Are VAPs and Other Job Candidates Writing Too Much?

In response to Zach Kramer's post on The Slow Writing Movement over at Prawfs, Glenn Cohen thoughtfully asks in the comments:

Is more than one paper in work or published the new "state of the field" for getting attention? * * * 

Another way of putting the question is are those grooming VAPs/Fellows pushing too much productivity in a way that is a mismatch with what schools are looking for, or are they accurately following the preference signals from hiring committees?

I am serving on my school's Appointments Committee this year, and I have been struck by how many candidates have more than one article in print.  For those who are in the second or third year of a VAP, I would expect to see an article or maybe even two, but there are many candidates (VAP and non-VAP) with more than one article.  My anecdotal impression is that this is the new normal. What has caused the shift from, say, 15 years ago, when having one solid law review publication (in addition to a student note) was typically enough to make one a colorable candidate at many schools?  Does the rise of the VAP program have something to do with the change, or is it purely a function of a mentality that one-article-is-desirable-so-two-or-three-must-be-better?  Something else?

Comments

[anon]

Schools are using VAPs to fill needs; just like schools are using adjuncts.

VAPs are afforded a few more "privileges" (like attending faculty meetings, sometimes), and not required to serve on committees (such a relief from so amazing and overwhelming a burden carried by regular faculty), a bit better pay, etc., but essentially a VAP is like an upgrade in couch class; those in first class make faces in you think you are allowed to use "their" bathroom, eat "their" food, or even hang your coat full of medals in "their" closet.

Schools that don't hire their own VAPs tell the real truth by their conduct: these persons are so great and so prepared for academia, just not here. Our needs are "different."

What is so striking is how often VAP positions involve teaching courses that do not require a great deal of skill, but rather fit into a formulaic program wherein the VAP simply and clearly simply fulfills a need of the law school for services that regular faculty are unwilling to stoop to provide. That VAPs use their time productively to write is not a subject that should be questioned in such a manner by anyone on an APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE!!!! ("Too much?" with no reference to the quality of either VAP or regular faculty scholarship.)

Are there no standards left? Are there no rules of propriety?

The profs here claiming that most VAP programs are motivated purely by altruism and desire to benefit the VAPs know that all too well that this proposition is too often not true.

What is so disturbing about this post was that the author didn't mention anything about the quality of scholarship produced by VAPs; instead, she took issue with the volume. This is beyond belief, for those reasons stated in the comments above.

[anon]

Should be "coach" class ...