April 12, 2005
Law Professor Teaching Loads
Posted by Gordon Smith

When I entered academe just over a decade ago, almost every law school had a standard teaching load of four courses or 12 credit hours per year. In the past decade, the norm among top law schools has shifted to three courses or 10 credits per year. Although I had noticed that most of my friends were teaching lighter loads, I didn't realize how pervasive the shift was until my Associate Dean asked me to gather information from top law schools as background for a debate about teaching loads here at Wisconsin. The following numbers are based on a FOG (Friends of Gordon) survey and represent the "standard teaching load" at the Top 25 law schools, as currently listed in U.S. News & World Report:

Yale University ... 3 courses
Harvard University ... 3 courses
Stanford University ... 9 or 10 credits
Columbia University ... 10 credits
New York University ... 10 credits
University of Chicago ... 11 credits* (quarter system)
University of Pennsylvania ... 10 credits
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor ... 10 credits
University of Virginia ... 10 credits
Northwestern University ... 3 courses
Cornell University ... 3 courses
Duke University ... 3 courses
University of California-Berkeley ... 10 credits
Georgetown University ... 10 credits
University of California-Los Angeles ... 10 credits
University of Texas-Austin ... 10 credits
Vanderbilt University ... 10 credits
University of Southern California ... 3 courses
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities ... 10 credits
Boston University ... 3 courses
George Washington University ... 3 courses
University of Iowa ... 12 credits
Washington & Lee ... 10 credits
University of Notre Dame ... 3 courses (30 credits over three years)
Washington University in St. Louis ... 3 courses (no fewer than 9 credits)

What follows are some brief observations about the meaning of this information, but I hope others will add insights in the comments.

* Although I graduated from the University of Chicago, I have been unable to get a response about teaching loads there. Perhaps someone with inside information can fill me in, and I will complete the list. [Based on a comment below and a sidebar email, I am recording Chicago as 11 credits. The looks slightly different than the traditional four-class load, but its apples and oranges because Chicago is on a quarter system.]

* Only one school listed among the Top 25 (Iowa) has the traditional teaching load of 12 credits per year.

* The move to lighter teaching loads is less pronounced among the next 25 law schools, but most of those law schools have moved to the new standard. My sense is that reduced teaching loads become increasingly rare as you descend in the rankings.

* Some schools articulate their teaching loads in terms of "courses" while others refer to "credits." This can make a big difference in the actual outcome of the policy. Three courses of 3/2/2 credits is much different than three course of 4/3/3. The first configuration is unusual, and the second is probably the typical arrangement.

* Moving from a traditional teaching load to a lighter teaching load has substantial budgetary implications. The law school needs to offer a certain number of credits, and if full-time faculty teach fewer credits, the law school must hire additional teachers, either adjuncts or full-time faculty. Thus, it is no surprise that resource-rich schools have moved to lighter teaching standards more quickly than other schools. In my opinion, differences in standard teaching load will increase the division between the Haves and Have Nots in legal education. It is still not clear to me whether second- and third-tier schools will feel sufficient competitive pressure to make the move to lighter teaching loads.

* Standard teaching loads mask lots of variation. At Wisconsin the average actual teaching load is less than the standard of 12 credit hours because people are awarded with leaves or teaching reductions. In addition, some people teach large classes, while others teach seminars. Some people teach four different courses, while others teach multiple sections of the same course. Some people receive relief for administrative work or special research projects. In short, the standard teaching load is only a starting point for understanding how much people actually teach. It is worth noting that some schools who have moved to a lighter teaching load have eliminated some of the other means of reducing teachings loads (e.g., sabbaticals or research leaves).

* The shift in teaching loads is being driven by the market for law professors. As outgoing chair of the appointments committee, I can tell you that teaching loads matter to new professors and to lateral candidates, and many people in my survey noted this as the force that prompted a change in policy.

* It might surprise you to learn that any professor would oppose a lighter teaching load, but my discussions with others and my personal experience as a faculty member suggest that when the issue of reducing teaching loads is raised, a division of the faculty is almost inevitable. As you might surmise, the dividing line is not about teaching, but scholarship. The usual rationale for lighter teaching loads is that they allow professors more time for scholarship. Professors who think of themselves as teachers first and scholars later (or never) sometimes suggest that the move to lighter teaching loads is an indication of sloth or an attempt by bad teachers to limit the unpleasantness of the classroom experience in a self-interested way. On the other hand, active scholars feel morally superior because they are doing more work than their colleagues, and they feel inclined to institute a policy of lighter teaching loads for "scholars," but not for "teachers." In practice, most schools do not differentiate among professors when they move to lighter teaching loads. Everyone is subject to the same standard teaching load, at least as a starting point.

* Some schools allow banking of credits, so that teachers can overload in some semesters in exchange for a break in later semesters. The practice is not as common as I would have thought, apparently because schools are worried about having a sufficient number of courses on offer at all times. Ill-timed banking could result in large shifts in courses offered from one semester to the next.

That should be enough to get the discussion started.

Law Schools/Lawyering | Bookmark

TrackBacks (16)

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d834584c5a69e2

Links to weblogs that reference Law Professor Teaching Loads:

» Law professor blogging from Commonwealth Conservative ...
"Prawfsblawg has an interesting post about whether law schools should subsidize blogging for their pr ..." [more] (Tracked on April 12, 2005 @ 19:49)
» Law Professor Teaching Loads from Dummocrats.com ...
"Law Professor Teaching Loads ..." [more] (Tracked on April 12, 2005 @ 20:33)
» Must be nice from Signifying Nothing ...
"Gordon Smith writes: When I entered academe just over a decade ago, almost every law school had a st ..." [more] (Tracked on April 12, 2005 @ 21:07)
» Teaching Loads from PrawfsBlawg ...
"Over at The Conglomerate, Gordon Smith is gathering data about standard teaching loads at various sc ..." [more] (Tracked on April 13, 2005 @ 8:50)
» Teaching Loads from PrawfsBlawg ...
"Over at The Conglomerate, Gordon Smith is gathering data about standard teaching loads at various sc ..." [more] (Tracked on April 13, 2005 @ 8:53)
» Teaching Loads from PrawfsBlawg ...
"Over at The Conglomerate, Gordon Smith is gathering data about standard teaching loads at various sc ..." [more] (Tracked on April 13, 2005 @ 10:07)
» Gordon Smith on Law School Teaching Loads from Goldman's Observations ...
"Gordon Smith at Conglomerate has prepared an outstanding post listing the teaching loads at various ..." [more] (Tracked on April 13, 2005 @ 15:19)
» Gordon Smith on Law School Teaching Loads from Goldman's Observations ...
"Gordon Smith at Conglomerate has prepared an outstanding post listing the teaching loads at various ..." [more] (Tracked on April 13, 2005 @ 15:20)
» Gordon Smith on Law School Teaching Loads from Goldman's Observations ...
"Gordon Smith at Conglomerate has prepared an outstanding post listing the teaching loads at various ..." [more] (Tracked on April 13, 2005 @ 15:22)
» Teaching Loads from PrawfsBlawg ...
"Over at The Conglomerate, Gordon Smith is gathering data about standard teaching loads at various sc ..." [more] (Tracked on April 13, 2005 @ 17:16)
» http://newmarksdoor.typepad.com/mainblog/2005/04/teaching_loads_.html from Newmark's Door ...
"Teaching loads at leading law schools are decreasing (via Glenn). ..." [more] (Tracked on April 14, 2005 @ 2:16)
» Law Professor Teaching Loads @ Top 25 Schools from <CONTENT /> v.4 ...
"Conglomerate Blog: Law Professor Teaching Loads "When I entered academe just over a decade ago, alm ..." [more] (Tracked on April 14, 2005 @ 7:22)
» Teaching Loads from Discourse.net ...
"Gordon Smith posts a round-up of Law Professor Teaching Loads. It seems the UM’s load - 10 cre ..." [more] (Tracked on April 14, 2005 @ 14:40)
» Teaching Loads from Discourse.net ...
"Gordon Smith posts a round-up of Law Professor Teaching Loads. It seems that UM’s load - 10 cr ..." [more] (Tracked on April 14, 2005 @ 19:20)
» Gordon Smith on Law School Teaching Loads from Goldman's Observations ...
"Gordon Smith at Conglomerate has prepared an outstanding post listing the teaching loads at various ..." [more] (Tracked on June 30, 2005 @ 10:56)
» Teaching loads from PrawfsBlawg ...
"A year and half ago, when this blog was just wearing diapers, Gordon Smith over at Conglomerate did ..." [more] (Tracked on December 11, 2006 @ 12:39)
Comments (21)

11. Posted by Gordon Smith on April 14, 2005 @ 6:44 | Permalink

Frank, I am more sanguine about the value of legal scholarship than you are, and not just for the reasons Anthony mentions. Maybe I will do a post on that. Anyway, I would have no qualms about justifying my work to taxpayers, and I would even include a section on blogging in my presentation!

Anthony, I am not so sure that most professors are paid "according to their worth to the reputation of the school as well as for the quality of their teaching." I think most professors at most law schools (at least those not on my list above) are paid for the quantity of teaching, possibly with some variance explained by quality.


12. Posted by M on April 14, 2005 @ 8:27 | Permalink

The general consensus is that median teaching ability is inversely correlated with US News ranking, a proposition proven over and over again when the upper tier students comingle with the unwashed masses during their summers and are mocked for their inability to do real legal work. In my opinion there's far too much legal scholarship, as evidenced by the astonishingly poor quality of most journal submissions by professors (not least due to little or no factual support for arguments) and the ability of upper tier professors to pass off research assistant's compilations of other work as their own. In competitive scholarship markets, such dreck and fraud is quickly and roundly condemned, while in legal scholarship it's common practice.

The decline in teaching time, then, can be reinterpreted as a supply glut, leading to a flooding of the market of inferior goods.


13. Posted by Gordon Smith on April 14, 2005 @ 8:47 | Permalink

M: "general consensus is that median teaching ability is inversely correlated with US News ranking"

At least that is the general consensus among professors who teach at schools that don't do well on the U.S. News ranking. As Brian Leiter observes, we have no reliable measures of comparative teaching quality. My own experience has been that every faculty has great teachers and not-so-great teachers, and that some faculties have a culture of valuing and fostering great teaching while others do not. Moreover, a culture of great teaching is not closely correlated with scholarly rankings.


14. Posted by Altoid on April 14, 2005 @ 15:29 | Permalink

Three courses = ten credits? Four = 11 (even with an asterisk)? What kind of math is that?

Maybe I'm dumb, or it's just that I'm in a traditional academic environment that thinks in credit hours. Typical non-math, non-science classes here are 3 credit hours (or credits, we use the terms interchangeably). Thus active researchers here are expected to teach 9 hours, or 3 classes, a semester. At our research-oriented major campus, our department generally expects 3/2 or 2/2 in some cases. (And, I might add, we get paid a *lot* less.)

Seriously, how does 3 courses in a year equal 10 credits? What's the math?


15. Posted by d on April 14, 2005 @ 15:38 | Permalink

3 + 4 + 3 = 10

4 + 4 + 2 = 10

or perhaps even 3 + 3 + 3 + 1 = 10

not every course/seminar must equal 3 credits


16. Posted by Gordon Smith on April 14, 2005 @ 16:03 | Permalink

Altoid,

d's response is exactly right. Law School have lots of variations in credit. I have even encountered schools with five- and six-credit class. For some people this is why it makes more sense to set the expectation in terms of credits.


17. Posted by Kaimi on April 14, 2005 @ 16:06 | Permalink

Altoid,

In most (all?) schools, different courses may be different amounts of credits.

Thus, at Thomas Jefferson, you have some examples:

Bus. Orgs - 4 credits.
Evidence - 4 credits.
Remedies - 3 credits.
Contracts I - 3 credits.
Contracts II - 3 credits.
Professional Responsibility - 2 credits.
Wills - 2 credits.

(See generally http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/55223 ).

In many places, there are 5-credit classes as well. There was a 5-credit corporations class at Columbia; I've seen other schools list courses such as property as 5-credit courses.

So 3 courses, 10 credits is probably a 3/3/4 course load.


18. Posted by Kaimi on April 14, 2005 @ 16:08 | Permalink

Aargh, I copied the wrong link. The Thomas Jefferson link should be:

http://www.tjsl.edu/index.cfm?rID_int=3&sID_int=18 .


19. Posted by Frank on April 14, 2005 @ 17:52 | Permalink

I was addressing issues from the taxpayer's perspective. As a legal academic I think there's value in what I do, which includes teaching, writing, and blogging. The question is whether what I do is valuable enough to a taxpayer that said taxpayer ought to want to pay me for it. I don't see it.

I can't see, for example, much difference between what the faculty at Berkeley and Stanford do. Or Wisconsin and Marquette. If Christine is doing all this great stuff for free, why should the taxpayer pay you to do the same kinds of things? Massachusetts manages to get its fair share of scholarly production and "public service" with no public law school at all.

Yet even if we assume that there's some obvious taxpayer benefit to having a public law school, what's the advantage of having a "prestigious" public law school? Somehow I don't see folks in Chicago pining because Illinois's state law schools aren't as prestigious as the U of Michigan.

From what I hear, a lot of taxpayers around the country seem to be taking the view that a prestigious law school isn't something they care much about. I don't know of many states where public law schools are feeling flush with state dollars. In Texas, cuts have forced tuition up; in-state tuition at UT is now about $15,000, while it's $13,000 at Texas Tech. A good private school, Baylor, is under $20,000. I suspect taxpayer money will continue to exit.


20. Posted by Gordon Smith on April 14, 2005 @ 22:20 | Permalink

That helps, Frank. Thanks. I think I agree with that. We have seen public institutions "privatize" to great effect in Michigan and Virgina. If the taxpayers of Wisconsin are also willing to put up with lots more of their children being rejected in the admissions process, perhaps we could work a deal.

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Bloggers
Papers
Posts
Recent Comments
Popular Threads
Search The Glom
The Glom on Twitter
Archives by Topic
Archives by Date
January 2019
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Miscellaneous Links