JD + PhD Program Question
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:05 pm
Hey Everyone,
I'm thoroughly confused by the different options regarding the path to becoming a law professor. I took my LSATs and did well. I am looking to attend a top 5 school. Down the line I strongly want to consider becoming a law professor. I am not set on it 100%, but its definitely an option I want to keep wide open. I want to practice for a few years, and am not averse to stay practicing if I enjoy it. I don't think its a good idea to go in saying I'm going to become a law professor or senior partner, or whatever it may be. I want to keep my options open and see how I like the work as I go along. I think that's the best thing I can do.
The pathways as I see them:
1. Get JD (from a top school), while getting on law review, clerk for a year, work in Big Law for 2-3 years, publish throughout the process, and apply to be a law professor
Total Years: 3 + 1 + 2-3 = 6-7 years
Is that right?
Pros:
Get JD then see how the application to be a professor goes
BigLaw salary for 2-3 years
Cons:
PhD seems almost necessary nowadays?
It makes absolutely no sense to me, to go back to school and get your PhD at this point if you don't land a law professorship, am I being too sensitive or am I being sensible with this? As a result it doesn't seem like the best way to position yourself, or is this too strong of an assumption?
2. Apply for a JD/PhD Program, do the same, get on law review, publish, clerk?, then go straight into professorship I'd assume without the BigLaw experience.
Supposedly 5-6 years for JD/PhD + 1 clerk = 6-7 years again
Pros:
This has potential for funding for JD/PhD too which is great- little/no debt
Get two degrees
Supposedly better positioning to get a professorship
Cons:
No BigLaw experience
Putting all your eggs in one basket? What happens if after all this you don't land a professorship? Is BigLaw still open?
3. Get PhD (5-6 years), then get your JD, and publish throughout, with law review, clerkship, etc. (or vice versa, but see option 1 ending)
Working at BigLaw on this track doesn't seem to make so much sense.
Time: 9-10 years
Pros:
Better positioning for a professorship (similar to 2)
Cons:
No BigLaw experience
A huge amount of time
Law school Debt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again I want to position myself in the best way possible if I do decide to pursue the law professor pathway. Option 1 from my understanding is the older more original pathway, but it seems to be less applicable today (b/c no PhD). But Option 2 also draws a lot of criticism in that its too specific, student interests may change, and you probably won't get any actual law firm experience.
I'm really undecided between Option 1 & 2. Option 3 seems like a total waste of time and completely and unnecessarily torturous.
Any and all advice from seasoned TLS Experts would be appreciated.
I'm thoroughly confused by the different options regarding the path to becoming a law professor. I took my LSATs and did well. I am looking to attend a top 5 school. Down the line I strongly want to consider becoming a law professor. I am not set on it 100%, but its definitely an option I want to keep wide open. I want to practice for a few years, and am not averse to stay practicing if I enjoy it. I don't think its a good idea to go in saying I'm going to become a law professor or senior partner, or whatever it may be. I want to keep my options open and see how I like the work as I go along. I think that's the best thing I can do.
The pathways as I see them:
1. Get JD (from a top school), while getting on law review, clerk for a year, work in Big Law for 2-3 years, publish throughout the process, and apply to be a law professor
Total Years: 3 + 1 + 2-3 = 6-7 years
Is that right?
Pros:
Get JD then see how the application to be a professor goes
BigLaw salary for 2-3 years
Cons:
PhD seems almost necessary nowadays?
It makes absolutely no sense to me, to go back to school and get your PhD at this point if you don't land a law professorship, am I being too sensitive or am I being sensible with this? As a result it doesn't seem like the best way to position yourself, or is this too strong of an assumption?
2. Apply for a JD/PhD Program, do the same, get on law review, publish, clerk?, then go straight into professorship I'd assume without the BigLaw experience.
Supposedly 5-6 years for JD/PhD + 1 clerk = 6-7 years again
Pros:
This has potential for funding for JD/PhD too which is great- little/no debt
Get two degrees
Supposedly better positioning to get a professorship
Cons:
No BigLaw experience
Putting all your eggs in one basket? What happens if after all this you don't land a professorship? Is BigLaw still open?
3. Get PhD (5-6 years), then get your JD, and publish throughout, with law review, clerkship, etc. (or vice versa, but see option 1 ending)
Working at BigLaw on this track doesn't seem to make so much sense.
Time: 9-10 years
Pros:
Better positioning for a professorship (similar to 2)
Cons:
No BigLaw experience
A huge amount of time
Law school Debt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again I want to position myself in the best way possible if I do decide to pursue the law professor pathway. Option 1 from my understanding is the older more original pathway, but it seems to be less applicable today (b/c no PhD). But Option 2 also draws a lot of criticism in that its too specific, student interests may change, and you probably won't get any actual law firm experience.
I'm really undecided between Option 1 & 2. Option 3 seems like a total waste of time and completely and unnecessarily torturous.
Any and all advice from seasoned TLS Experts would be appreciated.