How many adjuncts and what courses should they or should they not teach?

First the facts as shown on the ABA survey in 2010 and my survey in 2007.

At most schools adjuncts do not teach first year courses or required courses.  At the other end of the spectrum they teach trial practice at the most schools and courses such as bankruptcy, intellectual property and sports law at many schools.  At a few schools they teach advanced corporate or commercial law courses or seminars.  Although there is little pedagogical discussion there seems to be an in-practice consensus on which courses they do an do not teach.  Adjuncts were paid on the average around $1000 per credit hour although a few schools paid more and a few paid nothing. 

This use of adjuncts plays into the ongoing tension over where the law school curriculum should fit on the spectrum between law school as teacher of theory and law school as teacher of practice.  The explosion of student loan debt has intensified the financial aspect to this debate.  If schools are indeed increasing the use of adjuncts during this enrollment and financial challenge then this might be a victory for the law school as trade school. On the other hand, it might be simply a financial adjustment. The rich literature on the theory vs practice issue lacks meaningful analysis of the role that adjuncts can play.  They may be added to supplement the curriculum by substantive area of law  or they may be added to shift the balance from theory to practice.  

Historically the ABA and the AALS have sought to limit the percentage of courses taught by adjuncts.  Interestingly the ABA disbanded the committee that studied the use of adjuncts.  

A critical question is what would be gained or lost in the areas of scholarship,quality of teaching, access to teachers, teaching of theory, and teaching of practice if the use of adjuncts is increased or decreased. 

Some quick benefits of more adjuncts:

More course offerings;

Adjuncts are easy on the school budget;

Adjuncts often provide students with supplemental perspectives and insights into legal reasoning, critical  thinking and the crafting of legal arguments;   

Their special contribution is that they are able to think “transactionally,” which combines the theory and the practice in a strategic way and hopefully  their teaching will reflect that combination in a thoughtful and effective way and they will add to  the optimal mix of learning experiences.  Although the use of “war stories” can be overdone,  adjuncts’ practical expertise can infuse and enrich theory in a way that enhances learning.  If all  of this works, then an effective adjunct has the potential to enrich the students in a way that  complements and supplements the teaching of the  full-time faculty members; 

Adjuncts are often extraordinarily enthusiastic about their teaching; 

The perception (and perhaps reality) that they provide networking opportunities for employment during  law school and after graduation.

 On the other hand, the use of adjuncts poses a series of potential serious problems to the students’ education and to the law school itself. 

Adjuncts are generally less available than full-time faculty members to students for questions about the course.  This lack of access can have serious negative consequences, particularly in courses where a paper is required, or if students wish to write on topics on which the only teacher is an adjunct. 

Adjuncts regularly have “emergencies” which interfere with class and with preparation for class.  

Just as adjuncts may be better teachers than full-time faculty, they may also be worse teachers.  They are often unaware of the benefits of various alternative teaching methods and either lecture or fall back on a harassing use of the Socratic method. 

If adjuncts teach most or all of the courses in substantive law areas and they are not included in faculty meetings and consultations regarding curricular decisions then the evaluation, discussion and decision making will be weaker than if the adjuncts who teach those substantive courses had been involved.  

Adjuncts often underestimate the importance of grading and violate school grading and median scoring policies. 

One very important concern is the effect of the dependence on adjuncts on scholarship and publications. Although many adjuncts do write articles, nearly all of the true legal scholarship is done by full-time faculty and very little is done by adjuncts. This lack of scholarship has many negative implications. Professor Larry F Garvin looked at the effect of  increasing use of adjuncts in the field of commercial law and identified and analyzed a number of those negative effect of using more adjuncts to teach commercial law courses.  Research and publications will suffer in any area where full time faculty is replaced by adjuncts. Areas which make major use of adjuncts such as trial practice, bankruptcy, and sports and entertainment law have probably reached a tipping point where the amount and quality of research is significantly affected by the mix of adjuncts and full-time faculty working in these fields.

Adjuncts may be weaker than full time faculty in the teaching of crucial theoretical concepts.  

 One key factor is the degree to which the use of adjuncts to is a replacement for full time teachers as opposed to a broadening of course offerings.  This is hard to measure but it is critical. 

Next: What must a school do to increase the benefits and reduce the risk posed by its adjunct faculty? 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Former Editor]

Lander and Adam,

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I look forward to getting into the weeds of balancing the scholarly conversation with you both in future posts. The role of clinical education in this conversation is particularly important these days, I think.

Another anon,

Just... why? There's really no need for the kind of attack I just read. Lander and Adam seem to be making honest, productive observations. If you disagree, fine, but I don't understand the tone unless it is to discourage future posts by either of them which, as someone who feels the discussion is productive, I would respectfully ask you not to do.

As an aside, I'm not sure what sorts of "facts" in this area you think are really available. If you have looked into it, you probably know that legitimate, current research into these kinds of issues is close to nonexistent. If you know of some good resources that I've missed, please point me to them. If not, I'm afraid we are going to have to make do with the experiences of those who came before us.

[adnon]

I think that the way that you lump all adjuncts together is not particularly helpful. Some of your descriptions seem to be geared more towards the practitioner who teaches a law course here and there as opposed to a baby prof or wannabe prof or whatever you want to call them (i.e. an SJD/JSD student who is teaching a class) who would perhaps display more of the qualities of your standard tenure-track faculty members.

[anon]

Adam

1. I've explained why adjuncts are less likely to be immersed in thinking about teaching than people who teach FT, even though both groups are in the main doing similar things. I don't see any prospect of persuading you on this point.

Right. Not very persuasive.

2. " I recommend Stephen Gilles' "The Invisible Hand Formula", which traces the astonishingly limited impact of what is for academics the most famous statement of negligence law"

Sorry. Again, obviously uninformed. Many jury instructions actually expressly incorporate the notion of balancing the cost of avoiding harm against the magnitude and probability of harm. Perhaps it is too harsh to blame you for living in a bubble, but you really aren't scoring any points for knowledge about the world of practice. Which is ok, one supposes, because that topic is so totally off point. Here, we are discussing adjunct teaching, which you seem to equate with practicing law because practitioners often act as adjuncts (as do judges, btw, who, as we all know, are totally oblivious to "theoretical concepts" and basically incapable of engaging in the the heavy thinking engaged in by all law profs).

4. "I take it that your view is that adjuncts teach just as much theory as FT profs."

It depends on the course, Adam, and the adjunct (and, of course, the law prof). Obviously, full time faculty members are more likely to indulge idiosyncratic points of view about the importance of their own musings in the classroom. However, by and large, your unspoken assumption that all adjuncts are practitioners and that practitioners are incapable of understanding and conveying theoretical concepts is empirically wrong, condescending and biased.

FE: about the tone. the fist in the velvet glove is no better than pointing out illogical or false arguments bluntly. You don't get to say that adjuncts ignore the faculty rules on grading and don't care as much as others about it without someone pushing back (except, of course, in the real faculty lounge).

Nothing strikes me as more pompous and arrogant than a law prof demeaning adjuncts and practitioners on specious grounds, especially because the sort of greedy, self referential life style enjoyed by many such profs is often supported, in part, by the hard work and devotion of the people who serve in this capacity.

It's sort of like the rich sob beating his workers, and justifying this conduct because he is "better" than they are, accusing them falsely in the process (while describing the reasons he is better in risible terms).

If one wants to write a screed slamming adjuncts, have at it. But, as long as it is allowed, the answers hopefully will be more persuasive than the attack, and cause the speaker to at least try to engage in a bit of self examination and more thoughtful analysis.

[Anon]

An important point from an active adjunct prof (apologies if the point has been made already in this unwieldy thread): few practicing attorneys can teach more than once a week. Take a quick look through a random sample of law-school course catalogs and you will see that adjunct profs, whether "good" or "bad," whether offering "life-changing" courses or not, typically teach one session a week for 2-3 hours. (Even then, it's often necessary for practicing attorneys to cancel or reschedule class on relatively short notice.) Such limitations constrain the types of discussions I can have with students and the amount of material we can cover. So while a seminar on ITC Section 337 litigation, for example, is certainly manageable in scope for a once-a-week course - and, yes, something I could probably teach *more effectively* than most doctrinal professors - I would not say the same of foundational courses in Admin or Patents, both of which students should probably have taken by the time they enroll in my hypothetical Section 337 seminar.

[anon prof]

I also didn't read through all the comments (especially the mean-spirited and unprofessional ones), but there is another important point that I think is missing here. Different law schools have access to very different pools of adjuncts. My guess would be that schools in DC or NYC have access to very high level adjuncts. I am less sure about small state schools in towns like Ada, Ohio. For prestige/interest reasons, I am sure that top quality adjuncts are also more willing to work for free (or peanuts) at a top school than at a fourth tier school. So, I don't think any one school's experience can really translate across the spectrum.

[Another Anon Prof]

Anon Prof-

I generally agree with your first point that there could be different pools to draw from - that's simply a matter of attorney numbers in a given area.

On your second point, I would issue a note of caution on the top v. lower tier distinction. I'm at a U.S. News labelled lower 3d tier school, but we have a different regional reputation and a huge pool of invested and highly competent attorneys around us who serve as adjuncts for very little money.