Dear Dean ____:
I am
writing to request that your reconsider your decision not to provide me with an
elephant.
An elephant
will impose limited costs on the law school faculty. We can put the animal in Professor ___’s
office. No one will notice or notice the
difference.
An elephant
can be used to demonstrate our commitment to experiential learning and integration of
different subject matters. We can teach
most of the law of torts by having students feed the elephant. We can teach most of the law of contracts by
having students make agreements about cleaning up after feeding the elephant. Taking care of the elephant will introduce
students to crucial elements of professional responsibility and other weighty
matters (you knew that was coming).
An elephant
can be used to demonstrate our commitment to real world legal experience. Students who perform moot courts in front of
the elephant will soon learn that they have as much chance of influencing the
elephant on hot constitutional issues as they do of influencing Justices
Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
An elephant
can increase applications and enrollment.
Programs are hot, but no one advertises “Constitutional Law with an Elephant.” Unlike originalism, history and the like,
many law school applicants are actually interested in elephants. Many will apply and matriculate simply
because they are curious as to what is our constitutional law program with an
elephant. They will be thrilled when
they discover that “Constitutional Law with an Elephant” requires no extra
reading, although we will have to figure out how to work elephants into our
final examination (dormant commerce clause is usually good for these sorts of
things).
Most
important, an elephant may improve our ranking in U.S. World News and Report
(USNWR). Most commentators on the USNWR law
school rankings agree that the elephant-to-student/faculty ratio is just as
good a measure of a law school as many measures that USWNR presently uses. Given USNWR is already the elephant in the
room (blame Elizabeth Beaumont of Minnesota for this one), including an
elephant measure seems appropriate once there is actual variance among law
schools. Given we will be the only
school with an elephant, I would expect to jump at least ten places, justifying a ten percent rise in tuition. Of course, should that happen, our rivals will
no doubt seek elephants of their own.
Nevertheless, given the centrality of branding to the mission of
universities and law schools, we will forever be known as the first law school
with an elephant.