Competition for higher rankings plays a greater role than accreditation standards in driving up the cost of law school, the Government Accountability Office concluded in a report for Congress. The GAO study found that:

“changes in the approach to legal education have affected cost, particularly in the areas of faculty and staff. These changes include:
~ increased emphasis on hands-on clinical experiences, and smaller skills-based courses;
~ increased diversity of course offerings – e.g., international law and environmental law; and
~ increased student support – e.g., academic support, career services, and admissions support.”

Accreditation standards, by comparison, were “not a major driver” of higher costs, the study found. “Officials from more than half of the ABA-accredited schools we spoke with stated they would meet or exceed some ABA accreditation standards even if they were not required,” the report said. “School officials noted that the standards often follow market trends and changing approaches to legal education.”

“Officials at most of the ABA-accredited law schools we spoke with and student representatives reported that schools compete to attract students and faculty and to increase their US News and World Report ranking. This competition has had an impact on cost because:
~ Rankings are determined in part by such cost-related factors as per student expenditures, student-faculty ratio, and library resources.
~ According to law school officials, schools offer clinics and diverse elective courses to compete for students.
~ To attract the best faculty, school officials reported that they may offer higher salaries.”

The GAO study was first called for in a 2007 bill that sought to address the impact of heavy law school debt on the recruitment of new staff for prosecutor and public defender offices. In the Senate report for the bill, Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) argued that the American Bar Association’s accreditation requirements were partly to blame for the onerous law school debt responsible for that recruitment gap. “For example, accreditation standards effectively raise faculty salaries; limit faculty teaching loads; require high numbers of full-time faculty rather than cheaper part-time adjuncts; and require expensive physical facilities and library collections,” they wrote. “The requirements probably cause law schools’ costs to more than double, increasing them by more than $12,000 per year, with many schools then passing the increased costs along to students by raising tuition.”

While that legislation never passed, the mandate for the GAO study was subsequently included in last year’s Higher Education Opportunity Act (PL 110-315).

The GAO study also investigated what factors, including accreditation, might affect minority access to law school. The study found that officials at most law schools “do not cite ABA accreditation standards as having an impact on minority access at their schools.”

African Americans represented a declining share of law school enrollments, from 7.5 percent in 1994-1995 to 6.5 percent in 2006-2007, while the share of Hispanics increased from 5.2 percent to 7.5 percent and the share of Asians and Pacific Islanders increased from 5.4 percent to 7.8 percent over the same period, according to Department of Education data reported in the study. “Most law school officials, students, and minority student group representatives we interviewed focused on issues such as differences in LSAT scores, academic preparation, and professional contacts, rather than accreditation standards, to explain minority access issues,” the report said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued guidance for higher education institutions to help them prepare for influenza outbreaks during the 2009-2010 academic year. The guidance said that each institution needs to consider its own size and local circumstances to set plans that “balance the goal of reducing the number of people who become seriously ill or die from flu with the goal of minimizing educational and social disruption.”

Plans should facilitate the “self-isolation” of students and staff “for at least 24 hours after they no longer have a fever, or signs of a fever, without the use of fever-reducing medicines.” Policies on sick leave and missed classes should be reviewed to ensure that students and staff are not discouraged from taking the necessary time off. “Do not require a doctor’s note for students, faculty, or staff to validate their illness or to return to work, as doctor’s offices and medical facilities may be extremely busy and may not be able to provide such documentation in a timely way,” the guidelines recommended.

“One of the best ways to protect against the flu is to get vaccinated against the flu,” the document said. “People under age 25 are one of the key groups recommended by CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to be among the first to receive the 2009 H1N1 flu vaccine.”

The guidance is presented on flu.gov – a comprehensive collection of influenza resources administered by the Department of Health and Human Services – along with a communication toolkit to assist with the implementation of the recommendations on campus.