Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Whatever happened to Henry Simons? (fp)

Wow -- that's some very scary poll results (kw)

The scarlet ankle bracelet. (fp)

Every good article should have one idea. (fp)

Family values in market turnover culture. (fp)

Banks really create value: probably $58 billion in overdraft fees & credit card penalties in 2009. (fp)

A Citizens United dream: Exxon could have deployed 10% of its 2008 profits to outspend every presidential and senatorial candidate that year. (fp)

Eternal Earth-Bound Pets promises to adopt your pet if you are raptured. (fp)

Habermas doesn't tweet, but does interview well. (fp)

Lessig on Google, copyright, orphans, and the future of access to information. (kw)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Kristina on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • PrometheeFeu on The Advantages and Disadvantages of Rewards

    • PoNyman on Very scary poll results

    • Civ Pro King on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • ParatrooperJJ on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • Lotta on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Alan on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Colin Crowe on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Glomarization on Links and short thoughts on Amazonfail

    • Vinca on Book Review: Divergent Opinions: Why Community Matters — A Review of Sunstein’s Going to Extremes

    • A.J. Sutter on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

    • Keri Brooks on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Illinois on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Ken Rhodes on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Ken Rhodes on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

  •  

    Site Meter

Law Professor Lateraling 101: Part 5 (The “Everything” Interview)

posted by Paul Secunda

conf.jpgAs I have said to others, the “everything” interview is the flyback/job talk interview where you not only need to show up at the school of your dreams and behave reasonably well, but you have to stick the landing.

And by sticking the landing, I primarily mean giving a gang-busters job talk. Yes, you will go on a whirlwind adventure at the lateral school for 24 hours, where you will gorge yourself on food (wow, poor David Case, I thought we treated him well – doesn’t everyone get catfish and BBQ?), speak to everyone including the custodial staff and a few visitors to the law school who are just walking through, and stay at the swankiest hotel that school has to offer.

All fine and good (though not for the waist-line), but really here’s what the food, office interviews, and everything else boils down to: just be a normal, everyday person. Now, I realize this will be hard for some of you (and shoot, who am I kidding, me), but try not to eat with your hands (or off of someone else’s plate (my problem), keep yourself from blurting out your professed love for Barry Manilow or Gary Glitter (I believe he is currently rotting in a Thai jail on child molestation charges), and don’t start laughing maniacally when what the other person just said wasn’t even funny. Just chill.

But do put all of your effort into the job talk that you will give normally during lunch time in front of a good segment of the faculty. Here are some tips.


First, don’t eat before your job talk. Have someone put some food aside for you for afterwards. It is no fun trying to hide the stomach cramps that are making you squirm in pain during your speech and having to run for the pot mid-way through (not that this has ever happened to me).

Second, not everyone will be riveted to your speech. I have given about six lateral job talks and I have witnessed: someone reading a newspaper and book during my speech, looking over their email on their blackberries, talking in a rather loud voice to their friend about something about fishing, and even falling asleep (needless to say, I didn’t get that job). Try not to be unnerved by this. In one of my speeches, I couldn’t quiet the inner voice that was telling the senior female faculty member in the back corner of the room to “Put down the damn newspaper and listen!” I never got back on track.

As far as the presentation itself, you should try to give a piece that shows how you have advanced scholarship in your area of the law and that you are a creative and original scholar. Most schools want about a 20-25 minutes speech, followed by some equal time for questions and answers. Do not put the faculty to sleep by giving an hour snoozer. You don’t want to finish your speech and have the faculty run out to get to class or just to get out. Realize also that many schools will videotape your presentation for missing colleagues. I don’t know how you all feel about it, but the word for me is “unnerving.”

But schools do differ here in what they want. As far as my specific experiences, one school I went to made it like an appellate argument (with aggressive judges on the bench). They basically wanted to see if I could survive an antagonistic faculty I guess. I spoke for about two minutes before being interrupted and attacked over what was not the main point of my paper. That dialogue ended up taking a substantial part of my time and I never got back on track. Of course, I didn’t get an offer there either (which I figured out when my meeting with the Dean after the speech lasted for about five minutes). What I would say to the appointments people out there is that your candidate will appreciate it if you allow them to get through most of their talk, and then let the faculty have at them. One school in particular did a wonderful job of asking for questions to be held and then wrote down a list of people who wanted to blow me out of the water in an orderly, polite manner. I didn’t get the offer there either.

But to stick the landing, I think it is important that you speak without notes in a conversational tone if at all possible. No shocker here but faculty are not impressed with people who read from their papers like they’re reading a book or look live their davining (praying for the uninitiated) because their head is going up and down so frequently. Similarly, in answering questions, no matter the tone of your inquisitor (I mean questioner), keep it on an even keel. No one appreciates combative, defensive answers or a patronizing look that screams, “Gosh, that was a moronic question.” Of course, it is also good that you don’t break down and cry when you are asked a question you have no earthly idea about and which you realize quite late to the game that you should have probably included in your paper.

Here’s another hint I learned from one of the better people I had the privilege to listen to: No matter how asinine or mean-spirited you believe a question is, you should begin your answer with: “That’s a great question, Orin . . . .” (I swear I just picked the first name that popped into my head).

In any event, when you are done with the job talk, take a deep breath, and hopefully close the deal. On the other hand, I have given such stinkers that one appointments committee head took me to the school cafeteria and just slowly and sadly shook her head back and forth.

I didn’t get that job either.


 February 8, 2008 at 11:17 am   Posted in: Law School (Hiring & Laterals)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (1)

  1. aspiringprof - February 8, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    brilliant post!! and very, very funny!

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Adam Benforado
Mark Edwards
Michelle Harner
Kristin Johnson
Jeffrey Kahn
Alex Kreit
Viva Moffat
Adam Steinman










Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress