Lateral Moves by Law School Faculty 2006

Newly updated as of April 7

Here is the list of lateral moves. Thanks to all have provided information thus far. I'm certain that the list is incomplete and it may have errors as well. New information, and corrections, are of course welcome. I've organized the list by destination school. I won't take up all the space on the blog with this post, so follow the jump.

Arizona
Marc Miller from Emory (Crim Law)
Carol Rose (Environmental Law) from Yale

Arizona State
Newest Marjorie Kornhauser (Tax Law) from Tulane

California-Berkeley
Newest Gillian Lester (Employment Law) from UCLA
Newest Eric Talley (Corporations, Law and Economics) from Southern California

California - Davis
Newest Lisa Ikemoto (Health Law, Property, Family Law) from Loyola L.A.

California - Hastings
Nell Jessup Newton from Connecticut. Will become dean.

Campbell
New Melissa Essary from Baylor. Will become dean.

Catholic
Suzette Malveaux (Civil Procedure, Complex Litigation, Employment Law) from Alabama
New Elizabeth Winston (IP) from Whittier

Chicago-Kent (llinois Institute of Technology)
New Felice Batlan (Business Organizations, Securities) from Tulane

Cincinnati
Barbara Black (Securities) from Pace

Colorado
Victor Fleischer (Deals, Venture Capital & Private Equity, Innovation Policy) from UCLA

Columbia
Robert Scott (Contracts, Commercial Law) from Virginia
Elizabeth Scott (Family Law, Juvenile Justice, Property) from Virginia
Philip Hamburger (Legal History) from Chicago

Connecticut
Bethany Berger (Civil Procedure, Indian Law) from Wayne State

Cornell
Eduardo Penalver (Property, Law and Religion) from Fordham

Drexel University Law (opening Fall 2006)
Dan Filler (Crim Law) from Alabama
Jennifer Rosato (Family Law, Children’s Rights, Civil Procedure) from Brooklyn Law
Barry Furrow (Health Law, Torts) from Widener. Will direct health law program.
Terry Jean Seligman (Legal Research and Writing) from Arkansas. Will direct legal writing program.

Duke
Mitu Gulati (Renaissance Man) from Georgetown

Emory
Newest David Partlett from Washington & Lee. Will become dean.

Florida
Yariv Brauner (International and Business Tax) from Arizona State

Florida State
Robin Craig (Environmental Law, Water Law) from Indiana – Indianapolis

Fordham
Grainne de Burca (European Union Law) from the European University Institute in Florence
Sean Griffith (Corporate Law) from Connecticut

George Mason
Harry Hutchison (Labor Law, Corporations) from Wayne State

Georgetown
Randy Barnett from Boston University (Con Law, Contracts)

Georgia
Julian Cook (Crim Law) from Michigan State

Harvard
Mark Tushnet (Con Law, Legal History, CLS) from Georgetown
Adrian Vermeule (Con Law, Legislation, Statutory Interp) from Chicago
Newest Gerald Neuman (Immigration law, International Human Rights, Comparative Law, Constitutional law) from Columbia
Newest Bruce Mann (Legal History) from Penn

Illinois
Christine Hurt (Corporate Law) from Marquette
Amitai Aviram (Antitrust, Business Associations, Law and Economics) from Florida State
Robert Lawless (Corporate, Bankruptcy), from UNLV
Newest Andrew Morriss (Corporate Law, Law & Economics) from Case Western Reserve

Indiana – Bloomington
Donna Nagy (Securities) from Cincinnati

Iowa
New Angela Onwuachi-Willig (Family Law, Evidence, Critical Race Theory) from UC-Davis

Kansas
Gail Agrawal from North Carolina. Will become dean.

Lewis & Clark
John Parry from Pittsburgh (Con Law, Civil Rights, Crim Law)

Loyola – Chicago
Gregory Shaffer from Wisconsin. Taking Wing Tat- Lee Chair in International Law
Newest Steve Ramirez (Corporate Law, Law and Economics, Race and Law) from Washburn

Loyola - LA
Michael Waterstone (Civil Procedure, Disability Law, Civil RIghts) from Univ. of Mississippi

Marquette
Chad Oldfather (Procedure, Evidence, and Judicial Process) from Oklahoma City

McGeorge/ University of the Pacific
Miriam Cherry (Business Associations, Law and Popular Culture) from Samford University/Cumberland
Sabine Schlemmer-Schulte (Business Associations, Commercial Law, International Law) from University of Leiden/Max-Planck-Institute for International Law Heidelberg

Michigan
Douglas Laycock from Texas
Margaret Jane Radin (IP, Cyberlaw,Property Theory, Contracts) from Stanford
Jessica Litman (IP) from Wayne State

Michigan State
Matthew L.M. Fletcher from North Dakota.
Wenona Singel from North Dakota

Minnesota
Alexandra Klass (Environmental Law, Property) from William Mitchell College of Law
Heidi Kitrosser (Con Law) from Brooklyn Law School
Claire A. Hill (Business Organizations, Behavioral L&E) from Chicago-Kent
New Thomas Cotter (IP) from Washington & Lee
New Francesco Parisi (comparative law, international law, European Union law, law and economics) from George Mason

North Carolina Central
Newest Wendy Scott (Constitutional Law, Race and the Law) from Tulane

Northwestern
Nancy Staudt (Tax) from Washington University in St. Louis
Lee Epstein (Poli Sci and Law, Empirical Research) from Washington University in St. Louis
Funmi Arewa (IP, Law and Technology) from Case

Notre Dame
Margaret Brinig (Family Law, Law and Econ) from Iowa
Ed Edmonds from St. Thomas. Will serve as library director and professor of law.

NYU
Cynthia Estlund (Employment, Labor Law) from Columbia
Roderick Hills (Con Law, Local Government law, Education Law) from Michigan
Robert Sitkoff (Trusts and Estates) from Northwestern
Jeremy Waldron from Columbia

Oregon
Hari Osofsky (International Environmental Law) from Whittier

Penn State Dickinson
Kit Kinports (Crim Law, Constitutional Litigation) from Illinois
Stephen Ross (Antitrust, Statutory Interpretation) from Illinois
Marie Reilly (Bankruptcy, Contracts, Commercial Law) from South Carolina
John Lopatka (Antitrust, Torts) from South Carolina
Ellen Dannin (Labor, Employment Law) from Wayne State

Pittsburgh
Peter Oh (Business Organizations, Securities, L&E) from William Mitchell

Richmond
Christopher A. Cotropia (IP, Property) from Tulane

Santa Clara
New Eric Goldman (IP, Cyberlaw, Contracts) from Marquette. Will serve as Director of High Tech Law Center.

Seattle University
Rafael Pardo (Bankruptcy, Commercial Law, Contracts) from Tulane

Stetson University
Ellen Podgor from Georgia State. (Crim Law) She will be Associate Dean of Faculty Development and Distance Education.
Newest Tim Kaye (Jurisprudence, Tort Law) from University of Birmingham
Newest Carol Henderson (Criminal Law, Evidence) from Nova Southeastern
Newest Rebecca Trammell from Kentucky. Will become library director.

Southern Illinois
Paul McGreal (Con Law, Antitrust, Property, Corporate Compliance) from South Texas

Southwestern
Janine Kim (Crim Law) from Whittier

Temple
Peter Spiro (International law, Foreign Affairs Law, Immigration Law) from Georgia

Texas Tech
Arnold Loewy (Crim Law, Con Law) from North Carolina. He will serve as George R. Killam, Jr., Chair of Criminal Law.
Gary Beyer (Wills, Trusts and Estates) from St. Mary’s. He will serve as Governor Preston E. Smith Regents Professor of Law.

Thomas Jefferson
Olujoke Akindemowo (Comparative Law, Commercial Law, IP) from Monash University

University of Auckland Faculty of Law
Kevin Jon Heller (Criminal Law, Evidence) from Georgia

Utah
Hiram Chodosh from Case-Western Reserve. Will become dean.

Vanderbilt
W. Kip Viscusi (Law and Econ, Torts, Product Liability) from Harvard
Michael Newton (International Criminal Law, Externships) from U.S. Military Academy at West Point
Joni Hersch (Law and Econ) from University of Wyoming Dept. of Economics (by way of adjunct position at Harvard Law)

Virginia
Gregory Mitchell (Behavioral Law and Economics) from Florida State
New Margo Bagley (IP, Contracts) from Emory

Wayne State
Linda Beale (Tax) from Illinois

Widener
Linda Ammons from Cleveland-Marshall. Will become dean.

William and Mary
Michael Steven Green (Civil Procedure, Conflicts, Philosophy of Law) from George Mason.

Posted by Dan Filler at 07:40 AM | Comments (23) | TrackBack

Publishing Student Work

I run a seminar each Spring and I often get terrific student papers. I encourage my students to publish their work, frequently referring them to Eugene Volokh’s extraordinarily helpful guide (and, yes, encouraging them to buy it!). I’m now trying to boil down some advice for them into a draft memo.

I’m inserting a rough draft of it after the jump. I’d love to hear any advice from readers about ways I could improve this memo…particularly if you know particular journals that welcome the work of students from outside their home institution. And, of course, if this humble effort can be of any aid to your students, please feel free to distribute it (with the caveat that it's just a draft!).

To: Students
From: Prof.
Date:
Re: Publishing Your Paper

Congratulations on completing an excellent paper! I have written up this memo to give you some advice on the next steps you might take toward publishing it. While publication is never guaranteed, there is usually a venue that will agree to make your insights on timely issues available to the world. This memo focuses on

A) Why you should publish your piece.
B) How you can get it ready for publication.
C) Where you can send it to be published.
D) When you should have the piece prepared and submitted to journals.

A. Why Publish?

Publishing is both in your self-interest and in the public interest. First, if you start looking at the websites of successful lawyers, you will notice that many of them mention the books, articles, and practice guides they have written. A publication indicates that you have thought deeply about a subject, proposed a solution, and had both your analysis and conclusion validated by an external reviewer.
Moreover, to the extent you can believe in your conclusions, you are helping the world by publishing your piece. If your paper just sits on your hard drive, no one can access your thoughts. Publishing allows you to influence the course of events via original argument. Your ideas can matter, if you take the few extra steps mentioned below in order to disseminate them.

B. How to Publish?

Although the academic legal community does a great deal of substantive good in the world, it is also, for better or worse, obsessed with form. The most important step you can take now to assure publication of your paper is to make it look like a law review article. That includes the following steps.

1. Isolate a thesis that can be stated in a sentence.
2. In the paragraph of the introduction where you state your thesis, describe each section of the paper in a sentence.
3. Format the article like the attached sample article (you can use this document as a template—just type in your own title and name, and copy in the text of your article).
4. Write a brief letter describing your piece and requesting publication.

When you’ve got all this together, you can electronically submit your piece to most journals.
You should read the following document before you submit your work:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/writing/a25.pdf

If you think it would be helpful, check out the entire book from the library, or purchase it yourself.

If this all sounds like too much work, you might just send in the paper as it is and take your chances. But note that the law reviews don’t like looking at the same piece twice, so it’s advisable to make your first effort your best.

C. Where to Publish?

1. Here is a service that allows you to simply check boxes and send your piece (and a letter of submission) to law reviews via email:

http://www.nku.edu/~chase/libesubmission.html

2. Note that this service is both over and underinclusive. It is overinclusive because it includes the main law reviews of each school. You will probably find that the main law review of each law school only publishes pieces from professors and students on that law review. It is underinclusive because it fails to mention some journals of “Law & (some other subject).” You therefore might want to independently submit to journals of “Law &,” such as journals of law & technology. The following URL’s can give you some leads on these journals:

http://stu.findlaw.com/journals/
http://stu.findlaw.com/journals/ip_and_cyberspace.html
http://stu.findlaw.com/journals/health.html

Some of these journals require hard copy submissions, but virtually all the technology ones conduct their business via email.

D. When to Publish?

There really is no hard and fast rule here, but you should try to submit it in September/October, or March/April. If circumstances prevent you from doing so, feel free to submit it later on. Just know that some journals fill up as the year goes on.

Posted by Frank Pasquale at 02:17 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

One More Call For Lateral Move Information

Thanks to everyone who has provided information about law school lateral movement. I hope to make this list as complete as possible. If anyone has additional news, I'd very much appreciate an email at danielmfiller@gmail.com.

Posted by Dan Filler at 11:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Has the Tide Turned for Conservatives in the Academy?

Sorry. Another hiring post. Tis the season.

Conservative academics have long moaned that they face hostility in the academy, and I imagine that this may still be true at some institutions. But since there aren’t that many conservatives in on law school faculties to begin with, I thought it might be idly worth speculating whether the few that do decide to teach are entering a land of milk and honey. Harvard invited mostly conservatives for a look at its con law position, some think the place is on a right wing hiring binge. As best as I can tell, Illinois, Minnesota, and Notre Dame have developed concentrations in Republicanism, possibly they hope to imitate schools like George Mason and San Diego, which, according to the conventional wisdom, have looked rightward for hiring, and seen a dramatic improvement in their repuations. And that’s not all: the University of St Thomas and Ave Maria are new law schools with socially conservative agendas; they need to hire faculty, too. I’ll leave other tea-leaf readers to try to figure out whether other faculties keep a particular eye out for friends of the supply side and states’ rights.

It all sounds very political and possibly a bit cynical, but, while we’re idly speculating, I’d note that there may be good reasons for these faculties to look for Federalist Society credentials. You’re likely to get yourself new colleagues who are likely to do revisionist, but hardly incomprehensible, work, who are often comfortable with economic analysis, who might be willing to teach corporate subjects, and who will not find it difficult to plug themselves into a well-resourced, energetic network of teachers at other law schools.

Indeed, many schools may want a conservative or two on their faculty for the same reason they’d like, say, an ADR specialist – so they’ve got people on all of the conference circuits, capable of participating in a field that could, as they say, blow up. Even Yale has hired a conservative or two recently. Talk about shifting the paradigm.

Posted by David Zaring at 12:16 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

Whether a Fellow or a Visitor Be

The new hires news is pouring in, and already there’s been some comment on the fact that a large number of the successful applicants came from fellowships or from visits at other schools, as opposed to from practice. When I looked around for a so-you-want-to-be-a-professor gig, I applied to two schools. Each of these places were massive, lumbering beasts of the law school firmament. It now appears that visiting and fellowship opportunities cover the map, and that successful applicants can come from a wide range of institutional settings.

So which should you choose – a fellowship at a big law school, or a visiting gig somewhere else?

If you’re going into teaching for the money – and no man but a blockhead ever wrote but for money – your choice is clear. You want the visit. Possibly for US News reporting reasons, or maybe for budgetary bureaucratic reasons far above my pay grade, my spy network suggests that visitors frequently to get a salary not dissimilar than that that of new tenure track hires. If you’re thinking about a fellowship or a short-term writing job, you’ll be lucky to get more than 60 grand, and you’ll probably make much less.

Of course, if you're entering teaching for the money, I'd encourage you to compare the salaries of first year associates at New York law firms with those of tenured professors at the University of Virginia.

Posted by David Zaring at 11:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Entry Level Hiring Report Posted

Professor Solum at Legal Theory Blog has posted Law School Entry Level Hiring Report (2005-06 Hiring Season): Version 1.0. He has a lot of information already but I'm sure he'd appreciate any additional contributions.

Posted by Dan Filler at 11:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Law School Lateral Hiring Report

Brian Leiter has been very helpful in sharing information about lateral moves by law faculty. Due to time constraints, however, he is limiting his list only to faculty moving to/from schools that figure in his faculty rankings. Since many of us want to learn about ALL faculty moves, Concurring Opinions has decided to emulate Professor Solum's Entry Level Hiring Reports. As a public service, we - OK, I, Dan Filler, the new kid on the blog (and no, this assignment is not part of normal Co-op hazing) - will collect all your news about law school lateral movement.

Let me know:
Current School
Future School
Teaching Areas
Current Law School Webpage Address
Any Other Details (chair or administrative titles, etc.)

If you have heard of others' moves, feel free to alert me to those as well. I'll double check before posting.

Please send this information to danielmfiller@gmail.com.

I'll post results shortly, and update as necessary.

Posted by Dan Filler at 12:55 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Why You Should Teach Information Privacy Law

Since now is the time that many new law professors are being hired, I thought I'd re-post an earlier post about teaching information privacy law. When new law professors are hired, there is often a lot of flexibility in what courses they can teach. While the law school will typically want a newly-hired professor to teach one or two "core" courses (first year courses or required courses), other courses are often highly negotiable. So if you want to teach a particular course, sometimes all you have to do is ask for it.

My goal is to get more new professors to think about teaching information privacy law. (I have a casebook in the field, so this is really a thinly-disguised self-plug.)

Information privacy law remains a fairly young field, and it has yet to take hold as a course taught consistently in most law schools. I’m hoping to change all that. So if you're interested in exploring issues involving information technology, criminal procedure, or free speech, here are a few reasons why you should consider adding information privacy law to your course mix:

1. It’s new and fresh. Lots of media attention on privacy law issues these days. Students are very interested in the topic.

2. Lively cases and fascinating issues abound. There’s barely a dull moment in the course. Every topic is interesting; there is no rule against perpetuities to cover!

3. It’s a way to teach fascinating First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and other constitutional law issues. Often, those wanting to teach in these areas have to wait in line until the course is “released” by professors who already teach it. Getting the First Amendment course, for example, is about as easy as unseating an incumbent in Congress. Information privacy law lets you teach really interesting First Amendment issues and there’s usually not a long succession line to teaching an information privacy law course. Moreover, many law schools already have somebody teaching cyberlaw, and information privacy law covers some incredibly interesting law and information technology issues.

4. The field is growing . . . big time. There are many new jobs in privacy law – jobs at privacy advocacy organizations, most major companies, financial institutions (must have a privacy officer per Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), health institutions (must have a privacy officer per HIPAA regulations), and the government (DHS privacy office, etc.). Many new laws are being passed regarding privacy, and cases involving these issues are multiplying.

5. The field has some staying power. As long as computers and information remain in fashion, privacy will remain a big issue. It’s not going away . . . the field, that is. Privacy . . . well, that’s a different story.

6. Plenty of material for a three-unit course. You can teach the course with a focus on law enforcement and security issues, or on cyberspace and computer issues, or on media and entertainment issues, or on regulatory issues about healthcare and financial data. Because there is so much material to work with, you can teach the course in many different ways.

7. Great synergies between teaching and scholarship. There’s a lot left to write about in the field, and teaching the course helps tremendously in developing good ideas for scholarship. The community of folks who write in privacy law is wonderful – a really neat group of professors. We love to welcome new folks into this great club.

8. The course is very intellectually rich. There are lots of interesting theoretical issues to ponder. And the theory doesn’t turn off students -- they really dig it. Really!

9. It’s easy to teach. The field is very accessible. Currently, there are many great books, articles, websites, and other resources in the field.

10. I don't have a tenth reason, but I thought that I'd do something to round this list out to ten.

So think about adding information privacy law to your course package. It’s a rewarding and fascinating course. Many law schools still don’t have a course in the field, and it is my hope that someday it will be offered everywhere.

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 12:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Are Exploding Offers So Bad?

Jennifer Mnookin, at Law and Culture, has a good post about the use of exploding offers in law faculty recruiting. I agree with her fundamental points, that such offers a) aren't very nice (though I'd take issue with her term,"outrageous"); and b) are potentially counter-productive, insofar as they may lead a candidate to accept the exploding offer but leave the school prematurely due to bad feelings.

But here's the thing. Recruiting - professors, law clerks, engineers - is a competitive business. Despite the overall size of a given year's hiring pool, law schools are competing over a relatively small number of canidates. And it turns out teaching candidates focus on relatively consistent features in developing their job preferences. The first and most obvious is school prestige, and the related benefits of faculty and student quality. Another important recruiting advantage, as I have suggested, is location. So what are the rest of the hoi polloi, those lower ranked or off-the-beaten-track schools, to do?

Exploding offers, though unpleasant from the candidate's viewpoint, are a strong recruiting tool. First off, as one of Jennifer's commenters suggests, they sometimes work. There is a risk that the recruiting school will unnecessarily lose its favored candidate, but if the hiring committee is making sharp assessments, its targets will frequently receive competing offers from more attractive schools. In such cases, an exploding offer may be the only route to an acceptance. And when a candidate does say no, the short deadline allows the school to quickly pursue backup candidates. On balance, particularly where a school has a strong second choice candidate, I suspect that exploding offers yield better faculty hires.

And what about the lingering bad feelings? Two things. First, I'm not sure that all candidates facing an exploding offer experience this. In order to feel mistreated, a candidate has to believe she has some sort of entitlement to the better job. I can't speak for those folks in play at the most elite schools, but few of the candidates I've seen - even those we lose to other schools - have the self-confidence (may I even suggest ego?) to feel entitled to a chance at the "better" job. opportunity to the "better" school. Second, even if a candidate does feel anger at her new employer, in many cases she will have little long-term recourse (other than leaving the field.) Many excellent entry-level candidates don't turn out to be nearly as insightful or productive as expected. And while there is some lateral mobility in law teaching, it is surprisingly limited.

I personally believe that good treatment of candidates produces positive karma - for the school and for individual relationships. But since you can't cash karma at the end of the month (or mail out a karma glossy during US News ranking season), I'm sympathetic to those deans who disagree with me.

Posted by Dan Filler at 02:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

AALS Law Professor Meat Market

For aspiring law professors, the infamous hiring conference, known as the "meat market," is this week. Best of luck!

Here are some helpful posts from Concurring Opinions:

1. Solove's advice on job interviews
2. Kaimi's advice on getting to your job interviews

I'd like to say that my post is more instructive and Kaimi's is more humorous, but if you can't get to your interview . . . well, you probably won't get a callback. As Woody Allen famously said: "Eighty percent of success is showing up."

More advice on law teaching can be found at:
1. Solove's roundup of PrawfsBlawg teaching interview advice
2. Brad Wendel's advice and roundup of useful links to more advice
3. Brian Leiter's advice
4. Jack Chin and Denise Morgan's advice and roundup of useful links to more advice
5. Michael Madison's advice and useful links

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 12:07 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

The Two Towers

Dan S. has already given good advice on what to say at the AALS. (A partial dissent by Paul Horwitz posits that brilliance is overrated). The web already contains a plethora of good advice, from sources like Brian Leiter (here) and Gordon Smith (here). My goal in this post is more limited. I hope to strike the right amount of terror into candidates' hearts as they contemplate the destructive force weilded by The Two Towers.

Since time immemorial, the meat market has been held in Middle Earth, a location dominated by two towers: The Wardman Tower, which is inhabited by Saruman the White, and the Park Tower, which is inhabited by the Dark Lord Sauron. The approximate walking time from the base of one tower to the base of another tower is four to six minutes. The approximate mad-dash time from one to the other is about three minutes. Rumors persist of particularly desprate and speedy candidates who have clocked in at under two minutes, but attempting such velocity is not recommended.

Given the geography, if you are a meat market candidate, you should bear in mind a few quick navigation tips regarding the two towers:

1. At some point, you will learn the locations of your interviews. The most important digit of a room number is the second. The second number of a suite tells you what tower the room is in:

Room 8320 = Floor 8, Wardman Tower, Suite 20
Room 8020 = Floor 8, Park Tower, Suite 20.

The approximate transit time between 8320 and 7320 is one minute. The approximate transit time between 8320 and 8020 is eight to ten minutes.

2. The elevators are not fast. In fact, they are preternaturally slow. I cannot stress this point enough. You cannot depend on elevator speed.

It can take up to a full five minutes for an elevator to go up to, or down from, the eighth floor of any tower. This is because there is a limited number of elevators -- three in one tower and six in the other, as I recall -- and they will stop on every floor. Thus, if a candidate arrives at the elevator bank at the wrong time, she will have to wait as elevators stop every floor on the way down, then on the way back up to her, and finally back down again.

Why do the elevators stop on every floor? Because there are so many interview suites on every floor, and because each suite is both entering and exiting candidates. Thus, it is all but guaranteed that there will be someone wanting to go up (and down) at floor 3, floor 4, floor 5, floor 6, and so on. With someone pushing the button at every floor, they'll stop at every floor -- in effect, the elevators become Sabbath elevators. And because they stop at every floor, you have zero chance of a quick ride down from the eighth floor.

3. This means that you should never schedule a back-to-back between towers if you can help it. (That is, don't schedule a 3:00 in the Park Tower and a 3:30 in the Wardman). And in particular, avoid scheduling high floors of competing towers in back to back slots. Avoid the 8348 to 8032 dash like the plague -- you just won't make it in five minutes.

That said, sometimes you'll have no choice. You may have set up these interviews before finding out the room number. Or you may have no other options for that particular slot -- the University of Poughkeepsie calls late in the game, and the only mutually open slot is Friday at 3:30, which is back-to-back with a competing tower.

If this happens, you'll need to make decisions. First, you decide how much you value each school, comparatively. Second, you'll have to make a spot judgment during the earlier interview. If the first interview is going well, and you like the earlier school better, then you stick out that interview and show up slightly late to the second. If the first interview is going poorly, and you didn't like that school much anyway, then you excuse yourself a few minutes early.

And if your first interview is going well, but you also like the second school quite a bit?

Each hobbit answers that question differently.

Posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger at 04:53 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Law Teaching Interview Advice

The AALS law teaching interview season will be commencing soon, and since a number of our readers will be interviewing for law teaching jobs, here are a few quick words of advice.

First, keep in mind that your interview lasts only for 30 minutes, and the law professors interviewing you will be interviewing dozens of people. They will be cooped up in a stuffy room all day, meeting one bright-eyed candidate after the next. Only a few of these scores of people will be invited back to the law school for a full all-day interview. This means that at the end of the day, your 30 minutes needs to be memorable. You need to make an impression on them. But what kind of impression?

Here's the ideal impression, in my opinion, that you should create:

(1) You are a true intellectual, who is a thoughtful and careful thinker.

The interviewers are trying to imagine you as a law professor. They don't want a political hack; instead they want a scholar. They want somebody who is genuinely interested in thinking about things, not just winning an argument. The interview isn't an argument before a court. You don't have to have all the answers. Instead, you want to convey that you think deeply about issues, that you understand the problems in your positions, that you have an intellectual curiosity. The interviewers don't expect you to have it all worked out and the answers to every issue that you're thinking about. They want to see whether you think about things in an open-minded and thoughtful way. It's more impressive to demonstrate how you wrestle with issues rather than how you think you have conquered them.

(2) You have a coherent scholarly agenda and a vision for where you see yourself as a scholar within the next five years.

A scholarly agenda is essential. Interviewers are taking a big gamble when they hire an entry level candidate, especially since tenure is usually granted in law school and tenure battles can be immensely unpleasant and divisive. That means they want to be sure to select the person who has a bright future, who has a sense of direction. They want to imagine you in five years as being involved in a field, in a set of debates. Your agenda also must have some coherence. That doesn't mean that you must say you're intending only to write in one field or on a narrow issue. But the interviewers must see some degree of coherence.

(3) You are articulate and enthusiastic about ideas, and you will be able to teach a class effectively.

The interviewers will want to see if you can express ideas clearly and concisely, as well as with enthusiasm. They're trying to imagine how you'll be in the classroom. Will you bore students to tears? Will you be unable to explain the law in a clear understandable fashion? And will you be dull when you present papers at conferences? The interviewers must decide whether or not to bring you before the full faculty for a job talk. If too many job talks are duds, the faculty will start to grow a bit annoyed at the appointments committee for wasting their time. So there is some pressure on the committee to bring back candidates who will be interesting and engaging speakers.

(4) You are creative and interesting, and you can generate new ideas rather than just rehash existing ones.

So many teaching candidates are smart and well-read, but there are only a few who have that creative spark, who can create new ideas. An analogy can be made to basketball -- there are players who can create their own shot and there are players who can only thrive if others help set up their shot and pass them the ball. Those that create their own shot are rare, but when they are spotted, they are greatly prized. It is very hard to convey this in the 30-minute interview, but if you can, you will really stand out above the rest.

(5) You are friendly and pleasant to be around.

When a faculty hires a new professor, the odds are that he or she will be on the faculty for life. Yes, some folks will move laterally, and there is the occasional denial of tenure. But for the most part, hiring a person is like adding a permanent member to the family. It is important that you're likable; nobody wants to spend a lifetime around a sour and unpleasant colleague.

(6) You are confident about yourself and your work, yet not arrogant.

Confidence is very important. Those who are confident in themselves sound more authoritive, more convincing, more in command of what they are talking about. You may have doubts about yourself, your work, your ideas, your worthiness to be hired by a particular school, or your worthiness to be hired at all. But you can't let these doubts show. This doesn't mean being arrogant, which is a big hindrance to getting hired. It doesn't mean that you should pretend to be totally assured that everything you say is correct. But you must be confident that you have something interesting to say, that you are capable of thinking clearly and deeply about an issue. Arrogance is thinking that you're always right and brilliant. Confidence is realizing that you're not always right, that you've got a lot more thinking to do, but that you nevertheless have interesting thoughtful observations to contribute to the discourse.

(7) You are enthusiastic about being at the school you're interviewing with, and you will be happy living in the place where the school is located.

Interviewers at many law schools might try to guage your interest in the school and its location. There are only so many people that a school can call back for full interviews, and why waste a slot on a candidate who is most likely desiring to go somewhere else? Each school has its own virtues and faults. Think deeply about the virtues of the school you're interviewing with before the interview and go in with an enthusiastic and positive attitude.

-----------------------------------

That's basically all I can think about for advice for law teaching interviews at the AALS interview meeting. Most of what I have said has been said before. There are no secret magic tricks; and I think the tips I offer are just basic common sense. But for some odd reason, when you're a teaching candidate, the whole process seems mystical and opaque. It's not really, but it's hard to see through the fog when you're enveloped in stress and uncertainty. Anyway, best of luck!

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 12:27 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack