Albany Law Offers Faculty Buyouts

To the law faculty:

Ask why there is such contempt for law professors by recent law graduates. (Hint, it is not Nietzschean misdirected frustration in search of a target).

@ Former Law Review Editor– Why? The article about Albany makes clear that the majority of faculty do not want to cut standards for revenue purposes. Why would the minority who are said to favor doing this be the stand-in for all law professors?

CHS,

Work for change – real change – in the law school model. Cut tuition, cut enrollment, cut expenses, and cut student debt, and you'll have a stronger system and graduates who have a chance to succeed. In the not so distant past, law schools were not that expensive to run. Why have they changed and is that a good thing for students?

@ Former Law Review Editor

Systemic change isn't possible when it's against faculty interests so long as many changes require faculty approval or participation. Making change in institutions with numerous backwards-looking tenured faculty members essentially requires Deans to act like Albany's is doing here. The anti-change faculty need to get cleared from the roster before the real innovations can begin.

NoComment,

I fear you might be right. I enjoyed law school, and think there is value in it – even in the current system. The problem is that there is too little value for too much cost, with too many students and too few gainful exit options.

The system needs change from within. Albany is the opening salvo. Faculty can get behind the change or be consumed by it.

NoComment, While some law schools have robust faculty governance, more and more schools are being run by administrators, with an occasional rubber stamp from the faculty.

FLRE, I cannot speak for all law school faculty members, but I am all for cutting expenses (even my own salary) if I knew that it would mean lower tuition for my students. That said, let's say a school were to cut faculty salaries by 10%. That probably isn't enough to help students much in this environment. If the school cuts more than 10%, then the best faculty members (the few with significant work experience, connections, and recognition) may leave.

Most faculty members already make less than a first year associate at a large firm. Yes, I know that most faculty members would have a difficult time getting even that job in this market, but many of the critics do underestimate the abilities of the best faculty members. Also, part of what students need, I think, is more practical training. Cut faculty salaries too far, and you will have even less of a chance of attracting those who cannot just "teach," but can also "do."

JP,

You are right that not all law schools have faculty with much say, but for those that do have robust faculty governance(I'm told Albany is one of these), faculty obstruction to change is a real barrier to reform. Considering those same faculties are usually the arbiters of which younger faculty advance toward tenure, the problem with some schools can only really get solved either by scaling back faculty governance (which I'd agree is less than desirable) or weeding out the regressive faculty members somehow.

Regarding faculty compensation, comparisons to big firm salaries are misleading, as compensation to that small but highly visible portion of the profession is outlandish by any reasonable measure. To stick with the topic of the thread, a little googling seems to indicate that the average attorney income in Albany, NY is someplace between 60k and 80k. That's less than half of what a biglaw associate makes in year 1. So long as law schools compensate their faculty in manner comparable with typical attorney income in their relative markets, I don't think that they will have trouble attracting faculty with practice experience considering that the life style change is a form of compensation in itself. This is particularly true of lower ranked schools that are really training lawyers for their local markets. Professors with experience in that particular market, and with compensation expectations to match, are probably a better fit across several areas (e.g., local connections).

"[T]hen the best faculty members (the few with significant work experience, connections, and recognition) may leave."
This argument is getting tiresome. We can determine, from the clamor about even the smallest interference with lifetime entitlement to part time work, that these folks DO NOT have options to go elsewhere and do better. Let's stop pretending. A few select folks, at a few select law schools, have such options. THose folks are NOT likely to hold positions at teh schools cutting faculty.
The reference to "signficant work experience" is a cruel joke. Faculty hiring of late has focused on finding inexperienced persons, preferably holding a PhD in ANYTHING but law, who hold no interest in the practice of law. These persons "practiced," as most, for a few years in BigLaw. Everyone knows what that means; it does NOT mean "signficant work experience." In fact, law faculty pride themselves on cutting anyone with more than a few years of practice, e.g., "significant work experience," from consideration. It is almost a point of pride for these folks, who have contributed so greatly to the present crisis by way of this supremely ignorant approach.
As for the folks who were hired decades ago, they are too long out of practice to have much meaningful connection to it.
As for recognition, this is likely present, IF AT ALL, only for a very few, and those few are likely in positions not likely to be cut.
Finally, the job market for lawyers is, shall we say, tight.
Please, let's give up the tired cliche that "you can't touch us or we'll leave." That bluff is about to be called.
"Most faculty members already make less than a first year associate at a large firm."
Another law academy cannard. THis one ranks right up there with "90% of our grads are in JD required positions ninth months out." This statement is just not true for the overwhelming majority of "first year associates," and we all now know how many law school grads can't find jobs at all. This is like saying that "I make less than a first round pick in the NFL." So what?
"many of the critics do underestimate the abilities of the best faculty members."
Really? One thinks this is just a bit of hubris. Again, the statement is almost a textbook example of misleading in subtle manner. "Best" is the key word here. "Best" is not "most" and I don't think anyone would fairly advocate that the "best" should be the first to go: though who decides who is "best" is open for debate.
"Cut faculty salaries too far, and you will have even less of a chance of attracting those who cannot just "teach," but can also "do."
Again, what a cruel joke. After for years and years the academy in general steadfastly set out to eliminate any person who can "do" from the hiring pool, now this law faculty member claims that attracting those who can "do" is a valid goal.
In the words of an old expression: "Get it together, people."
These arguments are stale and demonstrably inappropriate.
In the comments on these threads, so many proposals for reform have been spelled out. But those faculty members who respond here still just don't seem to get any of it.

Can we just stop with the false belief that if law faculty compensation is cut, faculty will leave? People come to academia for the lifestyle, not the money. That is why they are in academia to begin with and not at big law firms. If there are a few hot shots who would leave if their pay was cut, replacements could easily be found. You don't have to be a SCOTUS clerk to teach torts. In fact there's little value, in the true sense of the word, to have those kinds of superstars teaching.

JP writes:

*********
If the school cuts more than 10%, then the best faculty members (the few with significant work experience, connections, and recognition) may leave.
. . . Cut faculty salaries too far, and you will have even less of a chance of attracting those who cannot just "teach," but can also "do."
*********

I disagree. Substantially lowering salaries would likely lead profs to try to lateral to schools with higher salaries, and to look for more sources of outside income, but I really doubt it would lead folks to leave academia entirely.

Also, I'm skeptical that faculty salaries play a major role in influencing who goes into teaching, at least if you assume salaries high enough to pay the rent and pay off student loans. The difference in lifestyle and intellectual environment between working as a law prof and working as a practicing lawyer tends to be vast. Given that, I don't think the decisions to become law professors are particularity sensitive to variations in salary.

Anon at 3:52 nailed it. There are too many law schools and too many law professors, most at non-elite schools. Where are they to go? Practice? Why would a major law firm (and those are the only kind that could even begin to pay a prof what he/she is making in academia)hire someone who maybe never practiced, or has not practiced in possibly decades, and by his/her decision to go into academia has signaled that he/she was not interested in practicing, when experienced practitioners are looking for work as the result of downsizing/firm closures?

Are they to go to another non-elite school? Doubtful since those schools are likely also struggling.

Law schools can save a bundle in other ways, too: Why do they need dedicated admissions, registrar, bursar, financial aid, IT, special events, HR, PR/communications departments? Why not integrate these into university departments with several "law" specialists in each department? I would add Career Services, but given the state of the job market, law schools may want to keep that area in house.

I realize that every university/law school is different with regard to integration with university departments, but having visited many, most replicate administrative functions unnecessarily. There is nothing so unique about law school administration to justify the enormous expense in terms of salaries, space allocation, IT needs, etc. to justify law schools operating as autonomously as they currently do.

ABA Standards are responsible for some of this, but not all.

@ Ellen

"There is nothing so unique about law school administration to justify the enormous expense in terms of salaries, space allocation, IT needs, etc. to justify law schools operating as autonomously as they currently do."

While I agree with this generally, it doesn't work for law schools that are not affiliated with larger universities. The school which is the subject of this post, Albany Law School, is "stand alone" and doesn't have the option of kicking some of its costs into other parts of a university infrastructure.

Orin, how low can salaries go? Many law professors do have significant loans. Also, I do agree that most professors would try to lateral first, but there are some who would go back into practice, especially because very few law schools are hiring. I have considered going back into practice and recently had an offer from a large firm that I turned down. Granted, I am in a marketable area, had 6 years of practice experience, and am not far removed from practice.

NoComment, most law professors, even at low ranked schools, have the credentials to work at the top firms and many put in a few years at those firms. In fact, I have seen relatively few professor CVs with anything but the top-25 or so law firms on them.

anon, I agree that PHDs and those with very little practical experience dominate the law professor ranks. Most schools, however, have at least a couple professors who were partners or senior associates at top firms. Those will be the first to leave. I agree that 95%+ will not be able to leave for practice, but some do maintain connections and their skills.

TJ, I agree that professors do not come for the money, primarily. However, if you cut the salaries enough, I imagine that some of the best, by whatever measure you care to use, would leave. But I guess we will just have to see. It is probably true that decent replacements could be easily found, so maybe schools and students will not care.

"The difference in lifestyle and intellectual environment between working as a law prof and working as a practicing lawyer tends to be vast."
HEnce, the failure of the legal academy to perceive and adjust to a changing environment in practice. Hence, their abject failure to give up tired and outdated conventional wisdom, and recognzie their own responsiblity for the state of legal education in general; a failure that has, and seems will continue to evoke ill will in the legal community, lead to poorer outcomes for grads, cause displacement and hardship for all concerned. But, take PRIDE in being isolated and oblivious? Please!
The stunning pride in being totally oblvious to the profession for which these folks profess to prepare their gradudates is shocking.
SHould law school operate as a law firm? Of course not. SHould the ATTITUDE and arrogance expressed by this comment be encouraged? Not if the law academy wishes to avoid the pain of ALS, which is just the start, one supposes.
Law schools need to reform and regain focus on the mission: for the vast majority of persons who attend law school, the mission is to prepare to be lawyers. Period.
If the gulf between the law as experienced in practice and the law as experienced by law profs is VAST, then the negative outcomes presently in play will likely not improve any time soon.

This is something I have commented on before.

Cutting payroll costs is tough – I was in a public company as GC where we as the board took a pay cut – but at the same time as layoffs, but it was only the board. The problem is that for most people, they tend to have financial commitments built around their income expectations (law partners should not because income is very unpredictable.) The result is that when an organisation seeks to cut costs by cutting pay, there is a large amount of special pleading (not intended pejoratively) by those with say kids in college, a large mortgage, elderly parents to support, a lot of law school debt, etc. It is just not easy to cut pay because of the problems many people have with a significant cut in income.

Buyouts are essentially voluntary redundancy – but in the US they have a catch, because of age discrimination – this tends to mean that older senior professors with accrued well funded pensions that take a buyout are receiving a genuine windfall – a buyout lump sum on top of their accrued pension entitlement – in effect you could have a 68 year old professor who was quietly planning to retire in a few months or a year – getting the buyout on top of the pension they planned to take shortly anyway. Indeed anecdotally I have heard of people delaying retirement plans just because they knew a buyout might be coming.

Similarly, as I pointed out earlier, another problem with buyouts is that they tend to encourage those that are marketable to market themselves – get the new job – and take the buyout too. With respect to JP and his statement:

"most law professors, even at low ranked schools, have the credentials to work at the top firms and many put in a few years at those firms. In fact, I have seen relatively few professor CVs with anything but the top-25 or so law firms on them"

That reminds me of yesterday's cross examination. The answer is that "many law professors … HAD the credentials to work at the top firms" – but they don't anymore. Most law professors have less than 2.6 years of practice experience – and what they count as experience is at best dubious. To be fair, as JP put it more accurately, later in his posting:

"PhDs and those with very little practical experience dominate the law professor ranks"

The problem with buyouts is that this is the group least likely to take one – the professors likely to take a buyout are those who might attract offers. Inter alia, at least anecdotally, a lot of law professors, even those with more than the typical 2 odd years of practice, who return to practice struggle for a number of reasons, some interrelated:

– most don't have clients, at least initially;

– they are unused to working on teams (they may have had past experience, but it is long gone);

– they are very unused to rapidly producing product (for example legal briefs) to a very hard-deadline;

– if they were in private practice, they left before they reached the level of seniority in their large firm where finding clients and managing client relations is important, but often expect to return at a level of seniority where this is the central demand of the firm;

– they are often genuinely hopeless at moving things forward and are poor at identifying what really matters in a legal situation, and often obstructive (many lawyers comment that they hate dealing with universities and colleges that allow their legal faculty to participate in any transaction (licenses, tech transfer, etc.) because of the time wasting, pettifogging bullshit that results, all at a cost to your client (or when in-house your corporation.) I have seen it "crater" willing investments that science faculties desperately needed);

– they are often plain silly – here is a choice of law clause one inserted into a contract not so long ago: "International general principles of law which are applicable to international trade ("Lex Mercatoria”) shall be applicable to the substance of the dispute." (When the client asked what Lex Mercatoria was I described it as "duelling law professors flinging books")

I am sure those points will result in a hyperbolic rant from the usual defenders of law professors. However, these are real problems with academics seeking to return to private practice. Realistically, many law professors will be heading down that road in the future, and rather than the usual stop being mean about law professors, they need to think about these issues and address them proactively.

in what universe is a law profs job part-time?

Hey JP: "most law professors, even at low ranked schools, have the credentials to work at the top firms and many put in a few years at those firm."

And what happens when they don't make partner? Up and out you know… There's only so many in-house gigs around.

@ JP

Your experience with the professorial credentials of lower ranked law schools is much different than mine. Let's consider again the school that is the subject of this post: Albany Law School. A quick once over of the bios in its faculty directory reveals two professors with top 50 firm experience: Chung, an assistant professor and Farley a tenure professor. Based on their clerkships and such maybe half a dozen or so more could have gone that route at some earlier point in their career if they had chosen to (e.g., Brescia was a Skadden Fellow, Lynch was at Manhattan DA). Taking all of those faculty together accounts for less than a quarter of the ALS faculty listed. One of their professors with a chair (Finkelman) doesn't even appear to have a law degree. (Can that possibly be right?) Is it your position that ALS is an outlier in terms of faculty qualifications?

@NoComment. I know that. I am very familiar with ALS. My comments were general in nature.

Independent law schools have tremendous overhead; still in looking at the Admin directory of a couple of indys, it seems to me that many have plenty of room to cut. Too many directors/deans, assistant directors/deans, associate directors/deans.

What about outsourcing some of the functions like IT, facilities, PR/marketing/special events? It's a start….

"What about outsourcing some of the functions like IT, facilities, PR/marketing/special events? It's a start…. "

That's right, get rid of the little people first. But, how much do the little people make? Probably not enough to offset the revenue loss. That's the problem with little people.

Ultimately outsourcing may not save money – after all IT, Facilities are necessary, and outsourcing simply means paying someone else to do it. To take for example IT – it makes sense to outsource IT when you are running a small or medium office network, but at a certain point it is cheaper to simply hire your own IT support.

Perhaps the basic issue is that in many law schools 20-50 years ago a lot of tasks and administration was carried out by members of faculty – maybe that is the solution.

MacK is right about that, and it is likely a good partial solution. At schools with which I am familiar, some deans and administrative people make more than professors. The rate of growth in administration in all areas of higher education has been enormous. Some of this has been quite necessary. It could be that faculty at schools in trouble have to do more administration.

TJ: Law schools need to restructure at all levels and rethink how they function. I am all for cutting the size of most full-time faculties, which are bloated in part because of the ABA's arbitrary max. 20:1 student:faculty ratio requirement.

Many of the "little people" as you call them are quite well-compensated, making high five to six figure salaries. Many/most assistant/associate deans, directors, law librarians have JD degrees, which mean that they command higher salaries than their university counterparts.

They are not "little people" in terms of their compensation or numbers at most schools and reducing their numbers, along with full-time faculty, would have a significant impact on most budgets.

BTW, some law schools, including independent law schools, already outsource the areas I mentioned in my previous post.

Altidore: Teaching six units per semester results in a requirement to be in a certain place six hours per week. Prep time? Really? After having taught the course two or three semesters? How much time, Altidore? Rather than throwing out a sort of schoolyard taunt (Yeah, in what universe???), spell it out.
We must add in those oh so onerous committee meetings (these are REALLY REALLY HARD and require HOURS of prep, right?)
Office hours, yes, that's another few hours per week.
And, then there is scholarship.
We know the record of publication, especially at schools in the lower tier, even by tenured faculty. It is amusing, for some, to look at this record for the faculty who have been onboard for twenty or so years.
Amusing, that is, in a dark sort of way.
And, average out the hours over an entire year, which is the length of time most humans in this country are required to work. Yes, two week vacations are sometimes allowed. SOmetimes three.
Yes, Altidore, a law prof job is, for most, a part time job. IF more law profs actually had meaningful experience in practice, they would understand this, and not throw out risible taunts in the face of the obvious.
Actually, one suspects, if you are a law prof, you know this is true, Altidore. Are you seriously contending, if a law prof, that your colleagues are on campus forty hours per week, or anything close to that?
(This requirement is used as a punishment, at some schools, to force profs out!)
The solution to all this is simply to devise a point system: units taught and bona fide publications earn points. Perhaps throw in some service points. Points for good evaluations. Points for good handwriting. Whatever.
Then, impose a rule: fail to earn enough points two years in a row constitutes good cause for termination.
Watch the cries of all those FULL TIME profs begin! ANd watch the law schools at least improve in t6he sense of bringing back to THIS UNIVERSE a group in legal academia deluding itself about the nature of its contributions for too long.

Regarding law schools cutting tuition:

Law schools will respond to student demand (as they have in the past). If student recruitment becomes dependent on lower tuition, then tuition costs will go down.

But the market forces need to be aligned with lower cost. We are closer now than we have been at any time during my career, but we are still not there for most schools. Students still largely choose to pay $20,000 to $30,000 MORE in yearly tuition for a more highly ranked school. So schools are still incentivized to devote their efforts toward pursuing reputation. To do that, they need more money, more revenues. In fact, the amount of money they bring in directly affects their rankings – it's actually one of factors.

Conversely, if a school decides to unilaterally lower tuition, it will hurt at the very least their ranking and the perceived value of their educational product. Students choose to go elsewhere.

There's a parallel effect going on with schools and law firm recruiting, which feedback into student enrollment.

To be clear, I'm not at all criticizing student choices. They are pretty rational decisions, but it doesn't change the negative effects that are generated. (I am more critical of law firm recruiting practices.)

Now some of that has started to change. Tuition cuts are getting good press and potential students are much, much more conscious of cost and ultimate debt. That has been one of the biggest positive effects created by vocal law school critics. Hopefully the trend will continue.

(Note that a similar problem exists for the "lack of practical training." Recruitment of prospective students has not been affected by offering a more practical legal education or having faculty with lots of practice experience. Similarly, the most attractive law firms have focused hiring on reputation and not practical training.* Recruitment has been affected by school reputation, and unfortunately reputation has been linked to basically the opposite of practical training. I hope we see movement in this area, but so far I haven't see any.

I know this is a bit off from the primary topic of the comment chain, but when I see comments (such as one of the first ones that called for a certain approach from law schools), I feel the need to try to get people to see what has happened – mainly because I think that if we are actually get to something better, we have to understand what is wrong.

As for shrinking faculties, well it is being done. The real issue is whether it is accomplished slowly through natural attrition or quicker through other means. I expect we will continue to see a mix. The one part that scares me is that we have seen a growth of administrative positions and departments. Their growth (and the dramatic increase in the costs associated with them) is better documented at the undergraduate level (where increased expenses are linked almost exclusively to administrative and physical plant expenses). The expansion of the administrative while whittling away the faculty has not improved the educational value of undergraduate institutions. I'd hate to see that trend come to law schools.

(*Despite law firms being very vocal about training – which is largely just them trying to distract from their failing business model.)

ATL:
"Recruitment of prospective students has not been affected by offering a more practical legal education or having faculty with lots of practice experience."
What's the evidence for those statements?
First, which law schools are focusing on "having faculty with lots of practice experience"? Others with direct experience have agreed here and elsewhere: this observation does not appear to be even close to consistent with the experience of anyone famaliar with law school hiring of late. Chapter and verse could be cited here. THis statement is just plain wrong.
Second, what is your source for this statement "Recruitment of prospective students has not been affected by offering a more practical legal education"?
You have seemingly missed teh citation on these threads to at least two, comprehensive studies by reputable State Bars (Illinois and Wisconsin) that directly refute your claim. MOreover, which schools are offering a more practical legal education and what evidence do you cite to prove that employment outcomes at these schools have not changed?
Finally, you appear to blame law firms for all the law school ills ("Despite law firms being very vocal about training – which is largely just them trying to distract from their failing business model.")
Really? At best, your observation pertains only to BigLaw, and perhaps to only the most little slice of that little slice of the profession. The vast majority of firms in this country don't even come close to fitting your postulate, and, therefore, the vast majority of law schools in this country would seem ill-advised to pay any attention to your postulate.

MacK: Most faculty are not competent to do, nor do they desire to do administrative work, such as running an admissions or career services office or law library. Many — not all — do not even care to do committee work, although that is at the heart of faculty governance, and certainly not as demanding as full-time administrative work.

As I noted, a number of schools with which I am familiar have outsourced certain functions including IT, facilities maintenance, security. While some rely on university personnel rather than law school personnel to perform these functions even if the level of service is not as good as if dedicated law school employees performed them. There is a cost savings in each of these alternatives.

Of course, these are essential services so they cannot be eliminated completely and there will always be some cost associated with them For those schools in serious financial shape, even dollar saved matters.

"If student recruitment becomes dependent on lower tuition, then tuition costs will go down."

Only if students are the ones paying the tuition. Currently, that's mostly handled by the federal government.

Ideally, the federal government would significantly cut back the amount of school loans they are willing to guarantee; say, set a limit of 40k per year tuition and living expenses. I think that's still somewhat high, but it would force schools to institute immediate, significant cuts to tuition. Best of all, it would provide political cover for school administration to significantly cut faculty pay, and I think terrified faculty members will for the most part go with it when they realize that the only other option is the unemployment line.

"First, which law schools are focusing on "having faculty with lots of practice experience"? Others with direct experience have agreed here and elsewhere: this observation does not appear to be even close to consistent with the experience of anyone famaliar with law school hiring of late. Chapter and verse could be cited here. THis statement is just plain wrong."

No, it is correct. There are law school faculties in this country whose members average more than a decade of law practice. Do students choose those schools or schools that have higher rankings even though many of their faculty have little or no practice experience? Students choose the higher ranked school despite the difference in practical experience of the respective faculties. Why should I name them for you? I assume you went to law school? Didn't you look for a school with faculty who had lots of practice experience? So, I assume you already know which schools I'm talking about. If you don't know which they are, then you are really just proving my point about how unimportant it is in the choices of prospective students.

(And don't misunderstand me, I'm not criticizing you or anyone for choosing a highly ranked school over one that has high levels of practice experience among its faculty. If a student wants to maximize their chances of getting the best law firm job they can (or other prestigious position), then their best option is to go with the highest ranked school. My point is that the system is screwed up – not that individual pieces are wrong in their individual choices.)

Yes, law school hiring at most schools still largely ignores or largely de-emphasizes practice experience. I never claimed otherwise. (although the amount of practice experience most schools want to see does appear to have grown slightly over the last decade and a half, so that is positive)

"Second, what is your source for this statement "Recruitment of prospective students has not been affected by offering a more practical legal education"?"

Observation. Empirical evidence of schools (even highly ranked ones) that have made very public commitments and massive curricular changes to emphasize more practical educations – and seen no change in their recruitment ability. I do think there may be some evidence that W&L's changes a few years ago may have helped them out on the recruitment side, though it is not entirely clear because other factors aren't fully accounted for. But for my point to be refuted you'd really need to see improvement at a mid-ranked or low ranked school.

"You have seemingly missed teh citation on these threads to at least two, comprehensive studies by reputable State Bars (Illinois and Wisconsin) that directly refute your claim."

The comprehensive studies by Illinois and Wisconsin were great contributions to the dialogue, and with a few minor exceptions, very well said.

However, neither said jack to refute my points. The Illinois study said law students were burdened with too much debt to go into public interest positions (and the like). Yes, that's absolutely true. I've been screaming that out for years. It said nothing directly about how prospective students choose law schools or about how employers choose new hires. The Wisconsin study surveyed new lawyers about a number of issues. Again, I don't have any problem with the Wisconsin study. But nothing in it relates to or refutes any position I took above.

"MOreover, which schools are offering a more practical legal education and what evidence do you cite to prove that employment outcomes at these schools have not changed?"

More than a decade of experience in it. From talking to partners at the larger firms and from talking to justices. I know you will dismiss that as lacking evidence (though you don't present evidence to the contrary). I do think practical legal educations offered by some schools have helped students in solo practices or in very small practices – but those sorts of placements are viewed negatively (compared to more prestigious positions and larger firms) – as if that school's students are only in those positions because they could not get a "better" job.

"Finally, you appear to blame law firms for all the law school ills ("Despite law firms being very vocal about training – which is largely just them trying to distract from their failing business model.")
Really? At best, your observation pertains only to BigLaw, and perhaps to only the most little slice of that little slice of the profession. The vast majority of firms in this country don't even come close to fitting your postulate, and, therefore, the vast majority of law schools in this country would seem ill-advised to pay any attention to your postulate."

You are correct that that my observations apply most strongly to BigLaw.

But BigLaw and their jobs drove most of the behavior on the law school side and much of the behavior on the prospective student side for at least the last few decades. And my observations do apply below BigLaw to large regional firms and apply to other prestigious positions such as federal clerkships. The ills of how medium to large size firms do their hiring is not some secret. Prestige of law school + class rank/GPA.

You are correct that those positions do not make up the vast majority of lawyer positions. Absolutely. I don't think I said they didn't. But they have driven most of the choices because they are the most sought after.

I am not sure what you mean by "ill-advised to pay any attention to any postulate". I don't think I made any proposals about what law schools should do. I didn't say there was anything good about the characteristics of the system I pointed out. Quite the contrary, they have very negative effects. I was just trying to help people understand why things have unfolded as they have so that they can be fixed.

ATL:
Points of agreement:
"Yes, law school hiring at most schools still largely ignores or largely de-emphasizes practice experience."
"You are correct that that my observations apply most strongly to BigLaw."
Points of disagreement:
"However, neither said jack to refute my points."
These studies are too comprehensive to summarize here. SUffice it to say that the efforts by law schools, such as they are, to prepare students for practice were not found sufficient by these organizations. Also, teh disconnect between law faculties and the practice of law was noted therein, though I confess I spent more time with the Illinois report than the Wisconsin report.
"I do think practical legal educations offered by some schools have helped students in solo practices or in very small practices."
As we don't know the schools to which you refer, we can't test your point.
All this, of course, has taken us far away from reducing the size of the ALS faculty (and others) though the reasons for such reductions and the means to avoid them in the future do seem relevant.

To The Faculty Lounge,

I'd like a post where you invite critics to offer their criticism of the academy. You might actually get some useful input. You won't like the comments, but you might find them helpful.

Emperor's Clothes: unless you haven't been on this site for long, you probably have seen that every post here devolves to criticism of the legal academy.

And the amazing thing is the criticisms are almost without exception idiotic and irrelevant. It's long past time for the hosts to start banning certain commentators so that adults can discuss adult issues.

I would add that they are also dominated by a handful of posters making the same point over and over again, truly tiresome, and of very little interest at this point.

anon:

I worked at a law firm for 5 years billing 2400/year. I have always worked harder than I ever did at the law firm or anywhere else. Though I suspect I work harder than many, I also know many who do the same, with maybe one or two dead weight who may work ~30/week. The claim that a few profs allegedly in some schools may shirk their duties and work less does not make being a prof a part time job. Though I and many may be sympathetic to some of your underlying concerns, better to focus your vitriol on the small subset of profs you claim are shirking their duties than to make wildly inaccurate statements that most people aware of the situation will dismiss out of hand.

Anon,
You call these arguments tiresome and idiotic. What is really idiotic, bringing it back to the article from this title post is some ALS faculty members actually having the gall to advocate for lower admission standards (as if that's even possible at this point). This MAY be a red herring by the Dean. But judging by the admission numbers, acceptance rates and LSAT scores, the Dean could be speaking the truth.

I would have hoped that in light of these extremely weak LSAT numbers that now gain admission to law schools, there would've been as loud of a scream from some law professors as there has been for the S&M paper to be honored at Stockholm this year.

Emperor's Clothes: unless you haven't been on this site for long, you probably have seen that every post here devolves to criticism of the legal academy.
What should the discussion about cutting law faculty, because of the backlash caused by the policies and practices of law schools, focus on?
How to reward teh faculty?
ANd, teh "Every post" comment is overstated, obviously. In fact, grossly overstated.
The truth is that many law profs seem to adhere to teh "it doesn't matter if the answer is correct, but only whether you mkae a good argument." There is a big difference between that sort of effort and actually addressing facts.
As for the repetitive nature of the discussion, I would tend to agree. Facts are presented, and generally, some law faculty respond in a sort of knee-jerk manner, saying "NO issue here, let's move on. Silence the critics! Ban them. Reprisals are necessary. Off with their heads! let's find and focus solely on a piece of positive news!" Or worse, some yelp schoolyard taunts while covering their ears.
Those who engage actually come to agree with many of the points made in these discussions, and better understand their own beliefs and assertions in the process.
I believe there was once upon a time a time when many of the reactionary voices here would have agreed with the notion of an open forum about reforming a broken and hide-bound system, especially a system that has caused so much dislocation and is causing it still, and would never have called for "banning" speech about it.
Meanwhile, layoffs at ALS and elsewhere, and the hole just keeps getting bigger. No wonder the situation has devolved so greatly.

Altidore:
There are 250 working days in a 50 week year.
At 2400 hours, you say you billed 9.6 hours per day in practice. That means if you worked every day (excluding weekends and assuming that you took a two week vacation) you were in the office or doing work related activities for at least 11 hours per day. (No one can bill every minute in the office.)
Now, as a prof, you say you, and the majority of your colleagues, are working more hours (leaving aside the multiple breaks in academia, e.g., during the grading period)?
In other words, you are basically telling us that the average law prof is on campus, working, or researching and writing, about 12 hours per day, every day of the year, excluding weekends and a two week vacation?
This of course is sort of a silly assertion, isn't it? A recent comment on this thread noted that, at one law school, the threat of requiring 40 hours of demonstrable presence on campus per week was used as a lever to induce profs to take buy outs. If your assertion were true, that lever would not have been even contemplated.

"And the amazing thing is the criticisms are almost without exception idiotic and irrelevant. It's long past time for the hosts to start banning certain commentators so that adults can discuss adult issues."
A very mature and thoughtful comment, indeed! A true adult, finally! And, certainly not a juvenile and emotional person, who dismisses with a flick of the finger "everything" that he has heard as "irrelevant" and "idiotic."
Enlighten, us, won't you?
Tell us the reason ALS and so many other law schools are forced to think about lay offs. Tell us, and please, make it relevant, won't you? Tell us, what is relevant?

anon, anyone who has worked in BigLaw knows that the average work week is 6 days (if not seven). 2400 hours is not a crazy number for a BigLaw associate. as a BigLaw associate I billed around 2300 a year and there were plenty who billed more than I did. Unlike altidore, I don't know any professors who works harder than a BigLaw associate, and the work of a professor is much more enjoyable. I do know a few professor who put in almost as many hours as a BigLaw associate — during the school year.

However, most professors do work harder than you might imagine. I work 40-50 hours during the school year, which includes a few hours on the weekend answering student e-mails and during research related reading. In the summer, I work about 20-30 hours, most weeks, on research. The work is, however, relatively enjoyable – meeting with students, preparing for class, meeting with local attorneys, presenting at conferences, researching, serving on committees, sitting on local boards, etc.

The reason the 40-hour face-time requirement seemed extreme was because professors often do research from home one or two days a week. And yes, many of us actually work hard during that time.

JP: One cannot disagree that some profs put in extraordinary effort and have extraordinary energy; and generate an incredible amount of work product (while teaching, generally, around 12 units or fewer per year).
But, arguing based on exceptions and "I know somebody" seems to be too often the game that is played here.
And, averages can be misleading.
I set out the work actually required for a typical law prof (meaning, class time, prep, student emails, office hours, etc.) and then asked folks to think about the actual rate of publication, and the likely time associated with it for the majority of profs.
My point is not that profs are lazy, per se. They do seem to haev a sense of entitlement, however. And the many comments on these threads referring to differences in "lifestyle" are not meant to convey a hardworking, demanding positin in academia. IN fact, other voices here say profs are willing to sacrifice in wages to obtain security in that lifestyle.
And, so we come to teh point of this thread: what is "Good cause" when the situation requires reducing the faculty numbers.
I would advocate a point system, as mentioned above. Points for teaching. Points for scholarship. Points committee work. Points for evaluations. Points for whatever. But some objective standard of a minimum level of time and devotion to hold the position.
THis would be a full step forward to reforming what many believe to be a broken legal academy.
Finally, I would note that one of the reasons law faculty revile hiring from practice is that folks come in with a different attitude about what constitutes working hard.
Study after study has shown that workers in enterprises that do not favor hard work revile those who do.
Is that the case in legal academia? Not entirely, of course. THere are exceptions, always.

Postscript:
BigLaw associates for the first year or two generally believe that they are working really, really hard, while holding their noses and doing "work" reviewed at multiple levels before finalized. Their timesheets typically reflect many, many hours. It is disgust on the part of the consumer about this practice that has most signficantly changed the dynamics in BigLaw.
The minimal time in "practice" spent by most new hires in legal academia in generally quickly forgotten, in the sense that expectations and requirements quickly change.

I am afraid I have to agree with anopn –

BigLaw has for decades been built around the leverage/pyramid model, where a small number of equity partners supervise a pyramid of non-equity time keepers. In this model junior associates were simply "billing fodder," a reality illustrated by the minimum hours targets that they were set (in billing guidelines as a GC I always required any retained firm to disclose its hours targets.) The billable hour targets were almost an explicit instruction to the junior associates to find some way to bill time to any client. I represent and represented a lot of non-US clients in their dealings with US law firms – and it was notorious that the Japanese for example were regularly ripped-off – with desperate 1st and 2nd year BigLaw associates finding all sorts of pointless legal research and document review to do on their cases. As a GC I absolutely "put the lid" on this sort of practice and fired any firm that did it. A lot of practicing lawyers know that BigLaw 1st and 2nd year work is mostly make-work with no real substance, which is why law professors pointing to their first two years in BigLaw tends to lead to, well mild amusement.

One aspect of the pyramid model was the essential "dumbing down" of what timekeepers did. So to take an example – secretaries – whose cost was rolled into the overhead component of a lawyer's hourly rate were slowly reduced in number, allocated to a partner and associates (which means the secretary really only works for the partner.) The result was to slowly push the non-billable clerical tasks the secretary used to do (for example maintaining the file) onto paralegals – who bill by the hour through the 80s and 90s and into the early 00s. In turn, junior associates slowly started to move from doing at least some substantive legal work to doing the sort of tasks that the paralegals used to do. Gradually matters started to be staffed with enormous teams.

As an example of this, in the late 90s I was once in a motion hearing where the other side brought 40 suits from the (now bankrupt mega-firm), I made our co-counsel (mega-firm, not collapsed yet) take their 27 to the other side of the courtroom, so that when the Judge came out he saw on our side just the two of us, plus the client. Pointing to the 67 behind opposing counsel he asked if D had brought a "cheering chorus." We won the motion, and going down in the elevator, the other side packed in with me, and their General Counsel started asking me what I suggested "we do next" – I looked at him with a puzzled expression until he said the immortal words "you're one of our's aren't you" …

"uh no, I was appearing for [company S]"

"doh!"

Reading through this thread, the point the lawyers (derided as scambloggers) have been trying to make is a simple one – the primary mission of law schools is to train their students to be successful lawyers. It is not "scholarship," etc. If, as a result of the facing up to the long term economic challenges a law school faces the law school is restructuring, the main criterion that should drive that restructuring, and the mechanisms by which it is achieved is does it improve the ability of its graduates to be successful in the legal profession

Every aspect of the law school's contribution (both negative and positive) has a bearing on the restructuring – quality of education, relevance of what is taught, comprehensiveness of education, practice preparation and finally the cost of the education (and the resulting debt the graduate will carry.) What is of very limited relevance is most of what is described as scholarship (and let's be honest, much of it is "scholarshit.")

Perhaps the practice of law makes us cynical, but a lot of the arguments that come from law professors come down to efforts to justify their own comfortable situation. In practice you get used to spotting self serving arguments presented as high-minded pursuit of principle.

MacK
Nothing wrong with scholarship, per se. But let's compare what was produced in the days of Prosser and Williston and others to the vast majority of legal scholarship today.
More problematic, the fact is that, even at the highest tier, most studies show that law faculties are just not that productive and that the vast majority of what is produced is just never cited or even read in numbers amounting to more than friends, family and colleagues.
The "vast gulf" between legal academia and the practice of law is demonstrated in this. Because, in response to critics, law profs tend to make sort of inflated claims about the vast amount of works of scholarship produced by their colleagues, the subject of what is actually produced is in play, just as the purported numbers of grads finding employment when challenged, was found to be at best misleading.
In the main, a preoccuption with producing high quality scholarship of value to the profession for which they purport to prepare students is virtually nonexistant in legal academy, and the majority of law profs basically produce little or no scholarship at the lower tiers.

BTW, for those who question the relevance of faculty productivity to law offs, I would again submit that an objective standard of dismissal for cause (which might include lack of productivity combined with minimal teaching) should be in play.

If scholarship really were an important function of law schools it would be better written and peer-reviewed. I didn't realize how lax the "scholarship" standards of law school were until I went back to graduate school in a real research discipline.

anon @ 9:56

I fully agree with you. Indeed the inevitable defenses of scholarship consist of touting that very very tiny number of articles that anyone bothers to consider – many written by the same set of legal scholars – as if they are representative of the vast bulk of what is produced.

And I'll add – if law professors had any sense, they would survey the practicing legal profession for topics on which to focus their scholarship and research. A few times I have posted here a wide list of topics that I can say are of genuine interest to practicing lawyers, judges and tribunals. That list was met with outright derision. Indeed, one thing this forum is good at is in offering law professors and opportunity to further earn the contempt of of practicing lawyers – an opportunity many gleefully take.

Well said, MacK. The hardest thing for many to understand is that improvement is not "crazy" or impossible. All that would be required here is some diligence, open minds, a sincere desire to put STUDENTS interests first, and common sense reforms in hiring and retention.
That is at the heart of all of this.
ALS is only the beginning, it seems.