Equations: Tops in Shame

Ever wonder what accounts for the inability of privileged people to see what the opportunity costs are of spending (usually someone else's) money on things they find convenient? Or is it that they feel entitled to these things? Here are some examples that make my jaw drop, and I am sure I am only scraping the surface.

1. UF's new $20 million Law building. In a perverse application of a peak load planning strategy the building is only used to capacity from about 10 AM to 2 PM, Monday through Wednesday. Nights, weekends, evenings, Thursday, Friday, summer, late afternoon? Pretty empty. So why is this? 30 or so professors like to teach not too early, not too late, and they like to get an early start on the weekend. No one has the you know whats to tell them no. By saying "no" a few times and moving around a few classes, a $10 million upgrade would have done the job for years to come.

Is there any way $10 million could have been used to increase the welfare of Floridians more than an empty building? I am tempted to say virtually any way would have been better but, in fact, in Alachua county, the home of UF, 23% of the population lives below the poverty line. Let's see . . . a $20 million Law building built to accommodate a handful with money that could have provided housing for 200 families? That can only makes sense to those with a sense of entitlement.

2. The most egregious if not for the fact that it is relatively small: $30,000 - $40,000 a year for a program that involves flying UF law professors to Poland to lecture Polish students about American law. The aspirations of those those students -- to get jobs with big law firms. Thus, in a bizarre system of redistribution, funds flow through the Law School to multinational law firms who are evidently too cheap (or too wise) to invest in Polish students themselves. I guess UF could just write a check to those law firms with the understanding that they would train Polish students. That would be great news for the 23% in Alachua county who are without adequate medical care. Not!

3. This is an estimate but, having been part of the process, I would say that the effort to recruit new faculty at UF Law this year cost in excess of $100,000. There are trips for committees, lodging, meals, candidate visits, catered meals, etc. The net result is one hire of one beginning professor who will not teach a full load and will receive summer grants for six years. And, it is not clear that the professor had offers from a single other school. He may be great and I think he will be, but did it take $100,000 plus to land him?

So what could done with $100,000 other than flying faculty to and from recruiting conferences, feeding them at the most expensive restaurants in town, and paying the highest airfares?

I have a hunch that the 23% living a few miles away could answer this. Of course, no one asks them nor do they ask themselves: Is this the best use of other people's money?

Follow the Money

Does the idea of following the money have any application to legal education? Not directly but the theme can be applied.

In its conventional form the question means who benefits from a misdeed. In the law school context the question is “who loses the money if misdeeds are corrected.”

The misdeeds I am referring to are (for some but not all schools) a lack of interest in seriously evaluating teaching effectiveness and deliberately sloppy scholarship reviews at tenure time. You know what I mean, internal reviews written by log rolling buds and shopping in the easy letter market for outside reviews.

Who gets the money? That’s easy, legal education is controlled by the graduates of a handful of elite law schools and law professors are disproportionately from the privileged classes.

My hunch is that if Moneylaw principles were adopted – which I take to mean hiring, promotion, tenure, and raises based on rigorous and objective evaluation -- there would be a shift of the “money” from the elites to the non elites.

Could I be wrong? Of course I could be but the elites generally seem to agree. When is the last time one of them aggressively advanced an agenda of honest teaching and scholarship review? Why take the chance when the system is rigged in your favor?

Chicken Fingers

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that read:

“A working man who votes Republican is like a chicken who likes Colonel Sanders.”

I personally think this is true but, if you live in the South and many other places as well, you know it is not a slogan that most people pay attention to.

What makes working class people vote so often for politicians who promote the interests of their bosses? So-called liberals chalk it up to racism because this helps justify their lack of interest in class issues.

I think there is a different, more subtle, explanation. For whatever reason, the “face” of the Democratic Party is one of elitists. After all, Bill Clinton tried to appoint to his cabinet Zoe Baird, half of a $600,000 a year couple who were willing to pay only $24,000 to the caretaker of her only daughter. Rock stars, movie stars, glamorous authors tend to be Democrats and behave in a way working class people regard as immoral.

The Democratic image problem seems unfair because there must be as many elitists and rule-benders among Republicans. But Republicans are perceived to be less likely to use bad language, more likely to go to church, and to listen to country music, and more likely to fly an American flag with pride: cultural mores that working class people tend to share.

But the problem is not which party has more elitists. The actual problem is two-fold. First, Democrats have become progessively less interested in class in the last 50 years. Second, even if they claim to be advocates for the "working man," they are woefully ignorant of the what it means to be a working class person in America. A law professor would have no idea, for example, what it would be like to get up at 7:00 and return home at 6:00 after a day of physical work - no leisurely visits to the faculty lounge, no extended gossip sessions, no time to go to the dentist, etc. A law professor could not conceive of living on $15.00 an hour or his/her spouse bartending nights to make ends meet or worry about the price of ground beef or deciding to eat hot dogs once a week in order to make ends meet. They tend to shudder at things blue collar.


I watch this process play out at my job. I think I am pretty good at spotting the very few working class students who filter into even a state law school. It is profiling to be sure, but they are more likely to have acne scars, poor dental work, out of date hair styles (no mullets thank God) and to be overweight. When the first “dress up” occasion is held, the men and women are more likely to look like they read “court attire” to mean “Scarface attire.”

As these people move through law school, they get a belly-full of “liberal” indoctrination that is at best class-neutral and probably anti blue collar. When it comes to research assistant positions they are befuddled by why they were not chosen and Ms. Perfect Smile is. And when profs chum it up with students, you can bet it is not with the students who have even a smidgen of working classness about them. Perhaps this is understandable: people are more comfortable around those who are like them. So much for "embracing diversity."

Who would get your vote. Someone who does not care about you but is honest about it. Or someone who claims to care but actually finds you an inconvenient reminder of his own hypocrisy?

Entitled to be Sure

When you live in the land of the entitled there are little signs here and there of priviledged lives. One of the obvious ones is the faculty lounge. If your school is fortunate enough to have the funding, you probably find coffee, fruit, and a vaiety of pastries and breads in the lounge each morning. By afternoon is is gone replaced by banana peels, apple cores, muffin wrappers, spilled coffee, dirty cups, and the like. The trash can is 10 feet away but the assumption, I suppose. is that someone else deals with the trash.

Is leaving your trash around the worst of academic sins? Hardly. There are many more that actually make shareholders (students, taxpayers and donors) worse off than necessary. On the other hand, is there any better indication of a sense of entitlement and the likely consequences of that sense in other areas of one's life than leaving trash for a secretary or someone else to clean up?

Opps, You did it Again!

Dear Jeff:

I see you have posted another of my letters in strict violation of the New York Times Rule. If you had read my blog, you would understand the need for the rule especially among those of us who value our personal integrity – obviously something of little importance to you. But I challenge you. Who do you find more trustworthy: Someone who does not write anything down in order to maintain his or her flexibility or someone who does write it down because the truth is the same no matter who the listener is? I rest my case!!

Since you have violated the rule and posted my letters – something I trust you will not repeat – I must clarify something for your paltry band of readers and others who mistakenly find their way to your blog.

I mention this because I promised Hugo to clarify. In my letter I indicated that Hugo is “vice president in charge of international programs. He is, in truth, “senior vice president of in charge of international programs.” He was terribly hurt by your omission and I promised to publicly apologize.

I am happy to apologize in light of the exciting summer program he is setting up in Rome. It is beyond splendid and something that would appeal to moneylaw types.

The program is open to as many students who choose to sign up and tuition is quite low – it just covers the cost of the program (important to you, I know). Hugo and I (Caroline and Marvelle will accompany us) will offer the course in Rome. That is, the four of us will go to Rome. The students will actually stay in the United States. What could be more student sensitive? We will lecture from Rome -- twice a week each -- using a video feed. In addition, will "take" them on several guided tours and even invite them to our meals. They will have intimate contact with Rome, Romans, and Italian law without all the messiness of actually going to Rome. Instead, Hugo and I will do the heavy lifting.

Ciao!

Chadsworth

Ghost Article

Dear Jeff:

I noticed that you have posted my letter to you on your pathetic blog and I fear your misguided effort is designed to ridicule me and my colleagues. I am sincerely amazed and fear for your well-being.

You seem to have the impression that the worth of a law professor is determined by what he or she does. In fact, the true worth of a law professor is determined by what he or she is. Law school hiring committees know this. Take for instance your own which, with minor exception, interviewed only candidates from elite schools.

Nevertheless, even if I accepted your view that doing is more important than being, we (my similarly credentialed colleagues and I ) do so much more. Just this morning in the faculty lounge I was able to set my colleagues straight about the quality of one of the candidates the faculty had mistakenly given a very positive vote. Luckily my dean seems to understand that is best to listen to those of us who are connected and not to the vast majority of the faculty.

And then this afternoon I did some important consulting with Hugo Valencia, vice president in charge of intenational programs. Yes, it was over tennis and drinks and, yes, Caroline and Marvelle, our wives, joined us, but many important and productive things were said. I should have invited one of the assistant professors to transcript our discussion. No doubt it was worthy of publication thus I will list it as a “ghost publication” on my resume.

Time to rest. Don’t you agree.

Chadsworth

Letters: Tough Day

I got this letter from a privileged law prof friend:

Dear Jeff:

Another crazy day. It was nearly 10:30 before I finished the Times and my latte. Class was at 11 and there was no way I could make it, what with the headache I may get later, so I call in and told my secretary to read my notes to the group.

By the time I got done with all of that it was time for my massage. Then lunch. In this job it's one thing after another but I did have time to drop by School to get my mail and visit with some colleagues. We got caught up in a discussion about the best hotel to stay in during International Law Conference in Paris this spring.

I finally left school at 3. Whew, what a day! I barely made it to the gym for my racketball game with Phil.

Next thing I know it's 5 and time to unwind with a glass of wine.

I tried to take some "personal time" later but Caroline wanted to see a movie so off we went.

Maybe tomorrow I can kick back a bit.

By the way, you can check out my new blog PrivilegeLaw.

Best, Chadsworth

Privilege and Product Development

One of the advantages of being privileged is rarely being wrong. This plays out in law schools with respect to the “products” law professors offer or sell to students and others. The “products” are actually “programs” including student run publications, LLMs, certificate programs, centers, institutes, foreign programs, and probably some things I do know exist.

Car makers with massive market studies make mistakes with respect to their product lines. So do clothes designers, pharmaceutical manufactures and restaurants. I guess they should hire law professors who, with practically no market analysis, get it right every time. Of course there is another interpretation. In conventional markets, demanders and suppliers occupy different sides of the market. Law faculties tend to occupy both sides of the market – they supply the programs that they demand and are lucky enough to pay for what they demand with the money of others.

Consequently, my objections are not to the products per se but to the lack of care taken in establishing them and, far, far more importantly, the virtually impossibility of discontinuing them.

Let me give an example or two of how this plays out. One is about the life of a program. The other is about the difficulty of reexamination. At Florida we have a summer teaching program in France. It is also far from our worst (or best) program and I use it here as an example. The director (who goes every year) takes another professor and 20 or so students who respond to what seems to me to be a massive advertising campaign. The program was approved at a summer faculty meeting over ten years ago with 17 people in attendance. (Our faculty numbered over 50 at the time.)When a lack of a quorum was mentioned, the dean replied that everyone knew about the meeting and could have come if they cared. The meeting likely had been selected so supporters would outnumber detractors. They did, but barely. Years later the program still exists and, ironically, the current director was one of the principal detractors. The costs and benefits of the program and the quality of the program have never been seriously examined. The enrollment remains low and there are many other similar programs offered by other schools that our students could attend. In effect, it was established and continues to exist on a whim and it can hardly be something that elevates the School in any ranking or offers an opportunity to students that they could not get elsewhere.

On the inertia problem. A few years ago a former dean appointed a committee to review all of our programs and to make recommendations on whether any should be discontinued. Among those appointed to the program were some faculty with the most to lose if any serious changes were make and some faculty of the Making Nice, Knowing Better, Doing Nothing ilk. (I should add that instances in which others might think in terms of recusal are looked upon as opportunities on my faculty and I would guess many others as well.) The committee worked and argued and worked and argued some more. That dean moved on and was replaced. The new dean wanted no part the controversy that is invariably necessary to bring about change. He distanced himself from “program review” and turned a deaf ear to complaints that the directors – within in his administration -- of the programs under scrutiny had not reported their costs. (A charge he later conceded was true but the administrators remained.)

After two years, a report was written. The faculty voted not to consider it but to allow it to serve as something for the Dean to keep in mind. To say that the report was tame is an understatement. No programs were to be discontinued. There was a mild suggestion that one program should be increasing transferred over private funding. Years have passed and nothing became of it. In fact, in 25 years, as far as I know not one program of any kind had been eliminated or, for that matter, come close to it with the possibly exception of a “Summer School in Poland Program.” Again, I doubt we are different form other schools.

Once a program is established, people become attached it and are deeply vested. Efforts to examine a program are taken personally. Any attempt to overcome the resistance to examination is met with the charges of “uncollegiality.” “Owners” avoid evaluation of others for fear their will be the next to come under scrutiny.

This is what happens when the merits of what the privileged do are assessed by the similarly privileged.

Class Bias UP! and a Request

People interested in class bias in all its forms will find an article in the December 2006 the Atlantic Monthly interesting. The article, "Ordinary People" by Clive Crook (sorry, I would provide a link but you would still have to pay), is an overview of the documentary series that started with "7 Up!" in 1964. That film was an examination of the lives of 14 seven year old children. Every seven years the process as been repeated with the focus on the same group of "children" who are now 49 years old -- thus "49 Up!" is now out

Two points in particular struck home. First, much of the seven year olds' futures have been determined by the class that they were born into. Second, it is not at all clear that class determines happiness. The author suggests that a capacity to experience happiness may not be class based.

The children are all British and some may argue that the lessons from the series do not translate to the U.S. The author says that is not the case and anyone paying attention will certainly agree.
This all leads to the question of how working class people make it into higher education. At some point I believe it is a product of luck. For me luck struck in the beginning of my senior year at the University of Florida. I had just been through the advising process which amounted to someone signing a form. Advisor selection was random. A couple of weeks later, I was sitting in a class when the advisor I had came and knocked on the door and asked to speak to me. I was freaked out.

He told me that the School had an NDEA Fellowship that I could have if I agree to stay in School, work on a Ph.D, and express an interest in teaching. This meant getting paid to go to school. The whole thing was agree to in about 15 minutes. "Are you kidding," was my principal response since no one in my family had finished college or even knew such things as Fellowships existed. I had applied for nothing and it was only because this advisor took note of my grades and kept me in mind that one thing led to another.

People who have experienced this know how hard it is to explain to your parents what a Fellowship is and to explain to your grandmother (in my case) that working on a doctorate did not mean you would be able to prescribe medicine for her aches and pains.

So, that's my story of the twist that changed my life from that found among the kids in "7 Up." I'd like to know yours. If you are a working class academic, what was the turning point? Just comment below. Thanks

More on Race and Class

A couple of my recent posts have drawn some modest commentary leading to this effort to extend the discussion with respect to one of them. The following is part of a comment on my post, Race, Class and Diversity.

"To me, it seems risky for anyone outside of the "top 10," because I suspect that even if a non-top 10 law school candidate were extended an offer to join a law school faculty, the barriers to getting tenure and eventually being promoted to full professor would be very high, if not insurmountable. That person would never be part of the ivy "clique"; the person would never measure up to the others on the faculty. It's just like everything else in life...kinship and friendship."

The author, an African American attorney, first noted that most of his African American colleagues who had jumped from practice to teaching had graduated from elite schools. He or she ended the comment with what I have produced here.

Part of the reason I am responding in a post is that the comment was “anonymous” and I am not sure the assumption made is correct.

My impression is that things shift dramatically once non elite candidates enter law teaching. Suppose landing a teaching position at a law school is comparable to a 20 foot pole vault for a non elite candidate. For the suitably credentialed person it is more like a 10 foot pole vault. (In other words, it is still not easy.) When it comes to tenure, though, the difference is more along the lines of a 12 foot pole vault for non elites as opposed to a 10 foot pole vault for the privileged. In other words, I would not allow the slight disadvantage to discourage the comment writer from giving law teaching a go.

I think the reasons for the shift are as follows.

1. Credentials are not nearly as important at tenure time. By then the halo effect has worn off and there is performance to go on. This is not to say the credentials are unimportant. They will affect the content of the name-dropping footnote, the people to whom you can sent drafts, possible reviewers, and the ranking of the reviews accepting articles. Still, performance matters.
2. Unless you really irritate a number of people, law professors do not like to admit to mistakes. Tenure denials are rare and mainly reserved for the disliked, the incorrect, real screw-ups, and the seriously underachieving.
3. The non elite candidate is not going get a job at a “fast track” school. The standards and the competition are, thus, not likely to be overwhelming.
4. This goes back to performance but non elites will be surprised at how often the elites are unable to live up to expectations.

Being Important

One of the interesting aspects experiencing socioeconomic displacement is that you are more sensitive to the rules that the important people observe. Here are some:

1. Grading deadlines are not critical. The students can wait when you are important.
2. Distribute your resume to your class if you cannot come. The message is clear. When you have time you will drop by.
3. Have an affair with a secretary. What's the big deal when you are a big deal?
4. Secretary does not have your work done on time although it was given to him at 3 and it was not due until 2? Call the dean and have him fired. After all you are a "professor" and the secretaries are so. . . well, inept.
5. Limits on travel expenses apply to others.
6.Need to take off three weeks in the middle of the semester to teach a course in England? By all means. Everyone understands when you are important.
7. No time to write a new exam? Just use last year's. Make sure it is machine graded.
8. Students need to see you? Have them talk to "your secretary" (who you share with ten others) and make an appointment someday in the distant future.
9. University rules on letterhead comformity? Forget it!
10. Office color not quite right? Demand that it be repainted. You need your color and you deserve it.
11. Teaching 30 students a year? That is way too many. Scedule an appointment with the dean and remind him or her of the demands on your time.
12. Didn't get your book order in by the deadline? What are deadlines when you are important?
13. Pontificate on the quality of the work you have not read. You are an authority on just about everything, right!!
14. Assure a visiting professor that he will get a permanent offer. Why not? You are a leader!

And it's only the third day of the semester. There are so many more ways to be important.

Race and Class

Did you ever notice that MoneyLaw and Classbias contributors do not have much to say about race? A person without similar concerns is Walter Benn Michaels, author of The Trouble with Diversity: How we Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality. Here is the Amazon description:

If there’s one thing Americans agree on, it’s the value of diversity. Our corporations vie for slots in the Diversity Top 50, our universities brag about minority recruiting, and every month is Somebody’s History Month. But in this provocative new book, Walter Benn Michaels argues that our enthusiastic celebration of “difference” masks our neglect of America’s vast and growing economic divide. Affirmative action in schools has not made them more open, it’s just guaranteed that the rich kids come in the appropriate colors. Diversity training in the workplace has not raised anybody’s salary (except maybe the diversity trainers’) but it has guaranteed that when your job is outsourced, your culture will be treated with respect.

With lacerating prose and exhilarating wit, Michaels takes on the many manifestations of our devotion to diversity, from companies apologizing for slavery, to a college president explaining why there aren’t more women math professors, to the codes of conduct in the new “humane corporations.” Looking at the books we read, the TV shows we watch, and the lawsuits we bring, Michaels shows that diversity has become everyone’s sacred cow precisely because it offers a false vision of social justice, one that conveniently costs us nothing. The Trouble with Diversity urges us to start thinking about real justice, about equality instead of diversity. Attacking both the right and the left, it will be the most controversial political book of the year.

What is unique about the Micheals’ book is that he regards himself as writing from the point of view of the political left. He reinforces what many have known for years: The connection between race and especially gender and leftist values is very tenuous.

About the time I became aware of the Michaels' book, I received an email from a faculty candidate who was not having much luck finding a job:

“I recently read your . . . J. Legal. Educ. article addressing class bias in law school hiring. . . . Your comments regarding black candidates (p. 122) really hit home, as I am a black candidate who recently entered the teaching market. I come from a rigorously working class background with "nonelitist credentials." In fact, I am the first person in my family to attend college (my father did not even finish high school!).”

The excerpt to which the candidate refers is below

Initially, I thought that most law professors simply could not understand the value of recruiting those who are economically and socially disadvantaged because their own background was so "impoverished." Now I believe that there is a desire (perhaps unconscious) to exclude candidates from less privileged classes. When I observed efforts to recruit minority candidates, I began to realize what was really going on. As most members of law faculty recruiting committees go through the AALS resumés, the "plum" they are looking for is the minority candidate with a string of degrees and a high ranking from an elite law school. Hiring a high-ranking black candidate from Texas Southern Law School or North Carolina Central is a stretch many are unwilling to make. Clearly, a privileged education clinches a position for a black candidate, whereas nonelitist credentials are only sometimes offset by being black. Thus, even in the seemingly honorable effort to obtain some diversity, the aim, as much as possible, is to recruit minority candidates who have been more or less "styled" by seven years at Harvard or Stanford or Pennsylvania. In short, the class bias is so overpoweringly important that it actually undermines ongoing efforts to create faculty diversity through minority hiring. (42 JLEGED 119)

Several years have passed since I wrote that but I cannot say that anything has changed. The same elitist leanings that exclude less privileged whites seem to apply to African Americans as well. When it comes down to it, the elitists who control legal education have little interest in actual contact with the world outside their own. White and African American candidates who attended elite schools; can drop the right names; have educated parents; are able to discuss the best restaurants in L.A., New York or Boston; and who can pass a political litmus test will he hired over an African American candidate who cannot check off everything on this list. In seeking diversity the search is on for what seems to be the least diverse candidates possible.

Untenureds: Hurting, Helping, and Developing a Sense of Entitlement

This is not a “walked 5 miles through the driving snow” story although it may seem that it is.

At the mid level schools at which I have taught, life for untenured faculty has changed. At my first teaching job, I taught the summer before my first fall -- a first preparation crammed into a 7 week course. Like others, the course load thereafter was the same as that for my senior colleagues. At tenure time, we had no input into who the referees were for our scholarship. They were all national figures and I was surprised they would take the time. When the class visitation issue came up, the visits were announced the same day or not announced at all. Why would they be?

These days at my school and others, I assume, it is quite different. Untenureds receive summer research grants starting with the summer before beginning teaching and extending through the tenure decision. Reduced teaching loads in the first year are the norm. The candidates are involved in selecting referees for their scholarship. The scheduling of class visits is done to make sure the candidates can be at their best. (Not that anyone actually writes a negative class visit letter even though their private comments may suggest there are problems.) Faculty, many of whom are not successful writers, are constantly providing advice, often conflicting, about whom to try to please, how to get a good placement, topics, etc. Or, they babble on about their own work, name drop or otherwise try to impress. There are scholarship mentors and “friend” mentors. Next there will be mentors for the mentors and an Associate Dean for Mentoring.

Sounds pretty good right?

I am not sure. I preferred the old way. The new “supportive,” “sensitive,” “caring” approach seems nerve racking. There is so much attention focused on the untenureds, I do not see how they survive without mega doses of Valium. The assistance has an unsettling ritualistic quality about it. It seems so much more intense than when I went through the “less sensitive” process (where I was told to work hard and everything would be fine) although the standards are exactly the same. Everything written will be published and favorable reviews are readily supplied. The production about class visitation suggests that somehow it is not just another day in front of the class.

The new “sensitive” process also strikes me as undermining. We, and every other law school, hire relatively confident and competent fully developed adults. Often they are married with children or have other support systems and come from successful careers. Immediately, like overly protective parents, we “tell” them that they are dependent, need our help, and face a huge challenge. By making life “easier” we communicate that the job is overwhelming when it is not and that we have little confidence in them. What the pretenure period reminds me of is a kind of velvet glove hazing like that which first year students seem to want to experience even though those days are long gone.

Finally, there is another dangerous lesson this may teach. It is only human for untenureds to develop expectations. If their every need(or non need) is anticipated and satisfied, what kind of faculty do they become? Will they accept it if a dean asks them to teach in an area where the School is short on coverage that year? Will they be willing to meet with students even when it is not convenient? Will they simply become part of the Matrix in which they deserve all they get and more regardless of what they do? Most have a sense of entitlement when they arrive and the new sensitively reinforces it.

I honestly feel sorry for today’s untenureds and would not trade places. My hope is that they can ignore the messages and laugh, forgive, and become productive (no matter how much we tell them it is unlikely).

Polls

Over the last few weeks, I have polled readers on three issues. Only a handful of readers responded so who knows what the “truth” is. Still, for those interested, here are the results.

Issue 1

Is there a market for easy tenure review letters?
Thirty-two people responded. Twenty-one answered “yes.” Three answered “no.” The rest had no opinion or checked a box that was not responsive. I found the result surprising. I thought law professors would answer defensively and claim that tenure and review processes were “clean.” They did not. What do you make of a profession that has no front end evaluation of scholarship, no back end evaluation, and hands out life time annuities to mostly already privileged people.

Issue 2

Do you use multiple choice questions on law school final exams?

Thirty people responded. Thirteen use no multiple choice. Twelve use them for less than half of the total grade, four for less than half, and one person for the entire final. These numbers may overstate the number of multiple choice users because I was really only interested in whether people used machine gradable multiple choice. The text of the post made that clear but the actual poll question may not have.

Some commentators defended their use of multiple choice saying there are different “learning styles.” That my be true but the only learning style it makes sense, to me at least, to test is that which is most closely related to reasoning through complex situations. I am not convinced that machine gradable multiple choice question do that.

Issue 3

This question was more complicated. It was an assessment law school health. Only 23 people responded and there is no guarantee that 23 different law schools are represented. Ten ranked their law schools as, well, pretty awful places. Another 4 placed their law schools just a notch up from awful. You would have to look at the post to get a flavor of what “awful” means.

What does any of this mean? The low numbers are disappointing. Let's hope they are not representative.

The Grading Thing

I often tell my first year students that writing an exam is the hardest thing I do and grading them the most miserable.

Now I have heard of a new way to handle both tasks. Substitute hours of constructing an exam with a few seconds of changing the date on last year’s exam. As for grading, multiply choice, machine graded (mcmg) tests are just the ticket.

Obviously, this saves an enormous amount of time but I am not sure what the grades mean. My premise here is that most first year teachers, in particular, devote a fair – if not most – of their time to critical thinking and analysis. Most issues the students see have a Rashomon like quality. I am far from convinced that a mcmg exam is a useful tool for assessing the development of those skills. Worse, if you are known to be mcmg person I think it is likely that students know not to take much of what goes in class seriously unless you are just downloading information. Mcmg people may say that there is correlation between how students do on complex essay questions and mcmg exams but that may only hold for the first couple of times giving the mcmg exam.After that, the professor is teaching one thing and the students are preparing for a test on something else.

Even if good multiple choice questions can be written for law courses and I believe it is possible beyond the first year, it is very difficult. That difficulty leads to the recycling temptation. If you recycle multiple choice questions and do not think many of the questions are “out,” please get in touch with me because your powers of rationalization are far beyond mine and I would sincerely like to escape my own feelings of regret about some of my own misdeeds.

Ok, so let me predict. Those of you who use mcmg exams are annoyed because I have called into question your work ethic and integrity. Of course not! What I am actually saying is that recycled mcmg testing in law schools "gives me pause," "concerns me," "puzzles me," "makes me wonder," "may require extra care," "needs careful consideration" or "is a good idea for some." And, if you have checked to determine whether your recycled mcmg exam actually tests what you are teaching, I am not even saying anything that harsh.

I think one of the tenets of MoneyLaw is to do all the functions of a teacher – even the grunge of assigning grades – so that stakeholders are not shortchanged. It seems to me that recycled mcmg tests and, for that matter, recycled short answer questions may be like giving $2 back to a customer who has given you a $5 for a $1 item. But then the privileged make the rules -- even when it comes to making change, don’t they?

Of course maybe I am just irritated about grading 180 essay exams.

All kidding aside, this is one thing I really would like to be wrong about. If you give mcmg exams to your first year class, how about sharing one in the comments area along with your explanation of what the question tests. I'd like to be converted to your point of view. But first, I'd appreciate if you would respond to following poll.

Do you use multiple choice questions on your final exam.
	None at all
	For less than half of final exam grade.
	For more than half but not all of the final exam grade.
	For the entire final exam grade.
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Law School Risk Factors

(I found this quiz at WebMD-LawSchool.com and am passing it along.)

It's the beginning of the year and time to take an inventory of your law school's health. Give your school a "5" if the description is dead on and a "0" if it is completely inapplicable.

1. There is a critical mass of faculty for whom the ends nearly always justify the means. The “ends” can be anything from personnel to program decisions.

2. The convenience of faculty is always an important consideration in faculty votes and administrative decision making, sometimes to the detriment of stakeholders (students, donors and taxpayers).

3. It is difficult to discontinue or even to objectively evaluate existing programs without it becoming "personal."

4. There is a great deal of gossip. It comes to you even if you are not a “carrier.”

5. There is a solid core of “Making Nice, Knowing Better, Doing Nothing” people. These are the colleagues who express the right ideas – when they express at all – but are AWOL when critical decision points arise that could send the school in a more positive direction.

6. Your administration, when it is internally active at all, is principally concerned with putting out fires but only those that threaten the administration itself.

7. There are few if any norms about making up missed classes, rigor in the classroom, publication goals, testing practices, availability to students, etc.

8. Your dean would rather delay a hard decision or pass it onto the faculty knowing that that the School will suffer as a result. See Chen, Three Deans.

9. Tenured faculty frequently discuss controversial questions with untenured faculty and while doing so make clear their own opinions and what their expectations are.

10. Faculty tend to teach the same courses from the same books for years, maybe careers.

Add up your score and please fill in the poll found below:

40-50 points. Go to the Law School ER immediately. Not for your school. It left the world of the living some time ago. You, however, have a pulse. Save yourself by writing and teaching your very best and finding a hobby.

30-39 points. Your School is in critical condition but there is a chance of survival. It will be very tricky. Retirements, hiring stealth candidates, and a courageous dean are needed. Guerilla action maybe in order.

20-29 points. You have an elevated risk of law school death but it can be controlled by diet and exercise. Do not let the opportunity slip away.

10-19 points. Enjoy your law school’s good health.

0-9 points. See a physician immediately. You are delusional.

What is your school's score?
	40-50
	30-39
	20-29
	10-19
	0-9
Free polls from Pollhost.com

The Letter, the Market,and "Easy Writers"

At times like these I sincerely wish I knew how to take a poll of MoneyLaw readers and law professors generally to see if they agree with what follows. I do not claim to know whether it is accurate or not.

Recently a friend at another school and I discussed how his faculty would react to a less-than-glowing tenure review letter. In the course of the conversation, he made two observations. The first was that Tenure and Promotion Committees and outside reviewers generally understand that outside reviewers are supposed to help the committee “get the candidate through.” Then he went on to name some well-known scholars who were not asked for review letters because, as he put it, “they will actually say what they really think.” This was not the first time I had heard that the job of Tenure and Promotion Committees is to “get the candidate through.” It seemed to be the case at my school until relatively recently. (I assume this is primarily a middle or lower ranked school phenomenon.)

If my friend is right, there is in legal education a "market" for letters. The demand side is composed of Committees that are candidate advocates and steer clear of reviewers who “say what they really think." Suppliers are reviewers who, although moaning and groaning about the work involved, give the committees what they are asking for – all in coded terms, of course. Those frequently asked to provide reviews, under this theory, need to ask why they their services are in high demand. Would they be just as popular and their opinions so valued if they were a tad more candid?

If the theory holds and everything else is equal, the number of letters requested and written could be inversely related to a reviewer’s candor and integrity. Perhaps salary increases should be granted in inverse relation to the number of review letters written. This would not work, I know, because money is hardly the motivating factor. More importantly, I have seen many letters in which reviewers do say what they think. In fact there may be two markets: one for the easy letter and the other for the "what you really think" letter. Only the reviewers themselves know which market they are supplying. The problem is that the "easy writers" surely have erected an elaborate matrix of rationalizing mechanisms that protect them from self awareness.

We have all seen a version of the "easy writer" when students stampede to fill the sections of courses taught by teachers who require little and give high grades. I feel certain that even "easy writers" frown on student shopping. My school and others have imposed grading curves to respond to the high grade suppliers. If the "easy writer" theory holds, it's unfortunate that a comparable control cannot be applied to review suppliers.

In a way, the "market for letters" theory is, at least intuitively, my friend's. So, here is the question: Is there a demad for "easy writers?" Your replies are anonymous and a simple yes or no will suffice.

Greeks 0, Choir 0, School 0, Umpire 0, Stakeholders -1

It’s not often that you see a score like that but it does happen. I have seen it recently. This all goes back to my view that law schools are especially susceptible to capture by faculties who then operate them without much regard for stakeholders (students, donors, and the community).

Critical to the success of capture on this scale is log-rolling. When you get right down to it log-rolling is just another name for white collar, political barter. It all works fine for those who have captured a law school as long as there are goodies to which the rollers attach different values. For example, one group really wants a new LLM and does not care one way or another about foreign programs. Another really wants that new foreign program in Nice but does not care much about a new LLM. Each needs the other’s vote to get what it wants and, as long as there are sufficient resources, we have a bit of a Coasean happening. Eventually, years of relying on informal procedures that allow groups to get what they want through side deals and barter create expectations and can replace more formal procedures. If this School were a person his or her physician would be saying “I know you feel fine now, but … we need to talk.”

The problem is that log-rolling just does not work when the game is zero sum. This, I think, is the more important point for MoneyLaw and Classbias people. Leadership and formal procedures – determined in advance to be fair -- are needed. If a school that has no leaders and has, for all practical purposes, dispensed with formal procedures runs into a zero sum decision, the illness becomes evident and the harm spreads beyond those battling.

At my school we have experienced such nastiness. The Greeks – so named not for ethnic reasons but for sorority/fraternity close-knitness – wanted something really badly. The Choir – so named for singing together but having a limited repertoire – wanted the opposite. (Now don’t get the impression that someone is always a Greek or always a Choir member. There are floaters and pretenders who move in and out of each group, not unlike mercenaries--only the pay-off is social acceptance. These are the ones about which to worry.) In any case, these parties had made for some mutually beneficial log-rolling.

When the inevitable clash occurs -- as it did-- you get the score with which I started. In this case the Greeks lost. But so did the Choir because, in the absence of open and fair procedures, the losers feel betrayed and may not be as eager to log-roll on the next issue. The Umpire? If the Umpire does not show up what can you give him or her other than a zero? And, finally, when faculties make decisions through winks, nods and nothing in writing that you would not want in the New York Times, Stakeholders are in negativeland.

Chutzpah, Stupidity, or Privilege

I freely admit to being a conspirarcy theorist and the principal outcome is to attribute most bizarre happenings in legal education to the indifference of the privileged toward any rule – formal or informal, reasoning, or fact that might separate them from what they want and “deserve.” I also know that there are other explanations One is just stupidity (Opps, I mean ill-advised behavior.) Another is non class related brazenness. And finally what I regard as bizarre may just be good judgment that I do not fully appreciate.

So here are seven events from recent hiring discussions. Pick how you would classify them:

1. In the course of arguing for a candidate a faculty member who knows the candidate expresses pleasant surprise that the candidate has been considered. In the file that has been distributed there is along letter from the candidate to that faculty member discussing the faculty member’s extended effort to recruit the candidate.

2. In supporting a lateral candidate, a faculty member says that if an offer is not made the candidate’s career will be ruined.

3. In defense of a lateral “instant tenure” candidate who has given a very thin job talk the argument is made that, as a candidate who already has tenure elsewhere, it was understandably that the he/she would believe a subpar talk would be acceptable.

4. In defense of a candidate who graduated in the bottom 15% of his Harvard class the argument is made that for all we know he or she would have graduated near the top of the class at another school.

5. A faculty member opposes a candidate because he (the faculty member) feels “uneasy” about the candidate but cannot say why. He just did. (I do not know if this is relevant but that faculty member and another expressing the same “uneasiness” are Harvard grads and the candidate is from a mid level law school and does not have a polished demeanor.)

6. A faculty member announces in reference to a candidate: If Professor X, was willing to work him, that's all I need to know.”

7. The faculty is asked to vote yes or no on a group of candidates but instructed not to rank them because that would invite “strategic voting.” (I know this is true but who gets to decide that the strategic behavior that is continuous stops at a particular point?)

All About (the) Money

Two articles, in the December 12th NYT, when viewed together, describe what those concerned with class bias are up against.

The first, on the front page, notes that colleges have found that raising tuition can and has led to increases in applications and admissions. In what amounts to retilting the conventional demand curve, the explanation is the price is used as a signifier of quality.

Well, maybe, maybe not. Two other possibilites, more in keeping with MoneyLaw and Classbias discussions, are possible. The "Veblen effect" or conspicuous consumption occurs when people pay for a high price. Yes, the price itself becomes a desired characteristic of the product. The higher the price, the more you are willing to pay. "Snob effects" are a little different. Here we are talking about a desire to create the impression that one is different and, usually, superior to others. "Veblen effects" are more about demonstrations of wealth while "snob effects" are more closely connected to "better" taste. Both involve communicating to others. The point is that the "high price equals higher quality" rationale initially offered by the Times may miss what is really going on. What the article may tell us is something known by advertising people: There is a huge market for interpersonal signaling devices.

But hold that thought for a minute.

Article two describe a marketing/psychology experiment that has been performed repeatedly although maybe not with beer. In any case (pun intended), the experiment consisted of tasting two beers, identical except that one contained a few drops of vinegar. People who tasted the beer before being told that one contained the vinegar preferred, on balance the invinegarated beer. People who were told ahead of time what the difference was found the invinegarared beer clearly inferior. This article tells us about the importance of preconceptions in forming opinions.

Together the articles tell us a complete story. The message is that that signals -- elite school credentials -- have a value to buyers that is independent of the substance of the product underlying the signal and that that those who recieve those signals are highly vulnerable to their preconceptions.

The Rites of Privilege

Privileged people do not like failure. Afterall, they have always been told they are the best. I have already discussed how this means stakeholders in a law school take second place to the needs of faculty.

One place this plays out is in hiring decisions. Failure is defined as setting out to hire new faculty and coming up empty.

For example, if your Appointments Committee is like mine, it has invested countless hours and tens of thousands of dollars searching for new faculty. The appointments process is like a train and the destination is to making an offer that is accepted. The problem is that sometimes there is better destination -- one more in keeping with stakeholder interests: Do not make and offer.

There are three factors at work here. First, let’s face it, an offer, even to an entry level candidate, is an offer of life time employment. I do not know the numbers but, at my school, tenure denials are very, very rare. Yes, some people move on for one reason or another but, for the most part, the decision to make an offer is more like a marriage proposal than like . . . well, actually, most actual marriage proposals.

The second factor is the sunk cost problem. What’s done is done and making a decision on what has past makes little sense. Yet, as we know from our own lives and experimental economics, people continue to make decisions based on past expenditures. You know how it works: “I don’t want to go to the game but I already paid for tickets.” There are also tragic outcomes like those related to foreign policy decisions in Viet Nam and Iraq.

Third, privileged people and their "making nice" allies get what they want. When they are on appointments committees, they appoint. Why? Well, because they are entitled to do what they want.

Bring these factors together and you have the makings for disaster. Having made the investment, leaving the market without a hire is viewed as a failure. No one wants to “fail” and powerful rationalizing processes kick in. Unless a campus visit is a disaster, the Committee becomes vested. Marginal job talks are downplayed. Candidates who do not quite fit in terms of curricular needs are recast as potential teachers in areas where there are needs. Only one destination is acceptable and that is the one that allows Committee members to point to the people hired. Little credit is given for mistakes avoided. Committees become agents for the candidates and not for stakeholders.

It is hard to walk away from the table having invested so much but often the best decision is to do nothing. Those with a sense of entitlement and their "making nice" friends do not think in these terms. Afterall, they are only spending the money of others.

Give Me That Cake

This year, for the first time in a number of years, I am serving on two University committees, one of which deals with grievances and professional ethics. Surprising as it may seem, what I have learned makes me feel better about what goes on at the Law School. Here is one example of a scam that seems over the line.

A Professor teaching hundreds of students requires them to hand in homework on workbook pages custom made for his course. The books are available at the local Kinkos and sold at a profit. Students may not hand anything but the actual purchased pages. Evidently, handing in the correct workbook pages has an impact on the final grade. The professor takes a cut of the sales. The Dean of the College where he works is evidently unconcerned. (This newest practice is evidently a replacement for one that required buying CDs with codes in them so that actual purchase could be verified.)

Outrageous! . . . In the words of Lee Corso, “Not so fast my friend.”

Hasn’t the professor simply perfected the casebook editor/casebook publisher scam. (Sorry, Jim, I know how you feel about casebooks but I just cannot use the term “casebook author.”) Think about it. Is there a principled distinction between that professor and thousands of authors (clearly not just in law) who happily issue a new edition every third year whether or not there is enough of a change in their field to warrant it? (Oh, I know Mr. Casebook editor reading this, you would never do it.) In addition, since the demand side of the market is, for all practical purposes, composed of professors who dictate which books will be bought, how are those professors different from a stock broker who mishandles a client’s portfolio?

I'd like to pin this indifference on class bias but I am not not sure I can. My own behavior is similar to that of the privileged. When the memo comes out each semester asking what the assigned materials are for the following semester is to name the book and say “latest edition.” At the same time, I teach contracts and change books every two years because the change forces me to be a bit more on my toes when preparing, but I can honestly say that changing books or upgrading to a new edition has rarely if ever made any difference. I think I could almost get by with the classic Kessler and Gilmore (now that was casebook scholarship!) I had as a student many years ago. If so, that means I have cost 20 years of contracts students many thousands of dollars that went to publishers and editors without any substantial change what goes on in the classroom.

I admire the very small handful of my colleagues who keep using an older edition of a book even when newer editions are created in reaction to the used market. I wish I had followed their example. I admire even more the casebook editor who, when Thomson or Aspen comes calling about a new edition, says “there is no need for one.” At least in one area I teach – contracts -- I think all the editors of these books could say that for at least 5 years, probably 10. (And, no, you do not need to have a new edition to include the 15 pages on the CISG you want to add to your book. Just put it online.) Isn’t legal eduction, where the choir claims to be so concerned about the welfare of others, the best place to begin drawing the line when to comes to exploiting students via the casebook scam?

Please express no outrage about Mr.Workbook until you do.

Using Resumes as a Guide

Most of the resumes law school hiring committees allow the rest of a faculty to see are those indicating that the candidate has elite creditials. Given that, is there any real way for the class bias conscious law professor to make a distinction. I think so. First, of course, the most important information on a resume is about scholarship and teaching effectiveness, although I have yet to determine a way to evaluate the latter. In fact, I think it is pretty well settled that student evaluations are not dependable indicators of effectiveness.

Beyond the “hard” information, can a resume tell you something about what kind of colleague the person will be and how important it will be for that person to perpetuate the myth that credentials make the man (or woman) ? I think so. I really liked what the form told me about a recent candidate. First, although the candidate had “pure elite” credentials, they were found near the end of the resume. In the publication section, the symposia pieces were listed in a separate category apart from books and articles. To me this signaled modesty and honesty because, all things being equal, I do not value symposium pieces as much as standard articles. It can vary, of course, but generally the symposium article is accepted before it is written and it would be hard for the sponsor to refuse to publish it. And so many symposia are choir practice. The resume was relatively short, meaning it did not include an entry for every Rotary Club speech. The image I formed was of a low maintenance, confident colleague who was likely to be a good listener and unlikely to spend hours in the dean’s office demanding extra travel money and special teaching loads. More importantly, here was a candidate who put productivity over credentials when it came to what would be impressive.

And then there is the resume that, fairly or not, creates a negative image. “Pure elite” credentials are listed near the top. “This is who I am,” the resume seems to say. The list of publications is long and stuffed with everything that could remotely be called a publication – a panel discussion that was taped and then transcribed, an op-ed piece in a local newspaper, a three-page descriptive book review, a two- page introduction to a symposium. The resume is long because there is an entry for every law-related event ever attended whether a presentation was made or not. And don't forget every law school and university committee. I see this candidate as self-absorbed and constantly on the look-out to promote himself whether or not it is of benefit to the school. You know the type: constant demands for extra travel money, all kinds of special needs, etc. This candidate is in a defensive stance and not likely to be friendly toward lower- credentialed applicants.

If the relevant information is the same, I will pick the first candidate every time. It is not just a matter of what type of colleague I prefer. If I must hire someone with elitist credentials, I want the person who does not puff and does recognize that productivity trumps all. I think that choice is also consistent with MoneyLaw rules. If there is a tie with respect to productive potential, the lower-cost candidate gets the nod.

I’m Mad as Hell: PrivilegeLaw Users’ Manual

First, thanks to Jeff Harrison for allowing me to post this on Classbias. Entering the debate is sometimes the first sign one is losing the argument but, really, this has gone too far. Is it possible that MoneyLaw/Classbias may some impact? I don’t think so, but it's never too early to restore the balance.

PrivilegeLaw players: Are you using all of your richly deserved advantages to choke off the threat? If not, here is your check list:

1. The AALS is your friend. Make full use of all the boxes on the meat market form that stress credentials over substance. Remember, the shorter the form, the better off you are. You actually prefer the one line form that asks one question: School granting J.D. degree.

2. If you have a high class rank, say so. If not, say “not available.” Don’t worry. You went to a top ten school, right? Don’t undercut yourself by revealing something that is only relevant if you are actually in the top ten percent. You are helping recruiters by not confusing them.

3. For references, list people who are most likely to impress even if they do not know you that well. Remember, you are paying in part for a chance at a law teaching job. Those big names will write great letters even if they barely recall you. They owe this to you because this is part of what they are selling.

4. Before you send that first article out, be sure to touch base with anyone who would impress a law review editor when included in your acknowledgements. (Yes, that long exercise in name dropping at the bottom of the first page.) Thank them even if the only contact you had was a return phone message of encouragement. (“I am deeply grateful to Professor __________ for his continuing support.”). This is your birthright.

5. Your cover letter must drive home your credentials and the names of those important professors who “commented” on your work. Also, mention your last “piece” in any prestigious law review even if it is a five-page co-authored book review.

6. Remember, other members of the Club are on the faculties of highly-ranked schools. Call them. Ask to speak to the editor of the review about how important it is to put your submission at the top of the queue.

7. If the person you call actually did read an earlier draft, be sure he/she tells the editor just how much they liked the article. Otherwise they can just say, "The competition for this article is sure to be fierce."

8. Are you on the appointments committee? Remember this rule: Grads from top ten schools are always better than grads from lower-ranked schools. Sometimes a sigh or a raised eyebrow is enough to stop any silly effort by a colleague to be a bit more open-minded. And, no matter what, remember the PrivilegeLaw credo: Never write down anything you would not want to see on the front page of the New York Times.

9. Has your law school made the mistake of hiring a MoneyLaw person? Make sure the person knows right away who you are and how lucky they are to have a job that rightfully belongs to someone who was more properly prepared for the job. How many ways can you work Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc., into the conversation? The current record, by the way, is eight per minute and that was wind assisted. (Actually, I am surprised it is that low.)

10. Express your sincere regrets when the MoneyLaw colleague proudly announces that his/her first article was accepted by a law review below the top ten. Something like “Oh, I see,” or “Next time, try to leverage it up” will work.

11. If the MoneyLaw candidate actually survives six years of being dismissed as the runt of his or her law teaching class and makes it to a tenure decision, express concerns about whether the candidate really has “the horse power.” Forget about that pesky study suggesting the only clear determinant of post-tenure productivity is pre-tenure productivity. Quickly add how much you personally like the candidate.

12. Now this is really important. Right now, and I mean this. No delays. If the students in your class do not know you went to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc., do not leave another class without them knowing. In comparison to your MoneyLaw colleagues you will automatically become a better teacher.

Best of Luck

Chadsworth (Do not call me Chad)

PrivilegeBall or MoneyBall

If I apply the idea of a MoneyBall baseball player to a MoneyLaw faculty hire I come up with a candidate who did not attend a prestige school, is not smooth in a “good old boy/girl” way, does not come from a background of privilege, radiates no sense of entitlement, did not practice for a big firm, does not whine or boast, and has done research and writing for the love if it as opposed to filling up lines on his or her resume at the instruction of a mentor whose name is instantly recognized in our incestuous world. Obviously, candidates who do not fit all of these characteristics can be just as productive and I added some of my own preferences for greater socioeconimic diversity. The point, however, is that the MoneyLaw candidate (however defined) is undervalued in the market.

Being undervalued is one thing but what if the undervaluation is not simply the result of market imperfections and self-referential, possibly narcissistic, hiring practices? I mean, is it possible that, just to make sure the undervalued MoneyLaw candidate stays that way, the privileged make a point to disparage the product.

I am ahead of myself here because the MoneyLaw candidate has to get interviewed in the first place and this is not easy. Sometimes a small committee that is not overloaded with elitists can be shamed into inviting a MoneyLaw candidate. Other times, quirky things happen that permit them to sneak in. One current professor at another school realized that he interviewed at the hiring convention with a school that did it as a courtesy after mistakenly scheduling him. He ended up getting an offer. In other instances, candidates who are otherwise MoneyLaw candidates are mistaken – because of a name, an entry on the resume, or a mix up – for a different type of candidate.

It is when the MoneyLaw candidate gets to campus that the devaluing occurs:
1. Why doesn’t she/he have other offers?
2. Why are his/her articles not in better journals?
3. I have not heard of those references.
4. Wasn’t she/he a legal writing professor?
5. I am not sure I have heard of that firm.
6. Wasn't she/he on the ten most wanted list? (O.K. maybe not this one.)

Devaluing someone who is already undervalued for no particular reason related law school productivity is not only cruel but is yet one more explanation for why PrivilegeBall trumps MoneyBall and stakeholders in law schools are worse off.