Monday, October 23, 2017
Thursday, October 19, 2017
The Court explains its decision here. Tellingly, they don't even claim that it's necessary to keep the score where it is because that is essential for competent legal practice. The decision is certainly a blow for the vast majority of California law schools that had lobbied for a lower pass score, more in line with other jurisdictions.
More than 160 readers voted in our poll from earlier in the week, and here are the results:
|1. Oxford University Press (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)|
|2. Cambridge University Press loses to Oxford University Press by 95–56|
|3. Harvard University Press loses to Oxford University Press by 95–56, loses to Cambridge University Press by 93–60|
|4. Yale University Press loses to Oxford University Press by 117–33, loses to Harvard University Press by 113–34|
|5. Princeton University Press loses to Oxford University Press by 122–25, loses to Yale University Press by 70–67|
University of Chicago Press was runner-up, trailing Princeton 81-51 (Princeton was essentially tied with Yale). These seem to me like fairly sensible results--interesting how the two UK publishers dominate. The mystery of the Harvard catalogue is how uneven it is, perhaps because it is bigger than, say, Princeton's or Yale's law catalogues.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Monday, October 16, 2017
We haven't done this poll in about eight years, so here it is once again. Choose "none of the above" if you think options not represented are better than the remaining options offered. Remember, this poll concerns solely the quality of scholarship monographs published by different presses (so this is not about publishers of treatises or casebooks, for example). Have fun!
Thursday, October 12, 2017
A leading law & economics and antitrust scholar, Professor McChesney taught at Emory, Cornell, and Northwestern Universities before taking up a Chair at his alma mater, the University of Miami, in 2011. I will add links memorial notices when they appear.
UPDATE: The University of Miami's memorial notice is here.
There is an account, of sorts, at the Penn student newspaper (it's sub-headline comletely mischaracterizes through innuendo what Wax said about slavery, judging from the account later in the body of the article--but this makes me wonder how reliable the whole thing is). I can not tell to what extent Professor Wax addressed, if at all, the substantive (and devastating) criticism she receives from several of her colleagues.
UPDATE: A friend at Penn points out that Professor Wax's entire talk can be viewed here. I have not watched it, but may later.
Monday, October 9, 2017
There's less competition (fewer than 500 candidates) and more demand from schools (we don't have hard numbers yet, but there are at least 65 schools that are interviewing rookies, the highest number since 2013--these include Harvard, Chicago, Stanford, Columbia, Yale, NYU, Virginia, Michigan, Berkeley, Penn, Duke, Cornell, Northwestern, UCLA, USC, Vanderbilt, Illinois, North Carolina, Penn State-University Park, Penn State-Dickinson, Miami, American, St. Louis, Baltimore, Tulane, William & Mary, George Mason, Alabama, Richmond, Brooklyn, Cardozo, UC Davis, Northern Kentucky, Belmont, Lincoln Memorial-Duncan, Cal Western, Loyola/Chicago, Oklahoma, Arizona State, Northeastern, Connecticut, Suffolk, Washington & Lee, Ohio State, Colorado, Florida State, St. John's, St. Mary's, Temple, Wash U/St. Louis, Boston Univ, Boston College, Arizona, Denver, UC Irvine, Notre Dame, Drexel, South Carolina, Dayton, Wake Forest, Fordham, Tulsa, Houston, Idaho, Mississippi College, Quinnipiac).
ADDENDUM: Just to be clear, we aren't back to 2010 levels by any means, but the ratio of hiring schools to job seekers is as good as it's been in at least four or five years.
UPDATE: Also looking at rookies are Hofstra (which may appoint up to four people!), Georgetown, Maryland, and Oregon. So now we're up to 69 schools looking at rookie hires! Comments are open, for faculty from schools also hiring this year that I've not mentioned to note that--comments must be signed, full name and valid e-mail address. Thanks.
Thursday, October 5, 2017
I've been hearing about the turmoil at Emory Law from both insiders and colleagues elsewhere, who have also heard from insiders. Here's what seems absolutely clear at this point:
1. Prof. Robert Schapiro announced last March he would not seek another term as Dean.
2. Disregarding faculty input, the central administration (itself in transition) appointed an alum, a retired partner from Alston & Bird, as the Interim Dean.
3. A new Provost (Dwight McBride, a professor of English and African-American studies, previously at Northwestern) took over at Emory on July 1, and the Interim Dean started August 1. A Dean search committee was announced a few weeks later.
4. Suddenly, on September 7, the new Provost called a meeting of all faculty and staff for the next day. Provost McBride declined to take questions, and announced that (1) the Interim Dean was stepping aside ("for personal reasons"), and the Provost was appointing Prof. Jim Hughes (a current Associate Dean) as the new Interim Dean, but for a two-year period; this was done without any formal consultation with the faculty, and is probably in violation of ABA rules. Provost McBride also announced the suspension of the Dean search, and announced he was going to appoint "external reviewers" to assess the law school. He also, in the words of one faculty member, "launched into a litany of asserted grievances against the law school, which ranged from the uninformed to the false." (For what it's worth, Emory has managed to sustain its US News ranking, despite the turmoil in legal education--it was 22nd most recently--so it's not like a ranking collapse prompted this dramatic intervention. Indeed, one might have thought the recruitment of Prof Margo Bagley back from the University of Virginia last year was a sign of a school in a competitive position.)
I've yet to see any reporting on this, but this is, to put it mildly, a highly irregular set of events for a major law school. Readers should feel free to send me links to more information about what's going on.
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
These are non-clinical appointments that will take effect in 2018 (except where noted); I will move the list to the front at various intervals as new additions come in. (Recent additions are in bold.) Last year's list is here.
*Richard Albert (constitutional law, comparative constitutional law) from Boston College to the University of Texas, Austin (effective January 2018).
*Binyamin Blum (legal history, evidence, criminal procedure) from Hebrew University, Jerusalem to the University of California Hastings (effective spring 2018) (untenured lateral).
*William Boyd (environmental law, energy law) from the University of Colorado, Boulder to the University of California, Los Angeles.
*Robert Jackson, Jr. (corporate law) from Columbia University to New York University (though he will be on leave initially while serving on the SEC).
*Orin Kerr (criminal procedure, computer crime law) from George Washington University to the University of Southern California (effective January 2018).
*Curtis Milhaupt (Japanese law, East Asian legal system comparative corporate governance) from Columbia University to Stanford University (effective January 2018).
*Frank Partnoy (corporate, securities) from the University of San Diego to the University of California, Berkeley.
*James Ryan (education law) from Harvard University Education School back to University of Virginia (to become President of the University).
*Rose Cuison Villazor (immigration law, equal protection, critical race theory) from the University of California, Davis to Rutgers University.
Friday, September 29, 2017
How should a Dean who understands academic freedom respond to public controversy about faculty writing?
So we know from the unhappy example of Dean Ferruolo throwing a faculty member under the bus what not to do: you don't publish a statement on the homepage of the school singling out a faculty member's work, declare that not only do you, as Dean, disagree with it, but suggest that these are pariah views in "our law school community", and imply that the offending views may implicate "racial discrimination" and persecution of the "vulnerable" and "marginalized." Making an obligatory reference to academic freedom in passing does not undo the damage that this decanal misconduct causes.
The job of administrators is not to share their opinions about the views of members of the faculty, but to administer a university environment in which faculty and students may express points of view that do not otherwise violate anti-discrimination, sexual harassment or other laws. (The silly op-ed did not violate any applicable law obviously). So one obvious, and preferable, option would have been for the Dean to make no public statement at all. He could have met with concerned student groups, and educated them about academic freedom and reaffirmed institutional policies about equal opportunity. If a Dean makes any public statement in the context of such a controversy, it should not include any comment on a faculty member's views; it would suffice, for example, to simply reaffirm the institution's commitment to equal opportunity for all students and the like.
The Kalven Report got it exactly right fifty years ago, and all administrators ought to read and think about it. The university sponsors critics, it is not itself a critic or advocate (except for that narrow range of issues central to the university's function). A Dean, or other university administrator, forfeits his academic freedom upon becoming Dean--in part, because Deaning is not a scholarly enterprise but an administrative one, and academic freedom exists only to protect the scholarly pursuit of truth. As an administrator, the Dean's job is to protect academic freedom and protect an environment in which faculty and students can express their views in the appropriate fora, such as the classroom, scholarship, and sometimes in the public sphere. In order to preserve a community of open and vigorous debate, the Dean must not lend his authority to one side or the other. That there is an uproar about a faculty member's scholarship or op-ed does not mean the Dean must speak out, except perhaps to educate people about what a university is and what academic freedom is and why it matters.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
...with only 55 new applicants for faculty positions. Altogether, there are fewer than 500 candidates seeking law teaching positions this year, one of the lowest totals I can recall. There are some indications that hiring is up this year--or at least interviewing--but it's too early to say for sure.
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
AG Sessions invited to talk about "free speech" (but not kneeling NFL players!) at Georgetown Law...
...but only to friends of Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, with pre-screened questions. Other Georgetown law faculty and students aren't happy.
UPDATE: Various folks have sent me Prof. Barnett's lengthy explanation of the event and what actually transpired; it is below the fold for those who are interested:
Monday, September 25, 2017
MOVING TO FRONT FROM SEPTEMBER 21--UPDATED
Jonah Gelbach, a law & economics and empirical scholar at Penn, has now taken the time to set out in detail the problems with the silly op-ed. You can safely ignore the self-serving preface from the empty Jonathan Haidt, and just go straight to Gelbach's patient discussion. In the broader scope of things, it was surely not a good use of Professor Gelbach's time to have to write this in response to an opinion piece so slight, but given the controversy that has been generated, we should all be grateful that he did it.
I have no doubt that this won't stop Heather MacDonald and others from making absurd claims about Professor Wax's great wisdom and expertise, but at least those of us actually invested in the scholarly enterprise can learn something from Prof. Gelbach's analysis.
(Thanks to Jonathan Klick for the pointer.)
UPDATE: Haidt, given his great commitment to the free exchange of ideas and arguments, decided to edit out one part of Prof. Gelbach's original response to the Wax & Alexander op-ed, after Prof. Wax objected--apparently to Prof. Gelbach's devastating scrutiny of their lack of empirical evidence. In any case, Prof. Gelbach kindly offered to let me make available his actual, uncensored response, which is here: Download Facts v. Wax Part I.A - The Uncut Version. It begins with an explanation of what Haidt did and of his efforts to find out if there was, I fact, evidence for some of the curious claims in the op-ed.
It is often assumed that the only way to become a lawyer is to attend an ABA-approved law school. That is true in some states and, indeed, the ABA has at times expressed the view that it should be true in all states. But it is not the case in large jurisdictions such as New York or California, nor is it the case in the majority of jurisdictions. Claims that ABA-approved law school have a monopoly on entry into the legal profession are exaggerations. Rather, the most popular—and probably most likely—way to become a lawyer is to graduate from an ABA-approved institution.
In leading jurisdictions such as New York, California, and Virginia, an individual who wishes to become a lawyer may sit for the bar examination with between zero and 1 years of law school and between 3 and 4 years of apprenticeship and study under the supervision of a licensed attorney (this is also known as “law office study” or “reading for the bar”). In California, graduates of non-ABA-approved law schools are eligible to sit for the bar examination. This includes schools with extremely low-cost, technology-driven approaches to teaching, such as online and correspondence schools.
In fact, non-ABA law school graduates are eligible to sit for the bar examination in most jurisdictions (31 in total as of 2017) according to the National Conference of Bar Examiners.** This includes extremely large and important jurisdictions such as California, Florida, New York, Texas and Washington D.C. Graduates of online and correspondence law schools are eligible to sit for the bar examination in 4 jurisdictions.
Very few people choose the apprenticeship route, and only a minority opt for non-ABA law schools. Among those who do, relatively few successfully complete their courses of study or pass the bar examination. But those who do will have the same license to practice law as someone who graduates from an ABA-approved law school and successfully passes the bar examination.
Why then do so many prospective lawyers choose ABA-approved law schools?
The most likely explanation is that prospective lawyers choose ABA-approved law schools because those law schools provide a valuable and worthwhile service that supports a higher price point than other options.*
Many employers value legal education. That’s why they typically pay law school graduates tens of thousands of dollars more per year than they pay similar bachelor’s degree holders, even in occupations other than the practice of law. When law school graduating class sizes increase, and a lower proportion of graduates practice law, graduates don’t typically see a noticeable decline in their earnings premium.
In other words, the benefits of law school are versatile. Graduates of ABA-approved law schools also seem to be much more likely to complete their studies and pass the bar examination than students attending more lightly regulated and lower cost alternatives.