Reflections on the "Crisis" in the Business of Legal Education and the Problem of the Conventional "Return to Eden" Strategy

 (Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2015)

The Association of American Law Schools (AALS) has just recently concluded its 2015 Annual Meeting. Like other field specific organization functions, the annual meeting provides a space where law faculty can meet to discuss interesting developments in law, showcase new scholarly work, and network.  And this year was no different in that respect.

But there was a difference.  For the last several years, the business of legal education has been under attack. (See here, here and here). And a weak economy, high entry costs and lower economic prospects has combined to substantially reduce law school applicants even as the number of law schools have expanded, the costs of operating law schools has increased as well. (See eg, here, and here).)   In the face of this criticism, there has been some push back as the legal academy seeks to defend its practices and culture--and to convince stakeholders of the value of the product it sells.  (See eg here and here).  But principal stakeholders have become more aggressive in seeking changes in the structure of legal education to suit their own tastes, including the American Bar Association (See, e.g., here), and senior judges (see e.g. here).

This post considers the consequences of the current challenges facinmg law schools, especially those operating within public universities.  It suggests the difficulties of the usual response to such market stress--contraction and a vain effort to recreate a past without stress (the "return to Eden" strategy) and suggest the contours of another and perhaps healthier approach.

Recommendations on Structure and Organization of the University Faculty Senate

On September 17, 2012, I charged the Senate Self-Study Committee to creatively think about mechanisms by which the Senate could improve its role in shared governance and enhance faculty engagement. (Senate Self-Study Committee Charge 9/17/12). Through open communication, the committee received innovative ideas, concepts, and recommendations from the University’s primary stakeholders.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

I wanted to thank the Self Study Committee, and its chair, Mohamad Ansari, for producing what in my opinion is an excellent report.  Their collective and collaborative efforts shows what can be done with a group of dedicated faculty and administrators who operate in an open, transparent and cooperative way.  The Committee's recommendations are intelligent, reasonable and modest.  They are respectful of the Senate's culture and of the core objectives of shared governance. As important,  they appear to conform very well to the sense of the Senate that they have worked tirelessly to incorporate into their  work over the past several months.  I could not be more pleased. 

I am happy to post here the Advisory and Consultative Report prepared by the Self Study Committee, along with its recommendations.  It is my hope that the Senate membership embraces these first steps toward the reorganization of this body so that it may emerge better prepared to engage usefully in shared governance within the modern university.  Please send comments to Professor Ansari . The report follows:

 

Form and Function in Faculty Governance: Aligning Governance Structures With Changing Realities of University Administration

 In a previous post, Senate Forensic on Senate Institutional Reorganization  (Jan. 8, 2013), I discussed work on an exciting (though for some a disconcerting and status quo threatening) project--taking a hard look at the Senate, its organization and effectiveness at Penn State.  I have also posted some comments: Responding to the Senate Self Study Forensic--The Senate Can Work Better. 

("Sleeping dog" Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

The Forensic Report, was the subject of discussion at the Penn State University Faculty Senate meeting of January 29, 2013, provided a number of questions--challenges really--that focus on areas of what some might conclude to be severe  under performance of our organization. I will report on this in a subsequent post. 

This post presents my written remarks on the work of the Self Study Committee and views of the structural issues underlying its work. 

Responding to the Senate Self Study Forensic--The Senate Can Work Better

 In a previous post, Senate Forensic on Senate Institutional Reorganization  (Jan. 8, 2013), I discussed work on an exciting (though for some a disconcerting and status quo threatening) project--taking a hard look at the Senate, its organization and effectiveness at Penn State.  The Forensic Report, to be the subject of discussion at the Penn State University Faculty Senate meeting of January 29, 2013, provided a number of questions--challenges really--that focus on areas of what some might conclude to be severe  under performance of our organization. 

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

One response merits serious consideration.  It highlights those deficiencies that in the eyes of people outside the Senate "inner circle" may help account for the sense of a remote Senate.  These include a failure to engage faculty meaningfully in the process of developing reports, sloppy compilation that effectively makes it impossible to use Senate resources easily (this is an old and unresolved complaint), and the failures of the Senate to use technology to engage faculty.   It is included below without identifying information. Please keep the responses coming!