Caution for Law Professors Who Plan To Generate Their Own Content

Developing high-quality content is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. No content may be better for students than weak content.


In March, schools around the globe went online in a manner of days. Professors, who had never used distance learning, were suddenly forced to take a crash-course in Zoom and other similar tools. Students, for the most part, were understanding. But I think everyone would agree that the pedagogy from the Spring 2020 semester was not ideal.

The Fall 2020 semester will be better. Professors will have now had a full semester of Zooming under their belts. And, they can spend the summer adapting their classes to an online environment–either synchronous or asynchronous. Some professors may decide to generate their own content.

I define the word content very broadly. That word can refer to videos, where the professor is on the screen. It can refer to "narrated" powerpoints, where the professor narrates slides. It can refer to a recorded podcast, where there is only audio, and the professor is speaking. In my mind,"content" refers to anything more than the printed word: either spoken audio or recorded video.

Professors should be very cautious before developing their own content. And I offer this advice after having spent nearly two years and $100,000 on developing my own content for constitutional law. Developing high-quality content is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. No content may be better for students than weak content. And professors would better spend their time preparing assessments (both summative and formative), and scheduling one-on-one visits with students, than generating content.

Let me explain. The central element of being a professor is writing. That is what we do. We can write articles. We can prepare powerpoint slides (a form of writing). We can compile examinations. The other central element of being a professors is speaking. We present papers. We lecture. We engage in Socratic dialogues. We engage in respectful, pithy discourse during faculty meetings. (Or at least we should). And so on.

Generating content is completely divorced from how professors usually write and speak. It is not enough to write a script and read it aloud, the same way you would read from lecture notes. You have to generate a script that is geared towards the format of a student listening to a podcast or watching a video. Here are two useful tips.

First, sentences must be short. Long, winding sentences with different clauses may work well enough in print. (I avoid, at all costs, long sentences.) Readers can jump around a long sentence if they get lost. But when you are listening to a recording, you are not going to rewind if you lose your place. Short sentences give the brain a chance to process a thought before you move on. For audible content, periods are your friends. Semicolons are your enemies. (How many of you would have put a semicolon after friends? You see!). And never use an em-dash. That punctuation cannot be readily converted to the spoken word. Use a period and move on.

Second, place subjects at the beginning of sentences. Legal prose often buries subjects at the end of a sentence. You may read 20 words before you figure out what the sentence is about. That approach doesn't work for recording. Let the reader know up front why she is reading the sentence.

So far, I have only offered tips about style. The substance is even harder. Students crave simplicity. The law is not simple. Often, when you distill a complicated concept into a few sentences for a podcast, you leave stuff out. And you know it. When you start to prepare your own content, you will agonize about what to leave in, and what to omit. The process becomes so painful. Writing a script for a podcast is different than creating a powerpoint. You cannot simply read long blocks of text, as you would include a blockquote on a slide. People will tune out. Striking the right balance is very, very difficult.

These tips concern the preparation of the script. But there is an even bigger challenge: delivering it. Most people do not know how they sound when they speak. It is very difficult to listen to a recording of yourself. I do so all the time to help improve my diction. Indeed, I took classes for nearly a year to help slow down my New York pace. I would routinely rewatch my classes, radio interviews, and TV hits. It wasn't easy. I've gotten better, but I occasionally revert back to old habits.

When you speak in a live class, and stumble or slur words, students are forgiving. But when students hear hard-to-understand speech on a recording, the reaction is different. They may ask, "Why didn't the professor record another take?" Of course, you may have recorded a dozen takes, and that was your best one. But the students will never know it. The margin of error for recordings is so much lower than for live speech. Plus, static and other clicks become very noticeable on most microphones. Editing bad parts out of audio often makes the problem worse.

So far, I have only discussed the spoken word. Recording video is much, much more difficult. Here, I repeat several of the lessons I offered about recording zoom (See here and here). Professors, in general, have poor eye contact. In a large class, it is not a big deal. But with a camera, poor eye contact can create a huge disconnect. You need to maintain direct eye contact with the lens. If you start to move your eyes around, it looks shifty. Keep in mind if you are reading from notes, you will constantly have to move your head up and down. The ideal solution is a teleprompter that goes over or behind the camera. But most professors do not have that setup. And reading from a teleprompter is harder than it looks.

You may need to record several takes before you get the video right. It is tough to stop mid-sentence. You may have to start at the beginning of a paragraph to avoid an awkward break. For example, when Randy and I were in studio, it would take about an hour to record enough content for a five-minute video. We did two full takes from start to finish, and then recorded individual sentences over and over again. And, it is tough to monitor your own speech. When Randy was behind camera, I carefully monitored his speech. If I heard any glitches, I would ask him to start again. And he did the same when I was behind camera. If you decide to generate your own content, you should have someone in the room to raise their hand if there any glitches.

Finally, editing video content is tough. I would not suggest you learn how to use Adobe Premier, or any similar tool. Those products have steep learning curves. I spent several years editing video before law school, and I still don't feel qualified to make my own content. There are some online tools that let you mix together videos. But precise editing is hard.

The hardest part of creating a video is to develop engaging visuals. It is very, very boring to watch a static shot of a professor at a podium for any length of time. Likewise, I find narrated powerpoints to be soporific. I know professors use both of these approaches. They may be effective in a pinch. But in my mind they add little value. Students would be better reading a script in their head than trying to follow along as a professor reads a script. There is no intrinsic value to have audio or video. Students can use a narrator feature, just as effectively. Most smartphones and devices have this feature.

When Randy and I developed the script for our videos, we used a rule of thumb: the visual had to change every 8 to 10 seconds. In other words, we would not show the same visual for more than 10 seconds. We would cut to a photo, a video, text on the screen, or a different camera angle. Indeed, while writing the scripts, I would deliberately write sentences or clauses that matched up with specific graphical cuts. That process was immensely difficult. But it created engaging and entertaining videos that keep the viewer hooked. It is not possible to develop this sort of content alone over the summer. I am very cautious if professors attempt to go it alone.


So far I have offered only caution. What should professors do? Do what you do best. Focus on written material. Distribute written summaries that students can read. Write sample questions and model answers. Give frequent assessments. And go over those assessments. Schedule one-on-one sessions with students. Provide a benefit that cannot be given over Zoom or other asynchronous measures.

Professors have limited time. Generating content is not a prudent use of that time.

Next week I will share some modules for constitutional law classes.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: July 17, 1862

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m sorry, but at some point the burden is also on the students to just pay attention. In my 1st years intro to con law the professors used to do 2 hour monologues in front of 300 students using nothing but two overhead slides (yes, I’m old). Most students still managed to pass just fine. And that was without the opportunity to rewind and listen to the lecture a second time. Or a third time.

  2. When Randy and I developed the script for our videos, we used a rule of thumb: the visual had to change every 8 to 10 seconds. In other words, we would not show the same visual for more than 10 seconds.

    Here is an interesting factoid, Professor Blackman, that I think complements your work.

    Average attention span (visual) of a goldfish: 9 seconds
    Average attention span (visual) of a human: 6 seconds

    Average attention span of a millennial: 🙂

  3. Make it a point to notice. You almost never hear supermarket specials advertised on the radio, or on TV. Same with pharmacy ads and tire store inventories.

    That happens because information-intensive content is inherently ill-suited to any kind of “– cast” presentation, whether it be broadcast, narrowcast, podcast or Zoomcast. That remains true no matter how expert the “– casting” technique might be of any would-be information advertisers.

    You may be able to do a bang-up job teaching law via cast-like media, but probably not the parts of law which are highly information intensive.

    I leave it to the law professors to figure out which parts those are. To the extent that interactive classroom sessions have been instrumental in elucidating fact-intensive legal concepts, be cautious before presuming electronic media will deliver comparably-effective alternatives. Doing that successfully would probably require a production crew comparable to what the NFL brings to a football stadium—except the crew members, instead of being experts in football visuals, would have to be legal experts.

  4. A great (self-interested?) argument for laziness.

    It is our job to generate content … in engineering, we have to constantly do this because the field is rapidly evolving. In law, it appears that you have gone a bit soft, presumably because precedence-based law changes more slowly.

  5. The “word of caution” is polite. It is insane (or at least naive) to believe that effective and engaging self-produced information-intensive content is possible without significant effort and expense: echoing a comment above, successful production requires a “crew comparable to what the NFL brings to a football stadium.” When I was involved in such efforts more than a decade ago, we used the rule-of-thumb that each minute of content required at least three worker-hours (née “man-hours”) of production effort… and that applied only to “lite” content unlikely to be used as reference material.

  6. No content may be better for students than weak content.

    Phrasing! Law professors especially, possibly second only to grammar teachers, should be careful here.

    I’ve written in Nobody for President, because remember, every partisan hack tells you Nobody is better than their candidate.

  7. Since online teaching is becoming part of the new normal, hopefully universities are investing in the resources (facilities, equipment, technicians, etc.), which can assist professors in making quality online content.

    1. Certainly MIT and Harvard are. As the co-founders of EdX, both have invested considerable time and effort in to producing high value content AND measuring its effectiveness continually. The head of MIT’s theoretical physics section even teaches “effective quantum field theory” using EdX.
      The Managers of EdX have told me that it takes at least 100 minutes to produce 1 minute of high production value content. That includes writing the script, rehearsing editing sound and visuals and producing relevant exercises for the student.

      I would say that Biackman takes a very selfish view of his jobs as a professor. He says nothing about mentoring his students, reinforcing the learning process, giving timely feedback, etc. He seems mostly concerned about what a scientist would call his research activities and professional enhancement. That is not to say that he is wrong about developing content.
      I urge people to view a MOOC or two and compare with the usual youtube videos of instruction.
      In addition some one needs to be sensitive to issues of copyright and ethical standards of citation once content is to become available online.

      1. Those paid to develop “professional” content have a vested interest in making it look as difficult and expensive as the market can bear.

        An interesting experiment would be multiple versions of the same subject. The high end would invest 100 minutes for every minute of end result, the low end would basically record the normal lecture with absolutely minimal edits, such as trimming dead space. Charge students accordingly, and see which they prefer.

        Of course, if the audience is millions around the world instead of a few dozen, those expensive professional development costs get spread around and may be worthwhile.

        1. You “experiment” has been done many times. On EdX and Coursera, student reactions are monitored tagged and analyzed continually. That includes comparison of learning outcomes. The developers have an economic interest to be sure. It is not as crass as you suggest.
          I have also enrolled in a few MOOCs just to see for myself you comment.
          Incidentally 100 minutes is on the low side of average and adds the time of all participants, and starts from the first development of any material including table of contents, course description, etc.

          1. How much of that time is spent regardless by an ordinary pre-covid professor? Most professors I knew didn’t just waltz in and start spouting off the top of their heads.

            1. The generally advertise “rule of thumb” was 3 hours of prep time per hour of lecture. For the first time one gives a course, add on to that the time for overall course design that passes curriculum review committees, to prepare problem/exercise sets. If one does not have a grader/ teaching assistant add time for answering student questions and grading.
              All-in-all, you might estimate 10 to 1 prep to delivery time, still small compared to hig production value courses done the first time.

  8. Libertarianism has become so inspirational since it was swallowed up by lawyers and economists.

  9. Speaking as an educator here, I think it is irrelevant that law professors write.

    What are you paid to do — convey knowledge to your students.
    To teach them what the law *is* and how to think like a lawyer.

    Anything else is cost shifting — the students are paying for something that doesn’t benefit them. Any industry that shifts enough costs away from its paying customers eventually collapses.

    1. “Any industry that shifts enough costs away from its paying customers eventually collapses.”

      Not the ones wholly subsidized by the government.

      Other than that, I completely agree with your comments.

  10. Why the big production? Josh tends to inflate everything he does.

    The best lectures I’ve seen online consist of the prof sitting at his desk talking at a webcam. Just a talking face is good enough if you’re a good lecturer. If you want to show the occasional slide, that is easy to do. You can switch from talking head to slides and back, all within PowerPoint.

    Law profs are used to droning on and on before a captive audience. Online, having engaging content becomes more important. But live or online, the only important things are having a reasonably appealing presence, being clear and organized as well as informative.

    1. You really ought to compare your experience with high quality materials for a subject that you don’t already know about and about which you NEED to gain active knowledge.
      Why don’t you tell us which Cousera or EdX courses that you have gone through entirely and we’ll judge the relevance of your comment.

      1. I don’t think it’s possible for technology to turn a good lecturer into a bad one. I could be wrong, of course.

        1. The major difference with MOOCs is that the recorded “lecture” segments are on a few to several minutes long and are interspersed with exercises and, if synchronous, discussion or questions. Questions can also be handled with teaching assistants. These procedures work with courses from introductory to high advanced and technical topics.
          The key is that it is not just technology at work but the insights, talents and contributions of a team.
          One can have a spellbinding lecturer, but in the end get very limited new abilities from listening to the course.
          JB is dead wrong about his last statement, “Generating content is not a prudent use of that time.”

  11. No content may be better for students than weak content.

    Based on the content you produce here, I’m inclined to agree.

  12. Creating content by yourself is a tough task, you can easily outsource it to a freelancer or a content writing company.

    You can drop us a line for content writing, visit:

  13. discounts are very shopping on shopping. use online coupons

Please to post comments