MEMORANDUM 98-9

February 13, 1998

Since 1995, the Executive Committee has relaxed its interpretation of Bylaw 6-5(d), which requires that full-time faculty teach at least two-thirds of the instruction leading to the J.D. degree. For example, the Executive Committee flexibly interprets the definition of full-time faculty by "counting," for purposes of the two-thirds requirement, those who do not qualify technically as full-time faculty such as full-time administrators and librarians and emerti faculty. The Executive Committee also allows schools with evening or part-time divisions to satisfy Bylaw 6-5(d) if full-time faculty teach either two-thirds of the academic credit hours or two-thirds of the student contact hours in each division. Additionally, the Executive Committee currently invites schools which are in the process of reporting on compliance with Bylaw 6-5(d) to offer a reliable alternative to the student contact hour measure, if the school can design a reliable alternative for computing credits students take from full-time faculty rather than from adjuncts.

Despite the liberalization, overuse of adjuncts continues to be a common basis for finding that member schools are not in compliance with membership requirements. Therefore, the Executive Committee has decided to issue an interpretive statement which incorporates the earlier policy set forth in AALS Memorandum 95-30 (dated August 14, 1995) and provides additional guidance on the liberalized application of Bylaw 6-5(d).

I. AALS Requirement and Policy on Bylaw 6-5(d)

Bylaw 6-5(d) provides that "[i]n each division of its program, a member school’s full-time faculty shall offer at least two-thirds of the instruction leading to the J.D. degree." In 1995, the Executive Committee adopted the interpretive policy presented in AALS Memorandum 95-30 to clarify and liberalize the standard for measuring compliance with Bylaw 6-5(d). The Executive Committee explicitly adopted "academic credit hours," as the measure of compliance and added the "student contact hours" calculation as an alternative measure of compliance for schools with multiple divisions. The interpretive policy also recognized the obligation of the full-time faculty to ensure the proper quality of adjunct instruction.

Continued failure to meet the liberalized policy of Bylaw 6-5(d) is a likely sign of a general full-time faculty resource problem or a lack of a full-time faculty commitment to an evening division program. In such circumstances, member schools will be asked to produce a specific plan, including a timetable, for achieving and maintaining compliance. In the absence of substantial progress, the Executive Committee will consider whether to take further action, including possible sanctions.

II. Rationale for Limiting Use of Adjunct Faculty

The "two-thirds" quantitative requirement of Bylaw 6-5(d) serves the Association’s fundamental tenet that a member school’s teaching and institutional policy should be provided by a full-time faculty which has been carefully selected and which devotes its primary time and energy to the educational mission of the school. The "two-thirds" requirement is a modest standard which reflects the foregoing policy but also leaves sufficient flexibility for schools to take advantage of the skills and talents offered by part-time and adjunct faculty.

The full-time faculty must take responsibility for the law school’s academic program and ensure that all courses contribute to the school’s educational mission. Adjunct faculty are understandably mostly involved with their primary occupations and routinely experience more turnover than full-time faculty. Adjunct faculty are also less likely than full-time faculty to be readily available to serve important roles as mentors and counselors. Finally, the rule guards against differential treatment of evening students who pay regular tuition but do not receive instruction from the full-time faculty as day program students do.

III. Means of Measuring Quantitative Compliance with Bylaw 6-5(d)

A. The Bylaw

The Executive Committee has interpreted Bylaw 6-5(d) to comprise two quantitative requirements:

(1) The full-time faculty shall serve as principal instructors in at least two-thirds of the academic credit hours offered in each semester; and

(2) If a member school has multiple divisions, then in each division the full-time faculty shall serve as principal instructor (1) in at least two-thirds of the academic credit hours for which students are enrolled in any semester or (2) with respect to at least two-thirds of the student-contact hours in any semester.

In applying the foregoing requirements, the following definitions are relevant.

(1) The number of "academic credit hours" in a semester is defined as the total course credits for all courses offered in that semester.

(2) For purposes of determining whether full-time faculty teach two-thirds of the academic credit hours, each section is a separate course, except that, if a full-time faculty member teaches a subject by supervising a number of sections taught by adjunct faculty, the sections taught by adjunct faculty are not individually counted and the full-time faculty member is considered to be teaching one course.

(3) The number of student contact hours is defined as the number of academic credit hours multiplied by the number of students enrolled in each course.

(4) Consistent with AALS Bylaw 6-5(f), a "full-time" faculty member is one who devotes substantially his or her entire time to the responsibilities of teacher, scholar, and educator. In determining compliance with Bylaw 6-5(d), a school may count other persons as full-time faculty who do not qualify technically but who devote essentially full-time to the educational enterprise. For example, full-time administrators or librarians, emeriti faculty who are present at the law school essentially full-time while teaching part-time, and faculty with joint appointments who teach in the law school may be counted as full-time faculty.

(5) A course scheduled at a time which falls at the margin of both day and evening divisions may be classified based on the status of the majority of students enrolled in the course. For example, a skills course scheduled at the latter part of the day or early in the evening would be considered a day-division course if a majority of the enrolled students were day-division students.

B. Compliance With the Bylaw

The fundamental requirement that the full-time faculty serve as principal instructors in at least two-thirds of the overall academic credit hours offered in each semester is not subject to variance. The additional requirement for schools with multiple divisions that the full-time faculty provide two-thirds of the instruction in each division, as measured by either academic credit hours or student contact hours, is used as a practical and reasonably reliable indicator of compliance with Bylaw 6-5(d). A member school may be able to prove compliance with this requirement as to each division through alternative means.

(1) The most direct means of demonstrating compliance with Bylaw 6-5(d) would be through review of individual student transcripts in each division, to ensure that every student received two-thirds of instruction from full-time faculty. Although the Executive Committee has not adopted this method as a primary means of proving compliance because of its administrative burden, a member school may elect to prove compliance through review of individual student records.

(2) If a member school is persuaded that its statistics under Bylaw 6-5(d) are distorted by cross-enrollment of day students in the evening division or similar circumstances, it should submit any supporting data for adjustment of the calculations. Such data might include a schedule of classes annotated to reflect the status of the instructor as part-time or full-time and the proportion of day and evening student enrollment.

(3) A member school may choose to meet the requirements of Bylaw 6-5(d) as to each division by instituting an academic regulation limiting the number of credit hours that students may complete with adjunct faculty. Under such an approach, the member school must demonstrate both its capacity to enforce such an academic regulation and satisfaction of the requirement of Bylaw 6-9 that all students, especially those who are able to attend only in an evening division, have a reasonable opportunity to enroll in courses in a wide variety of fields.

(4) A member school may also elect not to use any of the foregoing methods of proving compliance within a division if a school is able to furnish other specific data or calculations that provide the same degree of assurance as that provided by the above methods. The other data or calculations must establish that students, especially those who are able to attend only in an evening division, receive two-thirds of their instruction from full-time faculty. If a member school advances an alternative method, it must be specific in explaining the alternative method and the reasons for asserting that the method is equally reliable to those specifically approved by the Executive Committee.

C. Summer Sessions

The Executive Committee will excuse noncompliance with the requirement that the full-time faculty offer two-thirds of instruction for summer school sessions, provided that the number of credits offered do not constitute a substantial portion of the total credit hours offered by the law school in an academic year and the school generally complies with Bylaw 6-5(d) for other semesters.

D. Innovative Use of Adjuncts

While Bylaw 6-5(d) reflects the view that effective teaching is a core concern of the Association, the Executive Committee does not want to discourage innovative use of adjunct faculty that is consistent with highly competent teaching. Although member schools frequently suggest that the adjunct faculty teach enriching or specialized courses, it should be noted that the "student contact hour" measure is designed to address just that situation in which the full-time faculty teach large enrollment core courses and part-time faculty teach smaller enrollment specialized courses.

IV. Supervision and Integration of Adjuncts

The Executive Committee interprets bylaw 6-5(d) to require that member schools institute qualitative controls for adjunct faculty in addition to the quantitative standards of Bylaw 6-5(d). A member school must demonstrate that it adequately supervises the adjunct faculty and takes appropriate steps to integrate the adjunct faculty into the educational life of the law school. More specific suggestions are detailed below.

A. The school shall acquaint adjunct faculty with the mission and goals of the school’s educational program, the place of the adjunct in the overall educational program, and the academic policies of the school.

B. A member school’s policies and practices should provide for regular supervision of the adjunct faculty, including routine evaluation of teaching and grading. The school should make its program of teacher development reasonably available to the adjunct faculty.

C. A member school should take steps to ensure that adjunct faculty are reasonably available for consultation with students. This requirement would include making office space available for student-faculty consultation and impressing upon adjunct faculty the need to hold regular office hours for students.

Association of American Law Schools Home  Deans' Memos