July 15, 2013
June 2013 LSAT takers down almost 5% from prior year...
...my co-blogger Dan Filler reports. A couple of observations about this, especially for the benefit of those readers thinking about the academic job market:
1. The decline, though modest, indicates that we have probably not yet hit bottom on the significant decline in law school applications over the last three years. That decline, of course, followed upon two significant developments: the New York Times series on the recession in the legal employment market, and the pointed inquires by Senators Boxer and Coburn to the ABA about employment reporting, which led the ABA to revise the rules, thus forcing schools to disclose much more detailed (and often unflattering) employment outcomes for graduates.
2. We have already seen evidence of schools letting faculty go or simply not hiring new faculty, senior or junior. Until applicant volumes stabilize, and schools can make realistic budgetary plans going forward, this will not change and will probably get worse: faculty is the primary expense, and until schools can confidently predict a budget, they can not afford to add to that expense. The competitiveness of the market this coming year will be exacerbated by the fact that, for example, all the junior faculty at Seton Hall will presumably be on the job market this year, and so too will junior faculty at schools with less publicized financial problems.
3. Based on last year's applicant decline, I ventured that this year's rookie market would be even worse than last year's. A continuing decline in LSAT-takers (and thus presumably applicants) will just add to the uncertainty schools face, making them even more reluctant to hire.
4. There will be law schools hiring new faculty this year, and not only the richest law schools. The economic pain is not evenly distributed across law schools, and I know of many law schools, both state and private schools, that will be hiring this year, in part because they expect (no doubt correctly) to be able to make strong hires that would have been out of reach a few years ago.
5. Given all of the preceding, however, those thinking about pursuing careers in law teaching would be well-advised to postpone entering the teaching market if they can. 2013-14 is shaping up to be the worst year on the law teaching market ever in terms of the total number of positions that are likely to be available.
June 25, 2013
Washington & Lee's Revamped 3L Curriculum Appears to Make No Difference to Employment OutcomesStephen Diamond (Santa Clara) comments on a recent analysis by Deborah Merritt (Ohio State).
June 13, 2013
The MOOCs are coming......and it doesn't bode well for law schools. Bar review courses have long been done via what were essentially "MOOCs," it would not be surprising were many law schools to start to incorporate them into core classes. Of course, the so-called "Socratic" method of instruction is not feasible with a MOOC.
May 08, 2013
Law faculty salaries 2012-13Blog Emperor Caron breaks out the latest SALT data.
Decline in lateral hiring of facultyThe evidence. Not surprising.
April 29, 2013
Brooklyn Law's Dean Allard Replies to Concerns about Academic Freedom
On Friday, Dean Nicholas Allard at Brooklyn Law School, sent me a constructive reply to the concerns raised on Thursday about the proposed definition of "adequate cause" (and, in particular, "demonstrated incompetence") for termination of tenured faculty. Dean Allard also kindly gave me permission to share his response with the academic community. I post it below in its entirety:
I appreciate your acknowledgment of Brooklyn Law School as a school of long-standing and good reputation. I also share, and applaud, your commitment to academic freedom, and I welcome a vigorous discussion about how best to achieve it. It is a critical issue and a core value at Brooklyn Law School.
The recent change to our faculty regulations that you wrote about added the concept of “demonstrated incompetence,” which, as I understand it, is a long-recognized and widely accepted regulatory term supported by the AAUP and others. Our regulations did not previously include any reference to “demonstrated incompetence.”
The definition of the term “demonstrated incompetence” that was also included in the new regulations was not meant to expand its scope, but quite the opposite: the intent was to offer additional language to clarify a term that seemed potentially vague without further explication. The
particular language of the definition obviously has raised concerns and will be addressed. To that end, I welcome further input from the faculty — and from other sources, like the AAUP, as referenced by the post on your blog — and that is exactly why the matter has been referred to our Faculty Hearing Committee for its review and guidance.
Last week I asked the Hearing Committee, which is the panel of BLS professors that applies internal regulations to tenured faculty, to review the definition for “adequate cause.” Under our regulations, this committee assures that peers are responsible for performance review — an important safeguard of both due process and academic freedom. I await their suggestions, concerns, and improvements, which I will take to our Board of Trustees to address.
I have full confidence that faculty peers will apply the standard fairly and in alignment with Brooklyn Law School’s tradition of outstanding scholarship.
I view this as welcome news, and will be interested to see the final standards that emerge from the process. I think this will also be an instructive process for other academic institutions.
April 25, 2013
Academic freedom (and due process) under threat at Brooklyn Law School?Details here.
April 18, 2013
So which areas of law deserve more attention in the legal academy?
The results of our earlier poll, with over 200 votes cast:
|1. Consumer Law (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)|
|2. Energy Law/Natural Resources Law/Water Law loses to Consumer Law by 109–73|
|3. Employment Law loses to Consumer Law by 115–73, loses to Energy Law/Natural Resources Law/Water Law by 91–85|
|4. Alternative Dispute Resolution loses to Consumer Law by 106–80, loses to Employment Law by 89–83|
|5. Immigration Law loses to Consumer Law by 118–67, loses to Alternative Dispute Resolution by 87–86|
|6. Family Law loses to Consumer Law by 123–61, loses to Immigration Law by 99–72|
|7. Insurance Law loses to Consumer Law by 130–53, loses to Family Law by 100–77|
|8. Comparative Law loses to Consumer Law by 117–68, loses to Insurance Law by 91–87|
|9. Elder Law loses to Consumer Law by 135–47, loses to Comparative Law by 88–80|
|10. Wills, Trusts & Estates loses to Consumer Law by 126–58, loses to Elder Law by 88–79|
Thoughts from readers? Signed comments only: full name and valid e-mail address.