The Importance and Mission Value of the Associate Dean

Associate Deans are the unsung heroes of successful and forward-moving law schools.  When the legal media, alumni magazines, or blogs report the latest accomplishments of this law school or the upward trajectory of that law school by one measure or ranking or another, the Dean usually becomes the focus of the attention.  And such recognition is well-deserved, as the Dean is best able to promote major new initiatives, to raise the funds necessary for law school progress, and to represent the school to broad and diverse constituencies and the general public.  But the success of the law school faculty ― which remains the educational and scholarly core of any law school ― depends in substantial part on the qualities of the Number Two, that is, the Associate Dean.

By Associate Dean, I mean here to refer to that tenured faculty member who agrees (usually with great hesitation) to withdraw on a temporary basis from full-time faculty responsibilities to serve for a couple of years in an administrative role.  Some schools have multiple Associate Deans (and indeed some of those with such titles may not be tenured or even be faculty).  Still, one of the Associate Deans is at the top of the hierarchy and and ranks just below the Dean, sometimes designated as “Associate Dean for Academic Affairs” or “Vice Dean”.

By job description, the Associate Dean generally is delegated those pedestrian duties that adhere to the Dean's office but which appear to consist of the less enjoyable aspects of the deanly role ― allocating professional development funds to faculty, presiding over summer research stipends, setting up the course calendar for each semester, dealing with disciplinary problems, etc.  But in reality, while those painstaking tasks are essential and demand the most time, the Associate Dean has a powerful presence in each of the key educational and scholarly dimensions of the law school.

The Associate Dean wears two hats ― administrator and faculty leader.  Yes, the Dean almost invariably is a tenured member of the faculty.  But the Dean will always be regarded as something “other” by the law faculty itself, due to the Dean’s outside responsibilities, generally limited teaching and scholarly writing, and, not incidentally, evaluative role in rating faculty each year.  To be sure, the Dean being a tenured faculty member provides an important connection by the lead administrator to the law school’s central educational and scholarly mission and those who are carrying it out.  And that tenured faculty status for the Dean provides a symbolic basis by which to maintain a stronger collegial tie with the members of the faculty.  But, still, the Dean is, well, “the Dean.”  By contrast, the Associate Dean not only came from the faculty, but is expected to return shortly to the faculty.  And the typical Associate Dean maintains a greater teaching and scholarly presence, even while in that role.

Let me provide one empirical measure of the importance of Associate Deans to a law school’s mission and success.  One of my ongoing tasks this summer is to update the Scholarly Impact Ranking of law faculties, last ranked in 2010.  The Scholarly Impact Scores, developed by Professor Brian Leiter of the University of Chicago, measure the influence of the tenured law faculty of each law school by citations in the legal literature over the preceding five years.  In 2010, Brian Leiter ranked the top 25 and then we extended that ranking to the top 70.  This year, with valuable and much appreciated counsel from Professor Leiter, I and my colleagues in the library here at the University of St. Thomas are undertaking the full ranking for 2012.

While our work is not yet complete and the Scholarly Impact ranking won’t be released until mid-July, one thing that I have noted is a strong correlation between a law school’s scholarly presence collectively and the scholarly prominence of the school’s Associate Dean.  Of what likely will prove to be among the top 30 to 40 or so of ranked law schools on Scholarly Impact, nearly two-thirds have an Associate Dean who is among the most cited scholars on that faculty.  And nearly all of the remaining one-third have an associate dean who is above the median for that well-ranking school.

Some might respond that it is hardly surprising that high-impact law schools with a plethora of prominent or well-cited legal scholars end up with Associate Deans who are also well-cited scholars.  But even many prominent scholarly law faculties have members who are not the most productive and successful scholars.  From what I hear (and observe) at law schools generally, Deans are often tempted to turn to less productive faculty members and ask them to serve as Associate Dean so as to draw a greater contribution from them to the institution.  At the same time, sparing productive scholars from taking going into the Associate Dean’s office would have the advantage of freeing them to continue scholarly production.  There is a meaningful sacrifice both to the law school and to the individual faculty member when a law school selects an Associate Dean from among its more prominent scholars, as he or she almost certainly will have much less time available to research and write.  But, I suggest and the empirical data appears to support this, law schools would be well advised to resist the temptation to look elsewhere and to draw on faculty members who are not productive scholars to serve in that role.

Law schools that have achieved greater impact through citations to the scholarly work of their faculties overwhelmingly are those who chose top scholars to be Associate Dean.  The Associate Dean is in a unique position to affect the atmosphere of the law school.  The person who is selected sends a powerful message about the law school’s priorities and standards of excellence.  If the Associate Dean is recognized as a strong teacher, he or she will be in a stronger and more credible position when proposing efforts to strengthen teaching, critiquing those who stumble badly in the classroom, and commenting on means to evaluate teaching quality.  If the Associate Dean is recognized as a leading scholar, he or she will be in a stronger and more credible position when making decisions and allocating resources that facilitate faculty scholarship.  On matters of teaching and scholarship, the Associate Dean often sets the tone, nearly as strongly as the Dean.

Faculty members do notice when the person who decides whether to grant a summer research stipend, to allow more travel to conference, or approve more student research assistance is someone who is a genuine and accomplished scholar him or herself.  Faculty members do notice when the person who assists the Dean in annual evaluations is someone who is a genuine and accomplished scholar him or herself.  I suspect the opposite is also true, to the detriment of any law school trying to uphold or advance high standards for faculty achievement.

Is there a special message here for those of us with a particular interest in Catholic legal education?  Beyond strengthening the educational and scholarly mission of the law school by selecting as the Associate Dean someone who is a faculty leader in teaching and scholarship, I suggest that this vital appointment makes a big difference as well for the faith-based mission of a Catholic law school.  Does the Associate Dean need to be a Catholic?  No.  Does the Associate Dean need to be someone who “gets” the Catholic identity of the law school and, importantly, honors and supports it?  Yes.

Now discuss.

[Note:  I am not now and never have served as an Associate Dean; I've managed to avoid that burden to date.]

Greg Sisk