Shortly after I graduated from law school and while I was still in practice, I had the extraordinarily good fortune to be seated next to Dennis Duffy (left) at a dinner for the Houston Law Review. Dennis at the time was a professor at the University of Houston Law Center (he now chairs the labor/employment practice of Baker Botts, at which, ironically, I was then an associate).
During that dinner, Dennis shared with me his vision of the labor and employment curriculum at UH. He was excited about teaching labor and employment law, and he wanted his students to have the opportunity to take lots of labor/employment courses. He was lobbying the dean to hire more labor/employment faculty, and recruited me on the spot to teach Employment Discrimination as an adjunct. He did that even though it meant he might not get to teach that course – I believe it was his favorite – as often. His theory: by expanding the labor/employment course offerings and staffing them with teachers who were passionate about the subjects, the student demand for the courses would expand. Expanding student demand would mean that, in the long run, he’d be teaching at least as many – if not more – of his favorite courses. Most importantly, his students would have access to more classes and more terrific teachers.
The tendency of many faculty members, however, is the reverse. We don’t need another person in my area of expertise because we already have that subject covered. Don’t hire that candidate because she has my course in the third line of her FAR form and might, some day, want to teach it. Don’t take my course off the list of required courses because my course’s subject matter is so important [translation: my enrollment will plummet]. Don’t offer students too many skills or writing courses because students might prefer to take those courses (and legal employers might be demanding that students take those courses) instead of my pet course in Antarctican Equine Law.
Protecting academic turf is a raw deal for students. If I want to fill my (unprotected) Labor Law course, I need to deliver a product that students want to buy – I need to bring to the classroom an engaging pedagogy, a passion for the subject, and real-world relevance. When turf is protected, there’s little incentive to improve the product.
Rick Bales
Posted by Workplace Prof on October 13, 2009 at 08:28 AM
Comments
I am reminded of the first chapter of Straight Man, by Richard Russo — “We already have a poet.”
Posted by: Paul Horwitz | Oct 13, 2009 11:10:59 AM
I think this is a terrific post and would also add that it is worthwhile to think about building up institutional scholarly excellence as well. Adding to the number of experts in a particular field enhances the scholarly reputation of the school — the school becomes known, over time and as scholars at the school pursue their specific intra-field inquiries, as a fertile, cutting-edge place for a particular area of study. “The place to be” for X discipline.
Posted by: Marc DeGirolami | Oct 13, 2009 10:12:52 AM