Lawstudents.ca

I'm doing course selection right now and am impressed with the resumes of the professors: many have some very distinguished credentials, both academically and from industry. Still, I find it interesting that these people have accomplished a good deal in the private sector and have now returned to an academic setting to teach... What are the big incentives for this?

I realize in a lot of arts undergraduate fields, academia is really the only option if pursuing one's work to the PhD level, though there a lot of options available for lawyers. Are they offered significant amounts of money relative to other professors, or are many tired of the work force? I know many medical profs are practicing doctors/surgeons while teaching on the side... Is it the same in law school at all? I can see that being an extremely demanding schedule to manage.

I know someone who went into academia because he couldn't deal with the sociopaths working around him at his firm. Plus, he enjoyed cracking books.

I don't think that there's a one answer fits all scenario. Many profs are interested in academia from the start, some move to academia after many years of practice, and some teach occasionally while maintaining a practice. One thing is clear, though, they're not doing it for the money. Most profs at U of T Law earn somewhere between $150,000 and $250,000, more in the lower half than the top. Some earn less than $150,000 and a few are above $250,000. The Dean is the highest paid and even she is below $300,000. For those who are in practice and teach the occasional course, they often have to turn the stipend they receive over to their firm. Academia is something pursued, in large part, due to interest in teaching and research. And, no, at least at U of T, they are not earning significantly different salaries than profs in other departments.

+1 to erin's post.



I have had a prof or two comment that the work hours at firms were a reason they went from private practice to academia. Part of the issue is not even the total number of hours but rather control over when work occurs.



I've seen professors who are consultants on the side but that's it. There are, of course, adjuncts, but they're practitioners foremost and not really academics.

Not to sound too smarmy about this, but the obvious answer you need to hear (and which too damn many students don't realize, in law and otherwise) is that there's more to life than money. You may not realize that you implied it's all about money, but there's no reason to question anyone's commitment to academia otherwise. It's a rewarding and interesting profession and certainly doesn't lack for recognition. It just earns less.

So you're wondering why people would settle for earning less? That's because at some stage enough is enough, and successful professionals would prefer to own bigger pieces of their own lives and make the choices they want to make, rather than selling all their time to the highest bidder.

Sorry, but the $$$$ fandom gets a bit much here sometimes.

+1.

It's not all about money, and really, the quality of life is much higher for most individuals in academia than most comparable firm positions, because you can't "buy" time...

I know I will end up either teaching or as a judge/arbitrator/etc some day, and part of the reason for that is the desire to not spend my entire life at a firm. There are plenty of OTHER reasons of course, but I'd be lying if I pretended work/life balance wasn't a factor.

There's a lot more to life than academia, too.

I think you should go re-read my post: I never once asked why they accept the jobs for less money. I did, however, ask whether that was a possible incentive for some, but was asking what else draws people to the field, considering law is very open-ended. To boot, I also mentioned the credentials of the profs I've read reviews about, and should have specified what I meant about that: many have had prestigeous placements with NGOs, the UN, the Supreme Court (Canadian and those abroad), along with at major firms and other interesting institutions, many of which are actively bringing about change in the world. I was curious why these people take up positions in academia, and to what degree they're still active in their previous positions (as where I asked about doctors teaching while practicing as well). I've heard some arts professors express frustrations about the insular nature of the 'ivory tower'... Is legal academia different?

There sure is a lot of assumption making on a board made up of law students.

Silly us for not realizing that by "private sector" you meant "NGOs, the UN, and the Supreme Court."

These last few responses are ridiculous. Thrillhouse asked a sincere, reasonable question about why some people choose to go into legal academia. The first few responders were able to give relevant answers that didn't assume, when there are other options, that his curiosity was motivated by his disbelief that someone would take a pay cut to go into academia. I find it particularly frustrating that a thread with a question that may have been of interest to many other members is now derailed because of some people's self-absorbed desire to tell the OP off.

If there are people out there with relevant thoughts on the original question, I'm sure there are plenty of other members who would still be interested.

Allow me to get a bit Foucauldian here: discourse is practice. The policies and programs of these NGOs, the UN, and Supreme Courts have been informed by the work of frustrated academics who started writing about them decades ago. I'm starting law school in the fall and before that I studied international development; the enduring problems in these two disciplines have convinced me that they need much more critical thought than they do employees. The symbiosis between the various worlds (academic, legal, IR/global affairs, etc.) continues to intensify and I'm excited to see these connections and experience all of them at some point, but as of now my primary intention is to be a researcher/academic.

No, I added those specifically in my second post. The private sector does not necessarily = the business sector, which is a part of it.

As a (to be immodest) high-achiever student who is about 90% certain that she wants to go into legal academia, I would say it's definitely about quality of life, and also that some of us are simply more oriented towards the intellectual conversations. (relative) independence, and community of the academy.

I'm spending my summer doing a handful of research projects/work for law professors, a fairly good preview to what life as a legal academic will be like, and I'm having such a good, productive, rewarding time. I love the conferences, the back-and-forth with colleagues, and the freedom of working on projects that are aimed at provoking reflection and analysis rather than serving clients, which, let's be honest, is the end-game of most areas of firm practice. (And nothing wrong with that. But it's not 'the good life' for some of us).

So long as you enjoy the sound of your own voice and sitting around in an office surfing the internet, being a professor is the most chill gig out there. You don't have to take shit from anyone. Students have to kiss your ass, or you give them a bad mark, and the admin can't come near you or you screem "ACADEMIC FREEDOM!". Sure there are some very nasty politics within faculties and getting a job here requires you plug your nose, close your eyes and stick out your tongue for 3-4 years. You have to put a lot of work into publishing things no one will read. But you can make up for this by going to all expenses paid conferences to talk about your boring papers to people who are also there for an all expsnses paid 2 vacation, that aint so bad. The real payoff is it's the one steady job where you have no customer or boss to satisfy, you create your own work, and can generally be the laziest log on the planet and people will still respect you if you're somewhat cool.

Also that. It seems to me the one common personality trait of legal academics is that they are types who are incapable of eating sh*t from people. Which is a lot of what goes on at law firms.

In your experience, who eats whose shit at law firms?

I would have to disagree with that. I haven't noticed that personality trait in many, if any, of my profs, and I also disagree with your second statement. To say that that is "a lot of what goes on at law firms" is more than a little silly. Most law profs are of an age that, even if you believe that associates are experiencing the euphemism you think they are, they are long past associate age. The other factor is that many profs also practice, many from large firms, so, clearly, that is not going to be a commonality. Many of those who are not combining a current practice with their teaching are individuals who practiced for many years and often have developed a particular area of expertise. Students who aspire to legal academia should realize that it is very unlikely to get a position without a certain amount of actual experience practicing law, and even then, legal academia, as with all other areas of academia, presents a challenge in securing a job these days.

There's a distinction between a practicioner who teaches and a tweed blazer wearing professor.

And then there is the teacher who also "practices".

Did I say otherwise?

Was your post in light of that distinction?

From The Pelican Brief, by John Grisham:

"Who understands Rosenberg's dissent in Nash v. New Jersey?" All heads lowered and the room was silent. Must be a bad hangover. His eyes were red. When he started with Rosenberg it usually meant a rough lecture. No one volunteered. Nash? Callahan looked slowly, methodically around the room, and waited. Dead silence.

The doorknob clicked loudly and broke the tension. The door opened quickly and an attractive young female in tight washed jeans and a cotton sweater slid elegantly through it and sort of glided along the wall to the third row, where she deftly maneuvered between the crowded seats until she came to hers and sat down. The guys on the fourth row watched in admiration. The guys on the fifth row strained for a peek. For two brutal years now, one of the few pleasures of law school had been to watch as she graced the halls and rooms with her long legs and baggy sweaters. There was a fabulous body in there somewhere, they could tell. But she was not one to flaunt it. She was just one of the gang, and adhered to the law school dress code of jeans and flannel shirts and old sweaters and oversized khakis. What they wouldn't give for a black leather miniskirt.

She flashed a quick smile at the guy seated next to her, and for a second Callahan and his Nash question were forgotten. Her dark red hair fell just to the shoulders. She was that perfect little cheerleader with the perfect teeth and perfect hair that every boy fell in love with at least twice in high school. And maybe at least once in law school.

Callahan was ignoring this entry. Had she been a first-year student, and afraid of him, he might have ripped into her and screamed a few times. "You're never late for court!" was the old standby law professors had beaten to death.

But Callahan was not in a screaming mood, and Darby Shaw was not afraid of him, and for a split second he wondered if anyone knew he was sleeping with her. Probably not. She had insisted on absolute secrecy.

"Has anyone read Rosenberg's dissent in Nash v. New Jersey?"

Cheers

I've never read a Grisham novel, and now I know I never will.

Thanks.

Here's the trailer for the Pelican Brief: http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi351404313/

Darby Shaw: Julia Roberts
Callahan: Sam Shepard

Ew.