Chairs as a Recruiting Tool

Now that the Academy Awards are over, I'm turning my mind back to more law school oriented thoughts, and one thing I've been musing about for a while is the extent to which chairs are an effective recruiting tool.  Both from experience at my own school and talking to people at other schools, it seems that chairs are often not required to land "big name lateral candidates".  If the  hiring school is desirable to the candidate for other reasons (ranking, salary, location), it's not that unusual for a person - even a person who has a chair at his/her current school - to move without a chair.  And I've also heard plenty of stories of endowed chairs that can't be filled laterally because the school itself is not particularly desirable for whatever reason.

Then there's the question whether offering chairs to lateral candidates, rather than internal faculty, sends the wrong message to the outside world about the internal faculty: for example, that they are not good enough to get a chair or that they are not as valued as external candidates.

Of course, in a perfect world, the dean would raise tons of money and everyone (internal and potential external hires) deserving of a chair could have one.  But in a world of scarce resoures, I wonder how chairs are best divvied up.

I also understand that the previous paragraph raises the question about how you work out whether a faculty member is "deserving" of a chair and this is another whole can of worms.  At many schools chairs are focused on significant scholarly contributions, but I understand this is not the case at all schools.  At some schools, chairs relate to significant contributions in other areas (teaching or stature).  And at some schools, I believe chairs are related to seniority.

So I guess I'm interested in what people think about how best to use vacant chairs ie for recruiting or rather for rewarding (and potentially retaining) internal folks.  And what ideally should a chair be a reward for? Scholarship?  Teaching?  Stature?  Seniority?  Or a combination, depending on the school?

 

 

Comments

[Matt]

I don't have any experience with this, but my understanding is that there are a lot of different sorts of chairs, and what sort is in question probably matters. Some come just with a name and a warm glow in the eyes of one's colleagues and in one's heart, and while those are nice, who wouldn't trade that for a better location, more money, or something tangible, other things being equal. But some come with a set research fund, teaching release, higher salaries, and so on, and so require more thought and care when giving them out or giving them up. Given the differences among chairs, I doubt any general rule can be set out on them.

[Jacqui Lipton]

Of course I was talking about more general chairs. Those with specific things attached to them may well be a different story because the number of people who could fill those chairs is more limited. And I don't think a general rule can be formulated, but I am interested in different perspectives on how chairs are given out.

[David Bernstein]

Anyone whose decision to lateral to another school is dependent on whether he gets a chair that has no benefits attached to it beyond a title is being foolish

[Jacqui Lipton]

Even if that person has a chair at their current school and doesn't want to lose their perceived status?

[David Bernstein]

Yes. What real status does it give you when it was used as a recruiting tool? If I were to lateral, I'd much rather have an additional 10% in salary or a 10% lower teaching load than a chair.