Tamahana on professor pay

(Please Ask Questions and Answer Questions)

Posts: 20072
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Tamahana on professor pay

Postby bk1 » Mon May 06, 2013 11:48 am

Doorkeeper wrote:Re 2: This is the same at all universities and all professional schools (minus possibly large medical schools and some science departments where part of a professor's salary comes from research grants). So basically you have a problem with tuition money being spent on all professors in higher education?

I think the type of scholarship matters (legal scholarship being particularly worthless minus the quantitative stuff). And yes even with other departments I don't really feel like it should be subsidized on the backs of students. If the student burden is manageable (e.g. state schools) I can stomach it but if it's atrocious (e.g. GW undergrad tuition) then that's a problem.

I mean look at all the worthless humanities BAs that get churned out. And I even think that people should have a background in the humanities, but I don't think it should cost all that much.


Posts: 309
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: Tamahana on professor pay

Postby eric922 » Tue May 07, 2013 2:30 am

Mick Haller wrote:
lukertin wrote:I don't think the average law professor salary is that high. I'm sure there's a few heavy-hitters pulling in large hundred grands but is that indicative of what they all make? Doubtful. 150k is probably average throughout the entire industry.

Given the choice between that and the federal gov't, which will pay about the same, I'd take the federal government--their benefits are much better.

150k, yes, but each law school has too many professors. today each one teaches 1-2 classes a semester, with regular sabatticals. 20 years ago, they were teaching 3-5 classes a semester. it adds up. someone cited an article saying that over half of law schools' budgets are professor salaries. if you want to cut tuition, the best way may not even be reducing prof salaries, just reducing faculty size.

but faculty:student ratio and USNWR!!!! :roll:

I'm not very familiar with USNWR's methodology and honestly I don't pay much attention to rankings since TLS has convinced me that employment numbers are far more important than a school's ranking in some magazine. But, if I'm understanding it correctly, the idea is that a higher number of professors can keep classes sizes small which increases the quality of the education, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most law school classes lecture type settings? If so, I don't see what difference it makes whether it is a class of 50 or 100(aside from the impact it could have on the curve). If it was a small classroom setting then it would make sense, but I don't see the value in smaller class sizes if is mostly a lecture class.


Posts: 2764
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Tamahana on professor pay

Postby timbs4339 » Thu May 09, 2013 1:35 am

Not only do they have the tenure benefit, but law professors also have extremely high levels of control over their day to day and their work. Even partners have to take a lot of shit from clients, opposing counsel, etc.

I think the nonpecuniary benefits of being a professor are worth much more than they highlight when complaining about "market" rates, and a lot of them simply did not want to be in private practice at the levels they would have to be at to make more than they do as profs. It's also a personality thing, and the skills to be a good law student + appellate clerk + law professor may be totally different from those needed to make partner.

Return to “Law School FAQ?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests