1. Dave Hoffman - August 21, 2009 at 8:24 am

   “(Are you really an expert in every 1L class?)”

   I’d resist the idea that a hire needs to be an “expert” in the 1L class they teach. Civ Pro, Contracts, Torts, Crim are overlapping survey courses which can be taught (in my view) by anyone who went through law school. Of course it is useful if the first year class hooks into your practical (or scholarly) expertise, but that’s not totally necessary – that’s what the upper year classes are for. First year teachers simply need to be willing to learn the cases, connect with the students, and spend time thinking about how to convey a foreign language and a foreign way of thinking. I remember almost nothing about criminal law, but I know that Dan Meltzer helped me to work through hypotheticals pretty well, though I don’t think he had a lick of substantive criminal law expertise (cf. procedure).

2. Ben Barros - August 21, 2009 at 10:15 am

   While I agree with Dave that many candidates would be competent to teach any first-year class, I think that this kind of remark can hurt a candidate by diluting any claim that they might have to be an expert in any one area. Most schools hire based on curricular need, and if they need a torts professor, they are going to want someone with some credibility in that area. I suppose that someone hired specifically for an upper-level need might be asked to teach a first-year course, but I don’t think that the assignment would be completely random. Most candidates should be able to identify one or two first-year courses that fit them well. This might narrow the number of schools that take a look at the candidate, but would increase the candidate’s chances with the schools looking in the area(s) where the candidate is strongest.

3. On the Market - August 21, 2009 at 10:16 am

   Gerald,

   There is a bit of a contradiction in your post. First you explain that Tax, Bankruptcy, Commercial Law, and Corporate Law are in demand and that your odds of getting a teaching job are greater if you focus on these set of topics. Then you go on to critique candidates that state that they can teach any first year course because they can’t possibly be experts in all of the first year courses.

   If they are required to be experts in the classes that they teach then isn’t suggesting that a candidate strategically list Tax, Bankruptcy, Commercial Law, and Corporate law a bit of a contradiction. If they have to be an expert then I’m not sure a candidate at this stage would be wise to list those classes unless I suppose they have written or have extensive practice experience in the subject matter. So I guess my point is either “you are what you are” in which suggesting that candidates strategically list in-demand classes is bad advice or “anyone can teach anything” in which the criticism of people listing that they can teach every first year course is misdirected.

4. Michael Risch - August 21, 2009 at 10:35 am

   On the Market -

   It’s not as contradictory as you think – I think Gerard is saying it is better to _be_ one of those folks, so if you are a con law person with bankruptcy background, make that clear. Note that schools can see right through to what your interests are. When I was on the market, about half my interviews were for schools looking for commercial law – it was top-line on my FAR, and I had plenty of experience to teach it. At the meat market, though, it became clear that I’m an IP guy, not a commercial law guy, and those interviews went nowhere – that’s how it goes.

   I would diverge a bit on “will teach any first year class.” To me that signals two things: 1) “I really want a job” and 2) “I’m flexible in my teaching preferences” but it also has a downside 3) “I don’t have a strong enough interest to really push for a particular teaching package.”

   In my vast year of experience on Appointments (year 2 is coming up), I gave the most credence to people who listed a particular first year class where that class fit into some teaching or scholarly interest.

5. On the Market - August 21, 2009 at 11:31 am

   If that is what Gerard is referring to (and I apologize for misspelling his name in my post) then I wholly agree. But folks on the market are a bit savvier than your argument would suggest. I don\’t think that too many people who want a teaching job and have an interest in Con Law but background experience in Bankruptcy would think not to list Bankruptcy as a course that they are willing to teach. If this is about where they list the course on their FAR form, then maybe that is an arbitrary selection criteria. As has been suggested elsewhere (on this blog perhaps) a candidate is probably better served being sincere about their degree of interest rather than being exposed as strategic, as you Michael may have been.

6. Mark McKenna - August 21, 2009 at 11:52 am

   I think efforts to be strategic and put down areas just because you know they’re in demand are usually pretty transparent. You are better off being in certain areas, but you have to really *be* in one of those areas, as Michael Risch suggested. Gerard, on the international law thing – you’re right there are tons of international law people, but I want to make two observations. First, I think international law *is* in real demand, as everyone keeps talking about the internationalization of law. But, second, not everyone needs 5 *public* international law folks. So I think the demand is greater for those who can make a credible case of being interested in private international law, or even pitching themselves as an IP person (just to take an example) with an international bent.

7. Also on the Market - August 21, 2009 at 12:05 pm

   I do not think it is worth inferring too much from the strategic or free-response elements of the FAR forms. The reason I think that is this: it’s a very odd, constrained form. Hiring committees presumably get very fluent in FAR, but most candidates are just trying, first, to relay basic information about qualifications and, second, to use the form to communicate to the hiring committees. But candidates are likely to send poor signals because we just don’t know what certain things mean. Do I list Bankruptcy, a teaching interest and secondary research interest, as the last course on the first line or the first course on the second line? I really hope that no hiring committees are inferring anything about my preferences, much less my character (too strategic, too impractical, etc) from the choice I make on this point. I don’t know what subtleties the respective choices communicate, and I hope the answer is none. Similarly, when people write in comments, they’re just trying to say something about themselves with very few characters–if it comes off awkwardly (“I’d teach anything” or “I’m an expert, I swear,”) I don’t particularly think it’s a reflection on the candidate so much as the candidate bumbling along trying to speak in this weird code.

8. Jason Kilborn - August 21, 2009 at 1:13 pm

   I just can’t resist. After seeing for the umpteenth time a hiring chair suggesting that tax, bankruptcy, and commercial law are subjects that committees are desperately seeking, my head is about to explode. Every year committees say this, every year they are distracted by the Siren song of con law or gender law or whatever, and every year they fail to hire in biz and commercial, then repeat the same mantra next year. Please! I know a handful of very good people, with proven track records in publication and fine classroom teaching, at a variety of schools across the country that are either overtly or implicitly on the lateral market, many of them have bent over backwards to get the attention of schools allegedly seeking coverage in biz and commercial subjects, to no avail.

   So a word of advice to hiring chairs and to candidates: To chairs–if you’re going to say you’re looking for tax/biz/commercial, put your money where your mouth is, and tie yourself to the mast as you sail past the reams of CVs listing sexy publications in non-commercial areas. To candidates–most of the time, the job announcements just don’t mean it; say you’ll teach Contracts, but don’t expect to be a hiring conference superstar by offering to teach anything in the upper-level curriculum with dollar signs in it . . . unless your take is on the constitutional or human rights aspects of corporate taxation and payment systems.

   Rant over–thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

9. TJ - August 21, 2009 at 5:38 pm

   When I was on the market, I listed property as one of the first year courses I was interested in teaching (I am an IP guy in my research). I got quite a few calls from schools that said: “we know you listed property, we assume that implies you would be willing to teach contracts, which is a sine qua non of you getting an offer at our school.” My point is that many schools may well assume that any candidate is willing to teach just about any first year course. But explicitly saying so on the FAR form might still hurt you, by indicating desperation and/or lack of thought regarding your teaching interests.

10. Jd - August 21, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    It’s not just that there are too many international law candidates on the market, it’s that there are too many i.l. candidates whose work is crap. Ten years ago, the same was true with tech law related subjects, as law students with little real knowledge of the subject, or anything interesting to say, hooked on to the new trendy thing. Actually, i.l. candidates overall are even worse, because so many of them have really been motivated by hostility to Bush Administration policies or by a vague sense that this is the hot area for liberals rather than by true scholarly interest.

    Admittedly, some fairly mediocre i.l. candidates got very good jobs. But now that Obama is in office, I expect the frenetic hiring in this area to end, as i.l., especially public i.l., is useless to the vast bulk of law students, and there’s no longer the keen ideological motivation re i.l. there was a year ago.

11. mjs - August 22, 2009 at 2:41 am

    The same is true for IP. For example, a candidate who helped out on one or two patent litigation matters while in practice (which usually means writing memos) is suddenly an IP expert. If these folks have the right pedigree and tell a good story, they can land a faculty appointment. Unfortunately their substantive knowledge of IP and writing lack depth or originality. The end result is mediocre scholarship (and often mediocre placements).

12. Tim Zinnecker - August 22, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    I’ve been through the first distribution of 600+ FAR Forms. I’ve noticed many folks have a desire to teach international law and related subjects. But I’ve also noticed a significant (when compared to recent years) increase in the number of applicants who want my job — commercial / UCC / bankruptcy / banking, etc. We are the few, the proud, the anointed ones.

    To Jason Kilborn: Amen, my brother! Preach on! We’re trying to bring the gospel of commercial law to a lost world. Let’s poll our students in two, five, and ten years. I’ll bet most of them will have looked at the UCC or bankruptcy code more often than the U. S. Constitution.

13. Anon Dude - August 22, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    Hello,

    Just curious as to how much committees look for race and the law scholars and if there are any good such candidates this year.

14. anon - August 23, 2009 at 10:14 am

    Just for clarification – does “international law people” include related immigration, human rights, etc.? And does “race and the law” mean critical race theory? If so, do a lot of the people listing those subject areas have advanced degrees in addition to their JD?

15. Gerard N. Magliocca - August 23, 2009 at 12:15 pm

    Hi,

    I thought this would help open a forum on this, and it worked! Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that you should be strategic about listing subjects. I was just trying to provide some “top-down” perspective on the market thus far.

16. Mark Banks-Golub - August 23, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    I’m curious about those who have not submitted the FAR, but instead have focused on only a couple of slots they were interested in particularly? I am a tax person, and I sent expressions of interest to a couple of schools that advertised they were looking for tax people.

    Does not getting the FAR in on time (I’d never heard of it until the week it was due) mean that my chances are non-existent?

Leave a Reply