Law School

[hdunlop]

After six years on Capitol Hill, I want to get a joint PHD-JD, with the PHD in American defense policy and politics during the Cold War. I applied to PHD programs this cycle but didn't get in, but did great on the February LSAT which I took as a backup and ended up with a full funding offer for this fall at a school that's top 20 for both law and history (though not one of my best POI matches for history). They say I don't have to pay it back if I transfer after the first year and I'm pretty interested. But would applying while a first-year law student hurt my chances at getting into PHD programs in next year's application cycle? For that matter, is the joint program a dumb idea since I don't want to do legal history, but rather history related to the legislature (seems close enough to me, but maybe others disagree). Thanks to any insight folks can provide.

Edited April 17, 2013 by hdunlop

[qrsty]

Hi hdunlop,
 

Another legal history person here. Legal history is a growing field, super-interesting, previously under-studied, and with extra employment prospects since law schools are an option. It's a great path to consider.

Some other things to think about:
 

1. Obviously, the first thing to think about is whether you really need this JD. I would say that depends on how and from what angle you want to study legislation. A simple test to start with: think about the actual law school curriculum. Will learning these subjects in any way help you do research you couldn't do otherwise? You should know that to be admitted to a history department as a JD-PhD student you will have to explain very persuasively why you need both degrees, and what law as a field contributes to your research.

 

2. If you have decent numbers, law school admission is much, much easier than history. I would not assume that you'll be admitted to the joint degree program if you reapply as a 1L. Have you been in touch with the history department at this school? Have they given you any positive signs that you might be admitted if you reapply next year while already a 1L?
 

3. Is this really the program where you want to get your legal history degree? How many profs are doing legal history in the law school? (Look for at least 2-3.) Do they have any legal history students right now? (Look for at least 1-3.) How are those legal history students doing on the market? Are there legal history workshops, speaker series, etc.? Do legal history profs at the law school seem to talk with history profs, and are there people with true joint appointments? The reality is that even if you have decent fits in each school individually, it will be harder to do legal history at a place without a strong legal history community with support from both schools. There are not actually too many of those! Make sure this school is one!

 

4. You mentioned you might transfer, indicating that you might apply more broadly than just the school you're already attending. Are you really prepared to do a full round of applications to both grad schools and law schools while in the midst of 1L? Keep in mind that a) transfer admissions are more competitive for law schools, and your 1L grades are extremely important if you have any interest in being a law prof.
 

5. How will you feel if you don't get into a grad program as a 1L? Are you prepared to finish law school and reapply for a PhD afterward? This is still the most common way people enter legal history, so it wouldn't be a disaster, in my opinion, but maybe you feel differently. Better to think about this now.

 

6. So speaking of being a law prof, do you want to teach in a law school or a history department? Before you say "history department" too quickly, think about the fact that the law prof market is significantly less terrible, tenure reqs are easier, and salaries are double. Personally, I think you should keep your options open. If you do want to have the option of law teaching, you should know that going to a T20 law school, as opposed to a T14 or even better a T3, will significantly hurt your chances. Law school hiring is very credential-oriented, significantly worse than history that way. Check out the Leiter Law Reports blog and PrawfsBlawg entry-level hiring report for more info on law school hiring. Seriously, it is scary how many law profs are from the T3. Things are getting better, I think, and having a PhD will help, but still, you should remember the name on your degree matters.
 

 

7. Full scholarships to law schools are great. Do not underestimate this. However, some schools have LRAPs that cover academic employment (Yale, Harvard, not sure who else) and this can be almost as good. Also, if you get into both programs at once, many schools will fund your law degree, including schools that do not otherwise give merit scholarships. Also, law profs make enough that having some moderate debt is not as terrible, especially since you have a plan B option (being a lawyer) that's less scary financially than long-term adjuncthood.
 

8. Law school applications are rolling, and applying late hurts you. If you applied in February as a back-up and got into a T20, you could very likely do better if you reapply earlier in the cycle.
 

Sorry for the very long post! In conclusion, I would start law school now if and only if all of the following are true:

a) You really and truly want to do legal history,
Your law school is about as high-ranking as you can expect to get into based on your numbers, or decently close,*

c) The school does well when you ask the questions in #3 above, and

d) The history department gives you some positive indication about your prospects next year and/or you are comfortable doing JD first, PhD second.

 

* I would be less strict about the ranking thing if you had already been admitted to the PhD program, because I think some sacrifice in law school ranking is worth it to be able to do the joint degree at an awesome history department rather than do it sequentially. However, you do not have that counter-balancing factor, so there's no reason not to give yourself the best law credential you can get.

 

Otherwise, reapply next year as an actual joint degree applicant. Get your law school apps in by mid-November, refine your interests for a stronger SOP, have a legal history writing sample or make a strong cases for how legal history methods could extend & enrich your existing work, and all that jazz.

 

Good luck! Happy to answer more questions, via PM if needed. (Legal history is a very small field.)
 

Best,

qrsty

[Wicked_Problem]

There are also Law and Society programs in Criminology Departments.

[New England Nat]

Most law schools wont hire someone to teach there without a JD, but my friends who are either doing joint degrees or coming to a PhD with a JD are dealing with serious debt from their law school classes.  Unless the school you are going to has an established JD-PhD track you may have to go to a different institution to get your history degree.

 

I have one friend who came to get his PhD after having taught in law school.  I've another who finished a clerkship and than went to get a PhD, and yet a third who is doing his PhD between his 2nd and 3rd year of law school, but he's at Yale law where they'll let you go off for that long a break before coming back to finish.  And yes, he's going elsewhere than yale to get the PhD.

 

This is particularly true as there are only a handful of places that you can get a PhD with a legal history adviser.

[hdunlop]

Some very interesting points here.

 

The first and probably most important thing is the issue of whether I really need the JD -- the answer is probably not. I have enough professional experience as an amateur lawyer that I am able to parse most or all of what I would need for research without it. But I have high confidence I would really enjoy law school, and I think it would help open more doors at graduation -- as qrsty illustrates by mentioning the option of teaching law or history. Perhaps this isn't enough: qrsty, from what you wrote, it sounds as if history departments would see interest in a joint program as a detriment unless I justify the JD in terms of history -- is that right?

 

This school in particular doesn't have an existing joint program with history. They do with philosophy and they mention that other joint degrees are possible, but I assume the sticking point would not be the law school. Until now I have not been in touch with the history department because, to be honest, it isn't an ideal POI match, which is why I'm thinking of transfers as an option, but I would definitely reach out to them before accepting the offer to attend. No doubt this wouldn't be perfect (admissions in the midst of first semester of 1L would be brutal), because its geographically ideal and gets me back on track to graduate in X number of years I want to take a serious look at if it's reasonable at all.

 

Nat, is your friend currently at your institution? If so, I think I saw them when perusing the graduate student list there, and was curious about how the two-schools arrangement was set up and how it was working out.

Edited April 18, 2013 by hdunlop

[New England Nat]

Yes, he is currently at my institution.  The history department largely ignores his status as a law student other than allowing him to spend a summer doing internship to keep his legal knowledge up and current rather than research.  Essentially he was admitted to the history department on his own standing.  Yale I believe charges him a nominal continuing tuition for the 5-6 years it will take him to get his PhD and once he is finished here he will go back to do his third year.

 

The Yale/Princeton JD/PhD done that way is relatively common.

 

Have you considered writing a legal historian and just asking advise on these counts?  Dirk Hartog is just about the loveliest man I've ever known and I think would respond to a politely worded letter seeking advise.

[erikmoorelaw]

I earned my JD in 2004 and practiced law for seven years before returing to graduate school to pursue my PhD in history. I am using my legal training and experience now for legal history in U.S. foreign relations. Law school and history grad school are two very different animals with very different types of people. If you are not already aware of that, it is something to consider. The training received in law school has outstanding general applicability to graduate and professional work in history, among other fields, but I am not sure it is necessary for what you want to do. I am sure it would be helpful, though. Without question, a law degree opens up additional non-academic employment options to keep you working while you look for an academic job, if that is what your goal will be. I think the right history program and the right advisor would provide the training you are looking, though. Law school is just such a big undertaking and could be a demoralizing experience when combined with doctoral work if you do not ever intend on a career more directly related to the law. Then again, I am a bit jaded on the legal field. I did decide to leave it and pursue something I actually enjoy.

[Redyip]

I'm in a very similar situation as you (although I already have a JD and am looking to add a history PhD).  After several months of research, my overall impression is that legal history hiring in law schools and history departments look at very different things: Law schools are incredibly credential conscious, and almost always demand a JD from a T14 (preferably a T3) school.  All the law school legal history placements I've tracked down over the past 15 years have one of the following degree combos: Yale JD-PhD (this seems to be the default and most common combo), Yale JD-Harvard/Princeton PhD (also quite common), Harvard JD-Princeton PhD (much less common), UPenn JD-PhD (one case), UVA JD-PhD (two cases).  That's it.  Honestly, it was very disheartening when I first compiled the information, as my JD came from a T25 but not T14 school...  History departments hire from a much wider range of backgrounds, but also don't care (or so I've been told) about whether you have a JD.  What I mean to say is that, as far as I can tell, a JD from a non T14 school may be worth it for the intellectual experience (I enjoyed my time in law school tremendously), but isn't going to be an asset for job placement.

[oceansize]

I agree with most of what has been posted.  However, I think what it really boils down to is that you need to take a hard look at your options and decide whether you want to be a professor at a law school or in a history department.  Both of those markets are extremely competitive and the departments are looking at different things.

 

If the law school in question is not Yale, Harvard, Stanford, or Chicago, and you want to be a law professor, I would not attend.  There are statistics available online about law professor placement rates; it's already difficult to break into the field, and if you don't go to one of those schools it becomes nearly impossible.  Don't go to another school expecting to transfer to one of those schools.  It's something that's nice when it happens, but transfer admissions are extremely competitive, and 1L grades can be kind of a crapshoot.

 

I also disagree slightly with the assertion that a law degree is going to open up more non-academic job options.  The legal job market is extremely crippled/oversaturated right now.  I graduated several years ago from a top 20 law school, and I still have several classmates who did well in school and are underemployed or unable to find a job in a legal field.  If you're pursuing academia, it's going to hurt you with many of the non-academic legal jobs, and a law degree can also lock you out of certain non-academic non-legal jobs.  (The old adage "you can do anything with a law degree" simply isn't true for most people, at least not these days.)

[hdunlop]

Thanks all -- this has been very helpful. I seem to hear three key themes here.

 

The first is that if I want to do anything with a law degree I might as well wait and see what I can get into next year (and what kind of funding I can get at schools closer to the T14). The main driver for even considering school this fall is that I had originally intended on going and built a few life plans around it with my significant other and part of me wants to jump at the chance to stay on that schedule. However, that's not enough of a reason -- particularly if it's going to hurt my chances with my real goal, a history PHD.

 

The second is that if I don't want to do much with a law degree I should think very seriously about how much I really want to do it. That one's a bit harder. I really want to go to law school because the UG law classes I took were a blast, because I've worked around the law in the legislative branch for six years and had a great time doing it, and because I think there are areas where it can benefit my work (the nearest tie-in would be international law and domestic policy/politics/public opinion). So I'm not worried about being demoralized or not liking it. I am worried very much about that not being enough to convince history professors that I should be going down this route.

 

The third is marketability. Perhaps foolishly, I'm least concerned about this. I agree that, broadly speaking, the two don't play well together. However, I think in specific circumstances the two degrees can work together, chiefly in government and chiefly in the areas I'm looking at (these would build on my existing career experience). What I really want right now, though, is to teach history at some LA school somewhere. Because it's smart to keep my doors open, though, I think folks are probably right to suggest I should bide my time and see how I do with other applications next fall. Even though I want to get going right away!

 

Nat, your advice that I simply reach out to some of the folks in the field to discuss these issues does seem kinda obvious, but I needed someone with your experience and directness to push me past my reluctance to bother them, so thank you. It gets me back in the right direction: focused on doing all of this right this fall, rather than rushing headfirst into something before thinking it through, as I did last round.

 

Cheers all. And -- any and all further insight is greatly appreciated! This has been most helpful.

[qrsty]

Hdunlop, I think you're thinking about this decision in the right way. Some more on the question of JD-or-no-JD, though: this is really part of developing and articulating your research interests, and it sounds like (like most applicants!) that's where you have the most work to do. Who are the historians you most want to emulate? Are they "legal" historians? Have you done legal history research already? If not, in what ways would you expand your current projects in legal directions? Exposure to legal history in undergrad can be limited, so you may have more reading to do here. I highly recommend the new Cambridge History of Law in America, which is an excellent, recently-released guide to scholarship in the field. Every time I start a new project, I start the lit review here. 

 

Though I don't have much knowledge of your specific field, it sounds like legal history may well be a good fit for you, but you haven't yet figured out exactly what you want to do with it. It's possible that starting law school would give you a good space to think it through. Many (possibly most?) legal historians start the JD first rather than being ready to start a joint program from the beginning.

 

For that reason, I hope we aren't too discouraging about taking the offer you've got. A full scholarship is not something to take lightly, as Nat's comment should reinforce. You should really talk to faculty and students with interests in legal history and academia, to figure out if you would have good support intellectually and career-wise. Also, it is possible to exaggerate the elite school effect in law hiring. Yes, 6 schools produce 40% of the hires, which is staggering. But 40% isn't 100%. If you think you want to teach in a history department (though again, do not underestimate the possibility that you'll change your mind), then the ranking is less important and the money more so. The tie-breaker, in my opinion, should be their support for your interests. 

 

And yes, absolutely seek out advice from legal history professors. Just be prepared to get some conflicting information. Legal history career paths are changing a lot: many older profs never even got a PhD--just the JD and informal training in history. Most joint JD-PhD programs are not more than 10-15 years old, so that's a new option, too. The result is that there may not be a settled consensus yet about which of various developing options are the "best." Just welcome all info and keep context in mind.

 

One more plug for Leiter and Prawfsblawg, and also the Legal History Blog (though it updates less often). Many of your considerations have been addressed there. For example, here is some extremely concrete info on what backgrounds lead to law prof placement: http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2013/02/entry-level-hiring-the-2013-report-call-for-information.html

Check out earlier years, as well, and peruse the "Student Advice" and "Advice for Academic Job-Seekers" tags. Lots of food for thought!

[czesc]

I have a JD and applied for PhDs this last cycle. Not much to add here that others haven't said, but maybe I can contribute some nuggets from my own experience:

 

- Part of me wonders whether applying for a PhD after being a lawyer for some time made me stand out in the application process in a less than helpful way. I may not have seemed as serious about history as someone coming in with a masters and a job in the archive. Doing so while still in law school might be a different experience, but may still raise similar questions. Even formal joint JD/PhDs are still a relatively rare and novel thing in history academia, I think. And it seems from experience that law schools are more receptive to receiving people who have begun their PhDs than vice versa.

 

- Professors have asked me why I didn't pursue a JD/PhD concurrently, and this question might come up if you begin attending law school and then apply for a PhD later.

 

- Your chances of admission are much higher if there is a legal historian working in the department you're applying to (and on the same region/topic/issue/time period), even if you say you want to study policy and politics instead. These people will be the most excited to have a JD with formal training as a student.

 

- Almost nowhere is a university's law school well integrated with its arts and sciences departments, so you will probably need to seek support from your law school and the other school's history department, and will rarely be able to cross disciplinary lines on any one campus.

 

- You will probably need a recommendation from a law professor if you've started classes in law school, since it will have been your most recent academic experience, but this could also hurt you, since law professors won't know how to write recommendation letters targeted at history departments.

 

- Definitely try and figure out which teaching market you want to apply in early. Legal academia places emphasis on published papers, the more the better, and the papers will ideally be in legal journals and in a very disciplinarily unique format. Law students frequently publish. History PhDs, however, rarely publish papers, and tend to focus on publishing their dissertations as books. I've encountered history academics who actually discourage publishing before finishing a dissertation so as not to have to include "embarrassing" early works on a CV. Trying to adhere to both publishing cultures seems to be very challenging.