I’ve been thinking a lot about pedagogy in the past few years, including through the writing and rewriting of my series of ‘workbook’ style casebooks, and now I’m digging into the history of Anglo-American legal education as I work on a related law review article. So it is I’m reading several books on the subject, and, in Logic and Experience, William LaPiana includes the nugget that, in 1882, a successful practitioner could be earning $20,000 a year, while the salary for a Harvard Law Professor was $4,500. That’s a differential of nearly 4.5 times, which pretty well captures the difference for many a law prof and practitioner today. Same as is ever was.
Should this consistency make one happy?
Leave a Reply