Becky Metrick has an interesting interview with law Dean Michael Moffitt in the ODE:
… The fourth thing is that we have intentionally decreased the size of the incoming first-year class. We have shrunk the number of students who are joining us, this year by 20 percent. And we made that decision in part to maintain the quality of the class that we want and in part to make sure we can provide every student with the individualized, personalized educational experience that increasingly they’re going to need. Not all law schools have made that choice. It’s obvious we could make a lot more money by just admitting as many people as want to come, but we made the decision that that was not the right thing to do for our students or for our school.
An interesting response to the eroding legal job market. The law school is heavily subsidized by CAS. I wonder how they will compensate for the lost tuition. 8/27/2012.
By teaching undergraduate classes. Not a bad idea, really.
Is the money going to come back to CAS? Or is there a vice president somewhere who needs a few more assistants?
There have been substantial staff layoffs and a reduction in the number of FTEs for non-tenured faculty. I suspect major faculty savings will take a year to kick in. First year students are locked in to a required schedule, and a 20% reduction in class size probably won’t be enough to reduce the number of sections from 3 to 2… certainly not while still providing students with “individualized, personalized educational experience[s].”
This is not a unique move. Although plenty of law schools are more focused on the bottom line, quite a fe others are are making this same choice to reduce class sizes. As here, it is not for any altruistic reason, but solely “to maintain the quality of the class,” or, in other words, maintain the schools’ median LSAT scores and US News rankings. Still, every school doing this should be lauded. The legal profession has undergone a seismic shift over the past few years, and a great deal of rote corporate work has been outsourced. There were too many law schools ten years ago, and now there are way, way too many.
I heard the law faculty were taking a pay cut, precisely because of the hit lower enrollment would deliver to their budget. (Too bad they’re not unionized!)
Update: Apparently law students no longer get free printing. I have no idea if this was a law school decision or what, but…
I am hoping that the law school will develop a robust undergraduate program, to provide undergrad students with the basic knowledge of the law they need. As a long time member of CAS, who offered undergrad courses in the area since the 1980s, I can attest to the fact that CAS has never had the slightest interest in developing undergrad offerings – in contrast to other first rank universities. Part of the problem is that any such a program in CAS would cross departments, which CAS has never encouraged. So the law school’s expansion into this area should be applauded.
I agree, everyone should know something about the law. It’s part of being a contributing member of a functioning society. UO should count it towards the general education requirements just like econ, poli sic, history, and so on.
And where would the funds to teach undergrad s come from? Would th ug teaching in cas and LCD already subsidizes ug teaching in all the other prof schools, but I suppose we don’t need a philosophy classics, or physics dept.
Drop a course from the multicultural requirements
Yes, but the Law School itself in unabashed in admitting that their interest lies in getting a cut of the CAS budget–not some altruistic desire to provide undergraduates a robust general education. Look for them to staff these courses entirely with adjuncts, and not to police the contents or teaching quality much. Law in the Movies, anyone?
Still time for the law school to add winter and spring courses in “Oregon Public Records Law and Citizenship” by Adjunct Professor Randolph Geller.
I think this remark is unfair. I am involved with developing the law school offerings, and am giving one of the courses myself. I am a senior fellow at Oxford University, where I work in public international law, but I continue to teach in the fall at the U of O law school because of my commitment to its vision. Other undergrad courses are given by its top faculty, including Tom Lienenger and Margy Parris. There is no attempt here to get a cut of the CAS budget, since CAS has never been interested in the value – including the credit hours – of courses like these.
So to be clear Cheney Ryan and l,aw school is on record as not wanting any reimbursement from the budget model or elsewhere for teaching ug courses? We need a written statement to that effect from dean mod fit then
I don’t mind the rudeness so much, but please work on your typing. And you’ve got a problem with schools getting reimbursed for teaching? Why?
A physicist once explained to me that lower division gen Ed courses pose a fisheries problem still sounds right to me
Dog Says
One of the more consistent themes addressed in the Big Ideas competition was Gen Ed Reform – this was the indirect or direct subject of at least 5 proposals. Of course, that effort fell flat. Reforming Gen Ed is not really all that difficult (like just fucking eliminate it …) but we really don’t make any effort. There are still many faculty and admins that believe the mass lecture approach to gen ed actually works, pedagogically. All of the literature says this is not the case yet, of course, since its cost effective (throw 504 students into Columbia 150 and hire an adjunct to teach) we continue – its only gotten worse with our large student enrollment.
Hey I know, let’s outsource General Education ….