A List of Law Teaching Fellowships

Over at TaxProf blog, Paul Caron has posted his annual list of law teaching fellowships, with links to the websites.

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 11:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Temple Law Dean Search Finalists

As I've previously blogged, I've the pleasure of serving on the search committee looking to replace Temple's long serving Dean, Bob Reinstein. Earlier this week, the University announced that there are three finalists for the position. They are: Paul Schiff Berman (UConn); Wendell Pritchett (on leave from Penn while working at the City of Philadelphia); and JoAnne Epps (currently the associate dean at Temple).

I've got to say, the committee has required a much more significant time commitment than I originally anticipated, which (perhaps) excuses my limited blogging of late, but I'm very excited by this slate of candidates, and looking forward to seeing how the process develops.

Posted by Dave Hoffman at 09:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tales of a Law Professor Lateral Nothing

For those of you like Scott Moss who followed every word, sentence, nay punctuation mark, of my previous series of posts here on the blog on the lateral hiring market, I am pleased to announce that I have turned all that material (with some additional extras!) into an essay, Tales of a Law Professor Lateral Nothing.

Here's the abstract:

This Essay seeks to uncover the mysterious world of the law professor lateral hiring market, which has become increasingly important in the last number of years as law schools seek to build their reputations in this U.S. News & World Report world through the hiring of prominent faculty members.

Although the advice and guidance given in this Essay are sometimes written with tongue firmly in cheek, I do attempt to accomplish two important objectives here. First, there has been scarcely anything written about the lateral hiring market for law professors, as opposed to the cottage industry that has been devoted to the entry-level law professor hiring market. This Essay methodically takes the lateral-to-be professor through every step of the lateral process from the first-person perspective of one who has been on the market for three years and successfully lateraled this past year.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, I want to contribute to the process of bringing back to legal academic writing the form of the first-person narrative. Like my colleague, David Case, I believe that, "the narrative voice is an important, and perhaps underutilized, tool in deconstructing the arbitrary processes of the legal academic hiring market." See David Case, The Pedagogical Don Quixote de la Mississippi, 33 U. Mem. L. Rev. 529, 530 n.2 (2003).

It is still in the draft stage, so I would appreciate people's criticisms, thoughts, and strong, violent reactions.

Posted by Paul Secunda at 11:26 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Larry Solum's Entry Level Hiring Report 2007-08

Over at Legal Theory blog, Larry Solum is gathering information for his annual law school entry level hiring report. If you know of any information, please contact Larry Solum.

For his previous entry level hiring reports click on the links below:
* Solum's 2006-07 Law School Entry Level Hiring Report
* Solum's 2005-06 Law School Entry Level Hiring Report
* Solum's 2004-05 Law School Entry Level Hiring Report
* Solum's 2003-04 Law School Entry Level Hiring Report

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 03:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Blogging to Be a Lateral

As much as I want to chime in on the Battlestar Galactica interview that the CO guys scored, it is hard for me to stay too long away from lateral market issues. So consider this the lost "Part 11" of my previous lateral market series.

As highlighted by Blog Emperor Caron today on TaxProf, Jay Brown (Denver) has posted an interesting new paper on SSRN: Of Empires, Independents, and Captives: Law Blogging, Law Scholarship, and Law Rankings.

Over the months, Jay has asked me to review various iterations of his paper and I had a chance to think about some of the arguments. Among his other thought-provoking arguments is that blogging may be a cost-efficient way for law schools to increase their rankings:

The paper also studies the impact of law blogging on rankings in the US News. In the short term, blogging can disproportionately benefit law schools and faculty outside the top tier. Blogs can enhance the reputation of the sponsoring faculty member, enable them to route around the biases inherent in the system of law review placements and SSRN downloads, permit a level of participation in the legal debate that might otherwise not be available, and facilitate the dissemination of information important to alumni and other constituencies. Most critically, however, they represent a cost effective mechanism for improving a law school's reputational rankings and, perforce, its overall rankings in the infamous US News and World Report.

I think I largely agree with Jay's points, but want to add another potentially provocative assertion here: good blogging can be an excellent way to not only get noticed on the lateral market, but for getting hired in that market. Jay notes that some day higher ranked schools may come to understand the advantage of having a high-profile blogger on their faculty and rather than start their own faculty blogs or encourage their faculty to start blogs will in essence purchase the services of an already well-regarded one for their school.

Now, I don't think law schools have started to hire law professor bloggers in drove, but there is a substantial list of full-time bloggers who have moved schools in the last three or so years. And no, I am not arguing that Brian Leiter would not have made his way to Chicago without his multiple blogs. I think this theory works best with someone who is in the lower second tier or in the third and fourth tiers. These individuals have a harder time getting noticed in the law professor community from their current academic platforms and are looking for ways to get their work out and be invited to conferences and symposia. So not only only does blogging certainly help with one getting newspaper and media interviews, but it also can pique the interest of law school appointment committees.

Finally, if Jay is right that good blogging helps increase a school's reputation, then it is in a school's best interest to start hiring bloggers to increase their reputation scores (and yes, I recognize my own self-interest in making this point, but I really believe it helped me during the lateral process that more people already knew who I was through Workplace Prof). Again, I think this point is more valid for lower-ranked schools where there is more room to grow in reputation ranking. Nevertheless, even elite schools who are bunched closely together in various rankings may do well to get the added public relations push that comes with having a well-known blogger on faculty.

In any event, go read Jay's great paper and feel free to give your comments to him either here or through his own blog, Race to the Bottom.

Posted by Paul Secunda at 11:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Law Professor Lateraling 101: Part 10 ("Should I Stay or Should I Go Now?")

More than just the song that I sang (poorly) to my wife at our wedding some ten years ago, the title of this post is the ultimate question you must answer in this lateral market process.

For some, the answer will be easy. The new school represents a jump in prestige, more research funding, better geographic location for family, a spouse has found a new job, or a family member is ill. Or it might be that you just can't stand the people you work with anymore (and, BTW, they can't stand you either). I know nothing about this last point.

But for some, the answer is not that easy at all. When I received my first lateral offer last year, it was a school that was basically on the same prestige level, in the same part of the country, and only slighter closer to my wife or my families. Another big issue for us, the presence of a religious community (more fellow Members of the Tribe) was also only slightly better.

In these types of situations, I think it behooves you to have a heart-to-heart with your current dean. Honestly explain the situation. This is an important conversation because not only do you want to see if the outstanding offer permits you to gain some perks through your newly-found leverage, but also it is nice to know whether or not you are truly valued by your institution.

Consider the following responses and tell me which one you would rather hear: "Congratulations. They are sure lucky to have a scholar and teacher on your level. Now, will you close the door. I was just in the middle of a record-breaking minesweeper game." Or: "Wow [crying hysterically]. That really sucks for me and the school. I will do anything, short of dressing in opposite sex clothing or agreeing to student parking, to get you to stay here. Please. PLEASE!!!"

Now, it is unlikely you will get either of these exact responses from your dean, but before you start negotiation with him or her against the other offer, ask yourself how much you really want to stay at your current institution. And how much you really want to stay at your current institution probably depends on how you are treated there. I would not even bother seeking a counter-offer if you know that you are not staying.

Some might argue that even if you really don't think there is much of a chance of staying at your current school, you should still see what you can get from your dean in order to play that off the offer from the other school. You could do that, but I would not recommend it. First of all, the law professor community exists in a very small world and it may get out that you played off the two sides when your decision was always clear. Also, if you engage in this type of hard bargaining only to leave your old school, you might not leave on good terms. And as I have told Dan Solove once if not a thousand times, "Don't burn bridges unless you absolutely have to. You should have not shown your feelings by drenching that person in your sputum."

So for me, because my first lateral offer did not present me with an obvious decision, I did have a talk with my dean and we worked out a package which would both increase my standing in the faculty and clearly established for me that I was valued by my institution. I did not then go back and re-negotiate with the other school, I just turned down that offer.

On the other hand, this year the offer I received was better in a way that my current school could not compete against. Better for religious reasons, better as far as being in an urban area, and better because of the nature of the law I teach and the fact that people in these parts still have trouble telling the different between unionism, communism, and homosexuality. So this time, although I think I came to fair terms with the dean at my new school, I did not come back and seek to get a better offer at my current school. I just told my dean that I was leaving (and be sure you tell the two involved deans first before making it public news because you never exactly know where that Leiter guy lurks) and appreciated all the school had done for me for the last six years.

And because mutual respect still exists on both sides, my last months here at Ole Miss have been pleasant (except for the raspberries I have been getting from colleagues who have had to take over my committee assignments). My thoughts now turn to such trivialities as selling my home, buying a home, figuring out where to place the kids in school, and basically starting my life over (and that of my family's) from scratch. Also they turn to how in the hell am I going to survive mountains of snow and treacherous, icy roads come next winter?

All of this is no big deal after one survives the lateral market. Really, the whole things is like American Gladiators for law professors, with Volokh and Balkin instead of Fury and Wolf.

Posted by Paul Secunda at 11:56 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Law Professor Lateraling 101: Part 9 (The Negotiation)

So you have a lateral offer in hand. Now what?

Assuming you did not accept the offer on the spot (which you shouldn't), the time has come to negotiate. How hard should you negotiate with possibly your future boss? Hard. Here's why: this might be the last, best chance you have to establish with some leverage the terms and conditions at your prospective new workplace. As one wise friend in the academy put it to me: "Don't be afraid to negotiate hard, especially over compensation. I was too soft. Once you are there, you have zero leverage. Get the number you want now, not ten years from now."

As far as the list of possible negotiation points, it is a long one and whether you need to address each of these issues depends on your current situation. For instance, where you stand with regard to tenure is THE BIG DEAL if no one has voted on your tenure yet. Schools take VASTLY different stances on whether they will credit previous years and how long you need to wait before you are eligible to go up for tenure.

Although my two offers came only one year apart, the first school wished me to wait until my third year on their campus before going up for tenure (which would have meant that I would have not gone up for tenure until my 8th year!), while Marquette was able to make me an offer with tenure. Now granted, I had just been voted tenure by the faculty at Mississippi and so Marquette had many of the materials it needed (including external reviews) for promotion and tenure purposes, but that still doesn't explain the vastly different offers in this regard I received. To be fair, state schools tend to be more constrained by University policy, so such schools might have less ability to work with you on tenure issues.

But at the very least, my experience suggests it might be easier to lateral once you already have tenure as opposed to trying to move pre-tenure. I know there are many arguments out there that you are more desirable pre-tenure because your upside is greater and there is less commitment necessary by the new school, but consider from a candidate's point of view. What if you move to a new school without tenure, something goes dreadfully wrong before you go up for tenure, and then you are out in the cold without a job at all at on the tenure-track in the academy?

Tenure remains the gold standard in the legal academy, and you should ask yourself whether it might be better to stay at your current school where tenure may be assured vs. venturing out and taking a chance of losing the greatest job in the world (I really do believe that). If you do consider jumping pre-tenure, make sure you ask: will I get full credit for prior years spent on the tenure track; will my existing publications count towards tenure; and is there a possibility of early tenure if merited and if so, what are the conditions for going up early?

So, that's tenure. Other issues?

The more important ones to discuss include: sabbatical (schools seem rather firm on not giving credit for sabbatical for years spent at another institution but schools are flexible to a larger or smaller degree on this point), moving expenses (if you can, accept nothing less than the school will pay the full move), subsequent trips to look for homes and do spouse interviews (get at least one of these, but two if possible - one house hunt is never enough), course load and courses that you will teach (here, depending on the prestige of the school, 3 or 4 courses may be normal, but if it's 4, try to negotiate a few 3 year loads so you can do your move and have a smooth transition. Also try to be somewhat flexible on the courses you will teach, but don't agree to teach a class that will make you miserable. Also try not to agree to too many new preps while you're making the transition), and research resources (including a travel budget, summer grants, research assistants, book allowance, etc.).

On this last item, the sweetness of an offer can be made especially sweet if summer grants and travel budgets are not only generous, but are guaranteed for a few years after your arrival and one can exceed their budget to attend speaking engagements as necessary. Not only do schools seem to have more flexibility in these areas of compensation, but it does say a lot about a school's commitment to scholarship and becoming more visible in the larger academy. On other hand, if the school is being stingy on, or completely cutting out, things like conference travel, research grants, and research assistants, my advice is: run and run fast.

On the other hand, bar dues and organizational membership fees (like in Law & Society) may or may not be something you want to waste much time negotiating over. Another thought: if you are relatively senior, you may want to ask for start-up funds to set up a program, institute, new law journal, or research program beyond what is normally given for research funds.

More or less important points you may wish to discuss include: the type of computer you will get and how often it will be replaced (how about a blackberry or other smart phone?), benefits (including 401(k) retirement and health insurance. Here there is probably little you can negotiate as these benefits are usually set campus-wide), will the school help with spousal job assistance (and what type of assistance - merely passing out a resume or pushing hard for the spouse to get a job. Obviously, this can be very important for some couples), and maybe an initial research leave (especially if an early sabbatical is not possible).

Finally, this is probably just personal taste, but things I would negotiate less (if at all) on include: parking space (no need to annoy senior colleagues. Get some exercise!), postcard announcing your arrival (just strikes me as tacky), and tickets to sporting events. On the last one, Marquette basketball is pretty darn good and it probably would have been next to impossible to score seats. On the other hand, if you are lateraling to a school without much of a football program (say Notre Dame or Michigan) or basketball program (say Florida or UCLA), it shouldn't be a problem. :()

All in all, there is a lot to talk about with the Dean and it likely will take a number of conversations and emails to sort this all out. So try not to be rushed into a decision or rush the school for that matter. A good dean will understand that an unreasonable exploding offer is not a good idea if one wants to start off with a happy new faculty member come the Fall semester.

With that out of the way, all that's left now is to decide whether to make the jump or hold pat. But as we will discuss in the next (and last?) post, your current school may have something to say about that.

Posted by Paul Secunda at 12:53 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Law Professor Lateraling 101: Part 8 ("You Like Me, You Really Like Me")

Rather than using a saying incorrectly (and having my junior colleague point it out for all to see in the comments (Chris, didn't you like dinner the other night?)), I decided to steal a line from one of my favorite actresses, Sally Fields, in the spirit of having just shown my Labor Law class "Norma Rae."

So, congratulations, you have received a lateral offer from a school (BTW, check to make sure it is not from one of those diploma mills). The process is over (or this never-ending series of posts is over), right? Wrong. Not only did I plan 10 parts for this riveting series (come hell or high water), but there are still some remaining issues to tackle including: what to say (and not to say) during that first conversation with the Dean (who will now take over from the appointments committee head), how to negotiate for different terms and conditions, and finally acceptance and other remaining matters like "the move." (hmmm, maybe I will go with 11 parts).

First, how you react to an offer probably first depends on what type of offer you are made. It seems that a number of years back, it was not unusual for a school to offer a candidate the look-see visit. The idea was that a year visiting the place would be mutually beneficial for both the school and the candidate. If the candidate's head started turning around and spewing vomit or, on the other hand, the candidate discovered a faculty culture that reminded them of a perpetual AALS conference, it might be best to part on amicable terms after a year while is at least pretending still to be friends.

On the other hand, and this is not the post to go into much detail, there seems to be an increasing trend, as witnessed by the CO/Faculty Lounge lateral moves list, for schools just to offer a permanent position from the get-go. This seems to be more common at the non-elite schools, and less likely at places like Harvard, Yale, Mississippi, or Marquette.

What?

In any event, there are some good posts by Christine Hurt in two parts on visiting here and here (only two parts, Chrstine, what's with that?). Brian Leiter in another post makes the good point that women and men with children have a much harder time picking up and visiting for a year.

But let's assume you are made a permanent offer, as I was in two instances in the last two years. The important point here is that there is nothing wrong in telling the Dean that you are thrilled to learn that the school is making you an offer. Again, it is probably not a good idea to exclaim that your next child (of either sex) will be named after said dean. In fact, it is almost never a good idea to accept the offer on the spot.

Here's why.

First, it may be that the Dean does not have all the specifics of the hire. In one of my cases, the Dean was new to the school and needed to check with others on the law faculty and across campus to determine things as crucial as salary, course load, and tenure policy. Even in my other situation, there was much to be determined through talking to other people around campus.

Second, there will be plenty of time for more in-depth (read: steel cage death match) negotiation later on. At present, it is enough to say that you are honored and humbled by the offer. You should probably let the Dean do most of the talking and hopefully you'll hear him or her say things like: "We are excited about the prospect of you joining our faculty," instead of, "Phew! That was a close one. You barely scraped by." This is also not the time to tell the Dean that you are planning to take sabbatical your first year or that you are dead set on making a play for the Associate Dean position.

Also, this goes back to the pushing and pulling dynamic that I discussed in an earlier post (I believe Post 4, Paragraph 11, line 3, Scott, if you are still paying attention). Now that it is clear that the school wants you, you have some leverage. This is not to say that you want to metamorphosize into a large disgusting bug. But it is fair to use the new power dynamic appropriately to your advantage.

For instance, you may decide that even though you love the place, it is necessary to have the Dean pay to send you and your family to check out the place in more detail. At least the two Deans that I have dealt with have been more than happy to pay for this expense. Such a trip may give you a chance to get to know future colleagues and to figure out whether said school is really excited and enthusiastic about you coming to their school.

Also, by taking your time with the offer, you can do the 'ol law review expedite process, only this time with schools. I think there is nothing wrong with telling schools that are still in the process of considering you that you now have an offer. It is amazing some times how schools that did not seem to be that interested in you become more so when they know another school has made you an offer. Now, this is not to say that other schools will necessarily move more quickly on a decision on you, but at least at that point you can make the school give you a definite answer.

So, accept your offer with real glee. You deserve it. You worked hard, sweated through a job talk, and travelled a few thousand miles. Sit back and let it all sink for a little bit.

Negotiations are just around the corner.

Posted by Paul Secunda at 11:39 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Law Professor Lateraling 101: Part 7 (Rejection Is A Dish Best Served Cold)

I know, I know, before I start getting smart ass comments from the likes of Slater and Moss, that it is "revenge" that is the dish in question, but it seems to me that rejection is also quite a frosty platter as well. And believe me, anyone who goes through the lateral market will be rejected at some point.

As my co-blogger, Rick Bales, at Workplace Prof aptly puts it, "Folks entering this market need to know that they're not going to hit a home run every time, and that what may be a home run in one school's ballpark may well be a foul ball in another school's ballpark."

And I have had my share of foul balls. We'll talk home runs tomorrow.

In the last couple of posts, I have described the ways in which I heard about the rejection of my candidacy and for my own mental health, I do not review them again hear. Instead, I want to focus on how to turn rejection into a constructive enterprise or better put, how to respond to rejection properly.

It may be obvious to some, but a rejection may only be an initial rejection. Because committee members, curricular needs, and just school politics change, it is conceivable that you may have another opportunity to revisit a candidacy with that school in the near future. The point is not to burn any bridges if there is even a remote possibility that you could see yourself going to that school in the future. Don't respond to a rejection by saying: "Fine! That's just fine! I'll be laughing my ass off when I am choosing between Harvard, a federal judgeship, and a sweet government position in a few years!" Suppress the urge.

Indeed, in a frank discussion with the head of a lateral appointments committee that ended up not having me back to their school, he explained that lateral hiring is a multi-year process, not just because you might be offered a look-see visitorship instead of a permanent position in the future, but because it may take a few years of interaction with a school before they are ready to move on your candidacy. As an example, he discussed a situation where his school identified a prospect in the Fall of 2002, invited her for a visit in the Spring of 2006, she visited in the Fall of 2006, and then they made her an offer that she accepted in the Spring of 2007 to join that faculty in the Fall of 2007. So five year courtships in the lateral market can and do happen.

So, as Monty Python pointed out in the Life of Brian, one should always look on the bright side of life. When in your most lonely of loneliness moments, just remember that the lateral market has a funny way of working out and that rejection call or email may be just the start of something great.

Posted by Paul Secunda at 12:52 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Law Professor Lateraling 101: Part 6 (The Waiting Game)

Maybe it is better stated that this is really "The Crying Game," with a bizarre, upsetting ending a lot of the time.

You have now made it through the "everything" interview and you are sitting back nervously in your office waiting for the phone to ring, an email to chime in, or, God forbid, a snail mail letter to arrive (never a good thing in these situations, and you have to wonder after having spent all that time invested in you, what type of nimrod would be so tone deaf to send you a form letter saying to never bother them again). I can remember being disappointed during this period when my mother, wife, children, or 85-year-old grandmother was on the other side of the line. And it is hard to have a good response to your 5-year-old son when he asks, "Daddy, why do you sound disappointed that I called?"

In any event, don't, I repeat DON'T, give into temptation and call or email your contact at the school. Just wait. You are not going to increase your chances of an offer by acting like a persistent pain-in-the-neck. Indeed, if anything, it might give those who are about to vote on you a look into the future about what it might be like to have you on the faculty. The appointments committee or Dean will call you (preferably the Dean) when they need additional information to complete your file (usually references from fellow faculty or student evaluations) or when they have something to say to you of import. It is extremely unlikely that the person on the other end of the phone is going to say: "You know that it is great that you called/wrote because I meant to tell you a week ago that we wanted to make you an offer. I've just been busy."

In any event, the lack of contact may be preferable to some of the the waiting game experiences I have had over the years.

In year one on the lateral market, I was under the impression that since those who I had dinner with at my fly back interview were talking as if I had already been made an offer and the whole thing was a fait accompli that it was just a matter of time before the official offer would come from the Dean.

It retrospect it should have dawned on me that since I never met the Dean at that school at the interview (and haven't to this day) that an offer was really not all that likely. In any event, about a month later I told my friend about my current situation at this school, at which said so-called friend blithely informed me that my shoo-in job had been given to another person. Talk about an awkward moment. When the head of the appointments committee got in touch with me later that night, I started the conversation by saying that I already knew that I didn't get the position. Another awkward moment. He was a none-too-happy camper that the cat got out of the bag, but appointments committees out there let this be a lesson: make sure you call all your candidates before having your committee and the successful candidate tell the world that they got the job. It just might save you from saying embarrassing things to the rejected candidate like, "I'll bet some day you'll be the head of an appointment committee turning me down." Yeah, that made me feel a whole lot better.

I have also been in a waiting game situation where I really never got a final answer. I stayed in touch with one committee over three MONTHS as they interviewed other candidates. I was finally told that I wasn't their first choice (really?), but that anything was still possible. Actually, if you are told that it don't look good, but you never know, say you do know and move on. You certainly don't want to go to school that has made it clear that you are not their first choice (more on this in a subsequent post) and are less then enthusiastic with you joining their faculty. Foot dragging is never a good sign.

Finally, this may be hard to believe, but you may never get any type of answer. In one situation, the one from the last post where the appointments head shook her head sadly at me, I never really got a follow up decision until I wrote basically saying: "I was rejected by the committee, right?" and the Chair just said right, as if to say "Duh, you would think that you would have been more self-aware of your own crashing and burning." You would think.

In any event, as difficult as this may be, the overall advice to glean from this post is: WAIT. And then wait some more. And guess what? If you are never contacted, chances are you probably didn't get that job offer.

Posted by Paul Secunda at 11:57 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

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

As 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.

Posted by Paul Secunda at 11:17 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Law Professor Lateraling 101 - Part 4 (The "Nothing" Interview)

Of course, when I call this part of the lateral process the "nothing interview," I mean that somewhat figuratively and I am speaking from the candidate's point of view. But really, I don't know anyone who has been hired based solely on one of these initial interviews.

The "nothing interview" can literally mean no preliminary interview at all, as when you are invited directly back to the school for your fly-back/job talk interview. This situation is somewhat less frequent, but I have done interviews this way with at least three or four schools. And that "supremely important" interview process will be the subject of my next post.

More common is some sort of preliminary interview. This can take place in person or over the phone. I personally have not done a teleconference interview, but I know others who have, and those people are mostly universal in the discomfort they felt going through this disembodying process. There is nothing quite like having questions thrown at you by four or five people thousands of miles away and having to answer those questions without getting the sense of whether they are laughing silently at your responses or are making outrageous, googly faces to their colleagues. Appointment committee people out there, if you are listening, please do us all a favor and stop the madness. Just say: NO MORE TELECONFERENCE INTERVIEWS!

Preliminary interviews are usually held at the AALS meat market or at the school itself. Again, even though I did fill out the FAR form one year, and was invited back for interviews (I swear), I did not go as a candidate.

I did, however, interview 3 or 4 lateral candidates from the other side this year as a member of an appointments committee. I personally think law school appointment committees should separate lateral interviews and entry-level interviews at the meat market. Otherwise, it is like comparing apples and oranges. The committee should decide what it is looking for and go from there. In any event, as some of you know, there is only so much you can learn from a candidate in 20-30 minutes and if you are the candidate, you want to radiate energy, enthusiasm, and intellectual curiosity and engagement. There is some to gain and much to loose in this environment, but you want the committee members yearning to learn more about what exactly makes you tick.

One other point: some schools might invite you to a meal rather than a sit-down, in-hotel room interview as a lateral. I think these are actually better methods for gaging the personality of the candidate and whether they will fit into the law school culture, which is of course very important. But it may be harder to explain your latest theory why interdisciplinarity is ruining the academy if you have juice from your Filet running down your chin.

Finally, you may be asked to come directly to the school for a preliminary interview. Appointments committees: I think these are a waste of time. I did two of these in my second year of looking and kept thinking to myself: " Why don't I just stand up and give a job talk," and then they can feed me lunch. It makes no sense to do an hour interview while sitting around a table with somewhere between 6-8 people who ask again whether I was REALLY interested in lateraling. (And although I wanted to be polite as possible, I felt like saying that I don't usually travel close to 1000 miles to meet new people). Interestingly, from these two interviews on campus, two different things happened. One school decided not to invite me back and the other school decided to hire someone else before deciding to call me back again (I guess in retrospect I didn't answer the genuine interest question so well). In short, it behooves the appointments committee and the candidate to get on with it and skip this nothing interview part of the process.

So, in sum, there are a lot of ways that your "nothing interview" may occur, but your job as a candidate is to come across as an enthusiastic person that the appointments committee is dying to learn more about.

BTW, before I sign off, I must say that I thought at least Moss or Slater would have commented on my bizarre use of the semi-word "entropotic" in the last post. Maybe they really are as off as I am.

Posted by Paul Secunda at 11:54 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Law Professor Lateraling 101 - Part 3 (Contact)

So while my soon-to-be esteemed colleague, Bruce Boyden, blogs away on an important civil procedure topic, I continue my random thoughts on the lateral hiring process.

Having decided that you have what it takes, and somehow finding that elusive lateral market, you have started to receive calls, emails, letters, and even a text message or two. Thank goodness for Blackberries.

Not surprisingly, the first question one is normally asked when contacted is some version of: "Are you really genuinely interested in coming here or are you just pulling our chain?" I'm not sure if the question is completely rhetorical, but, in any event, it is important to state enthusiastically for the record that you would give your left arm and perhaps the naming of your next child to be deemed worthy of the institution calling you (just kidding, kinda of).

Some obvious points and some not so obvious points about first contact. Obvious: don't say you might be interested depending on how other schools work out (even if this might be true) and you would be happy to consider said institution as a "safety" or "back-up" possibility.

Not so obvious: don't act desperate.

I will repeat this crucial point in later posts in this series, but the worse thing you can do is make the inquirer believe you need to leave your institution because you did something wrong there or you are just a malcontent. The lateral process represents a pulling-and-pushing dynamic. You never want to be too far on either side - pulling away too much or pushing too hard to get in the door. So saying: "This is my dream job. I would leave my spouse for it," even if true, is something better to keep mentally in the upstairs compartment.

One's real or faux enthusiasm is sometimes hard to moderate, especially when most people who call you from the appointments committee will heap praise on your credentials and make it seem that you just successfully lateraled over the phone. Don't buy into it. This is a long process and the first contact is essentially a feeling out process where the interested school wants to express the genuineness of its interest, explain to you, preliminarily, why their school rocks, and also to make sure you have basic social skills and won't have to be stuffed in a closet once they hire you. On your side, you must act appropriately flattered by the professed interest, ask not too sensitive questions at the outset (like: so how are you going to solve that student diversity problem of yours?), and talk knowledgeably about the school without giving your hand away. In other words, basically act like a mensch.

During this first contact, some schools will ask to meet you at the AALS meat market in D.C. Some will invite you to do a phone interview or ask you to do a preliminary interview at their school, while others will cut right to the chase and ask you to do a fly-back/job-talk interview. Still others will just chat you up and may never be in touch with you again in this lifetime or send you a polite reason for why they rejected your candidacy when you inquire by email or phone on the progress of your candidacy (here's a hint: if they don't contact you again, it is not an oversight or mistake. Rarely does following up (too much pushing) lead to a good result). That being said, I have known some committees to wait months before getting back in touch with a candidate. In any event, if you haven't heard anything by March or April, chances are you're looking for nothing more than a podium-filler visitorship (which could be something you might be interested in).

In any event, the take home point for this post is to find a nice balance between pushing and pulling during this early stage of contact and for the love of everything that is sacred on this entropotic earth, DON"T ACT DESPERATE!!!!

PLEASE!!!

Posted by Paul Secunda at 01:37 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Law Professor Lateraling 101: Part 2 (Where Does One Find the Lateral Market Exactly?)

Ok, so yesterday I introduced this law professor lateraling series and started with some thoughts about what it might take to make you lateral material. I might have added BTW that there is much disagreement over whether it is better to go on the lateral market pre-tenure or post-tenure. I think post-tenure for reasons I'll explain when I get to the offer phase of this series.

The next issue to consider is: where in the heck does one find this mythical lateral market? Especially during my first year on the lateral market, I received conflicting advice about how one puts oneself "out there" to be considered. Should you send letters to school appointment committees you wish to target? Should you fill out a FAR form and relive glorious meat market days? Or should simply wait to be called by those who are interested in having you come to their schools?

Unfortunately, there is no right answer on this one both because lateral candidates have succeeded in following all of the above methods and because there is no obvious meat market the way entry-levels have the AALS meat market.

So here's my best advice.

Step one: get to know the people you need to know in your field and in other forums in which you participate. I know that is oblique, but really what you should do is find out who are the movers and shakers in your field and overall and get to know them and have them get to know you. Why? Because when hiring committees start lateral searches, they not only canvass people on their committee about prospects, but also reach out and call those whose opinion is most respected on these matters. When that call is made to Madame Mover and Shaker in your field or to Monsieur Big Wig Blogger and they are asked who is good and upcoming in their field or in general, you want your name to be one of three or five names on their lips. And preferably the first one they mention with some enthusiasm and knowledge.

Unfortunately, it is hard today to get people to recognize junior scholars merely by publications alone. Again, it is important to self-promote (hopefully in a tasteful way) by blogging or guest-blogging, asking scholars in your field to give comments on your articles (don't be shy, only one person has ever told me no), and by attending and speaking at conferences and symposia with adequate time to get to know your elders. Nothing like a one-on-one lunch with someone whose writings you used to admire in law school. This is especially important for those of you who wish to lateral from lower ranked schools. No offense against Mississippi, but sometimes you need to shout to let people know that you exist outside of Dixie. My blogging at Workplace Prof Blog was key, but also was my friendship with fellow bloggers here and at other blogs like Volokh Conspiracy, PrawfsBlawg (where I guest blogged in August 2006), Feminist Law Professors, Leiter's Law School Reports, Conglomerate, Legal Theory Blog, and TaxProf (home of the Blog Emperor).

Having said that getting known is really the most important way to get on the lateral market and so people will contact you instead of vice versa, there are other ways that junior professors have found their way to the Promise Land.

I know of a number of professors who have filled out the FAR form and gone back to the meat market. Of course, the downside of this is for those of you who do not want their home schools to know that they are looking (and, of course, the lack of comments to my last post by people tends to suggest that a lot of people care about this). In my second year of looking to lateral, I had a good reason to be looking as there was a sickness in the family and we wanted to move for geographical reasons. As a result, I told my Dean and Associate Dean that I was looking and they were extremely supportive. Interestingly, although I received about 5 or 6 meat market interviews, I did not go to the meat market that year. Instead, I visited some of those schools in person and declined interviews that were not good geographical fits. As it turned out, I did receive a lateral offer in my second year of looking, but not through the meat market, but because of being known to a big name in my field and because I reached out to friends in the blogosphere on that faculty.

On the other hand, the person we hired this year at Mississippi while I was on the appointments committee was a lateral who we knew of both inside and outside of the FAR process. We actually reviewed her FAR Form and did an initial interview in Washington. I know another person who used the FAR process to move from a Fourth Tier school to a First Tier school this year. All this seems to suggest that as long as you do not have concerns about people knowing your looking, you might as well go forward with all the approaches: get known, file a FAR, and target letters/emails to appointment committees. Although I think letters are by far the least effective method (no one wants to be added to a long stack of paper), you just never know.

And that, my friends, sums up the lateral market in general: you just never know - sometimes you try to put yourself "out there" without actually being "out there," and other times you do nothing proactive and are "out there" anyway.

Go figure.

Posted by Paul Secunda at 10:40 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Law Professor Lateraling 101 - Part One (Are You Experienced?)

Before I start this series of posts on the process and mechanics of law professor lateraling, let me first give a shout out to Dan, Dave, and the other girls and boys of CO for letting this Workplace Prof talk about things non-labor and employment.

So, I was thinking that I should blog on a topic that I enjoy myself the most reading about when I read various blogs and that I know something about. And although I do enjoy an occasional post about the latest academic article or trend, I always find myself intrigued by the comings and goings of law professors at the entry-level and after.

Indeed, I'm not alone in this guilty pleasure as witnessed by the vast amount of advice given to entry-level professors by law professor luminaries like Brian Leiter, Orin Kerr, Eric Goldman, and Brad Wendel. I do not attempt to duplicate that advice here, but instead want to spend some time on the less-discussed and more mysterious law professor lateral process.

And just to be clear, this post is not about why law professors are lateraling or whether the hiring of laterals is a good way for law schools to rise in the rankings (two topics which have been ably covered by other bloggers here and elsewhere), but instead is about the nitty gritty of what it takes to lateral and how the process and mechanics work. It is amazing the number of times law professors have asked me to share with them my lateraling experiences. So I offer these humble observations as someone who has been on the lateral market for the last three years and who has been turned down by numerous schools (including two after fly backs), turned down a lateral offer, and finally, accepted a lateral offer to Marquette this year. I have also served on my school's appointments committee which hired a lateral this past year.

Each post in this series will attack a different part of the lateral process and hopefully will act as a clearinghouse for those of you who now or someday may want to know what it takes to lateral.

But first a disclaimer.

There may be as many factors beyond your control about whether you obtain a lateral job as those that are within your control. These factors include whether you are a junior or senior faculty, whether you are tenured or not, what curriculum slot the school is looking to fill, what demographic diversity you bring, the crazy politics of a place, or even just the crazy interior world of one faculty member who has made it his or her life goal to get you for reasons not apparent to anyone (including maybe even said law professor).

So with that as an aside, how do you know if you are a potential lateral material? Most seem to agree that the number one factor is how prolific of a legal writer you are (of course, this is true to a lesser extent on the entry-level market). Not surprisingly, most schools want an objective way to determine whether you will be a ongoing, contributing scholar on their faculty. Good teaching and being a good contributor on faculty committees may also help, but I do not know of anyone who got a lateral position for winning teacher of the year or for taking one for the team and chairing the Admissions Committee.

Also, it is not enough that you write a lot. A lot of people these days write a lot. There needs to be quality measured by who publishes your articles, books, and other writings, and increasingly, how many times your articles are downloaded on SSRN or featured on blogs or other on-line resources. Also, among different types of publications, treatises and casebooks are OK, but most schools want some sign that the person is an original, creative thinker whose ideas help to advance or change their discipline in significant ways.

What else besides publications? People may disagree on this one, but a national profile is normally essential. Scholars no longer achieve that profile just through law review articles, but also through blogging and networking at national conferences like AALS, SEALS, and Law & Society. The more people who know you, the more likely you will be invited to symposium and conferences where your work will be spotlighted. And, of course, the more your work is spotlighted nationally and virtually, the better chance you will make a name for yourself (though some people have achieved this notoriety in exactly the wrong way - no names please in the comments).

Finally, even at this initial point of determining whether you would be a good lateral candidate, you should consider whether you have been someone who has taken the initiative in doing projects outside of your institutional responsibilities (though for some schools it may be important if you are dedicated to institutional building, especially with newly-founded law schools). Schools will likely be interested in knowing whether you have been an officer in an organization like the ABA or AALS, have helped put together symposium or conferences in your discipline, or have written op-ed or articles in major newspapers and magazines. All these are indicia that you will bring welcome attention to your new institution and will help that new institution sell itself to the greater legal academic community.

So, that is my two cents on what it takes to be a candidate with some likelihood of actually landing a lateral spot. No one will probably ever know how many professors consider lateraling, go through the interview process, etc., but we do know that even with increasing numbers, the overall number of professor lateraling in any given year is still relatively small. Maybe 125 out of 5000 last year? So it is important to have your ducks in a row before going through this exhausting process.

Next post will be on the mechanics of how to actually put yourself out there in that hard-to-find, Cheshire-like, lateral market.

Posted by Paul Secunda at 02:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Attention Law Review Editors

I had a delightful hour yesterday afternoon here at the AALS with one of the proprietors of this blog who suggested I use the space to pitch a piece for publication, and, well, why not? So if you are not a law review editor, feel free to skip the rest of this post. Indeed, PLEASE skip the rest of this post because the combination of shameless and humiliating huckstering, self-aggrandizement, and groveling is likely to make you lose your lunch.

Here's the deal. Over the summer, I posted a 9,000 word essay on SSRN entitled "Memo to Lawyers: How Not to Retire and Teach," providing observations and advice to the long-time (or not so long-time) practitioner who might be contemplating a move to the academy (the first piece of advice being never to utter the disqualifying words: "I'd like to retire and teach.") Based on feedback from colleagues, I feel confident in saying it is one of the resources, for better or worse, along with Brad Wendel's classic "The Big Rock Candy Mountain: How to Get a Job in Law Teaching," to which aspiring legal academics turn.

As of yesterday, it had been downloaded well over 1,300 times, making it the number 8 all-time paper in the Legal Education journal. At one point over the summer, it was number 4 in all of SSRN. I regularly get e-mail notes from academics (including several law school deans, one of whom told me how much he/she enjoyed it but hoped I was also doing serious work) and practitioners about the essay.

I'll pass on trying to explain (because I don't understand the rationale) why it was deemed not eligible for submission to the one really natural specialty journal. I will note that I submitted it broadly to general law reviews via ExpressO in the August submission season, and completely struck out. (This was not up there with the - deservedly - pitiless trashing of a book manuscript I foolishly and prematurely submitted to a major university press - see blog posts to come on learning to fail well - but it was not a highlight of my life either.) I've now had several questions here at the AALS meeting (including from my virtual host) about where I placed it, and my sheepish reply is that I did not. I will also pass on the rest of the rationalizing about why, and simply say that the article is still on the market for a law review that would like a gift that keeps on giving (in reprints perhaps if not in citations).

Any law review editor looking to fill out a volume with something that people actually read and spare me any more sheepish responses ought to drop me a note at jlipshaw-at-suffolk.edu.

Posted by Jeff Lipshaw at 12:40 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Temple Law Dean Search

I am a member of the Temple Law School Dean Search Committee. In that role, I'm happy to announce that our search is now online, complete with a nifty website and a position specification. I think it is a terrific opportunity, as the law school has had a remarkable run under current Dean Bob Reinstein and is well-positioned to continue to build on its recent success. (Shucks, we even have our own YouTube Channel).

If you are interested in learning more, or in applying, please click here.

Posted by Dave Hoffman at 12:01 AM | TrackBack

Law Teaching Fellowships

Paul Caron has updated his list of schools offering law teaching fellowships for aspiring law professors. Currently, about 25 schools offer such positions. Paul's post also contains useful links for teaching advice.

For the perspective of one who is currently doing a teaching fellowship, including salary information for several fellowships, see this interesting post here by our guest blogger Rick Swedloff.

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 10:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Fellowship of the (Hi)Ring

Thanks to Dave and the rest of the perma-bloggers for the invitation to blog here. I have been told that I am the first non-tenure-track guest on this site. I am one of those aspiring academics in limbo: not yet on the tenure-track. In short, I, like so many other aspiring academics these days, have a graduate fellowship.

There has been a proliferation of fellowships and VAP positions; and it seems clear that more and more entry-level candidates are seeking some sort of pre-market academic employment. Perusing the list of last years' entry level hires, many of the successful candidates had either completed a fellowship, a visitorship, or some other form of academic study beyond law school.

Cynically, one could suggest that graduate fellowships are a means for law schools to extend the tenure track on the backs of low-cost labor. Let's examine this position a little closer.

First, entry-level candidates are now not judged on potential, but on a proven record of publication. Thus, candidates are expected to have spent time before entering the academy writing and publishing. To the extent that writing articles takes time, schools have lengthened the tenure track. And graduate fellowships are one place that aspiring profs can park themselves as they write their way into the academy. And, although you can't blame the longer tenure-track on the fellowships, they are indicative of the longer lead time to tenure.

Further, while by no means poverty-inducing, taking a graduate fellowship is not a lucrative proposition. (Then again, neither is academia in general.) Georgetown pays $70,000 for an eighteen month period. Harvard offers $60,000 per year for the Clemenko. Yale offers $42,250 for the Ruebhausen and Ribicoff. Stanford offers $50,000 for a first year fellow and $55,000 for returning fellows. Temple offers $36,000. These stipends are certainly less than the average tenure track professor. [Feel free to leave more details about the stipends in the comments section. Applicants may be interested.]

Okay, so perhaps these fellowships do provide cheap labor and an extended period of work before a tenure decision. But how do schools reap the benefits of the extended tenure track? First, those schools that offer graduate fellowships benefit from additional pre-tenure labor, cheaper labor. Second, to the extent that anyone counts the number of publications from a school within a year, schools that offer fellowships, may get additional credit for articles produced by fellows. Lastly, all schools benefit from the greater sorting potential based on more applicant writing samples. So perhaps the cynic is correct.

But these fellowships can mean a great deal more than just a place to write for individuals who come to the academy several years after law school or for folks from outside the traditional academic mold. For instance, beyond writing an article or two, one could spend time during a fellowship finding a voice and reading the current literature to find where he or she fits in. Further, one could think seriously about what motivates him or her as a scholar. That is, one could take the research agenda question seriously. Moreover, one could learn to teach by developing a syllabus, writing lesson plans, and standing up in front of a class. And, one could meet other faculty members and find out how they develop ideas for articles and budget their time between writing, classes, students, and service.

Posted by Rick Swedloff at 08:44 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

If You Want to Know What Your Colleagues Think About You, Take Their Deposition: Tenure Litigation at Michigan

As was widely reported, the University of Michigan Law School is defending a discrimination lawsuit by a former professor denied tenure by two votes. OUTlaws, the Wayne State Law School gay, lesbian, bisexual and trandgender student group, posted most of the litigation papers on line here. Although the circumstances are on any view of the facts unfortunate, the documents, including emails, letters and depositions of two dozen or so profs, represent one of the most comprehensive portraits of a tenure decision and the institutional personality of a law faculty that is ever likely to be publicly available. Even key participants in a decision could not know the facts at the level of detail possible when witnesses are put under oath and documents obtained by subpoena. There is much interesting in this material, for example, the conduct of the lawyers for the lawyers. As NYLS Professor Arthur Leonard blogged here, Michigan's counsel at first took the embarrassing position that their policy of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation was not enforceable in contract, not a binding promise. They later withdrew that position.

If Michigan's lawyers took a litigation position that the University felt compelled to repudiate, plaintiff's lawyers also made an argument that I find hard to believe would have been advanced directly by a faculty member. One of the no votes, plaintiff's attorneys argued, might well be unworthy of consideration because it was cast by a professor with a mere Ph.D.; this faculty member "has no legal training and is not a lawyer" (page 23 of this document). Wow--many non-J.D.s do spectacular work and have as much to say about legal scholarship as we lawyers--I'll bet that Yale, for example, lets Susan Rose-Ackerman and Alvin Klevorick vote on important academic matters without fear that their non-J.D.-hood compromises the quality of decisionmaking.

The papers also raise the delicate question of whether membership in a church with discriminatory views is evidence that the member also has discriminatory views. Here is the transcript of a tape recording introduced into evidence on summary judgment. The recording was made by a private detective who chatted up a faculty member's pastor; the pastor did not conceal the church's views on being gay. Putting a wire on a priest--that's hardball.

Posted by Jack Chin at 10:25 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Ambitious Academics and the Ex-Factor

I interviewed for Arizona at the AALS in DC, met lots of great candidates, and we are starting to have people to Tucson. Some candidates, it was reliably rumored, already held offers, and others are certainly starting to get them at schools around the country. Surely candidates considering multiple offers will look at scholarly impact studies and rankings, such as this interesting one from Professor Michael J. Yelnosky at Roger Williams. Most such studies focus on the current faculty, an important factor, but candidates thinking about mobility in the future should also examine the size and strength of the former faculty. I don't mean to plug my former employer Western New England College School of Law, but I use them as an example because I know their track record in giving people opportunities to move. A fairly complete list of ex-faculty includes:

Len Baynes at St. Johns, Wendy Gordon at Boston University, Jim Gardner at Buffalo, the late Chris Iijima formerly at Hawai’i, Val Vojdik at West Virginia, Robin Kundis Craig at Florida State, Sue Liemer at Southern Illinois, Jay Mootz at Penn State, Lenese Herbert at Albany, Eric Miller at St. Louis, the late Bill Lash who taught at George Mason, Madeleine Placensia at Tulsa, Keith Werhan at Tulane, me at Arizona, and Don Dunn, Dean of the University of La Verne College of Law. On three occasions, two faculty members independently lateraled to the same school: Dennis Patterson and Don Korobkin to Rutgers, Camden, Scott Howe and Dennis Binder to Chapman, David Moss to Wayne, and Joan Mahoney, to be Wayne’s Dean. Taylor Flynn went to Northeastern and came back.

While teaching where Wendy Gordon taught back in the day does not automatically make you as smart or productive as Wendy Gordon, a strong history of mobility suggests effective support for scholarship and the presence of colleagues who can offer good feedback. It also may suggest that a school is trying to hire the best teachers and scholars that it can, without worrying about the probability that the candidate will stay on the faculty for life. At Western New England, the policy was if you love somebody set them free; reportedly, the long-time dean's opinion was that it was better to get a good person for a year or two than not to have them at all. If a school has a policy like this, other schools will know, and look at that school as a potential source for laterals. By contrast, I've heard rumors of schools refusing to let faculty take visits, for fear that they will be lured away.

I don't expect schools to advertise that lots of teachers have moved on, and it would probably be impolitic to ask, at least before having an offer in hand. Over time, systematic data will be available from the Dan FIller lateral move posts (2007 here, 2006 here) But until a complete study is done, I'd advise candidates interested in the possibility of future mobility to discreetly investigate the history of lateralization in schools they are considering.

Posted by Jack Chin at 12:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack