Secondly 2nd!

(1) There absolutely were special admissions in the past, (2) Hurd admitted that there were such admissions and her point was that she never intended for anyone to ask for jobs (note: recall the point about "places that don't care about grads passing the bar"), and (3) Dean Smith rocks. Move along.

(1) There absolutely were special admissions in the past, (2) Hurd admitted that there were such admissions and her point was that she never intended for anyone to ask for jobs (note: recall the point about "places that don't care about grads passing the bar"), and (3) Dean Smith rocks. Move along.

I'm going to be a 1L at Illinois come August and when I first read the article in the Trib I was shocked. I couldn't believe that only 15 students over a five year period were admitted based on clout. I always figured that the number of students getting in based on political connections would be much higher. As much as people want to speculate though about how much this is going to hurt the College of Law, I have to take the opposite position. I think this story breaking is going to provide the administration with the cover needed to deny these sub par candidates and admit more qualified students that (I hope) will move the medians up.

In additions, I have no problem studying alongside a bunch of kids that got in just because they knew someone. If they aren't smart or driven enough to get in there on their own, they probably aren't smart or driven enough to provide any sort of real competition. Not that I am obsessed with my rank or competition, but it's just a thought that gives me some degree of solace when I have to face the fact that had I just knew someone I wouldn't have had to work as hard as I did during undergrad like these kids.

They still have special admissions for black and hispanic applicants right?

U of I law will drop from 3rd tier to 5th.

Ferst?

nothing to see except the guaranteed jobs did materialize, at least so far in one verified case where the clouted applicant after graduating near the bottom of the class got a job with Cook County and did not pass the bar until the third try but did keep her job.
Yup - nothing but "sarcasm" to see here!

9-link?

Elie, you fat bastard, does the depth of your idiocy know no bounds?

Hurd never denied that these students were admitted, she claimed that the request for jobs in exchange was sarcasm.

Dean Smith's announcement was not "today," it was last week.

Yet another example of MysTTTal crack journalism at work.

Perhaps Dean Smith isn't talking about the past because he's only been Dean for a couple of month's.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-u-of-i-clout-09-jul09,0,1305035.story

It's the Peck family so they are treading carefully, but the first sibling, was admitted to the law school through the clout door, performed poorly and is now a Cook County prosecutor who at least took two tries to pass the bar,
and so did indeed get a job in government where they did not care about her class rank or ability to pass the bar.
The younger sib it says they "pushed back ferociously" against but was still admitted.
Don't know the status of that one.

Yes yes, all applicants will be treated equally, except for those that aren't. Like blacks. And hispanics. And probably gays. They all get extra-special "equal treatment".

Wow, Dallas be a really classy town. Stay classy, Dallas.

In the present day with the economy the way it is and all the Millions of people out of work. This might not be a good time to do this. It is better to have a job then to be unemployed currently. Unemployment is currently at 9% or better and it does not look like it will change soon.

Small business will have to let people go and large corporations will not hire or they will send jobs overseas.

I am being realistic not going on emotion or what we would all like it to be.

"Under my deanship, the college will give no 'special' consideration, treatment, or procedure to any application," Smith said in the letter. "All applicants will be treated equally."

WOW!!! Breaking News --- Illinois Law does away with Affirmative Action!!! Bye, bye empathy...

17=Lame

"Last week, Hurd argued that her emails -- which seemed to exchange law school spots for jobs for under qualified graduates -- were purely sarcastic. But now she seems to be admitting that at least some students with low qualifications were admitted during her tenure. Is her argument now that the school admitted these people, but received no special favor in return?" -- I could spend a long while discussing how many ways that statement is wrong, misleading and generally displays stupidity on the part of its author, but I don't have that kind of time. I think its sufficient to acknowledge that the Tribune, financially bankrupt, Republican rag that it is, is trying to bolster its own credentials by pressing story that no one really cares about. Is Illinois a great law school? Yes. It achieved its top 25 ranking with whatever admissions problems may have been going on. As we are all painfully aware, the rankings are based on numbers, which don't lie. If Illinois admitted sub-par students they would impact the numbers. If they tried to offset the sub-par one by giving scholarships to better students, who cares? Last time I checked, better students were the ones who are entitled to scholarships anyway. Eventually this story will run out of steam, the sooner the better.

SMITH RISES

HURD FALLS

(GOVERNOR) QUINN REMAINS

"All applicants will be treated equally." So are they all being accepted or denied?

And do they have a written policy re: treatment of all present students? What about a written policy against murder within the school? Is that covered? Cause if not, they should, I'd hate to see someone get killed when it could have been prevented.

Chancellor Herman admits it all, but gives the "it depends on how you define it" defense.

"The following morning, he and then-law school Dean Heidi Hurd discussed the jobs for low-ranking students in e-mails in which they bemoaned the political pressure but appeared to succumb to it. Herman tried to downplay the exchange as "sarcastic and facetious," a defense that riled commission chair Abner Mikva, a former federal judge.

"I love jokes, but I have to tell you that this isn't something I would think you would want to joke about or Dean Hurd would want to joke about. The law school was giving up something of importance. When you were asking for something to compensate you weren't joking. That was a serious request," Mikva said.

"That would be a fair characterization," Herman replied.

Herman said he discussed the jobs only after being forced to admit the student and said there was no "bargaining beforehand."

"I like euphemisms," Mikva said. "But sometimes you have to say a spade is a spade, a cow is a cow."

Commissioner Doris Lowry also chided the chancellor's actions. "Once the bargaining opportunity presented itself, you chose to bargain," she said."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-u-of-i-clout-college-07-jul07,0,370456.story

I would love to know what law school it is, where nobody gets in because of connections, that these grandstanders went to.

-I got a scholarship from U of I to offset a dummy

Dean Smith is awesome. end of story.

Dean Smith is awesome. end of story.

23 - This article lists the members of the commission and their educational backgrounds.

http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8098:governor-quinn-names-u-of-i-admissions-commission-&catid=1:latest-local-news&Itemid=88889791

Part of the problem at UIUC seems to be the amoral stance taken by the students and, most shockingly, the professors. I'd think the professors would know better than to go with an "everybody does it" defense of the law school. Even if we were to accept as true that a good deal of state law schools bargain with politicians who abuse their positions of power to obtain favors, that doesn't make it right. These professors are supposed to be training the next generation of Illinois lawyers. Maybe they've simply spent too much time in a corrupt state, but how can we expect these professors to train law students to be ethical when they view "everyone does it" as an acceptable defense to unethical behavior?

Does this mean that Illinois will no longer consider legacy status when reviewing an application? Or a family's past history as a donor to the College of Law? If this is so, the policy will come with a very high price. Even places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford do not purport to consider only academic factors when making admissions decisions -- do you think W had the test scores and grades to gain admission to Yale and Harvard on his merits?

On the other hand, having made this pledge, Dean Smith will have to ensure that the office actually "treats equally" all applicants going forward. "Clout" comes in non-political guises too; a cold turkey policy should categorically exclude preferences for legacies and donors too.

Whoever said that the U of I admissions scandal was a "story that no one really cares about" is a moron. Heck, ask the Trib's letters to the editor supervisor. This story has got huge traction all over the state. Admissions decisions are generally fascinating to everyone; there's a huge demographic bulge of college applicants right now, tuition continues to skyrocket, and the economy sucks, meaning millions of parents in Illinois would love to send their kid to the best bargain school; and this is capitalizing on all the awfulness with Illinois government following the Blago indictment/impeachment, the failure of the legislature to pass any real ethics reform, the ridiculous state budget, etc.

In short, this is a fascinating and hilarious story, and, as an Illinois resident, I'm loving it. Of course, I hate the University of Illinois and its racist "I don't care if having a frat boy doing the electric slide in a Village Person costume is offensive" fanbase, but still...

Uh, 27, I think you're missing the point.

Private institutions regularly admit legacy students. But they are PRIVATE institutions. On the other hand, U of I is a state school, funded by taxpayer money. Because it is a state school, it is suppose to accept students based on merit, not who their daddy is.

But nice way to throw in a shot at W. Of course, he did better than Kerry while they were at Yale. But, you know, Kerry was busy thinking of ways to tarnish soldiers fighting in Vietnam.

(and for the record, before people go bat-shit crazy, I don't like either Bush or Kerry. My point to was to show that it is ridiculous that people will take shots at politicians that have nothing to do with the post. Why not criticize the politicians in Illinois, they deserve it and are ACTUALLY relevant to this issue).

Anyone know when UIUC Law Review invites go out???

27 - Apples and oranges. All of those places you mentioned are private institutions. Illinois is a public institution, so the question becomes, should an institution that is funded through tax-payer dollars be admitting politically connected students over better qualified Illinois residents? Tax-payer-funded institutions have certain obligations to the public that private institutions do not. I’d argue that the law school at Illinois has been skirting this duty for quite some time by cutting its class size down to 175 for purposes of improving its U.S. News ranking. As the flagship law school for the public university system of Illinois, the law school has a duty to educate qualified in-state students. There is nothing wrong with setting the standards high, but Illinois is skirting its duty by turning away students that would have been admitted in the past in order to improve their U.S. News ranking, thereby helping themselves at the expense of the tax payers. The University of Illinois further disregards its duty to tax payers by admitting unqualified students who have political connections at the expense of better qualified applicants.

There's also the issue that the people who were doing the pressuring are public employees, either elected officials who seem to be violating their oaths of office (state legislators and the governor) or appointees to the board of trustees. That is, it's not some rich guy who donates money trying to push his nephew into Vassar. It's my friggin' elected representative screwing borderline kids by pushing his unqualified sister's nephew in his place.

Hey it's 23 again. 26 - I think that "everybody does it", and "the people who were leaning on us are the people controlling our funding" are pretty good defenses, considering the competitive nature of law rankings and reputation. On the College of Law's part I really don't think anythink amoral has been done; the COL and its students have recieved a benifit from getting funding, even if that funding came at the price of admitting a small number of underqualified students. I would not be able to attend U of I law if not for the scholarship I got, which would probably not be possible with considerable private funding.

I also think too much is being made of the private/public distinction. Last I checked, U of I gets 8% of its funding from taxpayers. Also I'd be willing to bet other public schools face similar problems. I can still appreceate the sentiment of 31 though, and I wouldn't mind seeing the school take on more students even if it drops a few spots. That is the problem with the whole thing though: public/private schools are all doing this, and they are the schools we are competing with, and if our rankings drop, we will recieve fewer applicants, etc. etc.

The funding percentage numbers just highlights what total cowards the administrators and deans were being by not standing up to the trustees or the politicians or leaking the story to the press. They might reduce some 8% of your funding? Oh no! Maybe you'll have to share secretaries or install more compact florescent lightbulbs.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, not enough is being made out of the public/private distinction. A private school exists for its own purposes, whatever those are. A public school exists to educate and benefit the people of that state. The administrators betrayed that mission (and the "law college" consistently betrays this mission by having such a tiny class, but that's another matter). As far as the "everybody probably does this" point, consider the following:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/admissions-experts-surprised-at-u-of-i-clouting.html

33 - You are WAY off on the source of funding for UIUC. a large portion of its funding comes from tax payers. Moreover, the percentage of funds for the law school from tax payers is a much larger proportion of its budget than the university as a whole. $21.188 million out of a $26.639 million budget for the 2009 fiscal year came from state funding. That works out to nearly 80% of the law school's funding coming from tax payers.

http://www.obfs.uillinois.edu/aboutobfs/documents/2009_BSO_Full.pdf

See p. 10 for UIUC's law school's numbers.

An 8% funding hole? If that (and that assumes they took all of it) is pretty low if that is true. You can go out and get that from private donors. Plenty of successful alumni would have thrown in had they heard Hot Rod was trying to shake down the school.

35 - Wrong. "State" money in that report includes tuition. The law school is basically a private school with less than 5% of the funding coming from the state.

After reading this article, and the ones from Elie in the past, I can tell why he writes for a law blog, and and could not cut it in the real legal world. The depth of your analysis is just ridiculous. And the fact that you really think Hurd was trying to get one of her students the governorship and cannot see the sarcasm in that statement, just makes me laugh. I miss Lat, and am happy he has been writing more posts.

37 - You're right. Sorry. It still doesn't change the fact that it is a state university, however. If it wishes to behave like a private institution, then it needs to become a private institution, as UVA's law school essentially did when it stopped accepting state funding. Until then, the school owes a duty to the tax payers of Illinois. If UIUC doesn't like being confined by that duty, the solution is simple: stop accepting state funding.

36, and others, are missing something else important about the public/private distinction..the special interest students were mostly admitted for requests of huge private donors. The public figures just tend to be more notorious.

There's no evidence that most the "special admits" were children of well-moneyed political donors. You're extrapolating outward from the few anecdotes that have been made public. Given the pure number of special requests, that assumption is highly doubtful, and it's more likely that politicians made demands for relatives and friends.

Try reading the whole series:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/chi-college-clout-storygallery,0,3664823.storygallery

9,13- She passed on the second try because I was there witnessing daddy peck turn the swearing in ceremony in May '08 into a personal family affair with personal shout outs. i'd be embarrassed if i couldn't pass the IL bar on the first try AND my dad made such a big deal about it the second time around so as to draw attention to me. i went to school w/ the girl (same class year - took a diff state bar first) and wouldn't have noticed her May '08 swearing in if it weren't for the dad.

38 -
Hurd wanted those jobs and implied in government low achievers who don't pass the bar would fit in just fine,
then made a joke about the governor being kicked out.
and viola! the first of these hires they've tracked down was low in her class, took two tries to pass the bar, and is in government!
I don't think you are that stupid, so in some form you must be connected to the law school. It is interesting to note there is at least one deflector of criticism on every article about Ms. Hurd...

As far as her fighting to keep the law school rankings high with scholarships, that fabulous, but it is illegal to use patronage hires to inflate your "jobs at graduation" ranking.

I love how UIUC's defense is that there was no quid pro quo., but they don't deny that seats were given to relatives of important benefactors. I'd respect Heidi a whole lot more if she was a high class hooker than if she let Rod and Co. blast all over her face for free....

The comments about "it's a state school" would ring more true if, in fact, taxpayers actually funded the bulk of higher education costs. They don't, and haven't for some time. Most of the College of Law's operating expenses get covered by tuition dollars from students; the annual fund provides additional direct support, as does the endowment. Moreover, this is true at virtually all Big10 research universities these days. Legislators protect K-12 funding and cut higher ed instead, anticipating (correctly) that shortfalls will be made up with large (10% or more) tuition increases.

That said, the state does favors for higher ed these days -- mostly by funding building projects as one time or short term appropriations, not as permanent budget support. That's where the Chancellor would feel pressure; if Hurd refused to admit the clout students, a new science lab might be cut, etc. Fundraising could cover some of the loss, but not all of it. (And money spent on a new building isn't money spent on new student financial aid or more profs.)

I doubt seriously that the College of Law will, in practice, be able to honor its commitment to look solely at credentials/merits, either with respect to applicants with "clout" support or with respect to those with support from strong and longstanding donors to the law school. It was a nice press release, but talking the talk and walking the walk are very different things.

Finally, Dean Hurd worked consistently and effectively to better the College of Law (with strong results!). The current administration obviously wants to throw her under the bus in a fit of moral pique -- we'll see soon enough if Dean Melanie Wilkes gets more done than did Scarlett in the long run. . .

I think Dean Smith is handling the problem in an appropriate way, and alumni (of which I am one, class of '81) should give him a chance. He is free from association with the murky past and can implement a more transparent admissions policy. I now practice in Los Angeles and had missed the story entirely until Dean Smith sent an email about it. Can we all just calm down and remember who the bad guys really are? like the ex-governor and his cronies, for example. Let's not tarnish everyone whose participation was forced, or who was not involved at all.

When Dean Smith says that he will treat all applicants 'equally and fairly', where does that leave URM's?