Mom, Dad and Deans

I have been pretty critical of deans in my blogs and I may have been unfair. My sample is small. I have only worked closely enough with 8 deans to have any standing with respect to criticism. In that 8, I have seen only one dean who tempted to reshape the work ethic of the faculty. He was canned by a sorry University President who was shortly thereafter canned but not before appointing a dean who knew about as much about law schools as I do about brain surgery. The difference being that if I were asked to do brain surgery, I would decline.

What’s up with deans? Again considering my small sample I have never had a dean who would have been sought after as a lateral hire. Thus, to some extent they have been overplaced and paid substantially more than they would have been paid as a teacher/scholar. This leads to defensive deaning and means that it is foolish to expect a dean to tend to much more than managing the deanship.

BUT, even if my small sample is not representative and even if all the deans I have had were equal to the worse one, the cannot possibly be expected to teach faculty what their moms and dads evidently did not teach: do not take what is not yours without paying for it, tell the truth, share.

On my faculty and I assume most or all others, most faculty do these three things. When a critical mass does not, however, other faculty tend to look the other way or begin to take on the character of those whose moms and dads failed. Here is what I mean:

1. Don’t take what is not yours.

This comes up in the context of tenured professors who do not write or write infrequently. Whether they ignore the obligation, wring their hands over it and still do not write, or refuse to write as a protest, it’s taking money that they have not earned. Isn't this stealing? Some will teach extra to make up the difference but many do not. I guess the lesson around the dinner table at those houses was “It’s OK to take what you want as long as you can get away with it.” If their parents did not teach them not to do this, does a dean really have any chance?

2. Tell the truth

In law teaching there are elaborate ways to avoid telling the truth. The bad NYT rule – do not write what you would like to deny having said later – is an example. The use of words that are deliberately vague. Puffed up resumes. Tenure letters written that are not truthful or omit important information. Claims by a Harvard professor that a candidate she is pushing has 28 call back interviews. An appointments committee that promotes a candidate on that basis knowing it is nearly impossible. Where were the parents on this one? Was the dinner conversation actually, “Only say what benefits you and if it is truthful that’s nice too.” The best dean cannot change this.

3. Share

Evidently a number of people in law teaching had this experience. You are 6 and on the playground with your mom and dad and using the only swing. Five other kids are waiting and your parent says “Don’t worry about them Johnny. You got here first and can use the swing as long as you want.” Those must be the same people who now demand to teacher the fewest classes as possible. Unnecessarily cap classes. “Volunteer” to teach in an interesting summer program before anyone else knows the opportunity exists. Again I am not sure the best dean can change self-dealers into considerate people.

The fact that I do not think most of the deans I have known have done a very good job remains true. It is also true that I may be expecting them to reprogram faculty when it is not possible. Mom and dad had the chance but also failed.

Still if you are at a school where the bad actors have enough clout to affect the culture then a Dean could at least stop facilitating bad behavior. I have seen little of that. And I have never seen a faculty do anything but make nice.

More on Night School

Kudos to Nancy and more on the possible reaction of Law Schools to including part timers in the rankings over on Classbias. All of this makes me think that we should begin to praise USN&WR. Without intending to do so they have exposed the cravenness of many law school deans, faculties and alums who are the dogs to the USN&WR tail. When between the rock of doing the right thing and hard place of doing what is expedient they put the goal of improving legal education aside and then play the victim card -- I had no choice.

Having taught at an urban school with a night program. I know the people who may be affected. They have full time (paying) jobs and then the drive to go to school at night. Or they are stay at home moms or dads who cannot leave the house until their partners come home.

If work ethic were a USN&WR category, the ranking of the schools with these programs would soar. Instead, these highly motivated students could be sacrificed by deans, faculties, and alums for, as Jim and Nancy note, having a meaningless 11 on the scale. Or, if I may -- since they started it -- use a another Spinal Tap reference, the need to stuff another cucumber in their pants. (If you watch the clip that this link takes you to, isn't the security person's acting terrific?) My goodness, maybe they all could become Spinal Tap drummers. I understand the job is open.

Hey Harvard

I read that Harvard has abandoned its program that waived tuition in the third year for students committing to five years of public interest work.

I appears that economic hardship required the change but the Harvard President is also quoted as saying they did not know how easy it would be to get Harvard students to go into public interest work.

On the other hand the Harvard Crimson reports:

"This year, 58 third-year students signed up for the initiative, which has a budget of $3 million per year for a five-year period ending in 2012, . . . About 50 to 60 students entered public service after graduation in previous years before the start of the tuition waiver."

If I am reading the numbers correctly it was a program that had little or no impact on the number Harvard grads opting for public interest work. So, what amounted to a $40,000 payment or an $8,000 a year bump to the public service salary appears to have been unpersuasive. Even by putting a $40,000 thumb on the scale, Harvard evidently could not compete with the big firms and the starting salaries for its grads.

I have and idea for every school that receives applications for qualified candidates in excess the spots available and wants students to "explore" (in the words of Harvard's President) the possibility of public interest work. But be careful what you wish for and do this only if you are serious. Don't reduce tuition. In fact, you might raise it for those with well-heeled moms and dads and even for those so desperate to go to to your school that for them no debt is too great. Just make 5 years of public interest work a condition of admission.

It’s (Some) Man’s World

In the last few months both Marie and Belle have written feminist oriented posts. I agree completely with Marie about sexism and the Clinton campaign. I am somewhat less sympathetic to Belle’s for the reasons stated in a comment. Since reading those, two related ideas have come to mind. One is the number of times I hear of career oriented women hammering those who want a career and a family. The most recent came from a law firm in which 5 partners (three men, two women) were deciding which of the 5 associates (also three men and two women) would become partners. The men voted for all five. The women voted for the men. It was while talking to one of the men partners I learned this and I asked his theory. He said the women partners were fully career devoted without children. The two women associates were attempting to have families and careers and he felt the women partners felt that they had not focused on their careers enough.

I do not know how often this pattern is found but I have heard of it on more that one occasion. Maybe men make it up to point the sexist/anti-family finger at women but in a way I can sympathize with the women who vote no. If they view themselves as having sacrificed to be successful. it is human nature to expect the same of others. Maybe not fair, but human nature nonetheless.

The second idea is that I am confident that a more subtle version of this anti-family bias exists in the case of men. Before my kids were born I tended to write and prepare at home at night and on weekends. Most holidays were spent at work. If I got home at 9:00 PM because I was chasing down an idea or finishing a chapter it was fine. Stay up till 3 A.M.? That was fine too. Just sleep in. When two kids came along (and then a third) the choice was clear. If I wanted to be part of my kids' lives there would have to be coming home for supper, bedtime reading, helping with homework, building things with blocks, racing slot cars, rough housing, soccer, T-Ball and baseball, building Lego castles or free-styling, giving baths, sitting up at night, doing family things on weekends and minimal traveling to conferences. Every person with kids under the age of 10 knows that you cannot work and be in charge of the kids. Trying to will make you crazy. And I was a Dad with a stay at home wife who did most of the work.

I understand this is still far less than the demands on female faculty with children (although I do think a stern talk with their husbands may make as much sense as a talk with the dean) but children force even men, except perhaps the most efficient and the most talented, to make a choice. In fact, for men like me who are not in the most talented or efficient ballpark, losing the extra hours is even more critical. I could see it unfold but for me the choice was easy, I assume, in part because it was not as big a choice as women make. But the problem to some extent lies in the nature of the job. Law teaching and especially writing is not like a limited space or limited time exam. Those who have more pages or unlimited time will write more and do better professionally. If we had 8-5 jobs the playing field would be a bit more level for men and women but that is not the case. Should anything be done? On this I am not sure. An economist would say that we all make the best choices we can. (As I have written a number of places, I think that is only partly true but let’s pretend that it is true so I can add my final thought.) Presumably the dads and moms not spending time with the kids and the no-kid-workaholic men and women opting for writing and its rewards instead of yachting or belly-dancing lessons or wood chucking or pasta making make hard choices and lose something pleasurable in the process. In a not-limited-space profession, it’s inevitable.