August 19, 2011
Update on ScamProf
ScamProf is the failed academic who has done almost no scholarly work in the last decade, teaches the same courses and seminars year in and year out, and spends his time trying to attract public attention, sometimes under his own name, this time anonymously. These are important facts about ScamProf, since he is indeed scamming his students and his state, and his initial posts were tantamount to a confession that he's not doing his job. His colleagues, in any case, now know who he is, and are quite understandably angry, since the reckless genearlizations are naturally read as commentary on them. After we called him out Monday, ScamProf pulled back a bit, and switched gears and stopped projecting his own failures on to all his professional colleagues and started actually writing about the economics of legal education (though without noting that it is paralleled across the boards in higher education, and apparently unaware of the large literature on that topic--but at least it was an improvement). Given his track record, I expect it won't last. When his identity comes out, there will be additional ironies that will warrant comment.
ADDENDUM: A colleague from Penn writes:
I don't know who this jerk is, but I appreciate you calling him out. I clicked through to his posts and felt the urge to throw something. I bust my butt preparing for class and educating myself deeply in my fields (and, indeed, refuse to teach any class in which I don't consider myself highly qualified), and students clearly understand and appreciate those efforts, but this kind of recklessly expressed cynicism can undermine an enormous amount of good work in the creation of a cooperative and engaged learning environment. It's the functional equivalent of writing about how every man on the planet regularly violates the terms of his intimate relationships and pushing out that message with the aim of making even the happiest partners and spouses suddenly experience doubt. What a jerk.
This captures rather well why ScamProf is so offensive to those who actually do their jobs.
ANOTHER: A colleague at Maryland writes: "Scamprof is easily explained by the well known proverb that 'a thief thinks everyone steals.' Don’t let up on him." By the way, several readers tell me that ScamProf moderates comments, and will not approve those that are too critical.
AND ANOTHER (August 20 9 pm): As predicted, ScamProf's brief foray into substance ended (Larry Ribstein [Illinois] has some useful comments on his attempt at substance here), and he returned to his true métier, the fact-free smear. But he's also finally outed himself (as Blog Emperor Caron notes) as Paul Campos at the University of Colorado, where he has taught for 20 years, despite many efforts to leave (he couldn't get better offers, unsurprisingly). You can see his conributions to "practical" scholarship here. Richard Neumann's absurd over-estimation of the "cost" of a law review article (which Campos, being a hack, repeats uncritically) would still be a cause for outrage if most law professors produced the kind of junk Campos does. Indeed, the spectacle of a guy with one year of practice experience--who produced sophomoric drivel like Jurismania (which, thankfully, has disappeared down a black hole of obscurity) and then spent years writing op-eds for a Colorado newspaper, and is now an expert on obesity--lecturing the legal academy about the importance of "practical" scholarship would be farcical, were this not his latest publicity stunt in a long line of malicious behavior.
For Paul Campos is, of course, most notorious in the legal academy for going on the O'Reilly Factor--yes,the O'Reilly Factor--to call for Ward Churchill to be fired for his offensive political opinions (long before any allegations of academic misconduct arose). And this wasn't an anomaly: he also called for Glenn Reynolds (Tennessee) to be sanctioned by his university for his offensive political opinions. Fortunately for Professor Campos, his contempt for the First Amendment rights of state university professors do not constitute binding precedents on the courts, and I am confident his university won't sanction him for his irresponsible speech. They should, however, launch an investigation into whether he is performing his duties, since his blog is tantamount to an admission of dereliction of duties and his 'scholarly' record is prima facie evidence of failure to do his job as a professor at a major research university.
But back to the fact-free smear. Among the gems: (1) denying that he's met me, when we've met more than once; (2) attacking me for running law and philosophy blogs and rankings (despite my cyber-hobbies, I've produced more scholarship in the last five years than he's produced in twenty); (3) stating, falsely, that "law school costs have increased exponentially, even as the job prospects of law school graduates have declined" (law school tuition, like all higher education tuition, has increased exponentially for thirty years, and during most of that time the legal job market was strong; tuition increases have slowed considerably since the downturn in the job market that began with the Great Recession in 2008); (4) stating, falsely, that I've never held a job for which a law degree is required; and so on. And then, of course, there's the pitiful anti-intellectualism, worthy of Rick Perry's approach to higher education, but there's no need to belabor that for this audience. Given that Professor Campos's "scholarship" would not survive his Rick Perry approach to scholarship, perhaps it's time for him to resign?
I understand that Paul Campos, our ScamProf, is feeling desperate, given the hole he's dug for himself. His colleagues are furious, he was already an embarrassment to his institution, and now he's added fuel to the fire by openly insulting his colleagues. But whereas the facts about Campos that I've adduced (he disputes none of them, for obvious reasons) are highly relevant to understanding why he would lie, exaggerate and engage in reckless generalizations about his professional colleagues, the facts and non-facts he adduces about me are just irrelevant ad hominems.
It is unfortunate that some victims of the recession think, falsely, that ScamProf Campos is doing something courageous on their behalf. He's not, he's just doing what he always does, trying to surf the wave of the latest fad and attract attention to himself. For years, I've pressed for better job placementdata and cautioned students about the reality of the recent job market and relying on the data in US News. There's no dispute about the importance of that. There's no dispute that some law schools have misled prospective students; some are now being sued, and we will see what facts come to light. There's no dispute that some faculty, in all disciplines, abuse the privilege of tenure--Campos is a prime example. None of this warrants the absurdly offensive description of American legal education as a "scam." The American legal system is one of the best in the world--did that happen despite American legal education? The leading law firms continue to recruit at the leading law schools, the ones that produce all the scholarship ScamProf Campos derides. Are they simply benighted? Law professors, at least the good ones (like most of Campos's colleagues at Colorado that I know), teach substantive doctrine in many areas of law as well as analytical and dialectical skills that lawyers need. (My teaching evaluations, by the way, are a matter of public record, will ScamProf Campos share his?) There's been debates for years about the relative balance of doctrinal, theoretical, and clinical teaching in legal education, and those will no doubt continue, independent of ScamProf Campos.
I suppose we should be grateful that in the dog days of summer the blogosphere has the distraction of a showboat charlatan like ScamProf Campos. The University of Colorado has a very good faculty, and a distinguished history, and they certainly do not deserve this embarrassment. Hopefully by after Labor Day, this sorry display will all be ancient history. I intend to say no more about it.
MORE FEEDBACK: From a colleague at UCLA: "Kudos for beating the crap out of the jerk." From a colleague at a school in the New York area: "Thanks for your straightforward remarks against the Campos blog. From the perspective of this junior person who is just starting up, one of the most disheartening parts about the blog was the indiscriminate trashing of legal scholarship." From the Dean of a leading law school (not Chicago or Texas): "[G]reat Campos posts. He deserves all the pilloring he gets. Heaven help the deeply unhappy, anxious students who cling to him as a hero." Indeed.
AUGUST 25 UPDATE: For those who would like to know what an ad hominem argument actually is.
August 18, 2011
Some more lateral hires with tenure
Here are some that have been confirmed over the last couple of months:
Sujit Choudhry (comparative constitutional law) from University of Toronto to New York University.
john a. powell (civil rights, race and the law) from Ohio State University to the University of California, Berkeley, where he will Direct the Berkeley Diversity Research Initiative, and have appointments in African-American Studies, Ethnic Studies, and Law.
Daniel Rodriguez (administrative law, state constitutional law, positive political theory) from the University of Texas at Austin to the Deanship at Northwestern University.
Tom R. Tyler (legal and political psychology) from New York University to Yale University.
August 17, 2011
Where NLJ 100 Law Firm Partners Went to School
Ted Seto (Loyola-LA) has posted a study. He did not adjust the results for differences in school size (e.g., Harvard and Georgetown are huge, Yale and Stanford small), for reasons that didn't make any sense to me. Also bear in mind that NLJ 100 firms are heavily concentrated in the Northeast corridor, also a factor in the redsults. With those two caveats in mind, it's still interesting data.
Villanova Censured by ABA
As I noted previously, Dean John Gotanda at Villanova got stuck with an ugly LSAT/GPA problem during his first week on the job. Now the ABA has come back with bad news and good news.
The bad news: Villanova Law was censured for "reprehensible" reporting of inaccurate admissions data from 2005-09 and the inaccuracies were sufficiently serious as to "justify a sanction of probation or removal from the list of approved law schools."
The good news: Dean Gotanda's decision to self-report and take immediate remedial action led the ABA to reduce the sanction to a simple censure. As I said when I first posted on this, you have to give Dean Gotanda credit for staying ahead of the problem. It must have been particularly difficult for him to stay quiet over the course of the investigation - as he was required to do - while being pilloried in the local Philly press. Dean Gotanda's letter to the Villanova alumni community, issued on Monday, is here.
From the ABA letter and report, here are the numbers.
August 16, 2011
Some Tips for New Law Teachers
Some good advice here, courtesy of Lyrissa Lidsky (Florida).
August 15, 2011
Widener Committee Report on the Case of Professor Connell
The right-wing blogs have been working this story overtime, since it fits into their favorite self-pity narrative, but now Widener University's faculty committee has issued its impressively thorough report on the whole affair, concluding that Professor Connell (1) did not engage in racial harassment, (2) did not engage in sexual harassment, and (3) did engage in retaliatory actions against the complainants (see pp. 41 ff. for the discussion). All the findings seem quite well-supported. The sanctions (including suspension without pay for a year and psychiatric evaluation), however, seem disproportionate to the wrongful conduct findings in the report. From the outside, it is very hard to know what to make of all this, unless, like the right-wing blogs, one has a predetermined narrative in which to slot this. I suspect there is more going on here than is either in the report or available in the public record at this point.
August 12, 2011
Isn't it obvious who the "LawProf" writing the latest "law school scam" blog is?
It was obvious to me after reading the blog, with its reckless and inaccurate generalizations (cf. Paul Horwitz's commentary), since the author has written in this vein under his own name in the past. And the clues as to his identity the author provided--the number of years in teaching, best law school in his state, a "tier 1" law school, etc., as well as the interview he gave--just confirmed that impression. Since he teaches at a state law school, and in a state that has shown it is willing to fire tenured faculty under the right circumstances, I am somewhat amazed he would do this, since the blog is tantamount to an admission that he is not really doing his job and doesn't deserve his salary (given what I know about him, I'm inclined to believe that). More seriously, when his identity becomes public, as seems inevitable given how poorly he has disguised it, he will have humiliated his colleagues and his school, neither of which deserve his latest exercise in seeking the limelight. I hope he has the good sense to just delete the whole thing before he makes things worse. Out of respect for his school and his colleagues, who deserve much better, I will not be posting his identity.
UPDATE (8/13): I'm glad to see he's already starting to back-pedal on some of his irresponsible rhetoric, perhaps because, as I know from my e-mail, some of his colleagues already suspect he's behind it. (I did laugh out loud when he protested, "I don't think all of legal education is a scam." He might have looked at the title of his blog.) But the entire blog remains essentially fact-free, just anecdotes buttressing wild generalizations about legal education, plus the kind of amateurish theorizing about law and legal scholarship that he's published under his own name in the past. His identity is important because a lot of what he says correctly describes him: not a real interdisciplinary scholar, doesn't produce scholarship any longer, and probably doesn't put much effort into his teaching. I still hope he has the good sense to delete the whole blog. I and his colleagues will be glad to treat this all as "our" secret.
ANOTHER: The fact-free ruminations of our Scamming LawProf might be usefully contrasted with the criticisms of law schools and legal education by Brian Tamanaha (Wash U/St. Louis), which, while not always persuasive, are always based on pertinent evidence, and avoid wild generalizations: we've noted them previously here, here, here, and here, among other occasions. Perhaps part of the difference is that, unlike our Scamming LawProf, Professor Tamanaha is a productive scholar, who is actually doing his job.
Most Important (Non-Living) Constitutional Theorists: The Results
It must be the dog days of summer, because the poll got only a little more than 100 votes; here's the top ten:
|1. John Marshall (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)|
|2. John Hart Ely loses to John Marshall by 57–31|
|3. Alexander Bickel loses to John Marshall by 58–28, loses to John Hart Ely by 53–32|
|4. Joseph Story loses to John Marshall by 59–12, loses to Alexander Bickel by 38–37|
|5. Louis Brandeis loses to John Marshall by 58–21, loses to Joseph Story by 39–33|
|6. Herbert Wechsler loses to John Marshall by 60–22, loses to Louis Brandeis by 42–37|
|7. Felix Frankfurter loses to John Marshall by 65–13, loses to Herbert Wechsler by 43–33|
|8. Hugo Black loses to John Marshall by 68–12, loses to Felix Frankfurter by 34–33|
|9. Henry Hart loses to John Marshall by 58–14, loses to Hugo Black by 39–30|
|10. Gerald Gunther loses to John Marshall by 65–9, loses to Henry Hart by 37–22|
Thoughts from readers? Omissions (remember: non-living theorists only!)? Signed comments only: full name in signature line, valid e-mail address. Simple rule, please follow it!
August 10, 2011
New York Law School, Cooley Law School Sued by Graduates...
(Thanks to Jim Nichols for the pointer.)
UPDATE: There's more information, including the complaints, here.
ANOTHER: Perusing the complaint against NYLS, it seemed pretty well done, until I got to this laugh-out-loud line: "Law school professors and deans are perhaps the best remunerated in academia today, enjoying both lavish perks and exorbitant salaries that rival those of Fortune 500 executives." The complaint is notably silent on what Fortunte 500 execs actually make. Medical school faculty salaries also dwarf law school faculty salaries, by orders of magnitude (assistant professors of medicine at top schools, in top specialties, can earn a million per year or more). Law faculty are well-compensated relative to other parts of academia, but the comparison to corporate salaries didn't help the plaintiffs' cause! Most law professors in the United States earn less than senior associates at major law firms.
In Memoriam: Harry Wellington (1926-2011)
He was the former Dean of both Yale Law School and New York Law School. NY Times obituary here, noting his work in labor law and constitutional law. (The obituary notes that there is renewed interest in the old Wellington & Winter argument about public labor unions, but neglects to mention that their predictions were falsified [scroll down to the comment by Professor Jacoby]!)