Legal Commentary

During a recent visit to a law school with a distinguished scholarly reputation and history, I chatted with a prof who, like me, is on a strategic planning committee.   This prof had lateraled up, and had a resume  showing that scholarship was a central interest.  Yet, I learned that this prof and rest of the committee--comprised of faculty--might voluntarily recommend increasing the three course teaching package that some or all of them enjoy, for the good of the school and its program.  It was not that the faculty had lost interest in scholarship, but that in its view of the current environment, the committee thought it was worth considering the possibility that the time freed up by the course relief might better be put to some form of teaching.  Or perhaps (and this is me extrapolating) the strategic plan would include that the faculty should work harder--teach four courses AND do the quantity and quality of scholarship that they did when they taught only three. 

It is a given that the more funds raised the better, the more talented the students admitted the better; all of our deans are already maximizing there as much as they can.  The faculty may be the main flexible resource of a law school.  Are we at a moment when the faculties at schools that want to be successful but are not fabulously wealthy are going to ask their colleagues to adjust some of the cherished perks we enjoy, and perhaps be prepared to do new and different things?

Any thoughts on what the faculties that are thriving five years from now will have done in 2010 to make themselves better?