.Compelling Orthodoxy: Myth and Mystique in the Marketing of Legal Education

Kenneth Lasson, University of Baltimore

Abstract

Abstract

In many ways the story of modern legal education reads like a grim fairy tale, whose moral dénouement is no less compelling and perhaps more consequential than its fabulist forbears.

Today's law schools are preoccupied with their reputations -- as much a survival instinct as anything else. The competition for bright students and talented faculty is more intense than ever, and marketing has increasingly come to be treated as a consideration at least as important as the actual academic enterprise. Thus do administrators seek to adopt a strategic identity plans – “building the brand” in the common parlance of today’s deans and administrators – in order to develop and enhance their schools’ reputations.

The result has implications for both the quality of legal education and the treasured concept of academic freedom. Certainly the realm of scholarship has been invaded by the image-seekers and -makers.

Legal scholarship is unique in ways that are both interesting and problematic. It has become a phenomenon of epic proportions: the bulk of what we know of such writing emanates from the 190-plus law schools approved by the American Bar Association, which collectively produce more than 680 legal journals. As with other learned publications, articles appearing therein largely reflect arbitrary choices by authors, editors, and law schools of data and trends they deem worthy of analysis.

The content of law journals is in many respects amorphous, with virtually no bounds on subject matter, unlike various other social-science disciplines such as political science or economics. Legal academics can and do write about any topic that interests them, and an ever-expanding number of student-edited journals ensures that most manuscripts eventually find their way into print. This system serves as the basis for substantial professional rewards.

Marketing strategies have gained unwarranted ascendancy in the mission of many law schools. While balancing budgets is important, the primary goal of should be sound education, not making a healthy profit or (its contemporary correlary) moving a notch up in the rankings. Teaching should be regarded at least in the same light as scholarship. Both should be looked upon as more essential than enhancing reputation or filling the coffers.

Honest scholarship relies upon an atmosphere of complete academic freedom. Coercing writers to be orthodox in their scholarship is fundamentally at odds with the academic enterprise. Finally, those whose demonstrated skills are more in teaching than writing should not be compelled to produce unrealistic amounts of published scholarship. Rather than being cloned, law professors should be picked as position players – teachers, writers, community activists.

The moral of the story may be this: Both law students and faculty members are rabbits in the carrot patch, but the professors – for mostly rightful reasons – are protected by tenure. Elmer Fudd's shotgun is in the form of money-making market strategies, aimed primarily at the tuition-paying students, whose primary protection should be accurate information, honestly purveyed. They should be given to understand that, although a legal education may be eminently worthwhile, it is not a guarantee of lawyerhood.

This article seeks to demonstrate the negative effects that various such preoccupations with marketing have upon both scholarship and academic freedom.