ILNews

Dean's Desk: Notre Dame dean provides perspective on ‘grading the graders’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dean-newton-notre-dameThe university has set aside a small pool of money to provide merit increases to faculty and staff. Allocating this fund is a difficult task because it requires making distinctions among valued colleagues. On the one hand it is important to reward the year’s most productive faculty and staff and those who have taken on additional duties. On the other hand it is necessary to take into account that very few can have a stellar record every year.

The process is not unlike grading a course. As with grading the students in the contracts course I taught last year, I try to review all of our faculty in a concentrated period of time in order to keep the entire cohort in mind during the process. But instead of grading students’ answers to my exam hypotheticals, I review information on faculty scholarship, teaching, and service.

I have a system. First, I read each faculty member’s annual self-evaluation. As you would expect, our professors are asked to report on the number and quality of their publications, the titles of their courses, and the number of credits and students they have taught. But we also ask them to respond to numerous other questions ranging from “how have you helped students in their job searches” to “have you collaborated with foreign institutions on teaching or scholarship in the past year?” And I pay particular attention to their responses to the self-evaluations’ last question, which asks them to reflect on the past year and their goals for the future. The reflective statements this question prompts are often very inspiring. A professor may set forth the challenges she faced planning a new course or the steps he is taking to improve the clarity or rigor of a new course. One professor might set forth an ambitious research agenda; another might report that last year’s plans have been refined in light of a path of inquiry only recently identified; another might report with excitement that teaching a new course has caused her to develop a strong interest in writing in a completely new field.

Next, I review each person’s service to the law school, the university, and the legal profession. These service reports are often long, filled with activities from coaching high school moot court teams to briefing a special rapporteur at the UN.

Teaching is next on the list of major items to review. To do this, I look at the faculty’s course loads and carefully study their student evaluations. Mentoring students, judging moot court competitions, serving as faculty advisor to student organizations, and advising students on papers and law journal notes are all an important part of teaching and duly noted. But the student course evaluations are especially informative on the quality of instruction in the classroom. We have an excellent instrument for this at Notre Dame that breaks down student responses into a number of categories and subcategories, such as “fairness and impartiality,” “helps students develop mastery,” “intellectual challenge,” “clarity of communication,” “amount of time spent on the course out of class” – just to name a few. The instrument presents both means and medians and breaks down four large categories into deciles. You can learn a lot from reading these carefully. For example, the professor who says that her low overall score reflects only that she is a very hard teacher might be asked why the students graded her course’s levels of intellectual challenge so low or why the students do not report spending much time on the class. Or a teacher who opines that he is one of the best teachers in the school because he achieved a score of 4 out of a possible 5 might be gently reminded that at the law school the mean score is 4.1.

I then review the faculty member’s publications over the last year. There are a number of venues for faculty scholarship and so I need to carefully consider the type and quality of the professor’s law review or other journal articles and note whether a given publication is a university or legal press book, a book chapter, an edited volume, a contribution to a legal encyclopedia, or a practitioner’s handbook. Some faculty members also list blog posts or op-eds on legal matters. I then make a judgment about the quantity and quality of all these publications, the latter measured by the quality of the publication venue and the impact of the scholarship on courts and the law as measured by various citation counts, etc. It is not always easy to figure this out, given the number of subfields within law and the increasing development of interdisciplinary scholarship, but over time most of us develop an understanding of the strength of various publications. Having written and taught for many years, I strongly believe that my scholarship has informed my teaching and vice versa, so I give equal weight to scholarship and teaching in my yearly determinations and I suspect most deans do the same.

Much of the popular press would have us believe that law professors only write impenetrable and useless articles on arcane subjects. In truth most faculty do hope to influence their fellow scholars, but they also write to shape the development of the law, whether it be regarding the appropriate use of precedent, the taxation of nonprofits, fiduciary duties, restricting testamentary freedom, the proper resolution of cases before the Supreme Court, the role of confusion in trademark doctrine, an empirical perspective on antitrust law, or the impact of closing parochial schools on the quality of life in neighborhoods – just to name some of the scholarship published last year by Notre Dame law professors.

Each spring as I undertake this faculty review I am humbled by the amount of work undertaken by my colleagues to mentor our students, contribute to the development of the law, increase the academic reputation of the law school, and build a great community. It is a privilege to be a member of such a community.•

__________

Nell Jessup Newton is the Joseph A. Matson Dean and Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School. She has served as dean since 2009. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT