<p>Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think you can just become a law professor as easily as you guys seem to be implying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think you can just become a law professor as easily as you guys seem to be implying.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your intuition is correct.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of your post is disputable, for I have mountains of evidence that supports the contrary.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, you know the saying: Put up or shut up. :P</p>
<p>calipharius,</p>
<p>I'm going to be starting on my MA in the fall, and then I'll most likely go on the PhD in a year or two after that.</p>
<p>However, I've spoken with several professors, and all but a few have said that the market is awful. This is poli sci, by the way. Just talk to professors in several fields, and they all say the same thing: The market is awful.</p>
<p>First off, if you want a job at a top research institution, you'll really need a PhD from a top-10 to top-15 department. Even then, a top 5 is the most likely to get you a good job, and that's not even guaranteed.</p>
<p>So, let's just consider the road you have to travel- First, you need to get into a top department for your field. Then you have to complete the degree (even at top programs, the level of attrition is quite high), then you have to actually get a job in a market that's literally SATURATED with people just like you. Then, when you actually get your tenure-track job, you have to pray that you get tenure! Once you get tenure, it's publish or perish for most of the rest of your career.</p>
<p>I don't mean it's not worth it for anyone, but for most people who just don't know what being a professor entails, it's not worth it. Most people think that the life of a professor is that of a teacher. It's not. Every professor I had, upon me telling them that I wanted to be a professor, would opine that they weren't teachers, they were researchers, yada yada yada. That's true for research institutions at least.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And really, getting your JD if you want to be a professor is a waste of time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As stated by AA, one can become a law professor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Getting your PhD if you want to be a lawyer is a waste of time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, if one intends to become a law professor, having a Ph.D in addition to a J.D. is becoming increasingly helpful in current circumstances.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, you can't be a lawyer and a professor at the same time.
[/quote]
You better tell that to my professor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you really enjoy history, get your PhD and brave the academic market. If you want to be a lawyer, get your JD and brave the legal market.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why not get both?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't bother getting both. It won't do you any good in either market.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Such rubbish. I can identify numerous professors who have both J.D.s and Ph.D.s. Why should I bother showing them? Searching nearly any academic department or law school will yield some professors who have both degrees.</p>
<p>I intend to attain both a Ph.D in philosophy and a J.D. Perhaps my only impetus for attempting a joint-program is that I will spend less time in school, and thus spend less money. I do not see how having both could hurt, except from a monetary perspective - it may take longer to pay off one's dept. However, having both a J.D and a Ph.D does not lessen anyone's chances of attaining a tenure track position; if anything, at least for teaching in philosophy or teaching in law, having both degrees strengthens it.</p>
<p>This link is helpful for those interested in legal teaching: <a href="http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/bleiter/GUIDE.HTM%5B/url%5D">http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/bleiter/GUIDE.HTM</a></p>
<p>nspeds,</p>
<p>When I said being a professor, I meant a history professor. There's no real good reason to get a JD if you want to be a history professor.</p>
<p>Being a law professor is a different matter altogether. </p>
<p>And having both degrees won't hurt, but it's not going to really make you more competitive for good jobs. Your research will (in academia at least.)</p>
<p>And your professor is a tenure-track researcher and attorney-at-law at the same time? If so, then I'm wrong. But...why? It's like having two spouses, as someone else said.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why should I bother showing them? Searching nearly any academic department or law school will yield some professors who have both degrees.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, and I bet if you look at the years they acquired them, there's a gap. Most, if not 90% of them, changed careers. Different story.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And your professor is a tenure-track researcher and attorney-at-law at the same time?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When I said being a professor, I meant a history professor. There's no real good reason to get a JD if you want to be a history professor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It depends on the field. If one wishes to teach jurisprudence in a philosophy department, a J.D. is certainly beneficial.</p>
<p>For example:<a href="http://cohesion.rice.edu/humanities/phil/faculty.cfm?doc_id=5104%5B/url%5D">http://cohesion.rice.edu/humanities/phil/faculty.cfm?doc_id=5104</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, and I bet if you look at the years they acquired them, there's a gap. Most, if not 90% of them, changed careers. Different story.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. This is from my professor's website:
[quote]
» Ph.D. (1986) Harvard University, Philosophy
» J.D. (1981) Harvard Law School,
» M.P.P. (1981) Kennedy School of Government,
» B.A. (1977) Harvard University,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The gap is not significant enough, in my opinion.</p>
<p>At any rate, earning a J.D. and a Ph.D does not hurt in the least.</p>
<p>I never said it HURTS. I said that it's not in any way that important for any career goals (law professor excluded, sorry.)</p>
<p>And how is your professor both a tenure-track researcher and a lawyer at the same time? I just can't fathom how someone can work 120 hours a week.</p>
<p>And nspeds, you know as well as I do that one professor doesn't equal the whole.</p>
<p>I mean, I don't see why anyone would spread themselves so thin. Why not focus on one and be better at it? Why not be a physician and a lawyer at the same time? </p>
<p>I'm just being bitter, but still. I don't get why you would do that.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>No offense, but the fact that getting a tenure track position is difficult doesn't seem like a real deterrent for entering a doctoral program. Of course being an academic involves heavy research and frequent publishing - these are essential elements of the job. I think that anyone who earnestly countenances the prospect of spending 7+ years of graduate school is going to be unphased by this. It seems to be a very worthwhile and rewarding career, albeit a demanding one. Are there any more material reasons you have for advising prospective professors to shy away from academia?</p>
<p>Also, professors with the PhD/JD credential are not as rare as you contend. I'll be taking a class with one of many at my university this spring.</p>
<p>calipharius,</p>
<p>There are a lot of good reasons. The market is only getting more saturated, there is low demand, pay is not commensurate with level of education in a lot of cases, and very poor prospects for most.</p>
<p>The point is, a very large number of people don't make it past those 5-7 years of PhD work. Attrition is very high. Most people don't go for their PhD really knowing what it entails, and that leads to a lot of unhappy grad students. </p>
<p>Anyway, I stand corrected on the PhD/JD combo, but I still believe that it's not worth it for most people who want to go into academia (and not legal teaching.) The JD is a good degree, but it's not a research degree like a PhD.</p>
<p>Is it fair to carectorize the PhD as just a research degree? Yes, this is one major component of it, perhaps the most major component, but it entails a relative mastery of a discipline in a few areas, amongst other things.</p>
<p>Every professor I've ever spoken with characterized it as a research degree. And the truth is, almost every department is interested in research to a greater extent. </p>
<p>As one of my professors said, "PhD programs are not about learning stuff (that's what books are for); they're for learning skills."</p>
<p>And that's verbatim from the email.</p>
<p>Perhaps the market is over-saturated. It's certainly something to consider as a prospective academic, but I would not forward it as a compelling reason not to pursue an academic career. The preponderance of people who get phd's are not overly concerned about monetary compensation - I think it is patently clear that being a professor is not a get-rich-quick scheme. Even if you're unable to secure the coveted tenure-track position at a top department, you're career is by no means a failure. You have a damn phd! I know a man quite well who has a phd in history from a respectable program, but decided he wanted to teach AP history, rather than pray for the best at a university. He was teacher of the year for Massachusetts 2 years back, and made national headlines for his refusal to attend the Presidential reception in DC. More important, he is one of the happiest people I know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And how is your professor both a tenure-track researcher and a lawyer at the same time? I just can't fathom how someone can work 120 hours a week.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I cannot fathom it either, but that is somehow the case.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And nspeds, you know as well as I do that one professor doesn't equal the whole.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you know as well as I do that only one example is needed to refute a generalization.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean, I don't see why anyone would spread themselves so thin. Why not focus on one and be better at it? Why not be a physician and a lawyer at the same time?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Focusing more on a J.D. will not necessarily make you better at it. If I am not mistaken, legal education is quite systematic. The notion of improvement, in my opinion, only applies to 'research degrees'.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why not be a physician and a lawyer at the same time?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You forget that law and philosophy are closely related. It is not difficult to work between the two.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I cannot fathom it either, but that is somehow the case.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd be curious how successful he is at both. I mean, there is only so much time a human being can work, and there are only so many hours in a day. He must be cutting corners somewhere. You'll never make partner that way. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And you know as well as I do that only one example is needed to refute a generalization.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm... I disagree. I think that it becomes the exception to the rule. In statistics, when we do regressions, we don't throw out a data set if we have an outlier. We just call it an outlier. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Focusing more on a J.D. will not necessarily make you better at it. If I am not mistaken, legal education is quite systematic. The notion of improvement, in my opinion, only applies to 'research degrees'.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure it will. You spend more time doing law review, and you're bound to get better at it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You forget that law and philosophy are closely related. It is not difficult to work between the two.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not in all cases. Most philosophy is not that closely tied to the law. Legal jurisprudence is a particular case.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps the market is over-saturated. It's certainly something to consider as a prospective academic, but I would not forward it as a compelling reason not to pursue an academic career.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As much as I love the road I'm travelling, you have to pay bills sometime. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The preponderance of people who get phd's are not overly concerned about monetary compensation - I think it is patently clear that being a professor is not a get-rich-quick scheme.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then why can Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and others so successfully buy top professors away from other universities?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even if you're unable to secure the coveted tenure-track position at a top department, you're career is by no means a failure. You have a damn phd!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. But, the truth is, there are in a lot of cases better degrees than a PhD in a lot of cases.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know a man quite well who has a phd in history from a respectable program, but decided he wanted to teach AP history, rather than pray for the best at a university. He was teacher of the year for Massachusetts 2 years back, and made national headlines for his refusal to attend the Presidential reception in DC. More important, he is one of the happiest people I know.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's fine for him, but what about those of us who actually want to get a job at a top research program?</p>
<p>"Then why can Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and others so successfully buy top professors away from other universities?"
Besides money:
1) Reputation
2) Strong Departments
3) Research funding
4) To be with more kindred spirits?
There are many, many reasons. Plus, I was talking about the preponderance of phd holders, not the few lucky ones who end up getting cushy offers. </p>
<p>My point, about my friend, is that you're acting as if people are thrown to the wolves if they don't get tenure. This simply is not the case, and it is disingenuous to present it as such.</p>