November 17, 2014
November 10, 2014
October 27, 2014
A law colleague at Washington University, St. Louis forwards the following "internal audit" memo sent to the faculty "as a sign of how things are changing even at higher-ranked law schools. I am particularly concerned that the questionnaire is silent about scholarship even though it was sent to all tenured and tenure-track faculty. Many of my colleagues are also referring to the questions as 'interrogatories.'" The auditors' questionnaire:
1. What is your understanding of your current and future required teaching load and what is the basis for this understanding?
2. Do you plan to teach additional classes beyond your required teaching load in this academic year or in 2015-16 or 2016-17?
- If yes, please describe the classes and the semester in which you are teaching or expect to teach these additional classes.
- If yes, please describe the compensation that you are receiving now or expect to receive for this additional teaching.
3. Are you currently receiving or do you expect to receive additional pay from WULaw for any non-teaching activities?
- If yes, please briefly describe these activities.
- If yes, please describe the compensation you now receive and expect to receive in the future for these activities.
4. Do you currently administer or have discretionary control over any WULaw funds, excluding faculty research accounts?
- If yes, what funds do you administer or control?
- If yes, how much money is in the fund?
- If yes, what are the oversight protocols to assure the funds are spent appropriately?
5. Do you expect WULaw to hire adjuncts for specific programming purposes in this academic year or in 2015-16 or 2016-17?
- If yes, whom do you expect WULaw to hire and why?
- If yes, what is the compensation that you expect the adjuncts to get paid in each year?
6. What is your understanding of the annual amount of money deposited into your faculty research account?
7. If you receive a summer stipend, what are you expectations as to the amount of that stipend?
October 17, 2014
October 14, 2014
This looks to me rock solid, scientifically impeccable. What else would one expect from the Princeton Review?
October 08, 2014
Barry Friedman (NYU) writes with an excellent set of questions and observations:
Here’s a thought worth maybe tooting on your blog. It never ceases to catch my attention how much school hiring is driven by signals from other schools. School X will interview candidate Y and love him/her, or will love him/her on paper, but will never move forward for an interview absent a strong signal from some number of schools they consider competitive. Yet, in this tight market, those signals get fewer – especially at the call back and offer stage. It has the effect I think of killing candidates that otherwise would get interviews or offers. Yet, paradoxically, if schools had confidence in their internal assessments (and it is not like this is one person deciding; it is an entire faculty or faculty committee) this sort of market provides a real opportunity to steal that person you loved without a fight.
So why do schools do this? I think in most cases it is because they lack confidence in their own judgments. But what do readers think? I would prefer signed comments, but you must, in any case, include a valid e-mail address, which will not appear.
October 02, 2014
September 30, 2014
September 26, 2014
September 17, 2014
They are: William Mitchell law professor and Native American advocate Sarah Deer, civil rights lawyer Mary Bonauto, and criminal defense lawyer Jonathan Rapping.
(These used to be called "genius" awards until it became clear they weren't really being awarded for "genius." Now they recognize people doing innovative [often political or social] work in a wide variety of fields.)
(Thanks to Orin Kerr for the pointer.)
ANOTHER CORRECTION: Rapping is also a law professor, at Atlanta's John Marshall Law School.