I sort of hate to keep giving this controversy new legs, but I’m not going to arbitrarily cut off the discussion while people still have things to say, so… here goes. Fellow Notre Dame 3L Jimmy Paulino, the subject of much controversy and discussion stemming from his quoted remarks in an Observer article earlier this week, has submitted a lengthy piece to the Observer, which is apparently due to be published in tomorrow’s paper. A little bird sent me a sneak-preview copy, and I’ve published it in full after the jump.
First, though, two letters to the editor were published today: one by a trio of alumnae (a fuller version of that letter was on the blog yesterday), the other by a 1L named Laura Geldermann. Both defend the law school while acknolwedging that it is not without its problems. Both are worth reading, especially if you want to actually talk about the issues, rather than just about Jimmy’s controversial comments.
Now, on to Jimmy’s leaked op-ed. Again, it’s after the jump. Enjoy. And, as Randy Jackson might say, yo, dawg, check it out: keep it real, keep it civil. (Okay, Randy wouldn’t say that last part.)
What I really think about NDLS – Jim Paulino
This week has seen opinions from all over the spectrum of viewpoints about Notre Dame Law School. One of those opinions was found in this paper, and attributed to me. Many of the other opinions were in response to my quotes in the Observer. But, none of those viewpoints were entirely mine. The quotes were out of context and didn’t do justice to what I really feel about the school. And as the responses referenced those same quotes, they didn’t get my position correct either. So, I’d like to explain what was said, what should have been said, and what was omitted, to provide a full understanding of my much discussed opinion of NDLS.
First, regarding what was actually said, Ken Fowler called my cell phone this past Monday and requested an interview about the law school’s drop in rankings. Of course I obliged Ken. I had known him since I was his TA for Fr. Dowd’s Religion and Politics course last spring. I figured we’d talk. Our conversation lasted roughly 25 minutes, and I explained my views of the school. Now, Ken never asked if me if I was on the record or if he could quote me. Instead, I explicitly told him when I could be quoted, assuming that outside of those instances I could drop my guard because I would not be quoted. But (and I have now been told that this is common practice) I was recorded without my knowledge, and everything I said was “fair game†for the article.
[Editor’s note: After Jimmy’s article, I give a journalist’s response to the above paragraph. -ed.]
As I’m sure my friends (and enemies) can agree, this law student has a tendency to embellish his point. That’s just one of the many skills the NDLS Trial Advocacy program teaches you. Unfortunately, when a paper reports “sound bytes,†a speaker’s more colorful statements can be divorced from their intended purpose. The quotes used were taken out of their context, and should be seen for what they were, about 30 seconds from a conversation that lasted roughly 1,750.
Next, what should have been said (more clearly) in the article? Well, my first point to Ken was that, in my opinion, the law school requires particular courses that aren’t the most practical, vis. Jurisprudence and Ethics II, and that those courses are inappropriately understood as an integral part of the law school’s mission to educate a “different†kind of lawyer. And my second point was to suggest that while these courses are highlighted, other elements of a full legal education, which I explained to Ken included the study of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Trial Ad[vocacy], are eclipsed.
Part of making those points was to make abundantly clear to Ken my opinion that jurisprudence isn’t very practical…or as I put it, “jurisprudence is a joke.†I have nothing against jurisprudence, per se; I have a BA with dual majors in politics and legal philosophy and a MA in legal philosophy. It’s the implementation that I find problematic. The administration can require the course, but it cannot tell the faculty how to teach or evaluate the classes. That results in a marked gap between the concept of the course and the rather deficient form it actually takes, or what many students would call a waste of our time. The law is important, as is good philosophy. But when you require nearly 100 adults to squeeze into an overcrowded room and be force fed some mutation of legal philosophy, that exercise rings more comical than constructive.
As a corollary, I had hoped to make it clear that this school lacks a strong focus on the practical, particularly the Trial Advocacy program. Consider the following. This law school does not have one room that is capable of properly accommodating a jury trial. And the drawings of the new courtroom show it is designed for appellate arguments, and not trials. Here’s a shocker; you generally don’t have an appeal unless you have a trial, but here at NDLS, that’s apparently not a concern. How does that make sense?
Finally, what was completely omitted from the article was my actual opinion of NDLS. Simply stated, I am proud that I will be a graduate of such a great law school. I like the faculty, the administration, and the strong community here. Most importantly, I feel as though I have received an education that has prepared me to enter the workforce better equipped than students from almost any other school.
In addition, I am personally committed to NDLS’ Catholic mission, as exemplified in the character of faculty and scholarship at this school. I find that often it is the Christian ethic of professors, such as Professor Matt Barrett, that can motivate them to pursue their vocation as educators with an unparalleled dedication. Equally as important is the work of Professor John Finnis, who is the epitome of a Catholic law professor and foremost among my intellectual heroes.
Now it is my personal opinion that when the commitment to a “Catholic mission†supersedes the practical necessities of a legal education, this school gets into trouble. And this, I believe, is one reason why the school’s rankings are not as high as they could be. This can be seen in the failure to require something as simple as a course on evidence instead of a second ethics course. It can be seen in the unwaveringly conservative approach to administration that underlies many other actions at the school. And it can be seen in the employment of professors best suited for philosophy-based courses as instructors in the secular law.
A mix of both young and seasoned legal scholars, all of whom respect the school’s Catholic mission, are responsible for teaching these catholic or philosophy-based courses. I find it unfortunate that additional responsibilities are placed on several seasoned professors who would be better employed to provide the “different†aspects of the NDLS education, faculty who, in my opinion, are unable to teach any substantive, dare I say real, law school course as well as other teachers. A contract is not a bread bowl. This is a divisive point, but one I am willing to make. The quality of a professor has nothing to do with religious affiliation. Neither does directing the Career Service Office, or being a librarian. But if the first hiring criterion is the ability to promote catholic thought, the ability to teach substantive law (or do anything else) must come second, or third, or fourth…
So, here’s a suggestion. Hire the best professors you can. Get the best contracts professor. Get the best criminal law professor. Get the best international law professor (oh…we already have her). Use some of that money and get Chemerinsky to come to NDLS. And do it while maintaining a balance between the concept of a Catholic mission and a “secular†legal education.
I am confident that this school enjoys a position among the best law schools in the nation in large part because of the contributions of the faculty and the current administration. I am grateful for Dean O’Hara’s leadership both in bringing the law school into a new and much needed building, as well as working to strengthen the relationship between the administration and the students. I believe that most of the faculty are ranks above their academic peers in scholarship and teaching ability. As with all things in life, I think that there is still room for growth. But…that’s just one man’s opinion.
As I’ve generally been doing with this controversy, I’m going to reserve comment about most of the substantive issues and let the peanut comment gallery take it away… but I do want to chime in regarding Jimmy’s second paragraph, the whole “off-the-record” business, because I have a journalism background and I think my two cents might be worth at least, er, three or four cents here. :)
First of all, the standard journalistic practice is pretty simple: once a reporter has told you he is a reporter, and (this part is generally implicit) that he is talking to you in his capacity as a reporter, everything is presumptively on-the-record. Period. You can never “assume” something is off-the-record once those two core facts have been established. In fact, technically speaking, the ONLY way something goes “off-the-record” is if the journalist and the interview subject mutually agree to take it off-the-record. It isn’t even enough for the interviewee to say, “This is off-the-record,” and then keep babbling without stopping. Of course, as a matter of honesty and ethics, the reporter should stop the interviewee if that happens, and explain the ground rules, since it’s clear he is confused. But, bottom line, no conversation with a reporter is off-the-record unless the reporter consents to such an arrangement. (The reason is that some reporters, in some situations, may prefer NOT to learn “off-the-record” information, because it can actually complicate the reporting process, for reasons somewhat akin to a journalistic version of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” problem.)
So, if Ken Fowler identified himself as an Observer reporter, and it was clear that he and Jimmy were talking in the context of Ken working on an article (and not, say, idly chatting as friends over drinks at Corby’s), then Ken was under no obligation to ask Jimmy “if [the conversation] was on the record or if he could quote me.” It was, and he could, unless and until they mutually agreed otherwise. Jimmy’s notion of going on and off the record at the interviewee’s whim (”I explicitly told him when I could be quoted, assuming that outside of those instances I could drop my guard because I would not be quoted”) is totally inconsistent with standard journalistic practice. And I think it’s fairly easy to understand why. If you let the interviewee dictate the terms of the interview to that extent, it opens the door for abuse by a clever interviewee who wants to bend the reporter to his agenda by only letting him quote the “good” stuff. (Mind you, I’m not saying Jimmy was doing that, I’m just explaining why the practice is what it is.)
The bottom line is, when you’re talking to a reporter, and you don’t want something quoted, you have two options: one, don’t say it; or two, come to a clear, explicit, mutual agreement beforehand that it’s off-the-record. It isn’t enough to unilaterally declare it off-the-record before or after saying it, and it certainly isn’t enough to assume it’s off-the-record unless and until you agree otherwise.
All that said… if Ken had reason to believe that Jimmy misunderstood the ground rules, he should have stopped the interview and explained them. That’s just common sense and common decency. And as for the idea that being “recorded without my knowledge” is “standard practice”… well, I don’t recall what the rulebook says about that, but I certainly don’t consider it standard practice. I don’t think you should tape-record anyone in a one-on-one interview unless you either tell them you’re doing so or make it obvious through your conduct that you’re doing so (e.g., by visibly holding a tape recorder). That said, whether there’s a tape recording really has no bearing on the “on-the-record” vs. “off-the-record” issue, it’s only relevant to the accuracy of the quotes. And in fact, I think being tape-recorded is to the interview subject’s benefit, because it means the quotes are much more likely to be accurate.
None of the above is meant to bash Jimmy, I just want to give a little background info for everyone’s edification (hopefully). If others with journalism backgrounds disagree with my interpretation of things, please, by all means, say so. I’m not always right! :) But that’s my understanding of the standard rules.
Anyway, enough journalistic nerdiness, on with the flame war civilized discussion among rational and articulate future lawyers…
UPDATE: Here’s the published version of Jimmy’s letter.
|
Categories: Notre Dame, Law School
|
April 19th, 2007 at 11:20:52 pm
I got tired of reading. But I would like to say that Jurisprudence w Carozza was very good, although I don’t think I enjoyed it as much in the execution as I do upon reflection. Studying Hart, Dworkin, and Finnis was important to my formation as a young lawyer and I think about the principles I learned with those theorists and others often when I reflect on the law more holistically. N-E-Way.
NDLS and San Demus High 4 evr!
(I don’t know if there’s another law school community that spends more time worrying about how much and whether it’s like other law schools. Kind of Ironic, don’t you think). How can NDLS be improved ? Admin stopped being afraid of students, students stop wearing the vampyre teeth around admin, and for lawd’s sake, replace that weirdo copy machine in the library !
April 19th, 2007 at 11:31:24 pm
First, as I noted previously, two credits worth of Ethics are required by the Indiana bar. There’s a good reason it’s “require[d].” But, as I noted, I have yet to hear a law student at a school who has enjoyed Ethics II. Plus, NDLS students have the option of a (practical) Legal Aid Clinic, or a Professional Responsibility Course in lieu of Ethics II.
Second, Evidence was dropped recently by the faculty, much to the distress of some, but to the delight of others (including at least one Evidence teacher). While emininently useful for the bar, and invaluable for litigators, I can only imagine the hate-mail that would come from would-be transactional attorneys forced to take that 4-credit course.
Third, the entire focus of curricular criticisms seems to be “Notre Dame doesn’t pay enough attention to trial litigation.” In the same article Fowler wrote, he quoted students who criticized the lack of corporate classes; in an op-ed published today, alumnae criticized the lack of public interest classes. I don’t know who’s right, but I lean toward “none of the above.”
Fourth, I don’t understand the “hire the best professors” line. Notre Dame does. I can’t think of a bad hire in the last five years, all while keeping with the Catholic mission of the school.
And finally, while this op-ed was an attempt to provide the context, one that I’d been particularly interested to hear, I still think that it doesn’t help much at all. It continues to provide a subjective, misleading, and incomplete view of how the law school ought to operate and where its true faults are.
I’m interested to see what others have to say.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:38:19 pm
Paulino is still a complete idiot. The only reason a good professor — a Bellia, an O’Connor, a Velasco — would ever come to South Bend, Indiana is *because* Notre Dame is Catholic. It would certainly not be to provide “practical” skills training to the likes of JP. P.S. No good law school requires Evidence. HTH.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:51:29 pm
We’re getting Sandra Day? Or do you mean O’Connell?
April 20th, 2007 at 12:02:00 am
“[O]ne reason why the school’s rankings are not as high as they could be. . . . can be seen in the employment of professors best suited for philosophy-based courses as instructors in the secular law.”
This continues to miss a point I tried to make in my response. Law schools ranked higher than us, generally speaking, are even *less* practical in their approach to “secular” law. The top-ranked school in the country is so touchy-feely they don’t even give out grades. Many if not most of the profs at the truly elite schools barely cover doctrine and black-letter stuff, even in the first-year curriculum; they’re busily giving their own versions of the bread bowl. Admittedly not informed by the church, but still just as unrelated to the “practical” knowledge being asked for here. On the other hand, the lower-tier regional and local schools offer black-letter law galore, and are looked down upon for it.
Beyond that, I agree with Derek: if the litigators want more litigation courses, the corporate people want more transactional courses, the public interest people want more public interest stuff, and so on, then what that tells me is that we have a pretty well-rounded offering, more broad than deep. Given a) few of us truly know what kind of law we want to practice until we’ve been exposed to it through our coursework, and b) we only have three academic years to take classes (nearly half of which is a required curriculum), I think it’s probably better to have breadth than depth.
And while I generally hate the myopia of the “new building solves everything” line, this is one dimension where the new building will actually help. More classrooms and more room for more faculty means more offerings, so the depth will improve. Granted, that doesn’t do much for those of us in the here and now, but we knew when we enrolled that the building wouldn’t be there for us, and and we knew the size of the course catalog.
Finally, as to the courtroom — I see a witness stand. I see a jury box (three rows, four chairs each, to the right of counsel, discontinuous from the auditorium seating). I see counsel’s tables. I see a podium. I see a bench with three chairs behind it. Seems to me it’s set up to accommodate both trial and appellate settings. I don’t know enough about the specific needs of trial ad or moot court to know whether one big courtroom, plus all the other smaller rooms in the new building will be enough. But one thing is definitely clear. The courtroom and related facilities will be *vastly* improved over what we have now. To suggest that trial ad is being somehow cut or phased out because it “only” got a brand new, much larger, more versatile and technologically functional courtroom, along with tons of convertable classrooms for a multitude of uses, seems rather disingenuous.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:07:53 am
Sorry — two rows seats in the jury area, not three rows. Apologies for the error. I also can’t tell from the drawings if there are actually twelve seats, or something less. Looks like it might only be eight (which may be why I assumed it was three rows).
Either way, the point is, there’s a place for a jury, in the drawings at least.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:10:37 am
First, Ethics II is required to be an ABA accredited school. NDLS can’t drop that requirement… Suck it up. It’s only a one credit course, and you can do it in Legal Aid or Public Defender. Speaking of which, ND offers lots of classes that are so called practical: Trial Ad, Depo Skills, Legal Aid I, Legal Aid II, Immigration Clinic (I’m not sure its offered this year, but I think is slated to be offered again next year), Moot Court, Legal Research I and II (which are probably THE most relevant law school classes), Legal writing etc. Not to mention that what is a “practical” class depends on what you do once you graduate. I’m representing churches, and so First Amendment and Constitutional law were practical classes for me. For some of m classmates B.A. and Tax were practical classes. So what if ND doesn’t require evidence. If you want the practical class of evidence, take it. If you’re going to be a transactional attorney, and want to just learn it for the bar, then don’t take the class.
While there are certainly classes that are more valuable than others (and I would submit that is the case at any law school, or for that matter in any degree), law school is more than just taking classes that might teach you how to be a lawyer. The reality is that most 1Ls or even 2Ls have no idea about what kind of law they are going to practice. And at least when you first get to a firm, as I’m quickly learning, you end up doing everything–real estate, personal injury, whatever the partners need help with whether you took the class in law school or not. So what you learn in law school, is how to read cases, and how to think like a lawyer. Once you can figure out how to read cases, and how to “think” like a lawyer, I think there are few areas that you can’t practice in, though obviously there are some areas you would have to do additional reasearch… Bottom line–while you learn relevant things in law school, the real life world of being a lawyer and working with other lawyers is how you really become a good lawyer. It’s not what you learn (or don’t learn) in law school.
That being said, I will defend our faculty with everything I have. The three years I spent at NDLS were some of the best years of my life. I made good friends, and I found faculty that were understanding, caring and were there not just to hide in their office and research. They taught classes, and taught them well. They were always prepared and you I didn’t feel like I was the victim of a course syllabus that had been recycled from ten years before. They answered questions in and outside of class, they took an interest in my personal life, and what I wanted to do after graduation. They wrote countless reference letters, and helped me in my job search. (I’ve gotten interviews for both the job that I have now, and the job I did between 2L and 3L year from professors). They are invovled in the community of the law school when they don’t have to be. Serving as advisors for clubs, saying daily Mass in the law school, and generally just helping students out. Let us not forget that professors like Amy Barrett, Fr. Coughlin, A.J. Bellia, Patricia Bellia, Prof. Gurule, just to name a few, could be working at large law frims making probably much more than they make now. (I don’t know how much the law school pays, but I know its a lot less than a firm). And I would say that most of them put in just as many hours as a partner in a firm between their teaching, grading, and research, and activities around the law school. They teach for various reasons, but the bottom line is that they enriched my life while I was at ND, challenged me to be a better person and a better lawyer. I will be forever in debt to them.
I don’t know why he is saying there isn’t a room big enough for a mock jury trial. The current court room is big enough, hence why there is a room right off it called the “jury room”!
Lastly, I don’t see that the Catholic mission of ND is inconsistent with it being a good school or hiring good professors. There are professors of numerous religions, and no religion at all. If you’d rather go to an institution that doesn’t have a Catholic character, then go to school somewhere else. What makes Notre Dame different, and I would argue better, is its Catholic character. As someone who went to a very non-religious undergrad, and the NDLS, I would maintain that many of the differences that make NDLS a great school is because of its rligious character. That being said, I recognize that religious schools are not for everyone. If you don’t like a school that has a strong Catholic character, then don’t come to NDLS. NDLS doesn’t hide the fact that it’s a Catholic school. So don’t decide to come to NDLS (perhaps because it was the highest ranked school you got into?) and then start complaining about it being Catholic…
April 20th, 2007 at 12:14:36 am
I am not sure if this is accurate (and frankly, I don’t care enough to look on inside ND and check), but I thought that they reduced the number of seats in Trial Ad this year. If that is true, maybe that’s what Jimmy was getting at with his criticism. Somebody in the class would know about this.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:28:57 am
Derek writes:
“And finally, while this op-ed was an attempt to provide the context…I still think that it doesn’t help much at all. It continues to provide a subjective, misleading, and incomplete view of how the law school ought to operate and where its true faults are.”
Derek, I think you should keep in mind that it is an OP-ED…as in, opinion/editorial…as in, it’s inherently subjective! An Op-Ed is, by definition, a subjective opinion as to what the author believes.
I’m not sure anyone could come to a consensus as to where “the true faults” of the law school are.
Personally, I’d like to see plasma screens above the urinals.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:39:55 am
NDLS 2006 writes:
“I don’t know why he is saying there isn’t a room big enough for a mock jury trial. The current court room is big enough, hence why there is a room right off it called the “jury roomâ€! ”
Obviously, you’ve never tried a case in that courtroom. It is woefully inadequate for a jury trial. No reasonable mind could differ. You can’t appreciate how bad of a space it is until you’ve tried a case in an adequate courtroom. It really makes all the difference in the world.
Also, how in the world does the existence of a connecting jury room suggest that the space of the courtroom is adequate for a jury trial?!? I could attach a jury room to the second floor crapper, but that wouldn’t make the toilet an adequate trial space.
NDLS 2006 also writes:
“If you’d rather go to an institution that doesn’t have a Catholic character, then go to school somewhere else.”
Now, NDLS 2006, I’m not sure if you actually read Jimmy’s op/ed, but I’ll refresh your memory. Jimmy writes:
“In addition, I am personally committed to NDLS’ Catholic mission, as exemplified in the character of faculty and scholarship at this school. I find that often it is the Christian ethic of professors…that can motivate them to pursue their vocation as educators with an unparalleled dedication. Equally as important is the work of Professor John Finnis, who is the epitome of a Catholic law professor and foremost among my intellectual heroes.”
I don’t know where you read that Jimmy “doesn’t want to go to a school with a Catholic character.” Not to speak for Jimmy, but I believe he was saying that NDLS has allowed its Catholic mission to supercede practical considerations to the detriment of the quality of education.
Personally, I disagree. But I don’t see how Jimmy’s position is inherently inconsistent.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:10:27 am
And Jimmy still doesn’t say anything about his comments on how the professors can’t teach. If this was intended to mitigate the effects of his first statement, then this doesn’t do much at all. Context? Intended purpose? Ah, hogwash.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:39:14 am
Awesome. We’ve totally f*cked up getting this law school improved. It’s so bad that Jimmy is actually praising the dean at the end of his reply. I hope at some point — this weekend would’ve been an excellent opportuntity, as most of the BOT are on campus — we get this conversation back on course.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:55:45 am
thebeef, that misses the point. There are certain objective facts about course offerings, hiring decisions, and other traits of the law school. I addresses several of those factual perspectives in Comment 2.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:02:45 am
“Hire the best professors you can. Get the best contracts professor. Get the best criminal law professor. Get the best international law professor (oh…we already have her). Use some of that money and get Chemerinsky to come to NDLS. And do it while maintaining a balance between the concept of a Catholic mission and a “secular†legal education. ”
Check. See, e.g., AJB (Contracts), RWG (Criminal Law), PLB (better than Chemerinsky).
By the way, Jimmy, thanks for this distraction — it has completely taken the focus off of the shortcominggs of my leadership and turned into an impugning the faculty, which remains one of the greatest strengths of the school, despite my ineffective leadership.
You’ll get an extra millisecond of eye contact at graduation for this, I promise you that!
April 20th, 2007 at 11:01:53 am
While we’re bringing in Chemerinsky, any chance someone could put in a call to Cass Sunstein, Alan Dershowitz, Akil Amar, and see if Justice Alito could step down from the bench?
April 20th, 2007 at 11:04:11 am
Anon at 7:39 is right. This was a real missed opportunity. Now, the faculty are suspect, the “Catholic mission” is part of the problem, and the Dean gets credit and thanks. If you were Burish or a BOT member, and read the Observer, what would you think needs to be done?
April 20th, 2007 at 11:11:52 am
Derek, I understand that you believe there are certain facts and traits of the law school that you believe undermine Jimmy’s position. That, however, only goes to the weight of your argument. Jimmy could very well respond that, while the Indiana Bar requires two credits of Ethics, NDLS should have someone other than the current professor teaching Ethics II and Professional Responsibility. And the fact that legal aid is offered doesn’t help somebody who already has substantial time commitments.
As to your second point about evidence, you said it yourself: It’s on the bar!! I had to take 4 credits of property, and let me tell you, I won’t be practicing property law. The very fact that evidence is a substantial portion of most, if not all, state bars, should weigh in favor of evidence being a mandatory class. What’s more, there’s always the risk that the work of transactional attorneys will result in litigation. Thus, certainly, an understanding of evidence can also prove valuable in a transactional practice.
As for your third point, you simply come to the conclusion that, because people have their pet-peeves (Jimmy wants more trial ad and evidence, corporate kids want more corporate law, public interest want more public interest), no one is “right.” Well, I don’t know if this is a matter of being right or wrong, but even if it was, I don’t see why they can’t all be right. Evidence should be required, we need a trial ad courtroom, we need a broader curriculum in corporate law and a broader curriculum in public interest (as well as a CSO that doesn’t dump on public interest kids). Those aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
Fourth…well, on the fourth point, I have no idea what Jimmy was talking about, so I agree with you whole-heartedly. If you’re going to accuse the school of not hiring the best then you need to back it up with a factual assertion, which Jimmy didn’t do.
Either way, my point is: just because you disagree with Jimmy’s op/ed doesn’t mean that his op/ed was bad. Just because I disagree with most of your second post doesn’t mean your second post is bad. It isn’t. That’s your opinion! It’s subjective, but it’s supposed to be.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:13:52 am
“If you were Burish or a BOT member, and read the Observer, what would you think needs to be done?”
Tighter control/standards for reporters at the Observer, for one.
I’d also suggest the strong and immediate response to the article pretty much settles the issue of whether the faculty is suspect.
The proper interpretation of the week’s events, as well as the discussions taking place on this blog and elsewhere since the rankings were leaked, is that it is all indicative of discontent about the direction and leadership of the law school.
We seem generally agreed that the faculty is one of the best parts about the school — while unresponsiveness and lack of communication/transparency from the administration is a significant issue that is driving sentiment among students and alums alike.
Others have articulated better the ways in which the dean’s singular focus on fundraising for the building has cost us in terms of promotion of peer accomplishments, perceptions of the dean as distant, unapproachable and out-of-touch, insufficient maintenance of the current building, etc.
Complaints about course offerings, Catholic mission, etc., are symptomatic of the bottom-line issue:
There is no confidence in current leadership.
That’s what Burish and BOT should think needs to be addressed.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:16:45 am
Just to clarify the transactional attorneys should know about evidence in case of litigation.
Obviously, I’m not suggesting that transactional attorneys will litigate. I am suggesting that litigators will use the product of transactional work as evidence in litigation, and thus knowledge of how one’s work will be utilized in litigation can prove valuable, even if your work is purely transactional.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:21:39 am
thebeef,
I don’t dispute your substantive point about the usefulness of evidence to non-litigators. But again — this logic suggests that every bar class should be required, which a) is the surest way to see our reputation/ranking tank, and b) precludes the possibility of specialists taking a bunch of classes in their specialty.
We can’t have it both ways — a required curriculum of practical classes that prepare us for every subject on the bar or every eventuality in our practice AND a deep curriculum with ample offerings in every specialty area.
Unless you want to make law school a five or six year experience, that is.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:38:33 am
Anon #12 and all others with concerns, write to the provost (provost at nd dot edu) about your concerns. He’s very responsive and he’s aware that the issue isn’t anti-Catholicism or ideology. The alums who wrote the letter to the editor also sent him a copy, and he replied to them and discussed their other concerns. He similarly replied to a letter I wrote him when I graduated and discussed my concerns, and I have heard that he pushed the administration to approve the current improvements to the law school building such as new furniture, better lighting, fixed plumbing, etc.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:55:34 pm
Brian, haha, no I certainly don’t want a 5 or 6 year law school experience!
I admit, I’m not really sure whether Evidence not being a required class has in any way affected the reputation of the school.
However, I’m not suggesting that simply because evidence is on the bar it should be a mandatory class. I think its an important factor to consider, but should not in and of itself detrmine whether the class is mandatory.
However, considering the centrality of evidence in the practice of law, it seems like a particularly important course. Often times, cases are won and lost depending upon the admissibility of evidence. Plea bargaining and settlement negotiations depend upon evidence. Appeals depend upon timely objections at trial.
I understand that elite schools are proud to remain ivory towers. The law, however, is not made in the clouds; it is litigated and hashed out at the bench.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:31:59 pm
Please people, put your money where your mouth is and email or write Burish. I think it is great to debate on here as well but if you want a change you need to go to someone who has the power to do that. I doubt he is trying to procrastinate from work by reading this blog like the rest of us are.
April 21st, 2007 at 1:37:26 am
why does everybody hate jurisprudence? what’s not to like about scandinavian positivism?
April 21st, 2007 at 9:26:24 am
“Others have articulated better the ways in which the dean’s singular focus on fundraising for the building has cost us in terms of promotion of peer accomplishments, perceptions of the dean as distant, unapproachable and out-of-touch, insufficient maintenance of the current building, etc.”
The dean’s unresponsiveness, distance and other shortcomings that I have seen hashed and rehashed by almost every student I know at the law school are attributed in large part to her focus on fundraising.
Am I alone in desiring to give the current dean a chance to use that same dedication and drive to improving the law school and addressing these issues now that her fundraising efforts are nearly complete?
The new building may not be a magical salve for everything that ails the law school, but it’s completion may solve more problems than people realize.
As to the rankings, does anyone more obsessive than myself know whether new facilities have had an impact on the law school rankings? Is this drop in rankings a short term payment for a long term benefit?
But more importantly, will Jimmy Clausen win the starting job this year?
Go Blue! Go Gold!
April 21st, 2007 at 10:17:21 am
A new building won’t necessarily directly improve the USNWR rankings. It is likely to improve, indirectly, some peer and some professional reputation scpres (worth .40 of the rankings), because visitors to campus will have a better impression of the law school. Also, in theory, the new building will result in an increase in expenditures per student in “instruction, library, and supporting services” (worth .0975), potentially increase the student/faculty ratio if more space translates into more hired full-time professors (worth .03), and, again potentially, an increase in total library volumes with more space to put them (worth .0075).
It should have a significant impact in the Cooley rankings, which measures things like “Library Seating Capacity,” “Library Total Square Footage,” “Non-Library Total Square Footage,” and “Total Law School Square Footage.” But really, I doubt any of us sweat over the Cooley rankings.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:26:38 am
WackO — problem is, the Dean is *not* an effective fundraiser. With loyal alums like ND’s, and a name like ND’s, any decent dean could have had NDLS in a new building years ago. She’s also poisoned the well for whoever comes next, by ignoring students for the last 8 years.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:19:04 pm
Just to build in what Irish04 said, because the law school building is the current “it” project for Notre Dame, any funds that people donate to the University without earmarking them for a particular purpose (like a dorm) go straight to the law school building fund. Additionally, when people interested in donating to the University call the undergraduate school and just say they want to donate but don’t really know what exactly they want to donate to, the people in the undergraduate dean’s office suggest the law school (and this is how we got that $21M check). There is no doubt that Patty does do some fundraising herself, but in no way can she claim responsibility for raising all of the money for the law school. And, even if she was, that is in now way an excuse or a valid reason for doing a shitty job otherwise. If fundraising is a full time job, then someone else should do that and let the dean, uh, run the law school.
April 21st, 2007 at 5:24:39 pm
A new building could also boost our rankings by making the school more atractive to prospectives — hence increasing the scores of the incoming class.
April 21st, 2007 at 7:57:05 pm
“A new building could also boost our rankings by making the school more atractive to prospectives — hence increasing the scores of the incoming class.”
This is probably true, but the LSAT/GPA scores for NDLS are actually very good. The categories in which it is hurt most are employment and peer/practitioner reputation. There is probably something of a ceiling on the incoming class numbers unless the school breaks well into the top 20. Of course, having a lower acceptance rate would be nice, but that seemed to have more to do with managment than the quality of students applying and enrolling.