Now that I've returned to my center (thanks to friends and a solid workout), let's talk more about legal writing professors and barriers to entry.
#lawtwitter #TheGameIsRigged #ElitismInAcademia
Disclaimer: I'm ONLY talking about legal writing professors who are seeking to switch to "doctrinal," (more on those terms and that artificial bifurcation later).
Additional Disclaimer: This is me thinking. IN GENERAL. You know. About stuff we ought to be able to think about as academics.
And I'm doing this with my labor econ hat again.
One barrier to entry into "doctrinal" might be placement advantages of folks not in legal writing.
From my co-authored article (using humor) to point out that law reviews are snobby about that.
Which is strange because I know there is a lot of legal writing scholarship out there. And I know some of the people doing it. I've READ some of it.
LW professors also tend to be disproportionately female. I did not do a similar breakdown of Bigelow fellows. But...the hierarchical structure (Podium/LW) of academia reinforces gender inequality. See 65 Vill. L. Rev. 1155 (2021).
I wonder what the gender inequality does to service loads (which impacts the ability to find time to write).
Titles matter in hiring for doctrinal faculty hiring signals too, right?
The University of Chicago does not seem to think enough of Legal Writing to consider it a "path to teaching." Which is funny given, you know, the Bigelow (which I learned today I can't spell correctly).
Did I mention in the old days "doctrinal" professors taught legal writing? It was all one labor market.
The law professor market is concentrated in terms of who gets hired (elite schools dominate). The same is true for legal writing professor hires at top schools.
"... LRW faculty hiring is elitist, but not as elitist as podium faculty hiring."
Disclaimer: That last tweet was me sloppily seeking to account for (the usual wrong elitist) "quality" signals. I just provide it for informational purposes.
I'm just suggesting reasons why such a switch might be tricky.
Even if some make the switch, other labor market questions remain. Do those applicants get low-balled on salary? More service work? So many questions, so little data.
Final Disclaimer: Some profs do not WANT to switch. They love what they do and they are so damned good at it.
They just want recognition and equity for the scholarship/teaching/service they do.
And tenure is a path.
So is labor market mobility for those that choose it!
So, you all will let me know the last hires you made that partook of that mobility, won't you?
(If you've DMed me or you're friends of mine--I got you down already).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay, Bigelow v. Legal Writing Professor (LW) Applicants for tenure track, part II. Let's explore with our labor econ hats!
#lawtwitter #Econtwitter
@AdamSFeldman and others can correct my errors as I put on the labor economist hat.
Disclaimers:
1. I'm not saying that Bigelow fellows do not deserve jobs.
2. I'm not saying "get a Bigelow" is bad advice. Overall, data shows it is good advice, given how the market "functions."
3. I'm not saying Bigelows don't work hard. It is possible to work hard, deserve jobs, and still have a tremendous advantage over a similarly situated person who publishes, works hard, and deserves jobs.
Oh no. The DOJ and FTC released draft Horizontal Merger Guidelines. They are not good.
CC: @FTC @LinaKhanFTC @JusticeATR
#Satire #Antitrust
First of all, the cases the agencies cite are TOO OLD. Should we even FOLLOW SCOTUS precedent? To suggest so seems partisan and biased, unlike my opinion that Brown Shoe and other select cases ought to be ignored. That's fine. #Satire
I mean, not Marine Bancorp. I like Marine Bancorp. And Brooke Group. You know, the cases where plaintiffs lose. Cite more of those.
Powell (of memo fame) wrote Marine Bancorp. So that's good.
Curiosity is the foundation of academic endeavor. Judgment cannot come before inquiry--preanalytic vision happens, but shutting down inquiry before even questioning isn't intellectual. (Thread)
If we're dealing with arguments, why isn't the persuasiveness of the argument (or validation if empirics are the method) the sole determinant? Why would one care who it is?
It's one thing if it is a character reference. A character reference requires knowing the character of the person making the reference. If you don't know me, me saying X is a good person means nothing.
But an academic argument doesn't rely on character.
I would, along with like-minded students, form a new student organization, Anti-Federalist Society (anti-Fed for short). I would scream very loudly if my student group did not get approved. Free speech and all that.
I would invite speakers hostile to Fed Soc. Not ones who disagree. Ones actively hostile--with extreme views as to whether Fed Soc should exist.
Every speaker FedSoc would be matched. Please invite Justice Kavanaugh.
1. @Tesla will not be any closer to a self driving car that doesn't kill pedestrians. It will, however, be closer to a self-driving stock that kills shareholders.
2. Law schools will continue to withdraw from the U.S. News rankings. Law schools will continue to advertise how well they are doing in U.S. News and other rankings. They'll reward faculty based on rankings all the while telling each other rankings don't matter.