Attracting Philosophy Majors with Combined Undergrad/Grad Degrees
The Department of Philosophy at Youngstown State University has launched a “3+3 undergraduate to law school program” that allows students to major in philosophy and get a law degree in six years, as opposed to the seven it would normally take.
–
A building at Youngstown State University
The BA/JD program saves students time and tuition, and by getting them into their jobs a year earlier, effectively provides them with a career bonus equivalent to at least one year’s starting salary (though in many cases the benefit will be greater than that, as subsequent raises will come earlier, too).
Students in the program complete the specific courses for the philosophy major and the general education requirements at Youngstown State in the first three years, and, if they meet the requirements, continue for another three years at either the University of Akron School of Law, Cleveland State University School of Law, or Case Western Reserve University School of Law (each school has slightly different criteria). The law schools waive the typical requirement that students have a BA before being admitted, and the university accepts the law school courses as credits students can use to satisfy their graduation requirements. The details of the program are here.
The launch of the program made the local news:
Majors that combine philosophy with other subjects, such as Philosophy, Politics and Economics or philosophy-centered pre-law programs are not uncommon ways of meeting student interest and increasing enrollments and numbers of majors. But combining philosophy undergraduate degrees with and graduate academic or professional degree programs is rarer, or so it seems. It would be good to hear more about what combinations are being tried out, how the programs are doing, whether they’ve resulted in the anticipated enrollment and major increases, and the experiences people have had in creating and implementing these programs.
This suggestion has been considered at my school. Here are some potential issues with these programs that should at least be considered. (1) Note that with these programs students take a year of credits less during their undergraduate years. This means they are shortening the undergraduate curriculum, with a corresponding reduction in knowledge and maturity that other students in law school may have acquired by staying longer. (2) In this approach students are going to law school a year earlier. One should consider whether it is so beneficial to potentially be the youngest person in the law classes one is taking—since others will likely have at least one more year of schooling under their belt and be stronger. (3) Note that these programs will also likely be adopted in other majors at a university. So, e.g., imagine if Political Science at the university adopts this program and allows its majors to graduate a year earlier. This will possibly create a problem for those philosophy departments that rely on double majors from other programs to support themselves—since the students in other majors who take this route won’t have room left to double major since there’s not enough credits left for them to do this. It’s true that it may save students time and tuition, but there are some issues that come with these programs that should also be considered.
The University of Georgia has a program called “Double Dawgs” in which undergraduate students can earn a BA and an MA in 5 years or less. It’s popular among motivated students who want to continue and advance their studies in philosophy here before applying to PhD programs or going to law school.
https://doubledawgs.uga.edu/
I work at a University with a similar 3+3 program. Students in the 3+3 program can indeed save a year’s worth of tuition. But my University, at least, is not always forthright about the fact that many students can get a better overall financial deal outside the 3+3 program.
A 3+3 program can be financially disadvantageous because they actively encourage students to commit to whichever law school the University is partnering with before exploring scholarship options from other, non-partner law schools–and since the grades required to be in the 3+3 program are so high, those scholarships would often more than compensate for the extra year of tuition. One of my students, for example, was considering the 3+3 program, but got good advice from someone outside the University and discovered that she could get a full ride at a non-partner law school that would be equally effective at placing her into a good job. All things considered, she saved more than $100,000 by eschewing the 3+3 program and going to the non-partner law school instead.
So I think it’s complicated: 3+3 programs are still the clear winner for students who need to save time more than they need to save money. And they can be great for students who, for whatever reason, need/want to attend the partner law school. But 3+3 programs are often not the best financial option, and that fact is often (typically?) not publicized in University marketing materials.
This is interesting. (And congratulations to your student!) Did your student not attend the partnered law school at all? Or did she attend it for one year and then drop out of the partnered law school, still having the law courses count towards her BA? Indepently of what your student did, would that be a viable strategy? Or would the fact that you are already attending a law school harm your applications? Would there be any financial penalty for this (beyond the potentially higher tuition at the law school)?
It seems to me that there is only a limited incentive for the BA institution to discourage students from applying to other law schools? After all, what they want is BA students! Perhaps the partnered law schools could threaten to leave the agreement if they feel they are not getting the BA institution’s best students. However, the law school presumably still has the ability to reject applicants. I do not doubt your story, but it seems to be due to negligence on the part of BA istitutions rather than any particular systemic reasons. Please correct me if I’m wrong!
Also, I must admit I don’t know what a ‘full-ride’ means. Does it include a stipend for housing and living costs? If not, the 3+3 would still save students a year’s worth of living expenses, housing and travel. They would also have one more year to build up savings and they might get important raises a year earlier.
Hi Milan, the student I referenced didn’t go to the partner law school at all. “Full ride”, in this context, means that she got all her tuition paid for. She also got room and board paid for. But the $100,000 figure is just what three years at the partner law school would have cost.
I’m afraid I don’t know the answers to your questions about transferring from one law school to another. Law school admissions, at least in the U.S., is its own complicated game, and I won’t pretend to know all the best strategies. In my opinion, law school admissions are complicated enough that colleges/Universities really ought to have dedicated pre-law advisors. Competent advising isn’t just a matter looking up the best schools on some authoritative list, it’s a matter of networking with law school admissions officers, developing relationships with law school admissions committees, doing research to create a database of various scholarship opportunities (some of which are only lightly advertised), keeping track of which regional law schools punch above their weight in job placement because of the professional partnerships they’ve created, there are specialized conferences to attend…. So, unfortunately, law school admissions is an arena in which well-meaning folks who don’t do it as a full-time job can accidentally do a lot of financial damage to the students they’re trying help.
Given all this, I would agree that most colleges/Universities aren’t actively trying to harm students when they establish 3+3 programs. What happened at my University is that the soon-to-be partner law school reached out to upper admin to start a 3+3 program (because they get a reliable pipeline of good students who pay full tuition for 3 years out of the deal); upper admin, not understanding the dynamics of law school admissions, saw the 3+3 program as a great way to attract strong undergrads; and then University marketing services got to work creating materials that, de facto, end up encouraging students to commit to the 3+3 program before finding out what kinds of scholarships they can get from non-partner law schools.
No one was trying to be a bad actor. But a combination of ignorance and systematic incentives ended up creating a 3+3 program that is advertised as a great financial deal for students, even though in many cases, it just isn’t.
Yeah, this is my worry too. If you’re getting close to a 4.0 in philosophy at a decent university, you can probably get into a pretty good law school. As a first-year associate, prestige of your law school is the major factor in determining your salary. So, you really want to go to the best law school that will accept you.
We have a “3+3” program in philosophy and law here at Northern Illinois University (though, alas, it did not make the local news!). So do a number of other departments at our institution. Since the program is coordinated with our own College of Law, it doesn’t require external partnerships. We’ve had a few students complete the program, and I think they’ve done well. They’ve probably also saved some money. I think it’s a good option for some students. But I don’t think that the program has had much effect on enrollment. Part of the reason is that to take advantage of the program, students need to know early in their undergraduate careers both that they want to major in philosophy and that they want to go to law school. (Otherwise, they’re unlikely to meet the necessary requirements in three years.) They’d also have to be open to attending the partner law school. Although some students definitely meet these criteria, it’s not a huge number. If a student decides in the sophomore year that they want to major in philosophy, or that they’re really serious about law school, it’s almost too late.