Paul L. Caron
Dean


Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Law Schools Have Shed 1,206 Full-Time Faculty (13.3%) Since 2010

Matt Leichter has published the 2015 edition of his Which Law Schools Are Shedding Full-Time Faculty?  Law schools have shed 1,206 full-time faculty (13.3%) since 2010, and 249 full-time faculty (3.1%) since last year.

142 law schools have shed full-time faculty since 2010, with 21 law schools shedding 20 or more full-time faculty:

FULL-TIME FACULTY (FALL)
RANK SCHOOL ’10 ’14 ’15 ANNUAL CHANGE NET CHANGE
1. WMU Cooley 101 49 44 -5 -57
2. Penn State (Dickinson Law) 57 47 19 -28 -38
3. George Washington 106 72 70 -2 -36
4. Florida Coastal 69 36 37 1 -32
5. SUNY Buffalo 54 48 24 -24 -30
5. John Marshall (Chicago) 75 56 45 -11 -30
7. Pacific, McGeorge 63 36 34 -2 -29
8. Vermont 55 26 27 1 -28
9. Hofstra 60 42 34 -8 -26
10. Arizona Summit [Phoenix] 32 15 7 -8 -25
11. Hamline 34 14 10 -4 -24
11. Catholic 56 38 32 -6 -24
11. DePaul 56 39 32 -7 -24
14. Syracuse 60 51 37 -14 -23
14. New York Law School 71 57 48 -9 -23
14. Texas 103 80 80 0 -23
17. Seton Hall 59 38 37 -1 -22
17. California-Berkeley 90 72 68 -4 -22
19. Cleveland State 39 23 19 -4 -20
19. Santa Clara 65 54 45 -9 -20
19. St. Louis 65 46 45 -1 -20

49 law schools have added full-time faculty since 2010, with 13 law schools adding 10 or more full-time faculty:

FULL-TIME FACULTY (FALL)
RANK SCHOOL ’10 ’14 ’15 ANNUAL CHANGE NET CHANGE
12. Emory 58 61 68 7 10
12. Concordia     10 10 10
11. Washington 54 59 65 6 11
9. Cornell 51 47 63 16 12
9. Florida 56 59 68 9 12
6. Charlotte 35 64 48 -16 13
6. Harvard 141 139 154 15 13
6. Belmont   14 13 -1 13
5. Massachusetts — Dartmouth   17 15 -2 15
4. Stanford 68 90 91 1 23
2. California-Irvine   32 35 3 35
2. Penn State (Penn State Law)     35 35 35
1. Columbia 107 167 161 -6 54

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/01/law-schools-have-shed-1206-full-time-faculty-133-since-2010.html

Legal Education | Permalink

Comments

The Penn State Dickinson numbers are surely a result of the split of Penn State into two independent campuses. The first year's #s probably combine the faculty for both campuses; the last year's #s probably just reflect those who stayed on at the Carlisle campus. Because of the special circumstances, I think Penn State probably should have a big asterisk next to it.

Posted by: Jason Yackee | Jan 12, 2016 5:39:36 AM

UC Irvine must be running a huge deficit. I'd expect to see their incoming student credentials continue decrease and their reliance on to transfers increase as they are forced to increase bodies to fund the experiment.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/01/is-any-uc-irvine-administrator-going-to-suffer-any-consequences-for-this

Posted by: Anon | Jan 12, 2016 5:51:12 AM

Glad I'm not teaching at a private law school! Those are clearly the hardest hit.

Posted by: EdgarH | Jan 12, 2016 6:14:02 AM

Many laughs at #17 and #19. Oh, the irony! Interestingly, while most MA law schools have shed faculty (69 people between Suffolk, New England, Western New England, and BU), Northeastern, which has literally halved its entering class size, is increasing the number of faculty (albeit by a very lower number). That's not going to help the bottom line, particularly considering how many more >50% to more-than-full tuition discounts they are giving out these days than they used to (per their 509s).

Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Jan 12, 2016 7:50:54 AM

I'd set a target of about a 33% decrease from the 2010 high before all is said and done. Hopefully hiring effectively grinds to a halt over the next decade. It will be good to have a bunch of high-minded would-be-academics forced into practice. Once that demographic is disillusioned with the legal academy, the criticism will pick up even more force.

Posted by: JM | Jan 12, 2016 9:26:22 AM

So how many administrators were shed?

Posted by: MAS | Jan 12, 2016 4:38:12 PM

Nobody should be gloating. I know what it feels like to be underemployed even after years of hard work and "hustling" for clients. This is damn sad. It didn't have to happen. I put this at the feet at the ABA, profiteers and many of the Law Deans. The pie is only so big. These are skilled, educated folks who are now out of work. Damn sad.

Posted by: Captain Hurska Carswell, Continuance King | Jan 12, 2016 8:23:44 PM

"So how many administrators were shed?"

Along these lines, it would be very interesting to see the list/actual tuition prices (across years) for these schools.

While there have been some limited tuition cuts, my guess is that tuition has not fallen anywhere near proportionately to the faculty cuts.

So, a healthy chunk of young faculty have been terminated in order to assure continued *raises* for the older, much more corrupt (because they've been running the rotten machine longer) profs/administrators.

It is like watching hungry, diseased rats eat one another.

Alas, too late...

Posted by: cas127 | Jan 12, 2016 8:29:54 PM

Another reason this is disturbing is because us practitioners who are running from court to court representing clients and worrying about our next fee (which is not all that good these days) rely on these Professors to teach us the law. Their CLE's, Law Bulletin articles, handbooks, case notes, writings are relied upon. Many a times, a volume court trial judge has relied up their writings about the law. They are a critical component of my practice. They give me what I need for my Motion to Suppress...

Posted by: Captain Hurska Carswell, Continuance King | Jan 13, 2016 7:02:36 AM

CHCCK,

It is not sad at all. These are the same people that would say anything to con young adults into enrolling despite poor job prospects. Many of them have even attempted to break into the profession after the veil had been lifted. That is how strong the lure is: no more clients, writing about interesting topics will only tangential relevance to the law, easy hours, no threat of malpractice, six figure salary. Now they are suffering the same fate as those they would con. Tell me how this is not justice?

Posted by: JM | Jan 13, 2016 7:14:27 AM

Can anyone explain why Columbia law has increased its faculty so drastically?

Posted by: Lonnie | Jan 13, 2016 10:58:43 AM

JM
Because a number of these Prawfs are from selective, competitive schools like I attended, not something one sees in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazine circa 1968. DePaul, Cal-Berkely are real schools. No like Cooley, Valpo, Florida Costal, Touro, etc.

Posted by: Captain Hurska Carswell, Continuance King | Jan 13, 2016 11:26:43 AM

Thieving pig criminals! These 'faculty' made their living from destroying their students future in order to get their student loan money. Lets hope for a 100% cut in professor numbers. PS their 'scholarship' is all useless crap as well!

Posted by: hooray | Jan 13, 2016 9:49:56 PM

This is wonderful news. May they join the ranks of their graduates in the real world, poor and underemployed. Law professors have been complicit with their administration in the scam against students. Very happy to see this. Half of US law schools could shut down and it would have no negative impact.

Posted by: Noel | Jan 13, 2016 10:10:20 PM

I hope every single greedy law school professor ends up on the street.

Posted by: hooray | Jan 13, 2016 11:47:12 PM