I think this is my favorite part:
"We’ve learned that during prosperous economic periods the number of law positions increases substantially; the reverse is also true. Even so, the largest group of people ever to take the law school admissions test did so in 2009-10. More than 1,600 first-time test-takers who indicated Indiana as their permanent residence took the LSAT last year."
So, let me get this straight... we are not in a prosperous economic period, which means that the number of law positions has decreased substantially, according to his rationale. The president of the university is admitting that there are fewer law jobs, but justifying opening up a new law school on the basis that more people are taking the law school admissions test. Where does he expect these people to work? Does he plan on hiring them? I wonder if their "feasibility study" considered that question.
"We have four law schools in Indiana, and each serves law students quite well. Yet we know that many well-qualified prospective law students who apply to our law schools are not accepted."
And why exactly is this a problem?
You see, this doesn't surprise me anymore. We know why universities do this - they want to cash in on naive applicants. But it does not make it any less sickening. I do not know much about Indiana. But notice that while he talks about the fact that there are only four law schools in Indiana, and that law students are leaving the state to attend school and end up practicing in other states, he does not once imply that there is a need for lawyers in Indiana that is not being met by the current schools. He only states that students are choosing to go elsewhere.
Hopefully prospective students will use their own critical-thinking skills, see the gaping hole in the logic here and avoid this trap.