More Sophisticated Than What the Clientele Wants
While reading this post by Paul McGreal over at Faculty Lounge about the rising costs of legal education, I was struck by the unexpected relevance of political scientist John Zaller‘s work on media politics. First, something about Paul’s post. Paul underscores the argument that “the cost of legal education bears no necessary connection to what it would cost to provide a quality legal education in an efficient manner.” He implicitly takes on a prominent theme in the scamlaw narrative that costs are driven up by the faculty “‘stealing’ from students for their own selfish desires” by engaging so much time and energy on academic scholarship. Scholarship and even the related teaching of legal theory, according to a common narrative, diverts law school resources from the type of practical training—often argued to be applied skills and black-letter law—most valued by students as helpful to them in a challenging labor market.
I leave aside a defense of scholarship for the time being, but I think John Zaller would say that this debate over the place of legal scholarship is characteristic of a chronic tension that defines every professional field. In his forthcoming manuscript A Theory of Media Politics, Zaller posits that members of a professional field seek to produce a more sophisticated product, based on their own professional values, than the typical consumer actually demands and is willing to purchase. According to Zaller, “Every professional group wishes, if possible to have as much business as possible. Yet they typically wish to offer products that are more sophisticated than what the clientele wants.”
As a result, professionals always confront a basic tension between market pressures from the typical consumer on one hand and their own desires to produce a more sophisticated product on the other hand. Applying this notion to television news, Zaller finds that media markets with greater market competition among news outlets tend to feature “lower quality” local news (e.g., more tabloidish, less high-level reporting) compared to media markets with weaker market competition. Zaller postulates a basic Rule of the Market—that increases in market competition lead to lower news quality—but that in the absence of competition, “journalists seem to be able to persuade owners to cast their fates with respectable ‘high-quality’ news.” In my view, Zaller nails the dynamics of big city news media by astutely capturing this active tension between professional and market values.
You can see how Zaller’s ideas generalize to academic scholarship.
Faculty possess a particular set of scholarship-oriented professional values and enter academic careers largely (though not exclusively) to generate what they consider a high quality product in terms of research. Schools, at least the major research institutions, support those professional values by judging faculty largely on the basis of those values through a complex set of institutions, including peer review for publication, promotion, and tenure. As Zaller notes only in passing about the professoriate, “whether the insulated life of university professors can be justified or not, professorial life would be quite different if professors were more directly exposed to market forces. Without much doubt, there would be more demand for high-quality teaching and less opportunity for research.” Along these lines, when university budgets and enrollments suffer, we see these days a partial erosion of tenure and less support for academic scholarship that doesn’t promise more immediate practical payoffs.
What I like about the Zaller-inspired framing of law school economics and politics is that I think it gets right faculty’s professional understanding of scholarly research as a sophisticated but core element of high quality higher education in the context of countervailing economic pressures. Whether or not you agree with this understanding, I think law faculty are like journalists who wish to offer a refined product that much of the market doesn’t always quite appreciate and value at the same level. The scamlaw narrative thus tends to underestimate faculty devotion to scholarship as simply a selfish diversion from their real jobs as dictated by students as customers, rather than a defining commitment to what many academic professionals see as a necessary element of a richer form of legal education. What the economic challenges only expose, and the scamlaw narrative often misinterprets, is this ever-present tension between market-oriented and professionally-defined conceptions of what law schools and faculty ought to be doing even in the best of times.