no growth in student-body size but one that allows for reasonable growth in our faculty and staff and for adequate classrooms, library space, common areas, restrooms, courtrooms, and an auditorium.

Dean Philip J. McConnaughay and senior law-school staff have been hard at work for several months trying to ensure that our current site in Carlisle would be adequate to accommodate an expansion. Land that would be needed for renovation and expansion has been rezoned, and we are in the process of acquiring contiguous property. The estimated cost of new buildings of appropriate size on our current site could be as high as $56 million.

Another possibility is relocating to the main campus of Penn State. Penn State President Graham Spanier is willing to propose to the university's board of trustees that the university build a new facility for the law school. A substantial benefit would be that the law school no longer would have to pay for its own maintenance and utilities, as we currently do in Carlisle, at an annual cost in excess of $1.3 million.

Spanier has said he also would support rebuilding on our current site at a level consistent with the law school's aspirations and realistic expectations, the same standard Penn State uses to help determine its financial contribution to capital projects on all of its campuses. All such projects typically depend on significant philanthropic support from alumni before they become feasible.

The dean initiated consideration of a main campus option for two reasons:

First, because we confront a multimillion-dollar investment that will define the physical embodiment of the law school for many decade, the best interests of the school and our future students and graduates require a careful and thorough consideration of all available alternatives.

Second, our merger with Penn State is predicated on the assumption that the future strength of our law school will result from the combination of our illustrious history with the academic prestige and intellectual capital of a major research university. The dean wanted to evaluate whether our presence on the main campus would make a difference in achieving this vision.

The dean undertook a preliminary assessment of possible relocation and provided a report to our board of governors, which retains authority over any change in the location of the school. The dean presented his preliminary assessment in order to learn whether the board was willing to consider the possibility of relocation.

However, a member of the board improperly leaked the report to the press before the dean and the board had any opportunity to discuss it. The ensuing news reports caused great concern both within the law school and among alumni and local community leaders. The furor deprived the board and the dean of the opportunity to present the issue to all affected constituencies in a logical, appropriate way.

The evaluation process is now under way. All voices will be heard and considered. In the upcoming weeks, the board of governors will solicit the opinions of alumni, faculty, staff, students and affected communities. It will consider possible relocation along with building and expansion needs generally. Everyone can be assured that it is the board's intention to exercise its authority carefully and as fiduciaries mindful of the best interests of the school and its present and future students and graduates.

LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Pennsylvania's first elected attorney general, is the chairman of the board of governors of the Penn State Dickinson School of Law. These foregoing remarks were adapted from a letter sent to alumni. Alumni can e-mail comments to dslalumni@ psu.edu.

Friday, December 12, 2003

Studying the Move Ad Nauseum So We Can Pretend to be Open-Minded


Centre Daily Times
(c) Copyright 2003, Centre Daily Times. All Rights Reserved.

Friday, December 12, 2003

PSU law school board to study possible move

The Associated Press

CARLISLE Four new committees will study issues related to whether Penn State University's Dickinson School of Law should move from its current location here to the main campus in State College.

LeRoy S. Zimmerman, chairman of the board of governors for Dickinson School of Law, said Thursday he had appointed committees to study expansion of the current campus location, alternate sites in the Carlisle area, moving to State College and general issues related to funding and strategic planning.

"The law school is facing a serious problem with aging and overcrowded facilities," said Zimmerman, a former Pennsylvania attorney general. "Our board of governors is committed to conducting a thorough and objective review of all the options in front of us, which include rebuilding and expanding on our current site in Carlisle and moving the school to the University Park campus of Penn State."

Meanwhile, state lawmakers from the Carlisle area are trying to round up more state funding for the law school. Sen. Hal Mowery, R-Cumberland, has asked for $30 million in capital funds. The money, which would have to be approved by Gov. Ed Rendell, would only be available if the law school agrees to remain in Carlisle indefinitely.

Rendell has said the school should stay in Carlisle.

"He sees no reason for a move," Rendell spokesman Chuck Ardo said Thursday morning.

News of the possible move first emerged last month, when The Sentinel of Carlisle reported that law school dean Phil McConnaughay had written a confidential memo recommending that the law school move to State College within five years.

Thursday, December 11, 2003

Not Harrisburg, not Hershey. You Must Move to State College!


Patriot-News
Copyright (c) 2003 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

Thursday, December 11, 2003

Local/State

Spanier: City, Hershey aren't move options ; Law school considers State College relocation

ELIZABETH GIBSON
Of Our Carlisle Bureau

The president of Penn State University yesterday ruled out the possibility that The Dickinson School of Law might relocate to Harrisburg or Hershey. President Graham Spanier said the two locations had been previously considered as possibilities.

"I don't see Harrisburg or Hershey as a likely option. We're not pursuing that," Spanier said.

Dickinson Dean Philip McConnaughay last month laid out a Penn State proposal to build Dickinson a $60 million facility in State College.

McConnaughay said physical and program upgrades are critical to improving Dickinson's ratings. He said the best way to capitalize on Dickinson's 2000 merger with Penn State is to move the school to State College.

"We are not currently contemplating relocating to the Harrisburg/ Hershey area," McConnaughay said.

Dickinson's board of governors expects to decide next year whether to expand at the current Carlisle site, build elsewhere in the Carlisle area or move to State College.

Spanier said a broad, initial study of possible sites for Dickinson included Harrisburg and Hershey, home of Penn State's Milton S. Hershey Medical Center.

But he said it became clear that the most viable options were to expand in Carlisle or move to State College.

Moreover, if Harrisburg was targeted, the reception there would be lukewarm, said Randy King, spokesman for Mayor Stephen R. Reed, who was out of town.

"It is doubtful the mayor would encourage or support such an effort unless it was absolutely proven that Dickinson had to move out of Carlisle," King said yesterday.

"The mayor does not believe it is good public policy for one community to raid another community's resources. And Dickinson is an economic, educational and community resource in Carlisle," he said.

Dickinson board members this week were named to four committees to begin exploring options for the school's future.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Jan R. Jurden will lead the committee studying Penn State's offer. Midstate members of her committee include Christylee Peck, a lawyer with Rhodes and Sinon in Harrisburg, and Nathan H. Waters, Harrisburg School District solicitor.

Carlisle attorney Hubert X. Gilroy is heading the committee charged with examining an expansion of Trickett Hall in Carlisle.

Board emeritus member Robert M. Frey of Carlisle, who was Dickinson's president when the law school merged with Penn State, is leading the committee looking at expanding Dickinson in the Carlisle area.

Pittsburgh lawyer William R. Caroselli is chairing a committee which will study funding and strategic planning for a construction project. John Luciew contributed to this report. ELIZABETH GIBSON: 249-2006 or egibson@patriot-news.com INFOBOX:

MATTERS OF LAW Here are some of the options being considered by The Dickinson School of Law's board of governors to address the school's space and program needs:
* CLOSE DICKINSON'S TRICKETT HALL IN CARLISLE and move the 170- year-old law school to a new, $60 million facility in State College.

* RETAIN AND EXPAND TRICKETT HALL on South College Street in Carlisle at a cost of $40 million to $50 million. Additions to the original hall as well as adjacent homes would be torn down to make way for a larger facility that would include a shielded parking garage. The proposal could rely on acquiring a parking lot from neighboring Dickinson College, which is not affiliated with the law school.

* RETAIN TRICKETT HALL AND DO SOME RENOVATIONS. Extend the campus to the hospital building close to the law school, which will be available when the hospital moves to South Middleton Twp. Replace the hospital building with a facility to accommodate law school use.

* MOVE THE LAW SCHOOL TO A NEW FACILITY to be built on undeveloped land in the Carlisle area.

FILEART; DAN GLEITER; Caption: Trickett Hall at The Dickinson School of Law in Carlisle is the law school's principal administrative and classroom building.

Monday, December 08, 2003

DSL Dean Puts Up a Fight & misrepresents his original intent


Patriot-News
Copyright (c) 2003 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

Monday, December 8, 2003

A Section

Law school move could ease future, dean argues

ELIZABETH GIBSON
Of Our Carlisle Bureau

Philip McConnaughay arrived at The Dickinson School of Law in March 2002 with no plans to move the school. But McConnaughay, dean of the institution, quickly decided that moving the school near its home institution in University Park was a good idea.

The move, he said, would fulfill the promise of the law school's merger with the Pennsylvania State University and put it on an unparalleled path to success and acclaim.

"We could sustain it more reliably in State College," he said last week.

That was McConnaughay's contention this fall when he urged the board of governors to accept a Penn State offer to build Dickinson a $60 million home near State College.

McConnaughay, who had helped developed joint programs between the University of Illinois and its law school before he came to Dickinson, said that when he accepted his new post, he recognized a wealth of untapped academic partnerships.

He said he believed then and believes now that Dickinson could take much better advantage of its Penn State partnership -- even if the law school stays in Carlisle.

But Dickinson's best hope for a fulfilled relationship with Penn State lies in being close neighbors, McConnaughay said.

"I really initiated this assessment," he said. "I love Carlisle. It's a very fine community. I don't think it's a Carlisle vs. State College issue."

When the Dickinson-Penn State merger was announced in 1997, assurances came from PSU President Graham Spanier, then-Dean Peter Glenn and others that Dickinson would stay in Carlisle.

"No move was contemplated at that time," McConnaughay said.

Now, however, he said he sees the move as the solution to critical facility needs and the best way to boost the school's ranking.

In spite of improvements, Trickett Hall is too small to accommodate an expanded library, additional meeting rooms and offices.

The dean said he didn't agree with the ratings dip Dickinson suffered in reports published by the American Bar Association and Law School Admission Council as well as in U.S. News & World Report, but he couldn't ignore them.

In considering a move, he said, he saw a chance to tackle Dickinson's two greatest concerns.

The University Park facility apparently would cost Dickinson nothing and would free an annual $1.3 million from the law school's operating budget.

His assessment also showed that law schools on campuses of major research universities receive higher rankings. He said a shared setting offers law schools greater resources and makes recruiting easier. And a growing trend toward mixing law with other academic disciplines falls right in place when the programs are offered side by side.

But Victor Stabile, a 1982 alumnus and president of the alumni association's large capital-area chapter, said Penn State has underestimated the attachment that alumni have to the school as a Carlisle institution.

"I strongly suspect if there is a move to State College, a lot of the existing alumni will not support the school as they have in the past," he said.

A decision to move the school or build a facility in Carlisle rests with the board's 35 members. They're seeking alumni input at forums this month in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Wilmington, Del.

Alumni have received McConnaughay's report in support of the move. Board Chairman LeRoy Zimmerman sent them drawings for a proposed expansion of buildings in Carlisle. Zimmerman said Dickinson is buying surrounding property to prepare for local expansion.

Some alumni and students have said the proposal to move overlooks the benefits of staying in Carlisle: a quiet setting where students have easy access to professors.

But McConnaughay said the impression that law students would face ?clamor?? at University Park is mistaken. He said a law school there would be self-contained.

Others said McConnaughay has underestimated the value of abundant student internships at the midstate's federal, state and county law offices.

McConnaughay said the public outcry over a move has been beneficial.

"The vigor with which people are addressing this issue is a positive force. There is value in the attention now drawn to our law school about our needs and ambition," he said.

Widener Law Benefits if DSL Leaves Carlisle


Patriot-News
Copyright (c) 2003 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

Monday, December 8, 2003

Local/State

Widener dean confident of school's role

JAN MURPHY
Of The Patriot-News

If The Dickinson School of Law leaves Carlisle, the midstate's other law school stands to gain a monopoly on local lawyer wannabes. And Widener University's School of Law anticipates that it could handle that role.

"If they leave, I think that our programs and graduates can serve the area," said Robert Power, dean of the law school in Susquehanna Twp.

Widener has no immediate plans to expand its enrollment beyond the 500 students it now serves, but if Dickinson leaves five years from now, Power added, "we might revisit that question."

Until recently, the possibility that Widener might become the Capital Region's only law school seemed remote.

But a memo from Dickinson's Dean Phillip J. McConnaughay indicated one way the Penn State law school could expand and address concerns about its languishing reputation is by relocating to the university's main campus in State College.

Dickinson law school's board did not rule out that possibility at a meeting late last month. Instead, it decided to seek input from alumni, students, faculty and community members about the best location for a facility to replace the law school's outdated and cramped Trickett Hall home.

Space is not an issue for Widener.

With a 21-acre campus that is mostly grass and parking lots, it has enough room to accommodate two more buildings in addition to the present three structures, Power said. But he emphasized there are no plans to construct additional facilities at present.

In fact, he said, Widener has been considering reducing enrollment over the next few years to lower class sizes in hopes of improving its students' first-time bar exam pass rate as well as becoming more selective in admission decisions.

One of the reasons Dickinson law school students and alumni cite for keeping their alma mater in Carlisle is the number of opportunities for students in the region to gain practical experience by working in state and federal government agencies.

There's no doubt, Power said, that if Dickinson law school leaves, Widener students will be in much greater demand to fill those positions.

Four of Pennsylvania's five other law schools were contacted last week and none showed any interest in establishing a presence in the midstate to help meet that demand if Dickinson law school leaves. Duquesne University did not respond to several messages.

Widener established the Susquehanna Twp. branch campus of its Delaware-based law school in 1989 in response to state lawmakers' desire to have a law school near the Capitol that offered classes where state workers could pursue a law degree after work hours.

But Widener has since found it serves a broader role.

"Many of our full-time students also have gained from the proximity to state government and choose to stay in the metropolitan area after graduation, working in private firms or with government agencies," Power said.

Power declined to offer any opinion on the relocation question that Dickinson law school faces.

"I am sure that Dickinson will be a fine law school wherever it's located," he said. "They don't need to hear from us."

JAN MURPHY: 787-3061 or jmurphy @patriot-news.com

Sunday, December 07, 2003

Continuing to Pretend the Decision Hasn't Already Been Made


Patriot-News
Copyright (c) 2003 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

Sunday, December 7, 2003

Review & Opinion

Law school considers options for expansion

LEROY S. ZIMMERMAN

The Dickinson School of Law of The Pennsylvania State University is confronting pressing issues with respect to its beautiful but aging facility. To continue to provide our students with the space and services they deserve, we need to consider a plan for renovation or rebuilding and expansion that will enable the school to enjoy another 170 years as illustrious and noble as its first. When we speak of the need for rebuilding and expansion, we are not talking about an increase in our student body. We are planning for a facility that anticipates no growth in student body size but one that allows for reasonable growth in our faculty and staff and for adequate classrooms, library space, common areas, rest rooms, courtrooms and an auditorium.

Dean Philip J. McConnaughay and senior law school staff have been hard at work for several months trying to ensure that our site in Carlisle would be adequate to accommodate an expansion. Land that would be needed for renovation and expansion has been rezoned, and we are in the process of acquiring contiguous property. The estimated cost of new buildings of appropriate size on our current site could be as high as $56 million.

Another possibility is relocating to the main campus of Penn State University. Penn State President Graham Spanier is willing to propose to the university's Board of Trustees that the university build a facility for the law school.

A substantial benefit would be that the law school no longer would have to pay for its own maintenance and utilities, as we do in Carlisle, at an annual cost in excess of $1.3 million.

President Spanier has said he also would support rebuilding on our current site at a level consistent with the law school's aspirations and realistic expectations, the same standard Penn State uses to help determine its financial contribution to capital projects on all of its campuses. All such projects typically depend on significant philanthropic support from alumni before they become feasible.

The dean initiated consideration of a main campus option for two reasons:

First, because we confront a multimillion-dollar investment that will define the physical embodiment of the law school for many decades to come, the best interests of the school and our future students and graduates require a careful and thorough consideration of all available alternatives.

Second, our merger with Penn State is predicated on the assumption that the future strength of our law school will result from the combination of our illustrious history with the academic prestige and intellectual capital of a major research university. The dean wanted to evaluate whether our presence on the main campus would make a difference in achieving this vision.

The dean undertook a preliminary assessment of possible relocation and provided a report to our Board of Governors, which retains authority over any change in the location of the school. The dean presented his preliminary assessment in order to learn whether the board was willing to consider the possibility of relocation.

However, a member of the board improperly leaked the report to the media before the dean and the board had any opportunity to discuss it. The ensuing news reports caused great concern within the law school and among alumni and local community leaders. The furor deprived the board and the dean of the opportunity to present the issue to all affected constituencies in a logical, appropriate way.

The evaluation process is under way. All voices will be heard and considered. In the upcoming weeks, the Board of Governors will solicit the opinions of alumni, faculty, staff, students and affected communities. It will consider possible relocation along with building and expansion needs generally. Everyone can be assured that it is the board's intention to exercise its authority carefully and as fiduciaries mindful of the best interests of the school and its present and future students and graduates.

LEROY S. ZIMMERMAN, Pennsylvania's first elected attorney general, is the chairman of the Board of Governors of The Dickinson School of Law of The Pennsylvania State University.

Friday, December 05, 2003

Another Letter to the Editor - December 5, 2003


Patriot-News
Copyright (c) 2003 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

Friday, December 5, 2003

Letters

Troubling prospect

I was concerned to read that Dickinson School of Law may be moving out of the Capital Region. As a Dauphin County Commissioner- elect and Penn State grad, I find this idea to be troubling on many counts and have expressed my concerns to Penn State President Graham Spanier. Some may argue that this proposal is simply a matter of dollar and cents. I contend that disregarding Dickinson's rich history and the relationship it has with central Pennsylvania would be penny- wise and pound-foolish.

Dickinson Law is an incredibly important asset to central Pennsylvania. There exists a mutually beneficial relationship between the school and Carlisle and Harrisburg. Dickinson Law produces highly qualified legal talent; Harrisburg provides great opportunities for job placement and career advancement. For nearly 170 years, Dickinson School of Law has produced top-notch leaders, and these leaders have brought honor to the school and, through acquisition, to Penn State. Ending this tradition would harm and not elevate Dickinson Law's reputation.

I look forward to working as a county commissioner to ensure Penn State and Dickinson Law remain highly respected institutions, and central Pennsylvania retains its many vibrant assets.

NICK DiFRANCESCO
Harrisburg

Wednesday, December 03, 2003

Moving to the Middle of Nowhere, Far from the State Capital, will Make Us Stronger!


Patriot-News
Copyright (c) 2003 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, December 3, 2003

Letters

Moving law school would strengthen it

Many people are concerned that moving Dickinson Law School to University Park will deny students practical legal experience in the midstate. Look at this situation from the eyes of a prospective law student. Dickinson Law is a third-tier school (not in the national top 100 - U.S. News & World Report).

Moving the school to University Park could only improve their national reputation because students would have access to the Penn State's world-class academic resources.

This could mean that more joint and graduate law degrees (LL.M. and S.J.D.) could be offered.

Other state-funded law schools, such as Pitt and Temple, are situated at their respective school's main campus and they can boast two important characteristics over Dickinson Law: 1) Better national rankings (both are second-tier schools) and 2) lower tuition.

As of now, Dickinson Law costs roughly $30,000 a year with room and board. Temple and Pitt charge around $20,000 a year for the same package, plus you're going to a higher-ranked law school.

Temple, for example, has the best trial advocacy program in the nation (yes, even better than Harvard and Yale). Which do you think is the better deal?

The opposition fears relocating Dickinson Law will detract from the midstate and break the tradition of having a law school in Carlisle for more than 100 years.

Move Dickinson School of Law to University Park and lower tuition, then you'll have a truly competitive Penn State law school.

KYLE C. KOPKO
Enola