Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Althouse

Legal Commentary

: Althouse

"[H]ow do we make sure law schools can teach people to think like lawyers when our hiring criteria increasingly privilege people who do interdisciplinary and empirical rather than traditional legal scholarship?"

Asks lawprof Stephen Bainbridge (via Instapundit):

When we hire people with mediocre law credentials just because they're good at running regressions or have a PhD? Or when the PhDs we hire went the law route either because law schools pay more or because they didn't have the chops to get a top job in their home discipline. Or when the PhDs we hire went the law route either because law schools pay more or because they didn't have the chops to get a top job in their home discipline.

If we were still trying to hire folks because they were EIC of a top law review, head of their law school class, had a good clerkship, and some experience in a top law firm doing real law, I'd be more confident of our ability to teach people to think like lawyers instead of teaching them to think like mediocre statisticians, sociologists, philosophers, economists, or what have you.

A question that hits hard here in Wisconsin.... where, incidentally, we're involved in a big dean search and ? check it out ? that salary is excellent. And you may have heard about the pension and health insurance benefits we've got here....

But wouldn't it be funny to test the dean candidate with Bainbridge's question?

Full post as published by Althouse on February 22, 2011 (boomark / email).