July 19, 2016

Hiring committees can announce themselves...

...and their curricular priorities here.


July 19, 2016 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

June 30, 2016

The "Chicago-Style" article

Finally, a clear explanation of what most of my colleagues are doing!


June 30, 2016 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Faculty News, Of Academic Interest, Professional Advice | Permalink

May 11, 2016

Sarah Lawsky's entry-level hiring report for 2015-16--plus the percentage of successful job seekers from each school

Professor Lawsky (currently UC Irvine, moving this fall to Northwestern) has produced her annual, informative report on rookie hiring this year.  As she notes, it reflects only those who accepted tenure-track jobs, not tenure-track offers.  (This matters for Chicago this year, since two alumni turned down tenure-track offers for personal reasons; as I noted earlier, 75% of our JD and LLM candidates on the market received tenure-track offers.)

Here are the statistics based on the percentage of JD, LLM and SJD (or Law PhD) seekers from each school who accepted a tenure-track position this year (I excluded clinical and LRW jobs, since that market operates differently from the market for "doctrinal" faculty--there were 80 of the latter, as I had estimated--a 20% uptick from recent years, but still about half of the pre-recession numbers); only schools that placed at least two candidates and which had at least nine job seekers* are listed:

1.  University of Chicago (58%: 7 of 12)

2.  Yale University (50%:  21 of 42)

3.  Stanford University (42%:  8 of 19)

4.  Columbia University (29%:  6 of 21)

5.  Harvard University (27%:  12 of 45)

6.  New York University (24%:  7 of 29)

7.  University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (22%:  2 of 9)

8.  University of California, Berkeley (19%:  3 of 16)

9.  University of Virginia (17%:  2 of 12)

UCLA had just five job seekers, but two (40%) got tenure-track jobs.

*I used 9 rather than 10 is the cut-off, since Michigan was just under ten, but still had enough candidates to make the figure somewhat meaningful.


May 11, 2016 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Faculty News, Of Academic Interest, Rankings, Student Advice | Permalink

April 27, 2016

Penn, the new legal history powerhouse on the block

In recent years, Penn has emerged as a force to be reckoned with in the academic market for legal historians.  Two recent Penn JD/PhDs in History, Karen Tani and Greg Ablavsky, have secured tenure-track jobs in the law schools at, respectively, Berkeley and Stanford.  Another Penn PhD in History (with a Harvard JD), Anne Fleming, is now on tenure-track at Georgetown Law.  This year, one of Penn's Sharswood Fellows, a legal historian trained elsewhere, secured a tenure-track job at Vanderbilt Law.

I asked Sarah Barringer Gordon, the distinguished senior legal historian at the University of Pennsylvania, how Penn has been so successful?  She wrote:

Our program is designed to be small and highly selective, and we invest substantial time in each student, and ensure that we support our students financially as well as intellectually.  We take only those candidates that we are confident we can train in the substantive fields of their interest and in a demanding program that is grounded equally in history and law. We also work hard to help our students enter the field as fully minted scholars, who have presented their work in multiple venues, taught, and published. We have an in-house workshop where both faculty and students who work in legal history present their work at early stages, an annual speaker series that brings in outside scholars, and we are active in the American Society for Legal History, as well as a consortium of schools that hosts an annual conference for early career legal historians. One of us also co-edits Studies in Legal History, the oldest and largest book series dedicated to legal history.  Of course, Penn has benefited from the overall success of the field of legal history, and we consider ourselves part of a broader community of scholars that is remarkably collegial.  Our legal historians on the faculty include Wendell Pritchett, Serena Mayeri, Sophia Lee, Bill Ewald, and yours truly.  We are proud to be among the strong programs in legal history, but are also committed to remaining small, as legal historians are built one at a time.

UPDATE:  Another impressive Penn-connected success story is the legal historian Christopher Beauchamp, a Cambridge-trained historian now on tenure-track at Brooklyn Law School (he does not have a law degree).  He was also a Sharswood Fellow at Penn's Law School, as well as a Fellow in Legal History at NYU's Law School, before securing his tenure-track post at Brooklyn.


April 27, 2016 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Faculty News, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

April 26, 2016

Two-year post-docs at the Classical Liberal Institute at NYU Law

My colleague Richard Epstein asked me to share information about these attractive post-docs at his Institute at NYU Law School.  They are open to PhDs in History, Philosophy or Political Science with substantial law interests (a JD is not required).


April 26, 2016 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

April 09, 2016

Percentage of job seekers who secured tenure-track jobs, by school

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MARCH 17--IF YOU'VE BEEN HIRED, PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR INFORMATION AT THE PRAWFS BLOG LINK, BELOW

As Prof. Lawsky collects the data on entry-level hiring, bear in mind that the total number of graduates on the teaching market varies considerably by school; once all the hiring results are in, I'll post the percentage success rates.  But here are the total number of graduates by school that were on the market this year:  45 from Harvard; 42 from Yale; 29 from Georgetown; 29 from NYU; 21 from Columbia; 19 from Stanford; 16 from Berkeley; 12 from Chicago; 12 from Virginia; 10 from Northwestern; 9 from Michigan; 6 from Duke; 5 from Penn; 5 from Cornell; 5 from UCLA; 3 from Southern California; 3 from Texas.  I know that 75% of the Chicago grads on the teaching market secured a tenure-track job; I'll post the final listing in a couple of weeks.

4/9/16 UPDATE:  So as I surmised awhile back, we seem to be closing in on about eighty tenure-track hires this year, compared to about 65 the last two years.  Based on the data so far, here's how the placement looks for the preceding schools that had at least two placements (the data is not yet complete, however; it counts only JD placements, though some of the gross numbers, above, include some LLM or SJDs, though those appear to be distributed across the schools with the biggest numbers--I'll fix that in the final count when Prof. Lawsky is done collecting the data):

Chicago:  6 of 12 candidates secured tenure-track jobs (50%)

UCLA:  2 of 5 candidates secured tenure-track jobs (40%)

Yale    17 of 42 candidates secured tenure-track jobs (40%)

Stanford:  7 of 19 candidates secured tenure-track jobs (37%)

Michigan:  3 of 9 candidates secured tenure-track jobs (33%)

Columbia:  6 of 21 candidates secured tenure-track jobs (29%)

Harvard:  11 of 45 candidates secured tenure-track jobs (24%)

NYU:  7 of 29 candidates secured tenure-track jobs (24%)

Virginia:  3 of 12 candidates secured tenure-track jobs (25%)

Berkeley:  2of 16 candidates secured tenure-track jobs (13%)


April 9, 2016 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Faculty News | Permalink

March 16, 2016

Prawfs entry-level hiring thread is now open

If you've accepted a tenure-track job in a law school for next year, enter your information here.


March 16, 2016 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Faculty News, Of Academic Interest, Rankings | Permalink

February 22, 2016

Triumph of the JD/PhDs

Provocative piece from Bloomberg News, prompted by a recent paper by Lynn LoPucki (UCLA).  We've certainly seen this already in some sub-fields: e.g., first-generation law & economics scholars were almost all JDs, while the current generation are almost all JD/PhDs. The rise in expectations for scholarly writing from junior faculty candidates over the last twenty years has strongly favored those with PhDs, who, of course, have a lot of writing in hand.  And some of this is simply attributable to the revolution in legal scholarship wrought by Richard Posner in the 1970s, which finally finished off the Langedellian paradigm of legal scholarship.

Although I'm quoted saying that the rise of JD/PhDs will continue, that's a descriptive not normative statement.  I think different schools have different missions.  And the relevance of the JD/PhD varies by field.   We have ten current junior faculty, only four of whom are JD/PhDs.  Our Dean is a JD/PhD, our two most recent tenures were one JD/PhD and one JD (who had even been a partner in a major law firm).   We placed three Chicago candidates at "top" law schools this year, two were JD/PhDs, one a "mere" JD.  I think my prediction is an accurate one--and at other top schools it's already come true--but it will be another twenty-five years before it is realized at the top law schools generally.


February 22, 2016 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Faculty News, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

January 14, 2016

New Fellowship in Behavioral Law & Economics at University of Chicago Law School

 My colleague Jonathan Masur asked that I call the attention of interested readers to a new Fellowship opportunity here at Chicago; he writes: 

The Wachtell Fellowship in Behavioral Law & Economics is designed for aspiring legal academics with research or teaching interests in behavioral law & economics.  Fellows will have have substantial time and resources (including research funding) to pursue their own research.  In addition, Fellows will have the opportunity to teach seminars of their choosing related to behavioral law & economics, present papers at faculty workshops, and participate in conferences.  The Fellowship will run for one year, with an option to renew for a second year.  We are currently accepting applications for fellowships covering the 2016-17 academic year, and we anticipate having one or more openings in subsequent years as well.  Any candidates who are interested in the Fellowship or would like more information are very welcome to email me at jmasur@uchicago.edu.

 To apply, go here.  I'll just note that all our Fellows are thoroughly integrated into the intellectual life of the institution.


January 14, 2016 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

January 04, 2016

What do you need to find out now that you've gotten a tenure-track offer?

MOVING TO FRONT(ORIGINALLY POSTED NOVEMBER 24, 2009)

With luck (and luck will help more than usual in what is a very tight year on the academic job market), some of you seeking law teaching jobs will get offers of tenure-track positions in the next couple of months.  What then?  Here's roughly what I tell my Texas and Chicago advisees they need to find out, and in the interest of having it written down in one place and for the benefit of others too, here it is (not in order of importance):

1.  You will want to get (in writing eventually) the basic salary information, obviously, and the nature of summer research support and the criteria for its award (is it automatic for junior faculty?  contingent on prior publication [if so, how much?]?  awarded competitively (if so, based on what criteria/process)?).   You should also find out how salary raises are determined.  Are they, for example, lock-step for junior faculty?  Fixed by union contract?  (Rutgers faculty, for example, are unionized, a huge advantage and why they are among the best-paid faculty, not just in law, in the country.)  Is it a 'merit' system, and if so is it decanal discretion or is their a faculty committee that reviews your teaching and work each year?

2.  You should ask for a copy of the school's tenure standards and get clear about the expectations and the timeline.  Does any work you have already published count towards meeting the tenure standard?

3.  What research leave policy, if any, does the school have?  A term off after every three full years of teaching is a very good leave policy; some schools have even better policies, most have less generous leave policies.  (If there is a norm, it is a term off after every six years.)  Many schools have a special leave policy for junior faculty, designed to give them some time off prior to the tenure decision.  Find out if the school has such a policy.

4.  One of the most important things to be clear about is not just your teaching load, but what courses you will be teaching precisely.  You should ask whether the school can guarantee a stable set of courses until after the tenure decision.  Preparing new courses is hugely time-consuming, and you also get better at teaching the course the more times you do it.  As a tenure-track faculty member, having a stable package of, say, three courses (plus a seminar) will make a huge difference in terms of your ability to conduct research and write.   In my experience, most schools will commit in writing to a set of courses for the tenure-track years (and do ask for this in writing), but some schools either won't or can't.   In my view, it's a good reason to prefer one school to another that one will give you the courses you want and promise them that they're yours, while another won't--a consideration that overrides lots of other factors, including salary. 

5.  You should ask for the school's materials on benefits:  retirement, life insurance, disability insurance, health insurance, and so on.  The biggest, and certainly the most easily discernible differences, are often in the retirement and life insurance categories (sometimes longterm disability insurance too, though unlike life insurance, you're hopefully less likely to utilize this!).  What is the university's contribution to retirement?  At the low end are schools contributing only 5-6% of your base salary to retirement; the more competitive schools will be in the 8% range, and some will be higher.  The big issue on life insurance concerns the amount you are guaranteed irrespective of your health history.  500-600K increasingly seem to be the norm.  And, of course, if your health is perfect, this doesn't matter, but I've worked with plenty of candidates where this was a serious issue.  (Life insurance companies have no incentives to insure faculty beyond the base amount they have to provide, so even health matters that strike you as trivial may disqualify you from more coverage.)  A final benefits issue concerns education/tuition benefits for children.  State schools don't offer these; the wealthier private schools do, and if you have kids or expect to have kids, this is worth looking into.  At the high end is Chicago, which pays up to 75% of Chicago tuition anywhere for each child.  Most of the wealthier private schools will pay 30-50% of the home school tuition for faculty children, wherever they go.  Some will offer a larger benefit if your kids go to that school.  But there are differences, and they don't track your ordinary expectations about prestige (e.g., last time I looked, the Wash U/St. Louis benefit was much better than the benefit at Penn or Cornell).  In any case, get the information.  But remember, university-wide benefits are rarely a subject for negotiation--the law school can't give you a higher benefit.  Of course, if you have a competitive offer, they may be able to compensate for a significant benefits differential.

6.  Finally, once you have an offer, this is a good time to raise issues about the employment prospects for a spouse or partner.  Sometimes you may just want help:  can the Dean help the significant other make relevant professional contacts in the area?  Sometimes you may be hoping for more:  e.g., a position in the law school, or in another university department, for the significant other.  It is certainly fair to explain the situation and ask.  Schools vary in their ability to response effectively to these situations, but many have formal universities policies pertaining at least to spouses who are academics.  Raise the issue, and see if the school can help.  But realize that the school made you the offer, and they may be able to hire you, and that's that.

The last point relates to a more general issue.  If you don't have other offers, you are not in a position to bargain.  Period.  You may certainly ask about things, raise concerns, etc.  But unless you're going to walk away from a tenure-track offer (not a wise thing to do in this market), don't make demands.  And even then, a collegial discussion about issues of concern is far better than demands.  Even if you have other offers, this advice applies:  proceed with caution and respect for the institution.  You can report that School Y is offering you a salary 20K higher, and ask whether the Dean of School X, to whom your talking, has any flexibility on this front.  But remember:  you may end up at School X (because of location, or colleagues in your field, or a better teaching load etc.) and living with that Dean and the other faculty for many years to come.  Don't poison the well by displaying a sense of entitlement and self-importance before you even get through the door.  Remember:  no matter how good you are, you're quite dispensable--in almost every instance, you need the job more than the school needs you.  Approach any 'bargaining' or discussion of the package in that spirit.  A good school has every reason to want you to succeed and to try to help fashion a package of professional duties and support in that spirit.  A good school doesn't need a prima donna.

I invite signed comments from faculty or deans on these issues.  A comment without a full name and e-mail address won't appear.  Post your comment only once; comments are moderated and may take awhile to appear.

Good luck to all job seekers!


January 4, 2016 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers | Permalink | Comments (14)