It would also be useful to examine the teaching effectiveness (not just the scholarly output) of law profs with different types of backgrounds. @OrinKerr @PamelaSamuelson
While a PhD may prove useful background for the important work of scholarship, shouldn't law school should also prepare students for the actual practice of law? After all, most law students go on to be practicing lawyers, not academics.
I hugely value the scholarship that comes out of law schools (in fact, I'm reading some law review articles this afternoon). But we do students a disservice if we always prioritize academic credentials and pedigree over real-world experience in things like:
taking depositions, drafting a complaint or a motion to dismiss, crafting jury instructions, negotiating transactional documents, navigating regulatory schemes, advising clients on the legal implications of compliance programs, and the myriad other things practicing lawyers do.
Many other professions teach their students how to do the daily work their patients, clients, etc. need. In contrast, some law schools suffer from an unspoken snobbery that being a trade school - training people to be effective at practicing law - would somehow be undignified.
The article's data suggests PhDs are unlikely to have practiced law before becoming faculty. If schools also appointed former practicing lawyers as f/t faculty, that could bring valuable diversity of experience and views into the classroom, faculty discussions, and scholarship.
Scholarship will always be important to academic institutions and advancing thought in the field, but students should also have the benefit of faculty with skills & experience. Understanding how experience impacts teaching effectiveness could help law schools find the right mix.
