Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Here; an excerpt:
The 204 ABA-approved law schools reported total J.D. enrollment (full-time and part-time students) of 119,775. This is a decrease of 8,935 students (6.9 percent) from 2013 and a 17.5 percent decrease from the historic high total J.D. enrollment in 2010. The 2014 total enrollment is the lowest since 1982, when there were 169 ABA-approved law schools.
Law schools reported that 37,924 full-time and part-time students began their studies in the fall of 2014. This is a decrease of 1,751 students (4.4 percent) from 2013 and a 27.7 percent decrease from the historic high 1L enrollment of 52,488 in 2010. The 2014 1L enrollment is the lowest since 1974, when there were 151 ABA-approved law schools.
Nearly two-thirds of ABA law schools (127) experienced declines in first-year enrollment from the prior year. At 64 law schools, 1L declines exceeded 10 percent. At 25 schools, 1L enrollment declined by more than 20 percent. Twenty-five schools reported entering classes of fewer than 100 students.
At 69 schools, 1L enrollment increased from 2013. At 36 schools, 1L enrollment was up by less than 10 percent, and at 33 schools, enrollment increased by more than 10 percent. At 11 schools, enrollment increased by more than 20 percent. At 28 schools, the number of 1L students stayed within five students above or below last year’s figures.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Many thanks to colleagues here and elsewhere who got in touch with their good wishes and their own stories about retinal detachment after I posted briefly about mine. I was lucky, having caught mine early, which I'll describe a bit more, below. But if you're over 40 and near-sighted (both risk factors), do take a look at the Mayo clinic page so that you know what to watch for by way of symptoms--without prompt treatment, retinal detachment can lead to a complete loss of vision in the affected eye. By contrast, caught early, the existing treatments are extremely effective.
I knew some of the symptoms precisely because I had read the Mayo clinic page a couple of years ago, when I had some unusual "floaters" in one of my eyes (I forget which one, actually): they were colored, zig-zag lines, not enough to interfere with my vision, but enough to be noticeable. Often these kinds of eye floaters are harmless and symptomatic of nothing; this turned out to be the case with mine that time, and they went away after a few days, but I did get them checked out by my opthamologist since sometimes they are the first symptom of a retinal tear.
The retina is attached to a membrane at the back of the eye by a kind of suction; if the retina develops a tear, fluid gets behind the retina and breaks the "seal" between retina and membrane--that's a detachment. If the tear is caught early enough, it can be effectively "welded" shut through a laser (it is painless, believe it or not) before any detachment begins. But if the tear is not sealed soon enough, the retina can begin to detach. The telltale symptom of detachment is a dark or shadowy spot in one's field of vision, which, in severe cases, can appear like a curtain moving across one's eye. Here is where I was lucky--I noticed a tiny dark spot in the corner of my right eye (the more near-sighted of my eyes, though I should note I'm not especially myopic) near the bridge of my nose. At first, I thought it was just a speck of dirt on my glasses--that's how small it was. But then I realized it was there even when I didn't have my glasses on. My wife thought there was some kind of little bump in the corner of my eye, and so then I thought that might be what I was seeing. But the bump disappeared, and the spot did not. After about a week, I went to my opthamologist, who had to use two different kinds of examining lenses to finally spot the tear and the detachment on the retina. Fortunately, things had not progressed very far, and that afternoon I was at the retinal surgeon's office not far from Hyde Park.
I should note I'm very squeamish about my eyes--I don't use contacts, and I hate having my eye pressure checked, so I viewed this affair with some trepidation. I'm happy to report that the procedures were remarkably easy to undergo. With some local anesthetic in and around the affected eye, the surgeon injects a gas bubble into the eye--painless, though the eye felt a bit tender aftewards. The bubble floats up and reattaches the retina to the membrane behind it. The following day, the surgeon used the laser to seal the tear--86 shots of the laser light were required (some patients require 1,000 or more!). I was lucky that the tear was high up on the retina (roughly where the small hand is when it's 10:30) and the tear was not very big. For the first few days, I was not allowed to do any reading that required back-and-forth eye movement--this was to allow the tear to seal and to keep the gas balloon pushing in place against the retina so that it remained attached. I also couldn't look anyone in the eye--I had to keep my eyes looking downward, at everyone's stomach rather than face. That was odd, but depending on where the tear is, one might have to keep one eyes looking up the whole time. I also could only sleep on my left side at night, once again so the gas balloon stayed in place. Fortunately, the treatment was so effective that after only four days, I was given a reprieve on both reading and looking straight ahead, and two weeks later all limits on reading were removed and I was allowed to roll over at night. The gas balloon is still there, but gradually shrinking and it will disappear over the next few weeks (the gas balloon is in part of one's field of vision--in my case the bottom since the balloon is at the top of the retina--it's a bit like looking through a glass of water.). A follow-up visit in a few weeks will determine whether the tear is still sealed and the retina still attached, but my surgeon is optimistic given where we are.
Having a retinal tear or detachment is a risk factor for having another one, alas, so I will have to be vigilant for any symptoms, starting with new eye floaters. But as these things go, I was lucky; I've heard from many others who had more complicated ordeals, with more dramatic detachments, sometimes multiple surgeries--though all were ultimately successful.
I hope this information proves helpful to some readers in the future!
ADDENDUM: I'm opening comments for any other advice or experiences that might be relevant; post your comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
MOVING TO FRONT(ORIGINALLY POSTED NOVEMBER 24, 2009)
With luck (and luck will help more than usual in what is a very tight year on the academic job market), some of you seeking law teaching jobs will get offers of tenure-track positions in the next couple of months. What then? Here's roughly what I tell my Texas and Chicago advisees they need to find out, and in the interest of having it written down in one place and for the benefit of others too, here it is (not in order of importance):
1. You will want to get (in writing eventually) the basic salary information, obviously, and the nature of summer research support and the criteria for its award (is it automatic for junior faculty? contingent on prior publication [if so, how much?]? awarded competitively (if so, based on what criteria/process)?). You should also find out how salary raises are determined. Are they, for example, lock-step for junior faculty? Fixed by union contract? (Rutgers faculty, for example, are unionized, a huge advantage and why they are among the best-paid faculty, not just in law, in the country.) Is it a 'merit' system, and if so is it decanal discretion or is their a faculty committee that reviews your teaching and work each year?
2. You should ask for a copy of the school's tenure standards and get clear about the expectations and the timeline. Does any work you have already published count towards meeting the tenure standard?
3. What research leave policy, if any, does the school have? A term off after every three full years of teaching is a very good leave policy; some schools have even better policies, most have less generous leave policies. (If there is a norm, it is a term off after every six years.) Many schools have a special leave policy for junior faculty, designed to give them some time off prior to the tenure decision. Find out if the school has such a policy.
4. One of the most important things to be clear about is not just your teaching load, but what courses you will be teaching precisely. You should ask whether the school can guarantee a stable set of courses until after the tenure decision. Preparing new courses is hugely time-consuming, and you also get better at teaching the course the more times you do it. As a tenure-track faculty member, having a stable package of, say, three courses (plus a seminar) will make a huge difference in terms of your ability to conduct research and write. In my experience, most schools will commit in writing to a set of courses for the tenure-track years (and do ask for this in writing), but some schools either won't or can't. In my view, it's a good reason to prefer one school to another that one will give you the courses you want and promise them that they're yours, while another won't--a consideration that overrides lots of other factors, including salary.
5. You should ask for the school's materials on benefits: retirement, life insurance, disability insurance, health insurance, and so on. The biggest, and certainly the most easily discernible differences, are often in the retirement and life insurance categories (sometimes longterm disability insurance too, though unlike life insurance, you're hopefully less likely to utilize this!). What is the university's contribution to retirement? At the low end are schools contributing only 5-6% of your base salary to retirement; the more competitive schools will be in the 8% range, and some will be higher. The big issue on life insurance concerns the amount you are guaranteed irrespective of your health history. 500-600K increasingly seem to be the norm. And, of course, if your health is perfect, this doesn't matter, but I've worked with plenty of candidates where this was a serious issue. (Life insurance companies have no incentives to insure faculty beyond the base amount they have to provide, so even health matters that strike you as trivial may disqualify you from more coverage.) A final benefits issue concerns education/tuition benefits for children. State schools don't offer these; the wealthier private schools do, and if you have kids or expect to have kids, this is worth looking into. At the high end is Chicago, which pays up to 75% of Chicago tuition anywhere for each child. Most of the wealthier private schools will pay 30-50% of the home school tuition for faculty children, wherever they go. Some will offer a larger benefit if your kids go to that school. But there are differences, and they don't track your ordinary expectations about prestige (e.g., last time I looked, the Wash U/St. Louis benefit was much better than the benefit at Penn or Cornell). In any case, get the information. But remember, university-wide benefits are rarely a subject for negotiation--the law school can't give you a higher benefit. Of course, if you have a competitive offer, they may be able to compensate for a significant benefits differential.
6. Finally, once you have an offer, this is a good time to raise issues about the employment prospects for a spouse or partner. Sometimes you may just want help: can the Dean help the significant other make relevant professional contacts in the area? Sometimes you may be hoping for more: e.g., a position in the law school, or in another university department, for the significant other. It is certainly fair to explain the situation and ask. Schools vary in their ability to response effectively to these situations, but many have formal universities policies pertaining at least to spouses who are academics. Raise the issue, and see if the school can help. But realize that the school made you the offer, and they may be able to hire you, and that's that.
The last point relates to a more general issue. If you don't have other offers, you are not in a position to bargain. Period. You may certainly ask about things, raise concerns, etc. But unless you're going to walk away from a tenure-track offer (not a wise thing to do in this market), don't make demands. And even then, a collegial discussion about issues of concern is far better than demands. Even if you have other offers, this advice applies: proceed with caution and respect for the institution. You can report that School Y is offering you a salary 20K higher, and ask whether the Dean of School X, to whom your talking, has any flexibility on this front. But remember: you may end up at School X (because of location, or colleagues in your field, or a better teaching load etc.) and living with that Dean and the other faculty for many years to come. Don't poison the well by displaying a sense of entitlement and self-importance before you even get through the door. Remember: no matter how good you are, you're quite dispensable--in almost every instance, you need the job more than the school needs you. Approach any 'bargaining' or discussion of the package in that spirit. A good school has every reason to want you to succeed and to try to help fashion a package of professional duties and support in that spirit. A good school doesn't need a prima donna.
I invite signed comments from faculty or deans on these issues. A comment without a full name and e-mail address won't appear. Post your comment only once; comments are moderated and may take awhile to appear.
Good luck to all job seekers!
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
For anyone interested, the results of the 2014 survey of leading experts is now on-line, hosted by Wiley-Blackwell. Philosophy is unlike law in that many of the very best departments are not at "brand name" universities, and many "brand name" universities do not have top philosophy departments. (There's also more than thirty areas of specialization ranked, including philosophy of law.)
Saturday, December 6, 2014
An early pioneer in law and economics, Professor Schwartz taught at the University of Texas and the University of Virginia, before joining the faculty at Georgetown University in 1979, where he spent the remainder of his career and where he was Professor Emeritus. I will add links to memorial notices as they appear.
(Thanks to Abe Wickelgren for the information.)
UPDATE: The Georgetown memorial notice.
UPDATE: My colleague Lisa Bernstein writes:
Many years ago when I had the honor of teaching with Warren Schwartz at the Georgetown University School of Law, he would routinely ask me to tell him what I would say at his funeral. I would begin (for this was our ritual), "At every workshop he ever attended Warren asked the question that got to the heart of the matter." At that point he would put up his hand and say, "okay, Lisa, now turn it over to Avery (Katz), to say something pleasing and polite." And so we would leave it. Warren was part of a rare breed of colleague who would love you, criticize you, take you dress shopping, and needle you. Indeed,
in my years since leaving Georgetown I have had many colleagues who provided some of the collegial qualities Warren exhibited, but none that had his unique mix, all tied up in a bow of humor, fire in the belly and love for the good of the profession. I will miss him greatly, as will many who knew him well. His contributions both scholarly and personal should inspire us all.
Comments are open for other remembrances, since it's clear Professor Schwartz made a deep impression on many people.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Professor Bernadette Atuahene (Chicago-Kent) writes:
Today is the first anniversary of Nelson Mandela's death. He became an international icon because he chose reconciliation and forgiveness over war and vengeance. There is no doubt that Mandela was a great man and a great leader. But, now that we have mourned, it is time to take a critical look at his legacy. When we scratch beneath the surface, we find that the political bargain that he brokered to bring an end to apartheid while avoiding massive bloodletting and economic disintegration is now falling apart.
Due to massive colonial and apartheid era land theft, when apartheid ended in 1994, 87% of the land was owned by whites although they constituted less than 10% of the population. The bargain allowed whites to keep their land despite how it was acquired. In exchange, blacks got the promise of land reform. This year, South Africa celebrates 20 years of democracy and the state has transferred only about 10% of the land from whites back to blacks. Whites have secure land rights while the promise made to blacks has gone unfulfilled. Needless to say, many blacks are losing their patience
In one of the most impressive public opinion studies on land reform in South Africa to date, Professor James Gibson surveyed 3,700 South Africans and found that 85 percent of black respondents believed that “most land in South Africa was taken unfairly by white settlers, and they therefore have no right to the land today.” Gibson’s most troubling finding was that two of every three blacks agreed that “land must be returned to blacks in South Africa, no matter what the consequences are for the current owners and for political stability in the country.” According to Gibson’s data, most blacks, whether they live in rural or urban areas, see the land as stolen and want it back even if redistribution will provoke political unrest. That is, land injustice has become a sea of oil waiting for a match.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) are that match. EFF is a newly formed South African political party led by former African National Congress (ANC) youth league president, Julius Malema. The party’s foundational principle is “expropriation of South Africa’s land without compensation for equal redistribution in use.” After only a few months of campaigning, EFF won 6.3% of the vote in the national elections this past May, superseded only by the 22% won by the main opposition party—the Democratic Alliance (DA). To be sure, the ANC secured a safe majority by winning 62% of the vote, but the EFF’s success serves as a reminder of the consequences of its failed land reform program.
Black South Africans can only be expected to be so patient. If legal channels for correcting past land theft are not working, then they may resort to illegal or extreme measures to get their land back. Although Mandela has died, we cannot bury his dream of a free and fair South Africa along with him.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
MOVING TO FRONT FROM DEC. 1--THANKS TO THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY COMMENTED, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM SOME OTHER TITLE IX EXPERTS ON THESE ISSUES
In my other academic field, philosophy, there has been much discussion of the move by the University of Colorado at Boulder to fire a tenured philosophy professor (David Barnett) for "retaliation" against a female complainant in a sexual assault case. A university investigation found against a male graduate student in philosophy (with whom Barnett had worked); Barnett conducted his own investigation of the university's investigation, and sent the University Chancellor a 38-page report alleging mistakes and misconduct in the university investigation. (A copy of this report has not been made public to my knowledge.)
So what constitutes "retaliation" under Title IX? Can alleging a university investigation was flawed constitute retaliation? How does "retaliation" under Title IX interact with the First Amendment rights of faculty and students? Any insight from readers would be welcome.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
They are: Henry Butler (longtime member of the George Mason faculty), Jim Chen (Michigan State, and the former Dean at Louisville), and my colleague Todd Henderson (Chicago). While Todd is a natural for a Deanship, his inclusion is clearly an effort to politically diversify GMU by bringing in someone to the left of most of the current faculty!
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Monday, December 1, 2014
Saturday, November 29, 2014
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Monday, November 24, 2014
Alas, I suffered one on Friday (though now being treated), which has mostly thrown me off-line and off reading, though I'm gradually getting a reprieve. But between that and the Thanksgiving break, there likely won't be much until next week.
November 24, 2014 | Permalink
Friday, November 21, 2014
Tuesday, November 18, 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, November 17, 2014