Academia in employments stats Forum

[Br3v]

I have done a lot of research on legal academia and understand that outside if HYS it is an incredibly difficult thing to accomplish. With that being said, what do the "academia" jobs listed in most schools employment stats represent? As in when they say "50% large firm, 5% clerkship, 2% academia" for example. Are these academia jobs students who have a PhD before law school and are thus more likely to land an academic job or more likely in an academic job in the PhD subject at an undergraduate institution rather than a law school? Could this just be school funded research fellowships or something? Or are these handful of students actually employed in legal academia?

[Br3v]

Study break bump

[Doorkeeper]

I would assume it means all people who are employed by academia = VAPs, Fellowships, Lecturers, Professors. This does not include people going to get their PhDs, but people currently employed by a law school.

I'm not sure whether this includes administrative staff as well.

[bdubs]

I would imagine that outside of HYS the vast majority of academia positions are going to be clinic positions. Some of them are clinical professors, some will just be clinic staff members.

HYS is more likely to include a larger number of fellowships but its still probably a pretty small number since most academia focused students do clerkships first before pursuing fellowships etc..

[Elston Gunn]

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it included high school teachers and the like.

[rad lulz]

It means whatever the law skoolz want it to mean.

[bk1]

It is generally not good employment (aka not what doorkeeper said). Generally it tends to be people who are temporarily employed by the law school to boost its employment stats.

[dextermorgan]

It is not easy for someone who had a PhD prior to law school to land academia in their old field btw. It's actually incredibly hard because they are generally viewed as abandoning the field.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

It is generally not good employment (aka not what doorkeeper said). Generally it tends to be people who are temporarily employed by the law school to boost its employment stats.

I think I remember reading somewhere that school also include people who get various staff jobs at law schools (in admissions office, student services, etc.).

OP- don't look at what the school reports for academia. Go look up stuff by Larry Solum and Brian Leiter about academic placement.

[Br3v]

So general consensus is that it is probably bad? As in school funded 1 yr RA gig or something along those lines?

[Richie Tenenbaum]

It is not easy for someone who had a PhD prior to law school to land academia in their old field btw. It's actually incredibly hard because they are generally viewed as abandoning the field.

I would imagine that it depends on the specific circumstances and how much of a gap is between the PhD and JD. If they're back-to-back and their research agenda blends both together really, I wouldn't think that candidate would be judged too harshly.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

So general consensus is that it is probably bad? As in school funded 1 yr RA gig or something along those lines?

Yes, I believe it is typically more administrative stuff, either full-term or temporary.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

I would assume it means all people who are employed by academia = VAPs, Fellowships, Lecturers, Professors. This does not include people going to get their PhDs, but people currently employed by a law school for an academic position (not administration).

Barely anyone goes straight into a tenured-track prof position right after law school. Same for lecturers and adjuncts. Not many people go straight into VAPS either. The by far most common thing for wannabe-academics is a clerkship. Then some jump to VAPS, some jump to law firms, some jump to prestigious government jobs, some to fellowships, some to PhDs. And then they go on the market.

Law schools are reporting employment numbers for currently graduating students, not students who are 2-5 years out.

[Doorkeeper]

It is generally not good employment (aka not what doorkeeper said). Generally it tends to be people who are temporarily employed by the law school to boost its employment stats.

Isn't that "school funded" vs. academia?

Also, academia tallies for HYS would be a higher if it included temporary, school-funded positions. At least for H there are over 30 such positions that I know of.

[Br3v]

Yeah my understanding was that VAPs were becoming more and more the way of the future with all the hesitation to hiring long term. Thus almost becoming a necessary and relativley solid step towards getting a tenure track offer.

[Br3v]

It is generally not good employment (aka not what doorkeeper said). Generally it tends to be people who are temporarily employed by the law school to boost its employment stats.

Isn't that "school funded" vs. academia?

Also, academia tallies for HYS would be a higher if it included temporary, school-funded positions. At least for H there are over 30 such positions that I know of.

That's what I would think, but I am just hesitant because I often hear stories making it seem like employment stats are the Wild West and schools can call jobs whatever they want to call them.

[dextermorgan]

It is not easy for someone who had a PhD prior to law school to land academia in their old field btw. It's actually incredibly hard because they are generally viewed as abandoning the field.

I would imagine that it depends on the specific circumstances and how much of a gap is between the PhD and JD. If they're back-to-back and their research agenda blends both together really, I wouldn't think that candidate would be judged too harshly.

Yeah, some fields may be okay with it, but most search committees are pretty hardcore into their fields. The usual path is JD then PhD if someone wants to go into academia.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

It is not easy for someone who had a PhD prior to law school to land academia in their old field btw. It's actually incredibly hard because they are generally viewed as abandoning the field.

I would imagine that it depends on the specific circumstances and how much of a gap is between the PhD and JD. If they're back-to-back and their research agenda blends both together really, I wouldn't think that candidate would be judged too harshly.

Yeah, some fields may be okay with it, but most search committees are pretty hardcore into their fields. The usual path is JD then PhD if someone wants to go into academia.

Yeah, I'm really only familiar with law school academia. And from what I've experienced, as long as you are using the law and it is a part of your work, that is what matters. And for legal academia, I've seen a fair amount of PhD-->JD (I mean just look at furman scholars), though I agree that I've seen more JD-->PhD.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Yeah my understanding was that VAPs were becoming more and more the way of the future with all the hesitation to hiring long term. Thus almost becoming a necessary and relativley solid step towards getting a tenure track offer.

Committees just have higher expectations when it comes to both quality and quantity of publications. Thus, a lot of people need extra time to produce quality stuff. VAPs and other various fellowships (some are just purely research-grant like positions) give candidates a chance to do this.