“I was pretty tempted to use that approach today, calling on one of you, hoping that you would be brief, funny, and wise.”

I imagine some 1L trying to say, “Uh. Pass?”

Regarding Drexel, it is clear that Philly did not need another law school. At one old-guard Philly firm that I know well it is hard enough for Temple, Villanova, and Rutgers-Camden folks to even raise an eyebrow unless they’re on the law review, etc. Drexel U opened a law school because it’s a cash cow. A prof there told me a few months ago that the school even plans to boost enrollment. Amazing. And I certainly don’t buy the notion that Drexel’s co-op program will make its grads more competitive.

The next 3 producers of lawprofs, HLS, Stanford and Chicago, bunch up at .18, .17 and .15 respectively, which translates into less than half the odds of a Yalie. That is, less than 5%.

As bad as that sounds, a 1L’s odds are considerably longer anywhere else — no other school, including such elite places at Columbia, Michigan and Berkeley, breaks .10. A fine school like Penn is at .06, meaning 14 out of 1250 students got law teaching jobs, just barely more than 1 in 100.

Now not everyone wants to be a law prof; that said, if they did, the odds would be even worse.

The data on the long odds:

http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008job_teaching.shtml

The speech was creative, and am sure well-delivered. But I have to agree with both lawprof and lawyer that the deceit that is law school right now is borderline fraudulent (you and I had this conversation earlier this summer, as did another of your former students … you deleted her later acidic comments, but not before you had to read and digest them).

There are too many attorneys and too many law schools. Student loans are a train wreck waiting to happen, and grad student like attorneys are going to fall the hardest.

So while it was neither requested of you to address this while speaking, what a novel thing it would have been for a lawprof to be have the courage and clarity to be real about the world their students face (and that they – the profs – never did, or ever will).

I think you’re a nice guy, Dave, but I don’t know how people like your brother in law at Drexel Law sleep at night. Great for them: the experience of building a law school. What a scam for their students … I have friends doing doc review in Phila., sitting between Cornell and UPENN grads. There is no way, with the five and six established law schools in the region, that anyone is going to hire a Drexel grad.

But I abbreviate my comments >> you will neither agree with what I’ve written, nor allow it to remain posted for very long. But maybe – just maybe, David – you feel half guilty about the trade you’re engaged in.

To answer your second question: Yes, it appears to be the case. Specifically, I think law profs like to draw boundaries between themselves and practitioners. For example, look at some of the ridiculous rifts between clinical and research professors at many schools. Also, w/r/t hiring, some committees believe that there is an inverse relationship between years of practice experience (beyond a 1-2 year threshold) and the candidate’s potential to become a productive scholar.

Though Dan S.’s stats were grim for Temple JDs (along with pretty much everyone outside of a small handful of schools) in my view this is partially a selection effect, and there is something too about grooming.

Do you really think that the legal academy and lawyers are separate professions? I’m not so sure.

After all, your opportunities leaving this law school are many, among them: drafters and courtroom stars; counselors to businesses, and businesspeople yourselves; sports agents, judges, politicians, advocates, and better-informed citizens.

But (conspicuously) not law professors, because we all know that a Temple J.D. has a slim chance of generating any attention on the faculty hiring market.

Likewise:

Your faculty wants to be part of the first kind of sorting – wants to mentor you and waits eagerly for the day when you become colleagues at the Bar….

But not colleagues in the true sense; i.e., on the same faculty or even within the same profession (the legal academy).

My uncle used to say that the “A” students become professors, the “B’s” judges, and the “C’s” make money. Of course that we before he became a judge….