Most insiders I have talked to believe that this year's job market for entry-level law professors will be awful, due to the impact of the recession. Getting a lawprof position is not easy even in a good year; for example, in 2006-2007, the last year for which I could find data, only 13.7% of applicants in the American Association of Law Schools roster were successful. This year, the odds are likely to be much worse.
A number of aspiring law professors have asked me whether they should apply to this year's "meat market" anyway. On the upside, it seems like it can't hurt to try. An unsuccessful applicant can reapply next year. On the other hand, you might end up taking a much worse position than you could have gotten in a more normal year. Moreover, I have heard that some appointments committees don't like to reevaluate applicants who were rejected in a previous year unless they have some new outstanding achievement on their CV (such as a major new publication).
I'm not sure which side of this argument is correct, if either. Obviously, much depends on the circumstances of the particular applicant. For example, an applicant who can instead ride out the next year or two in a good fellowship or visiting appointment can more easily defer than one who can't. But there may be some generally relevant considerations nonetheless. So I solicit comments from those better informed than I am, particularly senior lawprofs who serve on appointments committees. What do you think? Should entry-level candidates take the plunge this year or not?
I served on the appointments committee at my former school for three years. The truth is - the experience is much like auditions for "America's Got Talent" (Please don't throw stones at my analogy). Many candidates look great on paper but....
In my experience in a different field (may or may not generalize), this depends greatly on why they didn't hire you. One situation that I've seen multiple times is that an appointment committee's top choice will have his/her hire fall through due to budget snafus, with a faculty line being pulled by a higher level of the administration to cover a shortfall in the budget (particularly likely at state schools in the current climate). In those cases, you're probably on the shortlist for the next hiring round if their funding does eventually come through.
Bill proposed to have IG's report to the President
It's beginning to look like our current president stole our previous ones' playbook on executive power.
These sorts of things happen a lot more than people might think, in my experience: It's not as if faculty hiring is some purely meritocratic system where the "best" candidate on a single sliding scale is always hired.
God forbid law schools hire accomplished attorneys who can teach young law students how to practice law . . .
Well, yes, but the problem is that people don't go into academia because they enjoy teaching the nuts and bolts of practicing law. Quite the contrary: they go into academia because they dislike practicing law.
Consider the claim that this year is more competitive. What makes it so? Less jobs (that's legitimate conventional wisdom because it is reality). However, the false conventional wisdom is the notion that there are lots of well qualified people on the market this year. In fact, there are lots of well credentialed people who have been laid off from law firms or elsewhere and they are flooding the market. How is this a qualification? The market is now filled with people who:
a) Only want to be a prof because they got laid off.
b) Are trying to be a prof now because they always wanted to but haven't had a chance to prepare themselves yet, so maybe they're not quite ready (e.g. are a gamble for a committee).
c) They figure "why not" (and are not someone a committee should want to hire).
This doesn't strike me as a well qualified person when compared to candidates with publication records and experience in a VAP or Fellowship (teaching, writing, understanding the academic-profession). But, committees are pedigree obsessed, and therefore many Harvard/Stanford/Yale lawyers will become law professors this year, without any indicator that they will be good scholars (an important criteria everywhere) or good teachers (an important criteria at many places), unless the best indicator is that they were able to score a 170+ on the LSAT when they were a junior in college.
If committees were rational they would look for those with publication records, good teaching evaluations, some citations, involvement/reputation in the field, and other indicators of success. Committees should also be quite wary of the laid off attorney who swears they always wanted to be a professor. I know our committee claims to be doing that this year, the challenge will be sorting through the "well credentialed" to find the "well qualified."
Regarding the OP:
If a school is hiring this year, reviews your application and rejects you, you will certainly need something dramatic to get out of that "damaged goods" box next year. Picture the scenarios:
1) A school which is hiring, and is therefore aware of but not impacted by current economic conditions considers your FAR form, brings you up for a vote in committee to determine if you get an interview at the market. The committee rejects you. That can't help you next year because you'll be seen as the candidate that wasn't good enough this year, but somehow you're good enough to get a market interview next year? Sure committees are aware that generally it's a tough market with a bad economy, but THAT committee was hiring, and THAT committee passed on your candidacy.
So, if your FAR form jumped out at someone on the committee you better hope they're not on it next year. Chances are though, a few committee members will be and they'll remember something about you (your clerkship, or interesting article, or book, or work experience...or you went to Harvard, so few candidates went to Harvard...ok, so maybe they will forget you). In any case, there is a good chance you will be remembered, and with 1000 applicants per job why would a school waste an interview spot on you when they know you struck out this year? Unless of course you're just amazing, but if you were amazing, why didn't you get a spot this year?
2) Even worse, you get called to the Wardman and you don't get a callback interview. At that point you've been rejected on something closer to the merits. They met you, and wouldn't want to have lunch with you, or read your articles and thought they sucked, or you just had a bad day. At that point you are even less likely to hear from that school next year.
3) You're really dead in the water for that school if you make it to a call back and get rejected. Perhaps others will disagree, but my sense is once you are 2nd or 3rd choice or worse after a campus call back, the door is closed at that school.
4) The people in 1 will assume 2 or 3 happened to you, and they will be risk averse...because they can be.
The caveats:
1) Many schools outside the Top 15-25 hire for needs. If you're a crim person, and a school is hiring crim this year, chances are they won't be hiring crim next year and you will have missed the boat by not participating.
2) It's possible you have nothing to lose by putting in a FAR form, but if you're even slightly competitive you may be a memorable person from category 1 above, in which case you might have really hurt an otherwise promising chance.
3) If you go this year and fail, you may need to wait till 2011 to try again.
Overall, I'd say if you can spend the year writing, do it, even if that means you are in an unpaid title only fellowship while tending bar at night.
Surely you jest - the professor's job is to teach the students (you know, the ones who pay insanely inflated tuition to learn a trade), not to publish inane research. Publishing inane research is all fine and good, as long as the emphasis is on teaching the students in the first place. Let's face it, law school is a glorified vocational school.
That's never really been true with apprenticeship-style vocational training. Yes, *some* part of the job of a master painter is to teach painting to their apprentices, and some part of the job of a legal professor is to teach the law to their students, and some part of the job of a biology professors is to teach bio to their students. But the main part of the job---what they get hired for and what will make or fail to make their reputations---is, respectively, their painting, legal scholarship, and biology research.
Actually, the job of a professor is to both teach and do research. That, of course, is true of faculty in most other disciplines as well. One can argue that the research and teaching tasks should be separated, with specialists in one not being involved in the other. But that is clearly not the model that exists in modern higher education and scholarship. Unless and until we create a whole new set of institutions where research and teaching really are separate, it is foolish to claim that only one of the is "the professor's job."
I understand that both of these things are technically in the job description, and believe they should be. However, it has always seemed to me that too much emphasis is put on the research versus the teaching. Without the students, there would be no university. I found that, particularly in law school, too many professors are entirely too involved in their own research and not nearly involved enough in actually teaching their students practical information about the subject areas. I spent three years in law school learning lord knows what, and spent the first three years of my career learning to be a lawyer.
A biology graduate student would rightfully expect to be doing a lot of research and have a professor deeply involved in research, given that research is likelly what someone with an advanced degree in biology seeks to do. Law students, however, seek to practice law for the most part. In an apprenticeship, while still sanctioned in Virginia for the law (as Prof. Somin no doubt is aware given he teaches there), one would expect to learn by doing with the master. While yes, in the real world that is academia today, it is indeed foolish to claim that teaching students is the professors job. This, however, is unfortunate, because I think many students don't get their money's worth because of this - too many universities worry about what the professor is publishing versus what type of students the professor is producing.
Surely you jest - the professor's job is to teach the students (you know, the ones who pay insanely inflated tuition to learn a trade), not to publish inane research. Publishing inane research is all fine and good, as long as the emphasis is on teaching the students in the first place. Let's face it, law school is a glorified vocational school.
Most faculty, at least at the top 14 schools, would disagree with you and claim that research it at least as important as teaching, if not more so. Since those schools are also the ones which have the most competitive admissions, either students also disagree with you, or they think they're better off with a faculty of scholars than a faculty of vocational instructors.
Or students pick those schools primarily for pedigree and job prospects regardless of what they think about the pedagogy and research issue.
What could possibly be the downside to gaining at least a little actual knowledge about how to pick a jury, analyze a contract or talk to a real client?
Not only is that correct, most genuinely accomplished attorneys are too busy even to teach their own young associates how to practice law. Put a couple drinks in anybody trying to make it at a law firm and you'll hear them gripe about the lack of guidance, feedback, and meaningful assignments, even at the very best law firms.
It's funny - we've gone a bit off topic but I feel compelled to chime in. Both scholarship and teaching are important. The real tragedy is that many institutions are not particularly clear as to what their priority is. (forgive the improper English). It comes down to philosophy. Some institutions focus on scholarship and not teaching; if you don't agree with that philosophy then don't work there. Others focus on teaching; still others try to have a balance. Each institution has its own mission, agenda, philosophy etc... If you don't agree with it, that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. It's merely different than yours. My institution focuses on teaching first with a note that scholarship is important. If we are known for great teaching and moderate scholarship - in my opinion - we've hit a home run.
It would ruin their minds for serious work such as legal deconstruction?
(I'm not entirely sure what that is, but it sure does fire up juries and appellate courts. As one trial court said, "Counsel, them words you use are purtier than a five hundred dollar New Orleans hooker. Motion granted.").
If there truly is a glut of applicants this year, appointment committees can take advantage of it by adopting a requirement that to be considered, an applicant should have a certain minimum amount of experience (e.g., five years) actually doing the general sort of thing he or she will be training his or her students to do.
Moreover, applicants should be encouraged to brush up their resumes not only by publishing, but by supplementing their lengthy academic experience by getting a hefty amount of real world experience before returning to academia.
Disclosure: I admit a personal stake, here: I practiced law for eleven years (in addition to publishing and adjunct teaching) before becoming a law professor; and, to my surprise, I found that the length of my practice was held strongly against me in the job market.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.