Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Won't you be my Scamentine?: A discussion of "spousal hiring" in the legal academy, featuring Law Profs. Victor Fleischer and Howard Wasserman.



As should be known by now, law school is, at best, a hideously expensive gamble. Every year, the law schools flood some 40,000 newly minted JDs into an economy that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), projects will only generate 21,880 lawyer jobs annually through the end of this decade. Even if a young lawyer beats these coin-flip odds and lands some sort of full-time job in the profession, he or she will most likely be desperately unhappy due to killer workloads and diminishing job security. However, it is true that some young lawyers will defy even these odds, and join the tiny and diminishing number who find decent-paying jobs that they enjoy doing.

Among the lawyers who win this double lottery, some will encounter the following painful, even heartrending, dilemma: their spouse (often another lawyer, lawyers tend to marry each other) loses his or her job, and is offered another job far away. Does the person quit his or her job and follow his or her partner? Try to manage a long-distance marriage (hard on the spouses, brutal on the children)? Or encourage his or her spouse to turn down the job offer, stay in the household and, maybe, deal with the indignity of long-term unemployment and dependency?

For those lofty beings called law professors, this problem is less likely to arise. You see, law schools favor something called "spousal hiring."


A National Law Journal article from 2008 hints at how widespread this phenomenon has become:
From Texas and Virginia to New York and California, numerous law schools across the country are employing law professors who are couples. Some of the more well-known pairings include Bruce Ackerman and Susan Rose-Ackerman at Yale Law School; Richard L. Revesz, dean of New York University School of Law, and his wife, Vicki L. Been; and Gillian Lester and Eric Talley at University of California, Berkeley School of Law. With a growing number of dual-career marriages and intense competition for top legal academics, a number of law school deans say it is increasingly important to consider both spouses when recruiting. . . .  
The University of Houston Law Center has two married couples on a faculty of more than 50 people, said Dean Raymond T. Nimmer. Couples are becoming more common in academia, but it's important to look at each individual's credentials, he said. University of Virginia School of Law, in Charlottesville, has 11 married couples on the faculty, said Dean Paul Mahoney. Mahoney and his wife, Julia Mahoney, are one of these couples, as she is a professor at the law school. He said it is important for law schools to consider a candidate's family when recruiting.
In 2011, Prof. Jeffrey Harrison wrote an honorable blog post criticizing the practice, which he deemed "The New Cronyism." Prof. Harrison wrote that "Evidently, hiring a spouse or partner these days automatically means taking on the responsibility for finding employment for the other partner either in town, in another part of the university or in your own department. This is discrimination not on the bases of marital status but on the basis of to whom you are married -- Cronyism."  The reaction from the pro-scam professoriate was predictably negative, and Harrison wrote a sharp follow-up: "Somewhere in all of the comments there was a sense of entitlement -- but we can't both get jobs if a school will not hire a couple. I hardly know what to say. . . . Get a real job."

Take University of San Diego School of Law Prof. Victor Fleischer. This tax law professor wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he asserted that law professor jobs and salaries should be exempt from budgetary constraints, unlike the jobs and salaries of approximately every other employee on earth. Fleischer wrote that "Firing untenured faculty. . . encroaches on an important principle of academic freedom, namely that a tenure decision should be based on the merit of the case, not the budget of the department." (Emphasis added). Fleischer also wrote that "Hiring faculty is a unique process intended to separate outside influence and budgetary considerations from the assessment of merit." (Emphasis added again).

Fortunately, for Victor Fleischer, this unique process does not necessarily, according to his understanding, separate inside influence, aka cronyism or nepotism, from the assessment of merit. Notably, Victor’s spouse, Miranda, who also teaches tax law, landed a gig side-by-side with hubby at San Diego Law. In fact, prior to San Diego, the couple law-professored together at the University of Colorado, the University of Illinois, and NYU (where Miranda was only a scholar-in-residence), a seeming profile in job-hopping connubial scamming. [1] It is true that most graduates of the poorly regarded University of San Diego School of Law will not have actual legal careers, but of those who do, I wonder how many will be able to hold their jobs irrespective of budget considerations. And I wonder how many will be able to obtain desirable jobs for their spouses.

And the problem extends far beyond lawdean/lawprof or lawprof/lawprof couples. How many lawprofs use their influence to obtain jobs for their spouse in a law school administrative position, or in a teaching or administrative position elsewhere in the University? One law professor who bragged about having used his influence with his law school dean to find his wife a teaching/administrative job in the University is Professor Howard Wasserman of Florida International School of Law. Moreover, according to Howard Wasserman, the school should be grateful for his indulgence in cronyism. You know, because as a result, Wasserman turned down other tempting opportunities-- allowing Florida International University School of Law to retain for the benefit of its students a professor who has thought deeply about the infield fly rule and who can boast one whole year of practice experience after his two post-law school judicial clerkships.
"When I was hired at FIU, I asked the dean for help getting my wife entree with FIU's School of Social Work and/or School of Criminology and Criminal Justice . . . At the time, we were not truly a two-academic couple in the usual sense, since she had never held an academic job and she was not necessarily looking for a tenure-track position. The School of Social Work hired her as a visiting faculty member and assistant coordinator of their externship program and eventually put her on a non-tenure-track line and made her the coordinator. Would they have interviewed her without a "can you take a look at her?" from the law school dean. . .? Hard to say. But nine years later she is associate director of the school and was chosen for a university leadership development program. And I have turned down potential opportunities at other schools so we both can pursue what we have here, which features administrative opportunities she would not have elsewhere, at least right away. So I guess that school is grateful that my position on the law faculty presented her to them and the law school (or at least one or two people at the law school) are grateful that her position in Social Work connects us to the university.. . . My point is that, while there are risks, per se opposition to the practice may deprive law schools, other departments, and universities of real benefits. And labeling it with a pejorative like cronyism does not help."
I wonder: Did Howard Wasserman's bride prudently affix her marriage certificate to the front of her resume just to make sure that there would be no administrative screw-up that resulted in the hiring of a more qualified applicant? And, since Wasserman crows about the "real benefits," of cronyism, such as making it easier for his employer to retain Howard Wasserman, perhaps we can speculate about the real costs of cronyism, or whatever word is sufficiently non-pejorative for Wasserman's ego. Who were the applicants rejected in favor of Wasserman's beloved? An especially gifted teacher or administrator? A member of a minority community who could have contributed to the school's diversity?  A person who needed the kind of health insurance available to University employees in order to take care of a sick child?  One of Wasserman's own former students? 

Victor Fleischer, Howard Wasserman, and so many others. What these honeymooners need to understand is that they do not get to float blissfully on high o’er the destruction of their students’ careers and dignity, on a big puffy valentine-shaped cloud of money, job security, status, contemplative leisure, and outrageous perks, such as spousal hiring. Similarly, they need to understand they are not untethered from the discontents of the practicing bar, such as the rapidly declining levels of job security and job satisfaction. Don’t look now, Professors, but your scam is crashing. As we are now, so shall you be.

----------------------------------
note:

[1] See his and her CVs. Also, please note the word "seeming." I do not know specifically how the Fleischers, or any other particular academic couple, obtained lucrative appointments or jobs at the same school.     

53 comments:

  1. The two firms at which I worked both had what amounted to "no sex between employees" rules. If two people became involved they would be told that one had to leave. On a couple of occasions female associates and I developed a mutual attraction but the prospects of what it could do to your career were so grim in the up-or-out model that we didn't pursue anything. I'm not bitching in the sense that we all wound up happily married to other people, but is there any part of life that this utterly miserable profession doesn't have the potential to screw up?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I used to umpire Little League games at the "minor league" level. Since there were no standings or championship, before each game I would ask the managers whether they wanted me to enforce the infield fly rule. I pointed out: 1. Few if any 9-year-olds were going to have the presence of mind to deke a play to be able to pick off an advancing runner. 2. Thinking a ball would bounce the way you thought it would bounce on the field we had was, in the words of Pete Rose, "not the way to bet." 3. If you have a kid who's been struggling at the plate all season and he finally connects do you really want me to call him out on a technicality?

    What I just wrote is a lot more valuable than Wasserman's scholarshit. When do I get my tenure and when does my wife get her job?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've got to get it published first. I suggest that you submit it to the Florida Law Review. Try to relate it to the "Open Road" somehow.

      Delete
  3. A little off topic but important: On 1/21/15 by Rep. John K. Delaney (D-MD-6.) introduced H.R. 449, the "Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy Act," to allow student loan debt to be treated like other forms of debt that can be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But does it put caps on student loans that one person can take out? If we give people free rein to borrow to their heart's content knowing they can clear it all up in bankruptcy tuition will double.

      Delete
    2. I do not mean to be a cynic, but freshman congressman introduce these bills all the time, and they go nowhere.

      See, for instance, HR 3892 - The Student Loan Borrower's Bill of Rights Act of 2013
      HR 1330, The Student Loan Fairness Act
      HR 4170
      HR 5895

      Etc. Etc. Dick Durbin has tried to push bills in the Senate, and Warren who are not small names.

      So far, it looks like you need to vote Democrat if you even want bankruptcy, loan forgiveness, interest rate cut, anything.

      You've got a Republican majority in the House and Senate. Bend over.

      Delete
    3. Amended: that being said, HR 449 appears to be a simple, complete restoration of bankruptcy protection to all student loans - federal and private.

      If you would like to sign a petition as citizen-co-sponsors: http://www.petition2congress.com/17294/requesting-cosponsors-to-discharge-student-debt-through-bankruptc/

      Maybe it's this bill, maybe it's another, but it's time to flood Congress with petitions, phone calls until we get legal equality on these loans.

      Delete
    4. Dischargability of student loans in bankruptcy means 100% taxpayer funded higher education. There has to be a balancing factor in any legislation. The student loan thing is relatively new but the scenario of the woman who slaves away while her husband is in medical school only to be dumped for some bimbo when he graduates has been around for over a century.

      Delete
    5. with all due respect, the scenario you describe is a plot line from Mary Tyler Moore show and has no bearing on student loan forgiveness.

      Delete
    6. @4:15 AM

      The front-end and the back-end of the lending system are different, and until the DOE TAKES A LOSS on loans she's already originated she won't be motivated to do anything about the front-end of the lending operation.

      Capitalism is the lender taking a damn loss.

      The DOE is apparently operating in the red now by tens of billions, but like every other large, semi-autonomous federal agency, the DOE is VERY HUSH HUSH about how badly most loans are performing.

      You got a 21.8 billion dollar loss this year. What do you think it will be next year? In five years?

      And frankly, if we decided as a nation we were going to go to a tax-and-spend model instead of tax-and-lend today, it wouldn't cost the federal government one more dime than it already is and will by originating loans they know damn well will not be paid back.

      These loans are so sub-prime it's not even funny. You can take away the process of bankruptcy, but that will not guarantee you that you get even one more dime of the loan balance repaid. Tens of millions of people cannot pay.

      The (FAKE) worry that people will walk out of school and declare bankruptcy is really only a worry when TUITION IS SO NUTS that it is the clear and easy choice to ruin your credit for 7 years, risk your professional license, etc.

      Also, stop preying on ignorance. A bankruptcy court has a lot of latitude to deny a petitioner discharge who is just trying to skate when he/she could pay.

      If you don't want people walking out of school and declaring bankruptcy, DON'T RAPE THEM ON TUITION and they won't, because it wouldn't be worth it to suffer the CONSEQUENCES of bankruptcy for a modest benefit.

      It's the same damn reason why people don't run up 2,000 on a credit card and immediately declare bankruptcy - it's not worth it.

      So, please, we can have bankruptcy on student loans without a parade of horribles, provided that TUITION STAYS REASONABLE. See, how bankruptcy is great and brings harmony to the world? It does. Give it back.

      Delete
    7. @5:05, @4:15 here. With all due respect, since you not only own a television but actually watch it I will try to explain this in terms you can understand.

      First, I have read of the "scenario" I described in newspapers published more than 100 years ago.

      Second, that " scenario" has a whole lot to do with student loans. In both cases someone who wants a professional degree gets someone else (a spouse / the gubmint) to finance them on the promise of a benefit (a comfortable life / repayment with interest) and then cuts and runs when the degree is completed (divorce / bankruptcy).

      If student loans are made dischargable in bankruptcy the winners will be the law schools because the debts won't go away, they will just be paid by John Q. Taxpayer instead of John Q. Lemming.

      Delete
    8. @ 1:25 PM

      I was conversing with you above, and I'll answer your question.

      "Winners will be law schools." You're mixing up bankruptcy with the regulatory power and duty of the federal government under the Higher Education Act.

      Student loans are a form of discretionary spending by the federal government to which the federal government can attach any condition it wants. So, for instance, right now the HEA says a school looses the privilege of taking federal student loan monies from all students if in the 3 most recent graduating classes a certain percentage of graduates have defaulted on their federal student loans.

      Congress can attach ANY condition it wants to prevent schools from raising tuition and to make schools share risk on the employment outcomes of graduates.

      For instance Congress could have this rule: if 25% or more of the most recent 3 graduating classes declare bankruptcy on their federal student loans within X years of graduating, the school looses the eligibility to take any more federal student loans.

      Such a rule would be only a slight alteration of the current rule. Congress could also require schools to cap tuition as a condition of being allowed to take federal monies.

      We do not see this happening,because Congress is doing a terrible job of representing her constituency. Because Congress is captured by lobbies.

      But, your assertion that there's no way to keep a school in line if we have bankruptcy is just wrong. It's conditional spending, and Congress can do anything she wants. There are clearly multiple avenues to align incentives for schools to the interests of students through regulation.

      More fundamentally: what is the justification for discriminating in law, in the bankruptcy code, and elsewhere against an INNOCENT class of would-be student consumers?

      The system we have right now has FAILED spectacularly.

      It has failed students, it has failed taxpayers (note, the Department of Education is operating deeply in the red as of this year - 21.8 billion), and it has perversely incentivized schools to be used as piggy-banks.

      A HUGE number of schools were fiscally profligate - built palaces on bond debt - and are financially distressed. (See Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, Mills College, all the historically black colleges). They took out bad bond debts, etc. which pose further risks to the taxpayer through the Closed School Discharge in the HEA (look it up).

      Yes, we need bankruptcy to solve the existing injustice, and we need REAL REGULATORY reform in the HEA OR we need to go to a "free" college education funded by the federal government.

      Delete
  4. "Real" Academics, you know, with actual PhDs, have had to deal with this issue for decades. Many academic families have had to struggle with whose career to pursue, and make the difficult choices that go along with that. I've known a few.

    The private sector didn't exactly bend over backwards for me and my wife, either. It took a lot of hard-fought work to get and maintain careers in the same city, and to this day it isn't easy by any means.

    LawProfs, on the other hand...? Talk about a sense of "entitlement"! I can't believe this s**t.

    "Come on over, guys! The water is warm, and there is plenty of student loan money to go around...!"

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. The University of Memphis law school has a pair of these creAtures.
    2. During most of my 28 year marriage, my husband, a nuclear engineer has had to work in other cities so I could stay here and build a practice. That's how it is for many people----so these idjit blossoms need to be taught this important sociological and economic fact.
    3. The self importance, self involved, uselessness, cluelessness, piggishness, pseudo near-martyrdom, pure selfishness to the point of evility of these people disgusts me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " The self importance, self involved, uselessness, cluelessness, piggishness, pseudo near-martyrdom, pure selfishness to the point of evility of these people disgusts me." Its not just "law professors", its in the DNA of many successful Lawyers . . . doctors too. I get get bills well in excess of 100K for surgeries lasting just a few hours, from Doctors who know the client has a personal injury case . . . Its just the nature of the beast.

      Delete
  6. Yup. Seen this go down over and over again. The Dean at my law school has his wife for his secretary. I do not even want to know what she was making. I bet it was a market rate! Not.

    You will notice, spousal couples in higher education are very common, and if they think the practice is okay, then why do so many of them use different last names professionally?

    Chose a law school. I'll find you spouses who got each other jobs and are not using the same last name.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This has been a wide spread practice for a long time.

    Any of the schools in the T14 that are not in New York, CA, or Chicago basically do this. A lot of times it involves tucking a spouse into a liberal arts department. It was very widespread at my school

    Pro-tip-- you still need a JD from Yale for most of the egregious examples.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's so true. Joseph Blocher and Marin Levy at Duke Law School are but one example. Interestingly enough, the two of them, combined, have less than two years of experience practicing law, excluding their clerkships. But of course, they both went to Yale, so that's all that matters.

      Delete
    2. Before he became a bigwig in the Obama administration, Professor Steve Crowley pulled this one off at Michigan.

      Delete
  8. This reminds me of this earlier post:

    http://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/update-re-paul-pless-and-illinois-law.html

    Paul Pless and his wife Stacey Tutt apparently went to some lengths to try and hide that they both worked at the same law school. I wonder how common it is for husband and wives who work for the same school to try and hide their relationship?

    Not just keeping separate last names - of course there's nothing wrong with that and many couples do now. But more importantly carefully keeping any mention of who they are married to from the internet or the public in general.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The same goes for Nancy Leong and her husband Justin Pidot at Denver Law.

      Delete
    2. "The same goes for Nancy Leong and her husband Justin Pidot at Denver Law."

      I didn't know this, but given prior history and personality phenotypes it comes as absolutely, positively no surprise whatsoever.

      Delete
  9. Spousal hiring preferences in academia are horrible social policy. They give more to those who already have enough. Does it really make sense to give employment preference to someone who already has a fat paycheck coming into the home instead of someone who actually needs a job to feed his/her family?

    So much for the progressive, liberal values allegedly espoused by 90% of academia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only good thing that I can say about nepotistic hiring in hackademia is that it exposes the myth of the "meritocracy".

      By the way, the admissions office has its own forms of nepotism, particularly preferences for "legacies" (children or other near relatives of graduates).

      Old Guy

      Delete
    2. Legacy admissions are almost nonexistent at Top 10 law schools. Those places are run to benefit the professors, not the alumni.

      Delete
    3. True. I was thinking more of undergraduate institutions, where "legacy" preferences are widespread (yes, even at the U of East Bumblefuck). Few law schools these days are at all selective; many take just about anyone who can fog a mirror.

      Old Guy

      Delete
    4. Is legacy really nonexistent at top law schools? That's a very bold statement.

      Delete
  10. At my élite law school, I counted EIGHT pairs (including emeriti/emeritae) that were spouses or parent and child. And that's only within the law school itself. There may well have been professors with a near relative working elsewhere in the university.

    I raised the issue during class in several courses. I called it what it is: nepotism and corruption. Once I even pointed out that it reinforces white privilege and heteronormativity.

    Spare me the bullshit about hiring "academic superstars". Usually Mr & Mrs Entitlement are both mediocrities—and they take up two jobs that could and should go to far more worthy people.

    Old Guy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It also serves to solidify class barriers. "That's great that you lifted yourself out of poverty and are qualified for this job! Unfortunately we will be hiring Prof. Smith's husband/wife instead. Sorry you weren't born or married into the right family." When corporations do this we call it evil cronyism...when academics do it they call it spousal preference.

      Delete
    2. You old codger, my respect for you just went up several notches. Thanks for challenging the crooks on their own turf.

      Delete
  11. Your tax dollars at work . . . .

    ReplyDelete
  12. The academic approach to marriage has always struck me as odd. Basically, they want their cake without any of the drawbacks (cultural, sexual, career sacrifice, etc.) the rest of us accept.

    I believe I read a Leiter article or book once where he thanked his wife for her help like she was no different than a research assistant with no indication of matrimony. Thats just odd to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leiter is married?!

      Delete
    2. Yes, in his infamous email to the philosophy professor, Leiter claimed that his wife was a lawyer. Of course, he also claimed to be a lawyer himself, which is stretching the term so far as to make it meaningless. I also have to wonder if he was using a highly creative definition of the word "wife."

      Delete
    3. Leiter is married to Sheila Sokolowski, a lawyer at Hogan Marren in Chicago.

      Delete
    4. The more fool she.

      Old Guy

      Delete
    5. Leiter is a troll who should be living under a bridge. This woman fucks him?! Not only is he a complete asswipe to other human beings, but is a weirdo who stalks philosophy professors and is obsessing with ranking shit. How much does he pay her a month?

      Delete
    6. Apparently Ms. Sokolowski graduated from law school at Texas while Leiter was teaching there. Not your typical law school romance. I can imagine the Socratic dialogue that Brian used to convince her to marry him.

      Delete
    7. "Leiter is married to Sheila Sokolowski, a lawyer at Hogan Marren in Chicago."

      If anyone was looking for proof for the existence of God, here it is. There is no way this would have happened, otherwise.

      Delete
    8. "How much does he pay her a month?"

      The money probably flows in the other direction. How could Leiter eat so much absent significant outside support?

      Delete
  13. Seems that some things never change. over 20 years ago as a 3L I volunteered to serve on some student/faculty/administration committee that was evaluating candidates for Dean. this was at a public university in a consummate midwestern "college town". one of the big topics of the deliberations was the need for spouses to find employment in our little backwater. it was stated that we were at a disadvantage relative to our peers located in or near the big coastal cities (and Chicago) when it came to attracting top candidates. nobody came right out and said it, but it was implied that providing some career "assistance" to the spouse may become part of the hiring process.

    I can't imagine this crosses the mind of any private sector corporation - only in academia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some companies might provide help finding a desirable candidate's spouse a job, but it would typically be limited to job search / matchmaking help finding them employment at a different company in the same area. They shy away from blatant nepotism, unlike the preftigious academy types.

      Delete
  14. When state legislators get wind of these kinds of shenanigans, is it any wonder that they feel no remorse about slashing state funding for higher education? Personally, I think that the cuts to public universities that have been proposed in places like Wisconsin and Kansas are short-sighted and will have disastrous consequences. But when universities spend money like water, and faculty act like they are above the financial restraints that govern mere mortals, what do you expect to happen? When people in academia behave with such hubris, no wonder the state governments want to cut off the cash. The ones who suffer, of course, are the students, who see their tuition skyrocket, requiring more loans. When state governments cut back, the federal government has to pick up the tab in the form of more lending. And we know it's all going to be paid back, of course.....

    ReplyDelete
  15. At my college there are three couples working there! Spousal hiring is nuts in higher ed! By the way most admisssion counselors for law school or any school, arw really just student loan brokers! Let's find a dumb kid with no job, no collateral and lend him $150,000!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Off topic, but if you haven't heard, Hamline and William Mitchell are officially merging.

    The first domino falling?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.startribune.com/local/291856891.html

      Delete
    2. Maybe not, @9:31. There has already been a trend of "indies" being absorbed by universities. Usually they're state schools. Penn State, U of New Hampshire and UMass have all done it and VLS is obviously dreaming of being taken over by the U of Vermont. What it comes down to is that the faculties at these indies know that when their toilet folds there will be no one left to pay their pensions. Safest bet is to hook up with State U where the taxpayer will have to pay, but in this case it's any port in a storm. The U of M needs William Mitchell like it needs a hole in the head so they have to settle for future Hamline undergrads paying for their retirements. Not as safe a bet, but better than the sure thing of no pension at all.

      Delete
    3. Interesting. Both parties must think the new school can continue to make money. Otherwise, Hamline would simply give their school away to Mitchell and say good luck.

      The Pioneer Press article claimed that Mitchell is still generating a profit, er, a surplus. Two years in the black, and then a one-time charge in 2013.

      Delete
    4. God save the mark! They're calling the pig Mitchell|Hamline. With that pretentious vertical bar. Just like New England Law | Boston.

      Is the vertical bar the latest marketing fad? In the 1960s, the silly use of x (intended to imply high technology) was all the rage. The 1980s saw the gratuitous use of umlauts (as in "Häagen-Dazs") for faux-European cachet. Maybe the vertical bar is the look-at-me symbol of the 2010s.

      Why not combine these various gimmicks? Thömax|Jeffërxon? Ïndiäna|Tëxx?

      Öld|Güÿ|xxx

      Delete
  17. How about this. UF hired a spouse and then advertised the job even though it was filled. In fact, it was created out of nothing so the spouse could have a job. I want to know this. If you know you are only hired because of whom you are currently sleeping with, how to you feel any sense of accomplishment? It's upper class welfare.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Among the lawyers who win this double lottery, some will encounter the following painful, even heartrending, dilemma: their spouse (often another lawyer, lawyers tend to marry each other) loses his or her job, and is offered another job far away. " Among all the problems of being a lawyer, this is not a huge one because state licensing restrictions make it very, very difficult to obtain jobs out of state. It's one of the additional pleasures (sarcasm) of being an attorney.

    ReplyDelete
  19. How about a discussion on the children of law school deans and prof's attending the school their parents control while getting steep tuition discounts and miraculously ending up in the top of their class. Talk about corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Spousal hiring (nepotism) has become prevalent at SUNY Buffalo.

    Fred Konefsky/Dianne Avery (both now retired)
    Mark Bartholomew/Christine Bartholomew) (latter promoted from LRW instructor)
    Jim Wooten/Heidi Forman (latter full-time "teaching faculty")
    Jim Gardner (interim dean)/Lisa Gelernter (same)
    Guyora Binder (Vice Dean)/Judith Olin (clinical)
    Makau Mutua (former dean)/Athena Mutua (both also "Floyd H. and Hilda Hurst Faculty Scholars")
    Jonathan Manes/Nicole Hallett (both clinical)
    Martha McCluskey/Carl Nightingale (husband in history department)

    ReplyDelete