This is a joint post with Nelson Tebbe: As a matter of chance, we both have been guest-blogging this month, we have offices down the hall from each other, and we are both serving on our school’s entry-level appointments committee. So we thought we would join forces and dedicate our final post to a few reflections on the unusual market conditions this year.
Since so much has been said about the contracting legal market, we have been wondering how that market might impact academic hiring by law schools. There is an argument for withdrawing from the hiring process altogether this year. Since recruitment and hiring costs money, the argument goes, schools should instead wait to see what the broader legal market will do before they add or even replace faculty members. You might think of this as the conservative business-model of law school hiring: Wait and see what happens before you make relatively irreversible commitments in funding. (Of course we recognize that for some law schools, this approach is a matter of financial exigency, not forecasting. )
On the other side, some will argue that law schools (particularly those with sound finances) should not waste this opportunity to recruit stellar candidates who would greatly enhance the schools’ academic and professional missions. In other words, the reward of catching a particularly good candidate is well worth the costs entailed in recruiting. We think that this standard back-and-forth tends to ignore several additional benefits that arise from participating in the annual process of faculty recruiting.
First, interviewing candidates introduces the school to potential (and, for laterals, current) academics on a much larger scale, and in a more intense way, than ordinary conferences and workshops do. Both of us vividly recall our impressions of the schools with whom we interviewed during the recruitment process. Moreover, during this process, we met people who became important correspondents and even collaborators.
Second, recruiting strengthens bonds among the current faculty. Whereas workshops and symposia may be attended only by specialists, job talks often draw a larger portion of the faculty. If faculty members attend the workshop and ask questions, they not only get to know the candidate, but they also reacquaint themselves with their own colleagues. The conversation often continues afterward in hallways and offices. Recruiting is particularly helpful for bonding among and between newer professors, who may find that hiring dinners provide a perfect context for getting to know their colleagues. Finally, reading and discussing candidate papers exposes the faculty to a greater variety of new ideas, builds a common discussion about those ideas, and may stimulate overall scholarly productivity. In short, participating in the hiring process produces benefits for the school even if the faculty does not end up extending a single offer. That is not to say that recruiting does not entail significant costs – of course it does. Our point is only that in evaluating those costs, schools should not lose sight of its ancillary benefits. We want to thank Dan and the entire Prawfs community for giving us the opportunity to join in the conversation this month. Enjoy the last few weeks of summer!
Posted by Miriam Baer on July 31, 2009 at 03:12 PM
Comments
Alternatively, a down market has historically meant more people returning to school, including graduate and professional schools. That seems to be the case this year as well from what I’ve heard (for example, Miami’s over-enrollment has been noted here: http://community.livejournal.com/law_students/1060136.html). Potential students seem undeterred as of yet by the job prospects they face post-graduation. Schools that intend to capitalize on this (especially tuition driven schools) will have to continue hiring to keep up with the over-enrollment. Until fewer students come calling (or until schools decide to turn more away), I think it’ll be tough to freeze hiring. Human nature makes both of those things seem unlikely to me, especially in the short term. Or maybe I’m just being optimistic.
Posted by: David Cleveland | Aug 6, 2009 1:06:42 AM
Dear Anonymous,
I can only comment on my own experience, which is from two years ago, before the economy tanked. I did not sense during job talks or AALS interviews that schools were “just going through the motions.” (Nor were Nelson and I suggesting that schools interview with absolutely no intention of hiring). I did, however, receive one telephone call, about 2 weeks before the AALS conference, from a school that expressly stated that it was not hiring but that it wanted to meet people at AALS anyway.
So in answer to your question, yes, some schools may be up front with you about whether they intend to hire. Few, if any, would go to the expense and time of inviting you for a call-back, just to “make connections.” The more common issue for candidates is that many schools will go into the process expecting to hire, but for any number of reasons, may not make offers or may make fewer offers than they expected at the beginning of the process. All the more reason, then, to accept as many interviews and call-backs as you can. Good luck!
Posted by: Miriam Baer | Aug 4, 2009 11:15:40 AM
As someone who will be on the market this year, who is simultaneously concerned about getting no interviews and hoping to get so many that I have to turn some down, I’m interested in what the “interview without expectation of hiring” means for candidates, especially in a year where it may be more common than usual. I’m happy to interview with anyone, including schools that don’t plan to hire this year, but if I run out of space I’d hate to bump a school that is actually hiring off my dance card for a school that is just looking to make connections. And, though I’d love the chance to share my ideas with anyone, I’d prefer to not get my hopes about a possible job offer up if a callback is really just a very intense workshop with dinner included. Is it realistic to expect schools to tell candidates that they are interviewing but don’t expect to hire? If not, what’s the best way a candidate could try to get that information?
Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 3, 2009 6:15:23 PM
Another consideration is that schools want to see people (candidates and faculty at other schools) and be seen at the market, to look like a serious institution, even if the school cannot hire this year for budgetary reasons. Maybe we make a contact with someone and seek to bring her on board as a lateral a few years from now. Maybe our financial situation has changed from October to January and we are in a position to pursue people we met at the meat market. But we do benefit from showing our faces in DC, regardless of ultimate hiring decisions.
Posted by: Howard wassernan | Jul 31, 2009 7:31:14 PM