Tuesday, January 24, 2012

National Jurist editorial on changing law schools

Here's the take of Jack Crittenden, editor of National Jurist Magazine, on the changes taking place in legal education. Rather than seeing broad, sweeping reforms, Mr. Crittenden instead observes many individual schools experimenting with curriculum reform, enhanced skills training and other programs intended to better help students cope with the structural changes many believe are taking place in the legal services marketplace. But tenure and the cost of faculty salaries may place limits on how much law schools are able to adapt down the road. 

How legal education is changing, albeit slowly.

At this year’s annual gathering of law professors and law school administrators, known as the AALS Conference, the subject of change hung over the event as perhaps never before. All of the bad publicity about legal education over the past few years has not gone unnoticed by the leaders in legal education.

Indeed, there was more talk of change than ever before. And even more importantly, behind that talk, there is action.

As Judith Areen with Georgetown Law Center said at the conference, the current crisis has awakened legal education and that is the best defense against complacency.

Law schools across the nation are making changes to address the ongoing concerns. I spoke with deans who are taking aggressive steps to improve their career placement services, and who are bringing more hands’ on practical skills into their curriculum.

The level of experimentation and innovation is at its highest level since I began covering the market 20 years ago. But most observers don’t see the change, because it is happening on a school-by-school basis, and not through an organization like the ABA.

And thank goodness. The ABA has never been an instrument of change and likely never will be. Its greatest act of change only came because it was forced by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Law schools have the ability and power to enact change within the existing guidelines. But some changes would make that process much easier.

Take law faculty tenure for example. Many deans have been openly complaining for a few years now that the tenure rules bind them and force greater expenses.

Jim Chen, dean at University of Louisville, pointed out at the conference that “the single biggest cost in legal education is ourselves. When will salaries do down and tenure abolished?”

It was an over-the-top question, to be sure. Perhaps designed more to shock the audience out of complacency. But underlying his question is the single biggest obstacle to change in legal education.

The law school model is built on tenure, and professorial salaries are by far the biggest expense.

In most struggling industries, management simply cuts out the poor performing segments and reduces the number of employees — bringing the business into equilibrium.

But, tenure does not allow you to easily downsize legal education. Law schools have added more than 5,000 law professors over the past ten years. It would take legal education 20 to 30 years to bring itself back to its smaller size.

But that does not mean legal education can’t adapt. As Areen pointed out to Chen at the AALS conference, only one-fourth of new hires are given tenure. And I think we can expect that number to drop.

. . . .

Continue reading here.

(jbl).

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2012/01/national-jurist-editorial-on-changing-law-schools.html

| Permalink

Comments

Post a comment