Monday, February 18, 2019
These are non-clinical appointments that will take effect in 2019 (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. Feel free to e-mail me with news of additions to this list.
*Matt Blaze (computer and network security) from the University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer & Information Sciences to Georgetown University (joint appointment in Law and Computer Science).
*Michael Cahill (criminal law) from Rutgers University back to Brooklyn Law School (to become Dean).
*Danielle Citron (privacy, civil rights, freedom of expression, Internet law) from the University of Maryland to Boston University.
*Danielle Conway (public procurement law, entrepreneurship, intellectual property) from the University of Maine (where she is Dean) to Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law (to become Dean).
*G. Marcus Cole (bankruptcy, law & economics) from Stanford University to the University of Notre Dame (to become Dean).
*D. Wendy Greene (employment law, race & law, constitutional law) from Cumberland Law/Samford University to Drexel University.
*Vinay Harpalani (race & law, education law, constitutional law) from Savannah Law School to the University of New Mexico (untenured lateral).
*M. Elisabeth Magill (administrative law, constitutional law) from Stanford University to the University of Virginia (to become Provost).
*Ralf Michaels (comparative law, conflicts of law) from Duke University to the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and Private International Law (Hamburg).
*John Newman (antitrust, conflicts) from the University of Memphis to the University of Miami (untenured lateral).
*Jedediah Purdy (property, environmental law, constitutional law) from Duke University to Columbia University (effective January).
*Michael Selmi (employment law & discrimination, civil rights) from George Washington University to Arizona State University.
Friday, February 15, 2019
...regardless of whether or not scholarly writing is part of their duties. Following up on yesterday, a colleague elsewhere writes: "I saw your post on US News’s new impact rankings. I wrote to Bob Morse earlier this week to ask for clarification about whether to include clinical, LRW, and library faculty if they are tenure/tenure-track but do not have full (or any) scholarship requirements. He wrote back to say that they are all included: US News is using the bright line of tenure/tenure-track regardless of tenure classification or scholarly requirements."
Thursday, February 14, 2019
...basically on the model I used to do and Greg Sisk (St. Thomas) has continued now for several years, but with a couple of differences/unknowns. I guess they didn't want to be left behind by the new "gold standard"!
First, the similarities: they will examine only a five-year window (2014-2018, no doubt because Sisk just did 2013-2017); and they will collect data on citations to the median and mean faculty member, as Sisk did. But now the differences: they appear to be planning on including tenure-track faculty, not just tenured faculty, even though tenure-track faculty have much lower citation rates; they are using Hein instead of Westlaw; and they are also going to count publications (how is a bit unclear). Also unclear is whether they plan to combine productivity with impact measures: given Bob Morse's affection for meaningless aggregations of apples and oranges, I fear that's what they may do. But we'll see.
USNews.com does not plan on incorporating the impact/productivity ranking into this year's law school rankings, but I bet money they will incorporate it going forward, which is consistent with changes they've made to their overall Business and Medical School rankings, incorporating more "objective" data, although not impact metrics. Obviously USNews.com knows it has been repeatedly burned by misleading self-reporting by schools that it never carefully audits, so switching to non-manipulable metrics no doubt seems preferable. And since their academic reputation surveys are now just echo chambers of recent overall rankings, adding in an impact/productivity component would be a slight corrective to that. (Contrast, e.g., Stanford's academic reputation in U.S. News [tied with Yale and Harvard] with its scholarly impact performance.)
Schools that have their clinical faculty on the tenure-stream, even if there are not publication expectations, may be in particular trouble here. Sisk's policy, which was mine, was to exclude clinical faculty, since at many schools, even those where they have tenure, their responsibilties do not include scholarship. But USNews.com is asking for all tenured and tenure-track faculty, regardless of primary role or function.
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Monday, February 11, 2019
MOVING TO FRONT FROM FEBRUARY 6--MANY INTERESTING COMMENTS, BELOW; OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS WELCOME
We’re grateful to Brian Leiter and Michael Simkovic for blogging about our article “Rethinking Law School Tenure Standards.” We agree with both of them that there are costs to raising tenure standards. The goal of the project is not to claim that those costs are unimportant. In fact, after acknowledging some of the costs of applying stricter tenure standards, we end the paper’s introduction by saying “[w]e thus caution against jumping to conclusions about whether tenure standards should be increased, and we hope future work builds on what we have started here to better understand how the legal academy’s personnel decisions can be improved.”
Instead, the goal of the project is to provide new evidence that can help faculties set tenure standards in a more informed way. So even granting Michael’s argument that the costs of increasing tenure standards are high, the results in the paper should still be helpful to law schools.
We’ll highlight just three results that we think are important. First, the results show that pre-tenure research records are highly predictive of post-tenure research records. This illustrates that it is possible to tenure scholars that will be influential in the future with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Second, the results show that there are fantastic scholars across a wide range of law schools. For instance, roughly 30 percent of professors at law schools ranked 50-100 have more citations than all but the top 30 percent of professors in the same tenure cohort at the top 20 law schools. Not everyone is moveable, of course, but there is a lot of talent available in the lateral market. Third, the results illustrate that modest increases in denial rates could result in large increases in law schools’ academic impact. It’s reasonable to think that denying more people tenure is not worth the trade-off, but schools should know how big the potential benefits are when making those decisions.
That said, Michael is right that we only focus on estimating the costs and benefits of applying stricter tenure standards on academic impact, and we don’t claim to be performing a full cost-benefit analysis of the effects of raising tenure standards. But a lot of the costs he described wouldn’t arise or are not as high as he makes it seem.
Friday, February 8, 2019
Thursday, February 7, 2019
Saturday, February 2, 2019
One of the leading constitutional lawyers of his generation, Professor Van Alstyne taught from 1965 to 2004 at Duke University, and then from 2004 to 2012 at the College of William & Mary, where he was also emeritus. The William & Mary memorial notice is here and the Duke memorial notice is here.
Friday, February 1, 2019
I agree with Prof. Simkovic that there are costs to denying tenure if only one or two law schools have serious tenure reviews--so that's our collective action problem in law schools. In almost all other fields, elite departments deny tenure at much higher rates than in law, where 95% get tenure according to Professors Chilton et al. By contrast, in other fields, rates of tenure appear to hover around 25%, maybe a bit higher. Somehow all these other fields have pulled this off; the interesting question is what's holding law back? I speculated about this many years ago (2004, so bear that in mind). I'm opening comments for thoughts from readers and further responses from Prof. Simkovic and other academics. (Comments are moderated, and may take awhile to appear, so be patient.)
Brian Leiter and Paul Caron both recently noted a study by Adam Chilton, Jonathan Masur, and Kyle Rozema which argues that law schools can increase average faculty productivity by making it harder for tenure track faculty to get tenure. While this seems plausible, denying tenure more often is no free lunch.
A highly regarded study by Ron Ehrenberg (published in the Review of Economics and Statistics) found that professors place a high monetary value on tenure, and a university that unilaterally eliminated tenure would either have to pay more in salary and bonus or suffer a loss in faculty quality. After controlling for faculty quality, university rank, and cost of living, university economics departments that are less likely to offer faculty tenure must pay untenured faculty more, in part to compensate for increased risk. Reduced tenure rates is associated with higher productivity, but it is costly.
It's easy to understand why. A promising candidate with offers from otherwise comparable universities A and B would be unlikely to take an offer from A knowing that A denies tenure 70 percent of the time while B only denies tenure 10 percent of the time.
Faculty who are untenured and at an institution with high tenure denial rates would also have strong incentives to spend their most productive years avoiding publishing anything that might upset private sector employers who could give them a soft landing in the event that they are denied tenure. Quantitative measures of faculty "productivity" based on number of citations and publications don't capture the harmful qualitative shift this would produce in faculty research, particularly in an area like law.
There are numerous other advantages to tenure (and disadvantages to weakening it), which I've discussed here and here, including protecting intelletual freedom, encouraging faculty to share rather than hoard knowledge, promoting investment in specialized skills, aligning faculty and institutional incentives, increasing the rigor of teaching and improving outcomes for students (compared to use of adjuncts).
Thursday, January 31, 2019
That's the conclusion of a study by three colleagues of mine, Adam Chilton (just tenured, easy case!), Jonathan Masur, and Kyle Rozema (our Behavioral L&E Fellow). I've not looked at the details of the study, but I wonder how much the results are affectedd by Harvard's historical pattern (changed in recent years) of hiring and then tenuring everyone based on good grades in law school, which results in more "dead wood" there than elsewhere. Even if Harvard has some effect on the findings, I think their basic point is correct: law schools, especially those maintaining a high scholarly profile, should be more demanding about tenure.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
These were posted, starting last August. Here's all the links in a single post for the convenience of readers. (You might start with this post: In a USNews.com world, don't confuse citations with quality.) All these lists are for the period 2013-2017, inclusive. The parenthetical number indicates the number of most-cited faculty listed.
Civil Procedure (10)
Commercial Law (10)
Constitutional Law (20)
Election Law (10)
Family Law (10)
Law & Economics (15)
Law & Philosophy (10)
Law & Social Science (15)
Legal History (10)
Property Law (10)
(includes administrative, environmental, legislation/statutory interpretation, regulatory law)
January 22, 2019 | Permalink
Monday, January 21, 2019
They asked me to share the announcement, which I'm happy to do:
We just updated our charts about law journal submissions, expedites, and rankings from different sources for the Spring 2019 submission season covering the 203 main journals of each law school.
We have created hyperlinks for each law review to take you directly to the law review’s submissions page. Again the chart includes as much information as possible about what law reviews are not accepting submissions right now and what months they say they'll resume accepting submissions.
There has been some change in law review preferences from a year ago, with the upticks going to Scholastica and to law reviews’ own emails. Now 78 schools prefer or require Scholastica as the exclusive avenue for submissions (compared to 62 last year), 42 law journals prefer direct emails, and 41 law reviews prefer or require submission through ExpressO (compared to again 62 last year), with 33 accepting articles submitted through either ExpressO or Scholastica. Six schools now have their own online web portals (compared to thirteen last year).
The first chart contains information about each journal’s preferences about methods for submitting articles (e.g., e-mail, ExpressO, Scholastica, or regular mail), as well as special formatting requirements and how to request an expedited review. The second chart contains rankings information from U.S. News and World Report as well as data from Washington & Lee’s law review website.
Information for Submitting Articles to Law Reviews and Journals: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1019029
Professors Rostron and Levit welcome feedback, as always.