Schools as Legal Education Centers
Legal education in
the early Twentieth Century was divided into three concurrent paths -- study at
one of the "elite" law schools, consisting of mostly full-time
students already possessing a college degree; study at one of the other mostly
part-time practice based schools; and a course of study with a
practitioner/mentor outside of formal educational institutions.
Except for a few theory-based schools, almost all the subject matter of
learning was fixed and based on core courses, often tied to bar admission
There was little attention given to the relationship of politics to the law
or international relations and international law. Students received a Bachelor
of Laws [LL.B] degree and almost always intended to take and pass the bar and
then to practice law.
By the end of the millennium, almost all lawyers received their legal
education, either part-time or full-time [and mostly full-time] from ABA
accredited law schools, after graduation from a four-year college or university.
Students had much more freedom to take electives, and even specialize prior to
or after they received their Juris Doctor degree.
A significant percentage of students received joint degrees and others had no
intention to practice law as such. Many attended foreign programs and they and
others took an increasing number of courses in comparative, international or
transnational law. Almost all course-work was done in a classroom, with some
simulation courses and clinics. Teaching was done primarily by full-time
In the next 25 years, law schools could evolve into Legal Education Centers,
with full responsibility for the teaching of law to any who need to know or want
to know something about the law. Employees in such Centers will provide legal
education to undergraduate and graduate students, as well as to those seeking a
law diploma [still a J.D.].
Most lawyers will see the need, as doctors have done, to specialize [and like
doctors, general practice will be considered a specialty]. Legal Education
Centers [law schools] will supply the course-work for these specializations,
either during or after the regular course of study. Students will secure proof
of their special expertise through certificates, Master's degrees, CLE
certification, or post-graduate diplomas.
These Centers will also provide continuing education law-related course work
for business leaders, educators, political leaders, administrators, scientists
and other interested citizens and will also be responsible for the initial and
updated training of legal assistants, secretaries and paralegals.
Course-work will be done in classrooms, in clinics, through distance
learning, and by multi-media. Instruction will be given by law trained and
non-law trained professors, practitioners, technicians, and machines.
My Father's Law School Experience
In 1965, before I entered law school, my father described to me his law
school experience at Temple University in Philadelphia. We were looking at law
school catalogues and he was shocked at how much legal education had changed
from his time. In the late 1920's, a graduate of a college or university,
recognized by the Supreme Court, was "admitted on presentation of
diploma." Others had to specially apply and get a certificate from the
local Prothonatary. My father probably had to register and get such a
certificate as he went right from high school to evening law school while he
Classes were held at a downtown site, distant from the main University campus
and usually taught by skillful practitioners, almost always in lecture format.
Students were expected to be prepared and recite and not to challenge. Office
hours, if any, were at the professor's downtown office or chambers [many of the
professors were judges] or just before or after class. There were no clinics, no
small sections, no seminars, no writing classes, no foreign programs, and no
student bar association or student organizations, except for one student run law
quarterly and some mock trials.
Tuition was paid on a course-by-course basis and there was little if any
financial aid and no school arranged loans. There were no admission or career
services counselors, and few secretaries or clerks to service the needs of the
law school, faculty and students. In fact, my father recalled there were only
three full-time staff people, not including the Dean [who had an active
Almost all his evening classes were mandated, and he had little choice of
times. Students were expected to attend classes six days a week and during the
summer. The focus of most lectures was on "the law." The
subject matter was on "the fundamentals" [which he interpreted as
"passing the bar"].
My father remembered the course load as heavy, but not as heavy as the hours
he saw described in the catalogues he saw me reviewing. He recalled two
semesters of constitutional law, criminal law, torts, procedure, contracts,
property, commercial law and evidence. He also remembered one semester each of
Pennsylvania practice, equity, and ethics. The most specialized courses offered
[mandated] were in business law, insurance, public utilities and trusts.
Being an urban law school, there were a few -- but only a few - people of
color, and some women - whom he noted were always the smartest ones in the
class. There were no parking lots as students took the bus or subway to school.
There was no cafeteria but quite a few nearby local restaurants. There was no
formal law school library but law books were available at the courthouse and
some were available in the University library about two or three miles away. The
now famous line -- look to your left, look to your right - was used to explain
the accurate prediction that about one-third would not make it through.
Graduation was a serious event, as students were already thinking about
passing the bar exam. That exam was Pennsylvania based and the only bar review
material was your notes, textbooks, or tidbits from friends or associates who
had taken the bar before. The character and fitness review was a serious
business and one's affiliations, religion, writings, and family were legitimate
areas of inquiry. Even after graduation and passing the bar, you would not be
admitted to practice until you served - at pauper's wages - a preceptership for
a practicing attorney or judge.
My father's experience may have been unique but I doubt it. Except for those
attending a few "elite" law schools, legal education in the 1930's was
probably similar to that described above.
The 1960's and early 1970's
Between 1961 and 1974, I had a series of opportunities to observe and learn
about how much legal education had changed from my father's time. These
experiences now also give me an opportunity to compare the law school of the
1960's and early 1970's with those of the present.
Legal education by the early 1970's had become more rigorous and academic and
less trade school premised. All law schools had their own buildings, and most
were part of and located on the campus of the University. They had law libraries
of significant scope and staffs of librarians, secretaries, and other assistants
for admissions, financial aid, placement, alumni relations and fund-raising.
Almost all students had baccalaureate degrees and expected to complete their
legal education before taking the bar. There were more women and people of color
and even some foreign students. Some law schools had evening divisions, but most
students went to school full-time during the day. And at most schools, even
"elite schools," most students came from the state where the law
school was located. Still, even at non-elite schools, a significant portion came
from other states.
Students had the opportunity to take many electives, but still, most students
took the "core bar-related courses." More faculty members were
considered full-time but many had a substantial outside practice.
There were seminars but few clinics and no formalized specializations.
Classroom teaching was either lecture or "Socratic" with occasional
seminars. There was an increasing number of student organizations, including
multiple journals, moot court teams, subject based associations [like for
international law, trial advocacy, and business law].
Being the 1960's, politics, including the Vietnam War, was a part of student
life and policy discussions were common and student bar associations were quite
active and vibrant. There was still a large dropout rate -- and entering classes
still heard the decanal refrain -- "look to our right; look to your
left." Still, it was expected that if you did the work required, you would
survive. While in law school, many students tried to and often got law-related
jobs during the academic year, the summer, or both.
Upon graduation, students usually took a bar review course, concentrating on
material for a particular state's bar. The character and fitness review by the
bar was a process and not a hurdle. So long as you had not committed some truly
egregious act, you could be assured that passing the bar meant admittance.
The Modern Law School Experience
Anybody who knows even a little about the history of legal education knows
that dramatic changes occurred in legal education starting in the mid 1970's,
because of the increased authority, responsibility and oversight of the American
Bar Association, through its Section on Legal Education and Admission to the
Bar, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, of the American Association of Law
Schools. Most State Supreme Courts delegated accreditation to the ABA, which in
turn established a comprehensive set of Standards and Interpretations and
regular sabbatical accreditation visit and review. The law professor
member-based American Association also established a set of rules and guidelines
and applied them to those schools which sought membership in that Association.
Selection of faculty became much more competitive and procedural. Hiring
could still be done on an ad hoc basis but most law schools sent teams of
recruiters to annual AALS sponsored recruitment conferences. The elite law
schools dominated the new law professor classes each year. Students at the
non-elite school often felt the need to get a Masters from an elite school to be
Classroom teaching changed as new user-friendly styles balanced out the
traditional Socratic "Kingsfield" intimidation mode. More study aides
became available and grading sometimes did not depend entirely on one final
Like other University entities, law schools sought Chairs and named
professorships and demanded that full-time faculty work full-time. Specifically,
a full-time faculty member was expected to be in his or her office at least four
day a week, and not have a formal relationship with a law firm.
Accreditors and the legal community pushed for more diversity in students and
faculty. They also scrutinized instruction to make sure that regular faculty and
not adjuncts taught most basic courses.
Student bodies, in fact, became more diverse, both in gender and race and
also in geography. Full-time students became truly full-time as accreditation
rules now provided that they should not work substantial hours during the
academic year and perhaps not at all in the first and second semesters.
Tuition could be credit based or per semester and while tuition increases
were substantial so were increases in financial aid, both by scholarship and
readily available loans.
There were increased varieties of law school experiences. More schools
strived to be ranked as national schools, or at least regional schools of
national impact. Some choose to develop specially focused curricula or a number
of special tracks. Others prided themselves on being "core curriculum"
state-law based schools.
At all schools, even those that focused on state law, the number of required
course hours decreased and more opportunities were allowed for specialized
courses, small sections and seminars, and even joint degrees with other
University colleges. Education at overseas locations grew dramatically as more
and more law schools offered summer or semester abroad programs.
Law schools increasingly held special seminars, and conferences and law
professors increasingly lent their expertise to the media on hot issues. They
also published multiple law journals, and more newsletters, brochures and
magazines promoting each school’s faculty, programs, visitors, and quality.
Standards and reviews promoted increasing profession-alization of staff
positions for librarians, career services and admission personnel and then later
of alumni directors and fund-raisers, and many more buildings. The ABA pushed
more skills training, as part of the regular curriculum, and encouraged
heightened status for clinicians and research and writing instructors.
Accreditation reviews looked at quality and quantity of library collections,
student-full-time faculty ratios, faculty salaries and clerical, research and
other support for faculty.
Law Schools, even state law schools, sought to diversify their economic base
through fund-raising, alumni cultivation, grants, contracts, and special
programs, many of which offered continuing legal education credit.
Bar exams were still given state by state, but most states included an exam
prepared by a multi-state association, which used multiple choice questions as
the testing method. Even the state-based portion of the two-day bar exam often
focused on non-local issues, and had questions prepared by Professors from
states across the nation.
Legal Education in the 21st Century
As we reached the end of the Twentieth Century, several indicators of the
future were evident. Computers became a more dominant research tool for faculty
and students, and libraries changed to legal information centers. The
profession's push for more skills teaching in law schools led to active
consideration by state bar examiners of practice based exams.
A backlash against some accreditation standards has already led to differing
measuring standards for clinical faculty, specifically excluding salary and
similar comparisons and more flexibility in decanal administration.
In light of the greater flexibility in oversight, better technology for
computer-assisted legal education, new allowances for distant legal education,
and even some talk of total "e-learning," it is likely that, by the
year 2025, law schools could become more Centers for law students to choose from
a menu of options, including skills courses, in a clinic or simulation,
interactive training, lectures by video, Internet, or disk, or small electronic
sections and seminars with interactive live faculty.
By the 1990's, transnational and global issues were increasingly considered
"core topics" and new schools were being established that were
religiously based or otherwise specially focused, and even for profit. In
addition, revised ABA Standards allowed students to go five or even six years to
get their degree. Other Standards are being considered that also provide
flexibility and new definitions of residency.
Extrapolating these trends, Legal Education Centers could include in their
menu of options, access to special courses or programs in their own school or
through their school.
Such Centers would be able to provide mechanisms for
flexible study. Students could take some classes a few hours a week, and some at
home or while working on another job. Others could take courses only a few
months over a number of years. Still others would go full-time for a year and
then part-time with distance learning.
Legal Education Centers would market their courses to other schools and
students and some students could spend their time in two or even three schools
over a longer and part-time school experience.
This ability of legal educators to use technology and flexibility to allow
geographical and topic cross-fertilization will, of course, lead to more joint
programs and consortia between schools [with special contractual arrangements].
It should also lead to a further lessening of differences between admission
standards from state to state, and possibly the elimination of state-based bar
exams and the minimization of restrictions on out-of-state or state to state
As noted earlier, by the end of the 1990's, deans of all types of law schools
felt pressured by outside ranking entities and the students, faculty, alums and
University administrators who paid attention to such rankings. Money was spent
on "visibility," publicity, "buying students," and carving a
special niche to overcome generalized comparisons. By the end of the first
quarter of the twenty-first century, as with medicine, only a few schools would
be able to claim dominance in all areas.
Most would seek recognition in one or more specialty or sub-specialty areas,
or by appealing to specific religious or ethnic populations. As described above,
they would market themselves in their particular focus or with particular appeal
to certain types of students.
They would sell certain course or programs and be less worried about rankings
generally as compared to making a profit [or for non-profits providing higher
perquisites] by focusing on their niche. They would have to become more
"user friendly" to compete with other schools and even other
Part of this new competitive angle might be to broaden what law schools, now
retooled as Legal Education Centers, consider to be within their mandate.
Law Schools as Legal Learning Centers
The legal profession has already seen the need to broaden the concept of
legal education and to encourage lawyers to teach about the law to a wide
audience of interested parties. In addition, the profession has already seen the
need to provide a process of certification to law-related professions and to
post-law school training. Finally, the profession has become more vocal about
educating the public about the legal aspects of almost everything that happens
in our society. I believe that law schools should and will, working together
with other entities, assume more and more responsibility for these learning
As early as the 1960's, the American Bar Association developed a curriculum
to teach legal concepts and the rule of law to elementary and high school
students. Curricula were developed. Teachers were given special training.
Special projects, like mock trials, and lectures by practitioners, and court
visits were organized.
Law school involvement in these programs was encouraged, and some law schools
developed their own parallel programs. Elementary and high school students were
brought on campus and law students and law faculty organized special lectures,
library demonstrations, or moot courts.
I have found that such activity, by law students, staff and faculty benefited
not just the visitors but also those dealing with them. Law students have
indicated that they learned a great deal about law topics, by having to prepare
a talk or a mock trial for young students. They had to translate complex topics
into ordinary English and as a result came to understand the topics better. They
also renewed their enthusiasm about the law and being lawyers.
Law faculty and staff also suggested the positive nature of these visits.
Many -- but by no means all - faculty members similarly enjoyed having to break
down complex topics and learning to explain the law to a younger audience. They
absorbed the excitement about the law generated by the students. As show-persons
[and many faculty members are, as we all must admit, actors in part], some law
teachers loved the performance and the adulation.
Law school administrators enjoyed the visits as it gave them an opportunity
to recruit future law students, especially minorities, and also permitted them
an opportunity to highlight the role of the law school in the community, and
perhaps, just perhaps, generate some much needed positive publicity not just for
the school but also for the profession. Finally, it allowed them to work closely
with local bar associations, the judiciary, and other professional entities.
The elementary and high school teachers and administrators enjoyed the
"one-stop shopping" aspect of bringing students to the law school
and/or having the law school develop one or more programs. They also felt much
more at ease in a law school environment. Even when outside visits to a
courthouse or a law firm were included, the teachers felt more comfortable when
these were organized through another academic entity - the law school.
Teaching in a Post-Secondary Setting
Some of the reasons that law schools can deliver legal education to
elementary and secondary students, obviously apply to junior college, college,
and non-law school graduate and professional education as well.
There are, of course, numerous courses about the law already taught at
colleges and universities outside of law schools. Among the most common are
constitutional law and business law courses. Others are designated as
"policy courses" and include environmental law and policy, health law
and policy, science and the law, educational law, and law and society.
Graduate and professional schools often have courses describing legal issues
involved in the practice of their profession. These include accounting and the
law [sometimes called legal accounting], tax law, medicine and the law, energy
law, environmental law, media law, the law of management, international law and
Finally, there are specialized courses available to students in both
undergraduate and graduate schools. These can include law and literature, law
and the media, jurisprudence and legal theory, and agricultural law.
A mere recitation of these courses makes it clear that they are similar or
even identical to ones taught in law schools to law students. In fact, because
of many joint degree programs, where students can get an M.B.A. for example at
the same time as a J.D., law students often take these law related courses in
other colleges. And there are graduate degree programs, like a Masters in Public
Administration or a Masters in Environmental Policy which offer identical
courses to both law and non-law students.
Finally, there are now an increasing number of "Legal Assistant" or
"Para-Legal" or "Legal Secretary" or "Legal
Administrator" programs, some within a University environment and some
totally outside. The curriculum for these programs is almost a "Reader's
Digest" version or perhaps, a bar prep version of familiar topics like
contracts, procedure, evidence, commercial paper, administrative law, criminal
law, or estates. These courses are taught by instructors, almost always lawyers,
who may or may not also be adjuncts in law schools, or teachers in other
programs in junior colleges and colleges.
Like law students, the law office trainees also learn about book-based and
computerized legal research, trial preparation, and record-keeping. This
training is often done by the same companies and law library staffs that work
with law students.
A law-school based Legal Education Center could become responsible for
teaching all such law-related courses. This can be done by allowing a variety of
students [undergraduate; graduate; law] in one law school class or differing
classes for different levels of approach. This, of course, is similar to the
approach in most law programs outside of the United States. In many countries,
law is an undergraduate curriculum and may be based in a larger college. These
schools may or may not have graduate law programs.
Some countries have both law-based undergraduate and graduate professional
programs - focused on specific career tracks. In either circumstance, the
faculty teaching undergraduate and graduate students are often the same.
Even in the United States, and depending on faculty-approved requirements,
many law schools open their classes to selected junior and senior undergraduates
and to graduate and professional students from other departments or colleges. In
other cases, law faculty members can "cross-list" their courses under
both law and another curriculum.
Finally, there are faculty members who have dual or multiple appointments and
others who teach courses jointly with colleagues in other disciplines.
It would seem not a big jump to ask the law school to be the responsible
entity to coordinate legal education in an entire University or provide legal
education to those colleges and Universities without a law school. The
advantages are obvious. Law faculty members would be able to broaden their
teaching experience and, with cross-fertilization, perhaps also their
For non-law faculty, their visibility and reputation might be enhanced by
teaching under a law school umbrella but in any event, they would be
increasingly recognized as peers.
Finally, students of multiple disciplines can only be helped by enjoying a
multi-disciplinary approach to their teaching by faculty and by
As a final suggestion, law schools should also coordinate the teaching of
future legal assistants, paralegals, legal secretaries or legal administrators.
In some cases, law students and law alums could be invited to attend specialized
classes in law office management or regular classes in contracts to better
understand how what they do relates to the work staff members are being asked to
do. These paraprofessionals could also meet present and future lawyers and get a
better sense of their perspectives and needs.
I have never been able to understand why law schools do not have a larger
role in Bar Review Preparation. It is clear, and the ABA demands, that law
school education itself should not be exclusively focused on preparation for the
Bar. Still there is no reason why law schools cannot provide a non-credit
course, in the senior year, or after graduation, on the Bar.
In my opinion, it would be especially helpful if the law faculty would teach
some or all of these courses. Even non-traditional teachers would gain
credibility if they are also perceived as able to teach "hard" bar
passage law. Moreover, it might take some pressure off the push to teach bar
exam content in regular courses.
This is not a big stretch. Law faculty now are often paid by commercial bar
review courses to teach one or more subjects either live or by tape or now DVD.
Having a student taught by someone he or she is familiar with, in their own
classrooms, and near their old library seat would seem to make the process
easier. It might also help faculty understand the crossover between material
taught in the law school and what is needed to pass the bar faculty.
Additional benefits to law school provided bar review courses could include
providing a vehicle for additional compensation to faculty, and subsidies to
students of special needs.
Providing bar review courses should not interfere with the desire of some
schools to be national or at least regional entities. If I am right, there will
be an eventual end to state by state testing and admissions. But even if things
do not get that far, almost all states now give the "Multi-State Exam"
and preparation for this exam can be given anywhere. Even the state-based part
of the exam is often national in scope and even if state focused, can be given
by video or other distance learning techniques. Or law schools can, of course,
develop reciprocal relationships for students in law schools in other states.
Another obvious area for the synergy that a Legal Education Center provides
is in Continuing Education. At the present time, many law schools do provide CLE
[Continuing Legal Education] programs for alums and non-alums. Sometimes this is
done as a service and sometimes as a revenue source and sometimes as both.
It is unlikely that law schools will be able - politically or practically -
to take over full responsibility for CLE. Still, the changing nature of
legal education does provide increased opportunities for law schools.
Law schools can open their classes or provide mini-courses for practitioners
in specialized areas or even in more general areas, where a refresher course
would be useful. To make this even more attractive, a law school could offer
practitioners the ability to obtain a specialty recognition in one or more of
the special certificate programs it offers to its students.
Second, with distance learning techniques, courses or mini-courses, can be
offered off-campus with little additional expenditure by the law schools and
with ease of access by the practitioners.
Third, these areas of specialization can mature into Masters in Law programs
for some practitioners.
Another area for continuing education that can be provided by law schools is
to non-lawyers. Just as law courses can be opened to non-law students, such
courses can be opened to non-lawyers. Business-people might want to take a
course or a mini-course in Corporate Transactions. Government zoning
administrators might wish to sit in on a course on land use law. Energy
companies might want to organize a seminar for their employees on natural
resources law. Corporate officers might want to take a course on Securities Law.
School Districts might send Principals to a course on Education Law; Hospitals
send young doctors to courses on health law. Journalists and Ministers could
attend a course on the First Amendment.
As with law students or law alums, law schools could offer certificates or
even Masters degrees to these non-lawyers in some areas.
Last, but not least, Legal Education Centers could better fulfill our
profession's obligation to inform and assist the broader public.
Law Schools as Public Education Centers
For the last twenty-five years, law schools have served increasingly as a
forum for debate of public issues -- all at least tangentially law-related.
Seminars, symposia, conferences or special law review or law journal issues have
focused on every conceivable topic -- from traditional areas like criminal law
and tax to less traditional "legal" areas like "The Good
Society," and Energy Policy.
As noted earlier, when the press has an issue that has even a marginal legal
angle, they will increasingly call upon a law professor for analysis or
commentary. Local civic organizations will invite legal academics to come to
their meetings to talk about every conceivable topic - from education vouchers
to society post-911.
Law professors are often asked to serve as consultants to for-profit and
non-profit entities; to serve on Boards of Governors and Trustees; and to become
paid or unpaid analysts for the media.
To provide increased visibility, many courts hold actual trials or hearings
in law schools for observation by not just law students but also other students
and the public.
Law libraries are expected to be open to the public and be used, at least on
an occasional basis, by citizens who want access to legal information. This
trend has been accelerated by increasing use of web-cites and the voluntary
effort of some law schools to become repositories of legal information over the
For many years, law professors have served as leaders in pro-bono
representation. And in more recent years, law schools have been asked to provide
such services through clinics, and now through pro-bono mandates on faculty and
Some law schools have adopted more formalized consulting services for profit
and non-profit entities. Using the expertise of faculty and the energy of
students, the law school operates as a mini law firm to provide legal services.
Revenues can be used to offset other law school expenses.
Over the next twenty-five years, these activities will be accelerated. As our
society becomes even more complex and overlapping, what is defined as
"legal" will be broadened to make "legal information" be
almost synonymous with all aspects of public policy. Law libraries will become
more and more "Legal Information Centers."
Government, Bar Associations, businesses, media, political parties, charities
and other groups will rely more and more on the "neutral" and academic
law school to supply objective information or at least provide the mechanism for
all points of views to be expressed. Some law schools will become
mini-consulting firms and even specialized law firms and be seen as the
place to go for certain information. In short, law schools will become public
This public education mandate will be combined with the other trends in
broadening what is meant by legal and law-related training and expanding the
role of law schools in providing that training, through ever changing methods of
education. The result will be that law schools will become in name and in fact,
Legal Education Centers.
The final issue, then, is how Deans and others can manage effectively this
Conclusion - The Role of the Dean
The transformation of law schools in the last quarter century has certainly
not been without its complications. And, of course, the changes in legal
education has meant changes in law school deaning. Many others have written,
some in this Journal, about the many different obligations and roles of today's
dean. But the increased understanding of the skills that a dean has been forced
to learn and apply will serve future deans well - and help them to cope with
their new obligation to oversee Legal Education Centers.
A dean now has to work with University administrators or independent schools
Boards of Trustees on management and budget issues. These skills will now be
helpful in demonstrating the cost savings and management sense involved in
having one entity coordinate the providing of education about the law to a much
broader set of parties.
The obligation of a dean to be a fund-raiser and marketer will be essential
as he or she now has to decide what "market" or set of markets, a
particular law school must decide to focus on.
The traditional obligations of a law teacher - teaching, scholarship and
service - will be the building blocks for deans to use as assessment tools. The
academic leadership role of a Dean can be used to assess the skills of
individual faculty and staff to see which individuals would be best for working
with new technology, with non-lawyer, with non-law students, and with other
The public representation and leadership obligations of a dean will be
expanded as law schools, and particularly their leaders, will be asked to
provide even more coordination and information on a broader set of issues. The
networking skills of a Dean today will be essential to deal with the changing
nature of ABA and outside regulation, the increasing conflicts with other
academic entities, the alumni concern about change, and the public's reliance on
legal education and information from law schools.
My belief that law schools can, should and will evolve into Legal Education
Centers is, of course, only one vision. It may be, as others have suggested,
that law schools will continue to operate as they have before or even go
"back to basics. Or there will be no structured law schools at all and all
education will be by mentoring or electronics, with little administration or
central leadership by a dean. Or ----