Journal of Legal Education (Association of American Law Schools)

Tiscione, Kristen K.

116 
Gender Inequity Throughout the 
Legal Academy: A Quick Look at the 
(Surprisingly Limited) Data
Kristen K. Tiscione
The long-standing overrepresentation of female law faculty in skills teaching 
and service-oriented positions is well documented.1 In contrast, the historical 
underrepresentation of female law faculty in top dean and tenured or tenure-
track teaching positions has been widely recognized but difficult to quantify. 
The American Bar Association has a link in the statistics archives of its website 
to a chart from Fall 2013 on the gender, ethnicity, and status of law faculty.2 
The Association of American Law Schools (AALS) links to the same chart 
on its website.3 This chart replaced a similar chart covering 2008 to 2009 that 
the ABA has since removed from its website and is no longer available. To my 
knowledge, this is the extent of the data on gender, ethnicity, and status of law 
faculty provided by either organization. Although the ABA and the AALS, in 
turn, publish faculty data reported to the ABA by individual law schools, the 
data breakdown by gender and ethnicity distinguishes only between full and 
1. See, e.g., Ass’n of LegAL Writing Dirs. & LegAL Writing inst., report of the AnnuAL 
LegAL Writing survey 69 (2015), https://www.alwd.org/images/resources/2015%20
Survey%20Report%20(AY%202014-2015).pdf (indicating that as of 2015 women comprised 
72 percent of full-time legal research and writing faculty); robert r. Kuehn, MArgAret 
reuter & DAviD A. sAntAcroce, ctr. for the stuDy of AppLieD LegAL eDuc., 2019-20 
survey of AppLieD LegAL eDucAtion 39 (2020), https://upLoADs-ssL.WebfLoW.coM/5D
8cDe48c96867b8eA8c6720/5f5bcf9641910f246b95eAD9_report%20on%202019-20%20
csALe%20survey.pDf. (indicating that as of 2020 women comprise 67 percent of full-time 
clinical faculty).
2. section of Leg. eDuc. AnD ADMissions to the bAr, AM. bAr Ass’n, DAtA froM the 2013 
AnnuAL QuestionnAire, LAW schooL fAcuLty AnD stAff by ethnicity AnD genDer 
(2013) [hereinafter 2013 AbA DAtA], http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/
resources/statistics.html (indicating that in 2013, 2497 out of 6907 full-time, tenured or 
tenure-track faculty were women). The chart does not indicate whether legal writing faculty 
with tenure, on the tenure track, or with 405(c) status were included in the category of “Full 
Time Teaching Resources” or define the faculty considered “Full Time Skills” or “Full Time 
Writing” under the “Other Teaching Resources” category.
3. AM. Ass’n of LAW sch., Data Resources: Legal Education Statistics, https://www.aals.org/data-
resources/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
Journal of Legal Education, Volume 69, Number 1 (Autumn 2019)
Kristen K. Tiscione is Professor of Law, Legal Practice at Georgetown University Law Center 
and President, Legal Writing Institute.
117
part-time faculty and does not indicate title or security of position.4 As part of 
its annual questionnaire, the ABA collects this information from law schools 
but does not release it.5 Ongoing access to historical and current information 
is critical in raising awareness about and making progress on gender equity 
issues.
I. Gender Distribution Among Deans, Faculty, and Librarians
Based on available data, the charts below demonstrate that in the case of 
both dean and faculty positions, as the status (and most certainly salary) of 
the position decreases, the percentage of women increases. In her remarks 
at the 2019 AALS Annual Meeting discussion group on gender inequality in 
the legal academy, Dean Susan Duncan indicated that in 2019, 35 percent of 
law school deans were female,6 a six percent increase from 2013.7 In 2013, the 
percentage of full-time, tenured or tenure-track female faculty had increased 
from 28 percent in 2009 to 36 percent.8 The most current data from the Center 
for the Study of Applied Legal Education and the annual surveys of legal 
writing faculty indicate that the percentage of women in clinical teaching 
positions has increased from 60 percent in 2010 to 67 percent in 2019,9 whereas 
the percentage of legal writing faculty has remained roughly the same since 
4. See, e.g., AM. Ass’n of LAW sch., LegAL eDucAtion At A gLAnce: 2019, https://www.aals.
org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2019-Legal-Education-At-a-Glance.pdf; section of Leg. 
eDuc. AnD ADMissions to the bAr, AM. bAr Ass’n, stAnDArD 509 inforMAtion reports, 
http://www.abarequireddisclosures.org/Disclosure509.aspx.
5. See AM. bAr Ass’n, AnnuAL QuestionnAire, pArt v: fAcuLty instructions AnD Questions, 
https://WWW.AMericAnbAr.org/groups/LegAL_eDucAtion/resources/QuestionnAire/ 
(last visited Oct. 27, 2020).
6. See Susan Hanley Duncan, Reducing Gender Inequity in the Academy and the Legal Profession, 69 J. 
LegAL eDuc. 95, 95 (2019).
7. See 2013 AbA DAtA, supra note 2 (indicating that 29 percent of deans in 2013 were female); 
see also Figure 1 in this article.
8. See Kristen K. Tiscione & Amy Vorenberg, Podia and Pens: Dismantling the Two-Track System for 
Legal Research and Writing Faculty, 31 coLuM. J. genDer & L. 47, 49 n.5 (2015) (citing Ass’n of 
AM. LAW sch., 2008-2009 AALs stAtisticAL report on LAW fAcuLty)). As of 2019, the 
AALS reported that 39.9 percent of all law faculty are female, but that figure includes full 
and part-time faculty. See AM. Ass’n of LAW sch., LegAL eDucAtion At A gLAnce: 2019, supra 
note 4.
9. robert r. Kuehn, MArgAret reuter & DAviD A. sAntAcroce, ctr. for the stuDy of 
AppLieD LegAL eDuc., 2019-20 Survey of Applied Legal Education 39 (2020), https://
upLoADs-ssL.WebfLoW.coM/5D8cDe48c96867b8eA8c6720/5f5bcf9641910f246b95eAD9_
report%20on%202019-20%20csALe%20survey.pDf.
Gender Inequity Throughout the Legal Academy
118 Journal of Legal Education
2000.10 In 2013, 65 percent of full-time law librarians were female;11 today, 
roughly 70 percent of librarians are female.12 
Deans
Figure 1
10. Ass’n of LegAL Writing Dirs., report of the AnnuAL LegAL Writing survey, tbls. 57 
& 71(b), https://www.alwd.org/resources/survey (comparing annual reports from 2000 to 
2015). See also Figure 2 in this article.
11. See 2013 AbA DAtA, supra note 2.
12. Jamie J. Baker, The Intersectionality of Law Librarianship & Gender, 65 viLLAnovA L. rev. 
(forthcoming 2020). See also Figure 3 in this article.
119Gender Inequity Throughout the Legal Academy
Full-Time Faculty
 
36
67 72
0
20
40
60
80
100
Tenured
(as of 2013)
Clinical
(as of 2019)
Legal Writing
(as of 2015)
Percentage of Faculty by Status and 
Gender
Men
Women
Figure 2
Librarians  
70
0
20
40
60
80
100
2020 Percentage of Librarians
by Gender
Men
Women
 
Figure 3
II. Salary Disparities by Gender and Status
The pay gap for female law faculty is even harder to ascertain. The Institute 
for Women’s Policy Research reports that the ratio of women’s to men’s 
earnings in the United States is 81.7 percent.13 At the current rate of change, 
this 19.5 percent wage gap for women overall is not expected to close until 
13. institute for WoMen’s poLicy reseArch, the genDer WAge gAp 2018: eArnings 
Differences by genDer, rAce, AnD ethnicity 1 (Sept. 2019), https://iwpr.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/08/C484.pdf.
120 Journal of Legal Education
2059.14 The gap for black and Hispanic women is not likely to close until 2119 
and 2224, respectively.15
A related study indicates that in “professional and related occupations,” the 
gap is wider.16 White women earn roughly 74 percent of white men, whereas 
black women earn 62 percent.17 Although the Society of American Law 
Teachers (SALT) conducts an annual salary survey, fewer than half of all ABA-
accredited law schools respond to it.18 According to the 2018 SALT survey, the 
national average salary for tenured law faculty is roughly $147,000,19 but the 
survey does not request data by gender. The gap likely varies widely across 
schools. In the employment discrimination case brought against the University 
of Denver,20 the plaintiffs alleged that as of October 2013, the mean salary for 
female faculty was nearly $20,000 less than that of their male colleagues.21
Male and female faculty providing skills instruction earn significantly 
less. According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, “occupational 
segregation is a major contributor to the gender wage gap.”22 As the following 
data show, there is a “clear penalty for working in female-dominated 
occupations,”23 with tenured and nontenured legal writing faculty (and 
presumably clinicians and librarians)24 earning significantly less than 
doctrinally focused faculty. The 2017-2018 ALWD/LWI Survey indicates 
that the average salary for legal writing faculty was $95,617 for faculty with 
traditional or programmatic tenure, $73,667 for faculty with 405(c) status, 
$72,350 for faculty with long-term contracts, and $69,083 for faculty with 
14. Id. at 2.
15. Id.
16. institute for WoMen’s poLicy reseArch, the genDer WAge gAp by occupAtion 2017 
AnD by rAce AnD ethnicity 7 (Apr. 2018), https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/
C467_2018-Occupational-Wage-Gap.pdf.
17. Id.
18. Only eighty-one schools are represented in the 2018 survey. soc’y of AM. L. tchrs., sALt 
eQuALizer 1 (2018), https://www.saltlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SALT-salary-
survey-2018-final.pdf.
19. See id. (adding the average salary of tenured faculty members at all reporting schools and 
dividing by eighty-one).
20. John Herrick, Seven Female Law Professors Win $2.6 million Settlement From DU in Unequal Pay Lawsuit, 
the coLo. inDep. (May 17, 2018), https://www.coloradoindependent.com/2018/05/17/
du-equal-pay-lawsuit-gender-discrimination/.
21. Id.
22. AriAne hegeWisch & heiDi hArtMAnn, inst. for WoMen’s poL’y reseArch, occupAtionAL 
segregAtion AnD the genDer WAge gAp: A Job hALf Done 11 (2014), https://iwpr.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/08/C419.pdf.
23. Id. at 13.
24. Salary data for clinical faculty and librarians are not publicly available.
121Gender Inequity Throughout the Legal Academy
short-term contracts.25 As the chart below indicates, at best, on average, the 
ratio of legal writing faculty to traditional tenured faculty earnings is likely 65 
percent ($95,617 ÷ $147,000). At worst, the ratio of earnings could be as low 
as 47 percent ($69,083 ÷ 147,000).26 Given the ability of private law schools to 
keep salary information confidential, we can be sure that the disparities are 
even greater.27 
Legal Writing Faculty Salary Compared to 
Traditional Tenured Faculty Salary as of 2018
Legal Writing Faculty by 
Security of Position
Percentage 
of Salary
Tenured legal writing faculty 65
Legal writing faculty with 405(c) 
status or on 405(c) track
50
Legal writing faculty on long-term 
contracts
49
Legal writing faculty on short-term 
contracts
47
To achieve gender equality in the legal academy, national organizations 
such as the American Bar Association’s Section on Legal Education and 
Admissions to the Bar and the Association of American Law Schools need to 
compile and publish annual data on law faculty. With sole and ready access 
to this information, their failure to make it publicly available is a significant 
barrier to progress. 
Within the academy, female faculty, particularly those with security of 
position, need to demand access to salary information and transparency in 
law school compensation policies. Where they suspect gender disparities with 
respect to salary, benefits, leadership opportunities, and recognition, they must 
25. See Ass’n of LegAL Writing Dirs., report of the AnnuAL LegAL Writing survey, 
tbl. Q.12.3, at 138 (2018), https://www.alwd.org/images/resources/ALWD-LWI-2017-18-
Institutional-Survey-Report.pdf.
26. Because starting salaries for skills-focused faculty are often significantly lower than those 
for entry-level tenure-track faculty, it is not possible to narrow the gap through annual merit 
raises. 
27. There is reason to suspect that women in these positions earn less than their male 
counterparts as well. See, e.g., Ass’n of LegAL Writing Dirs., report of the AnnuAL LegAL 
Writing survey 98-99 (2014) (indicating a pay gap ranging from 14 to 23 percent for legal 
writing directors).
122 Journal of Legal Education
urge their schools to conduct gender and ethnicity equity studies. Finally, as 
Dean Dickerson explains in her essay,28 in accepting positions and negotiating 
salaries, female faculty must learn to find the Goldilocks Zone, pressing for 
adequate compensation, as well as for their own advancement, while at the 
same time meeting their employer’s needs.
28. Darby Dickerson, Finding the Goldilocks Zone: Negotiating Your First Employment Offer in Legal Academia, 
69 J. LegAL eDuc. 48 (2019).


English

Gender Inequity Throughout the Legal Academy:
A Quick Look at the (Surprisingly Limited) Data

Gundlach, Jennifer A.

Santangelo, Jessica R.

Teaching and Assessing Metacognition in Law School

Mezey, Naomi Jewel

Teaching Images

Corcos, Christine A.

It All Started with Columbo: Teaching Law with Popular Culture

Wegner, Judith Welch

Book Review of Roadmap: The Law Student\u27s Guide to Meaningful Employment, by Neil W. Hamilton

Woo, Margaret Y.K.

Paul, Jeremy R.

Gundavaram, Hemanth C.

505
From the Editors
We are proud to open this issue with publication of the inspiring speech 
delivered by Justice Edwin Cameron of the Constitutional Court of South 
Africa at the Association of American Law Schools’ annual meeting in New 
Orleans in January 2019. Justice Cameron’s lessons (learned over a lifetime) of 
using law to advance the cause of human freedom have much to teach us all.
We turn next to three articles that explore how current approaches to 
financing legal education pose challenges for law schools, our students, and 
ultimately for the profession and the clients whom we serve.
John R. Brooks thoughtfully explains how labor-intensive industries that 
cannot generate productivity growth will always see prices rise faster than those 
in other sectors and why that means continued expansion of legal education 
requires some socialization of education’s costs. He further describes the ways 
that current federal programs affording income-driven repayment of student 
loans are often well-crafted to provide some necessary financial support, while 
he takes issue with the arbitrary lines built into current rules governing public 
service loan forgiveness. Jonathan D. Glater dives deeply into the way credit 
is extended to law students and how the potential return of private lenders 
to the student loan market could introduce discriminatory practices unless 
regulators insist on greater transparency concerning underwriting criteria. 
He also explores the relationship between the terms of credit available to 
law student borrowers and their ultimate career choices. Frank McIntyre and 
Michael Simkovic shift the lens toward one aspect of the high cost of law 
school that is on the minds of nearly every student: How much of an earnings 
boost can a prospective law student expect to gain from investing in a law 
degree? Our authors show that the anticipated earnings premium from a law 
degree varies greatly based on a student’s undergraduate major, with greater 
gains over what one might expect going to those with humanities majors as 
opposed to those in STEM fields.
Turning to other aspects of campus life, we continue this issue with 
the striking study by Eric J. Segall and Adam Feldman of how the legal 
academy, particularly in so-called “elite” schools, has assembled faculties 
whose members have themselves graduated from these same elite schools. 
As our authors convincingly observe, a lack of diversity with respect to the 
law school backgrounds of law faculty risks contributing not only to a lack 
of diversity concerning racial, gender and socioeconomic backgrounds, but 
also to a distressing homogeneity in pedagogical methods and conceptual 
approaches to the law. Robert R. Kuehn and David R. Moss usefully add to 
the sparse literature on the relationship between law students’ course of study 
Journal of Legal Education, Volume 68, Number 3 (Spring 2019)
506 Journal of Legal Education
in law school and student performance on the bar exam. Based on a ten-year 
study at two law schools, they report no meaningful relationship between a 
student’s enrollment in experiential courses and her bar performance and only 
the slightest relationship between enrollment in courses covering bar-tested 
subjects and success on the bar exam. Our authors carefully avoid drawing 
conclusions beyond what their limited data can support, but we are certainly 
grateful to have every bit of additional information available to inform the 
current debate over whether changes within legal education have hampered 
bar performance.
Jordana Alter Confino further offers a significant contribution to our 
understanding of law schools’ influence on student success. Her article 
reports on a survey conducted by the American Bar Association Commission 
on Lawyer Assistance Programs assessing the broad array of approaches to 
student wellness now being offered or tried in law schools across the country. 
In light of the well-understood challenges facing students and lawyers with 
respect to mental health, substance abuse, and overall career satisfaction, 
it is heartening to see the blossoming of efforts within law schools to guide 
students on every aspect of a life well-lived in the law.
A refreshing, historical change of pace comes from Li Chen, who uses a 
biographical account of the educational experiences at Berkeley and Yale of 
the renowned Chinese jurist Wang Chung Hui to show how early graduate 
legal education in the United States contributed to globalization.
Susan Greene provides this issue’s At the Lectern with a heartwarming story 
about sharing one’s hobbies with one’s students. Three book reviews close 
out the issue. David Ray Papke tackles The Rooster Bar, John Grisham’s first 
novel focused on law school life. Our own Margaret Woo assesses Katherine 
G. Young’s edited volume The Future of Economic and Social Rights. And Rima Y. 
Mullins provides perspective on Maggie Berg and Barbara K. Seeber’s, The 
Slow Professor: Challenging the Culture of Speed in the Academy. Enjoy.
Jeremy Paul
Margaret Y.K. Woo
Hemanth Gundavaram


From the Editors

Nelson, Camille A.

Varona, Anthony E.

191
Journal of Legal Education, Volume 68, Number 2 (Winter 2019)
From the Editors
We devote much of this issue to some of the latest innovations and findings 
in legal pedagogy. What should we teach? How should we teach it? How do 
our students learn most effectively?
This issue also features explorations of how we might tackle our 
responsibilities as professors with greater wisdom and more humility, including 
what we should adopt into legal education and law itself from other disciplines, 
how the American Juris Doctor degree fares internationally (especially in Asia) 
as a teaching credential, and the problem of the proliferation of footnotes in 
law review articles.  
We start with Prof. Jamie R. Abrams’s article, The Deconstructed Issue-Spotting 
Exam, which presents a thoughtful and novel approach to integrating formative 
evaluation and assessment, exam readiness, and experiential learning into large 
law school classes. Professor Abrams’s piece is especially topical considering 
how these important components of law teaching have been of central concern 
to our lead accreditation body over the last decade especially.1 
Next, Colleen P. Murphy, Christopher J. Ryan, Jr., and Yajni Warnapala 
in their article, Note-taking Mode and Academic Performance in Two Law School Courses, 
examine the difference in academic performance between students taking 
notes using computer keyboards as compared to those taking notes by 
hand. Profs. Murphy, Ryan, and Warnpala conclude that handwriters tend 
to outperform students using laptops, and suggest that students should be 
informed of this disparity and encouraged, if possible, to capture class material 
using handwriting (or, we might add, writing on computer tablets in ways that 
mimic pen and pencil).
We continue with Prof. Louis N. Schulze’s Using Science to Build Better 
Learners: One School’s Successful Efforts to Raise Its Bar Passage Rates in an Era of Decline, 
discussing in detail the strategies rooted in educational psychology and 
1. See, e.g., Ruth Colker, Ellen Deason, Deborah Merritt, Abigail Shoben, & Monte Smith, 
Formative Assessments: A Law School Case Study, 94 Detroit Mercy L. Rev. 387 (2017). Profs. Colker 
et al., note that “The new ABA standard [314] reflects the emerging literature that formative 
assessments assist student learning, especially for students with a growth mindset who might 
adjust their learning styles or study habits in response to feedback.” Id. at 388 (footnote 
omitted); Becky Beaupre Gillepsie, The Evolution of Experiential Learning, University of Chicago 
Law School Website, https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/evolution-experiential-learning, 
last visited May 13, 2019 (“The new ABA standards require six credit hours of experiential 
coursework…that may be fulfilled through qualifying clinic work, field placement, simula-
tion courses, or practica.”). 
192 Journal of Legal Education
cognitive science Florida International University College of Law employed 
to improve significantly its students’ bar pass rates. 
Next, Prof. Jodi S. Balsam’s article, Teaming Up to Learn in the Doctrinal 
Classroom, discusses an approach to doctrinal teaching that deploys team-based 
assignments as a means of promoting higher levels of student preparation, 
classroom engagement, problem-solving, accountability, and – ultimately – 
learning. 
Prof. Angela Mae Kupenda continues the theme of collaboration with her 
article, Collaborative Learning in the Constitutional Law Classroom: Adapting the Concept 
of Inevitable Disagreement in Seven Steps. Prof. Kupenda discusses the significant 
advantages of using contentious topics in an important doctrinal course such 
as Constitutional Law to teach how effective collaboration in ideologically 
and politically diverse teams can result in markedly positive outcomes.
Prof. Melissa H. Weresh also addresses the topic of collaborative learning 
in Assessment, Collaboration, and Empowerment: Team-Based Learning. She provides 
practical and thoughtful ideas she has successfully deployed in her legal 
writing course. 
Profs. Karrigan Börk’s and Kurtis Burmeister’s article, Cases and Places: A 
Field-Based Approach to Teaching Natural Resource and Environmental Law, discusses 
how taking the teaching of environmental law and natural resources to the 
field, engaging the environment and natural resources themselves in and as 
the “classroom” setting, “better address[es] the needs of environmental law 
students and do[es] a better job of attracting and retaining students new to 
the field.”
In Profs. Deborah L. Borman’s and Catherine Haras’s article, Something 
Borrowed: Interdisciplinary Strategies for Legal Education, we find a compelling analysis 
of effective teaching strategies from other disciplines that merit importing or 
“borrowing” into legal classrooms. Profs. Borman and Haras also debunk 
some of what they call the “learning fallacies” that have gained some ground in 
legal education but that, in reality, rest upon unsupported assumptions about 
what has proven effective.
Prof. Stewart Manley’s article, Degree (Un)Equivalencies: The Confounding Case of 
the Juris Doctor, shows us how the American Juris Doctor degree “is a perplexing 
degree to value” in nations where law is taught by professors holding a Ph.D. 
and the J.D. is equated (wrongly) with a bachelor’s or master’s degree. Prof. 
Manley cautions American legal scholars holding a J.D. as their highest 
academic degree, and wishing to teach internationally, that hiring committees 
in other countries may “only consider the S.J.D. or Ph.D. in law as sufficient 
qualifications to teach law….”
Profs. Paula Gerber and Claerwen O’Hara then take us to the important 
topic of how sexual orientation and gender identity/intersex (SOGII) topics 
should be incorporated into courses addressing human rights. They assert that 
SOGII topics “have become important aspects of human rights law” but “this 
reality is not widely reflected in the curriculum of human rights law programs.” 
193
Their article addresses that absence and proposes practical ideas to remedy it 
Attorney Lori McPherson delivers a simple point with her title, Law Review 
Articles Have Too Many Footnotes – which is identical to her first and only sentence 
above the line.2
In Prof. Jae-Hyup Lee’s piece, The Introduction of the Law School System and 
the Structure of the Legal Profession in Korea: Status and Prospects, we gain valuable 
comparative insights into how South Korean legal educators have addressed 
some of the challenges we have faced in the United States.
Finally, we come to Vice Dean Susan Carle’s review of Anne C. Dailey’s 
Law and the Unconscious: A Psychoanalytic Perspective (Yale University Press, 2017). 
Vice Dean Carle’s review, entitled Psychoanalysis versus Neuroscience in the Age of 
Trump, shows how Prof. Dailey “makes a strong case that the insights of the 
psychoanalytic tradition remain important to law, even these many decades 
after the initial era of excitement about this topic.” 
We are grateful to this issue’s authors for submitting such interesting and 
topical pieces. We also express our appreciation to our colleague, Prof. Mark 
C. Niles, for whom this issue of the Journal will be his last as an Associate 
Editor. Prof. Niles will soon join the faculty of the Maurice A. Deane School 
of Law at Hofstra University. We will miss Mark and wish him the very best. 
Succeeding Mark as an Associate Editor will be Prof. Diane Orentlicher, who 
is a professor of international law at the American University Washington 
College of Law and an internationally celebrated scholar, teacher, and editor.
We hope that you will enjoy reading the articles in this issue as much as we 
enjoyed reviewing and editing them.3
Camille A. Nelson
Anthony E. Varona
2. As the old saying goes, “the devil is in the footnotes”.
3. In addition to the full JLE editorial team on our masthead, we thank our graphic designers, 
Erik Garcia and Linda Wen, for their excellent graphic design and production work.
From the Editors


Hayashi, Andrew T.

Mitchell, Gregory

Maintaining Scholarly Integrity in the Age of Bibliometrics

Winter, Steven L.

Does Justice Have a Syntax?

Alter Confino, Jordana

Where Are We on the Path to Law Student Well-Being?: Report on the ABA CoLAP Law Student Assistance Committee Law School Wellness Survey

Not a member yet

Gender Inequity Throughout the Legal Academy: A Quick Look at the (Surprisingly Limited) Data

Teaching and Assessing Metacognition in Law School

Teaching Images

It All Started with Columbo: Teaching Law with Popular Culture

Book Review of Roadmap: The Law Student\u27s Guide to Meaningful Employment, by Neil W. Hamilton

From the Editors

From the Editors

Maintaining Scholarly Integrity in the Age of Bibliometrics

Does Justice Have a Syntax?

Where Are We on the Path to Law Student Well-Being?: Report on the ABA CoLAP Law Student Assistance Committee Law School Wellness Survey

2,927

2,929