Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
MOVING TO FRONT--ORIGINALLY POSTED AUGUST 22, 2014
These are appointments with tenure that will begin in 2015; I will move this to the front at various intervals during the year:
*Joshua Cohen (political philosophy) from Stanford University (where he teaches in Law, Philosophy & Political Science) to Apple University.
*Elizabeth Garrett (legislation, administrative law) from the University of Southern California to Cornell University (to become President).
*Gillian Lester (employment law) from the University of California, Berkeley to Columbia University (as Dean in January 2015).
*Andrei Marmor (legal philosophy) from the University of Southern California to Cornell University.
*Dylan Penningroth (legal history) from Northwestern University (History Dept.) and American Bar Foundation to the University of California, Berkeley.
*Eric Talley (corporate law, law & economics) from the University of California, Berkeley to Columbia University (in July 2015).
Monday, 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?
Sunday, October 26, 2014
LSAC data here. Since the trend appears to be for applicants to apply later in the cycle, the final decline for this year is likely to be less than 8% (in the last few years, the September/October drop was always greater than the final total decline). But a continued decline of any kind means that law schools uncertain about whether to hire new faculty will likely err on the side of not hiring.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
I just finished the Fresco Lectures in Jurisprudence at the University of Genoa, and will be giving workshops at other schools in Italy the remainder of the week. My co-blogger Dan Filler may have some items, and I might get one in from the road. I'll be back on the blog next week for sure.
October 22, 2014 | Permalink
Monday, October 20, 2014
Friday, October 17, 2014
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
More than two dozen Harvard Law faculty object to University's new procedures on sexual harassment...
...for multiple violations of due process and fairness in proceedings, among other things. Signatories include David Shapiro, Duncan Kennedy, former Dean Robert Clark, Bruce Hay, Martha Field, Robert Mnookin, Lucie White, and Janet Halley, among others.
Here's a couple of words of advice I typically share with Chicago candidates, but others might appreciate:
First, although this can be stressful, it should also be fun: lots of law faculty will want to talk about you and your ideas over the next couple of days! You will form intellectual and professional relationships even from interviews that don't lead to callbacks. Enjoy the scholarly dialogue and learn from it.
Second, remember that every hiring committee is a black box: you don't know its internal priorities and squabbles, its biases and agendas. So don't waste time speculating about how you did (candidates, in my experience, are uneven judges of their performance, in both directions), and remember you are bound to bomb an interview, but life will go on. Forget about it.
Third, bear in mind that hiring committees come to the hiring convention with different charges from their home schools. Some will be authorized to offer some callbacks even before the weekend is out; others will have to report back to the rest of the committee at home before doing anything. Don't draw inferences from silence, or from the fact that someone you know got a callback before the weekend was over--even when hiring committees are allowed to make some quick callback offers, it's almost always the case that the full hiring committee back home will make decisions about other callbacks at a later date.
Best of luck to all the job seekers out there!
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
This looks to me rock solid, scientifically impeccable. What else would one expect from the Princeton Review?
Monday, October 13, 2014
Friday, October 10, 2014
Wednesday, October 8, 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.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Friday, October 3, 2014
Another sign of the times: Roger Williams continues with tuition reduction and three-year tuition guarantee
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Tuesday, September 30, 2014