« CFP: National Conference of Constitutional Law Scholars 2019 | Main | University of Alabama School of Law Clinical Faculty Hiring Announcement »

Thursday, August 23, 2018

Law School Hiring Spreadsheet and Clearinghouse for Questions, 2018-2019

In a radical departure from past practice, this year the Hiring Spreadsheet post and the Clearinghouse for Questions post will live together in one post (quel scandale! cats and dogs! etc.). This very post, to be specific. (Last year, there were zero comments on the Hiring Thread post, because everyone just put the information in the spreadsheet. So I figured, let's combine them in one action-packed post! Spreadsheet and comments! Woohoo!)

I. The Spreadsheet

In the spreadsheet, you can enter information regarding whether you have received

(a) a first round interview at a school (including the subject areas the school mentioned, if any, as being of particular interest, and whether the interview offer was accepted);

(b)  a callback from a law school and/or accepted it; or

(c) an offer from a law school and/or accepted it; feel free to also leave details about the offer, including teaching load, research leave, etc. A school listed as "offer accepted" may have made more than one offer and may still have some slots open.

Law professors may also choose to provide information that is relevant to the entry-level market.  

Anyone can edit the spreadsheet; I will not be editing it or otherwise monitoring it. It is available here:

II. The Comment Thread

In this comment thread to this post, you can ask questions about the law teaching market, and professors or others can weigh in.

Both questions and answers can be anonymous, but I will delete pure nastiness, irrelevance, and misinformation. If you see something that you know to be wrong, please feel free to let me know via email, sarah*dot*lawsky*at*law*dot*northwestern*dot*edu.

You may want to take a look at the many questions and answers in the threads from 2014-20152015-20162016-2017. and 2017-2018. In general, there's quite a cache of materials relevant to the law job market under the archive categories Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market and Entry Level Hiring Report.

Update: Comments have been changed to appear in order of newest to oldest. So the most recent comments are on the first page.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on August 23, 2018 at 09:00 AM in Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market | Permalink


Has anyone heard of any Lateral interviews that aren’t posted? Or do schools wait until after DC to set them up? What if a school is seeking entry level and laterals? What is the procedure/order??

Posted by: AnonLat | Sep 16, 2018 12:26:11 PM

"Same point with the email thank you. For any other job it seems downright weird to thank people (all the people in the interview) for doing what is their job."

Seriously? Is that what you'd tell your students who are interviewing for clerkships? "Don't send a thank you. The judge is just doing what he's supposed to do!" See, it's that level of entitlement that many are trying to ferret out in this process. You could thank them for 1) giving you the opportunity to meet with them and be considered; 2) for taking the time to make sure all your questions were answered; 3) for representing their school in such a way that you're particularly interested in joining that type of institution, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Sep 16, 2018 12:11:11 PM

Are people not getting interviews because they have typos? It is unclear what it meant by a problematic paper application? Does that mean lack of references? poor publications records? or something physically wrong with the application, like they have typos?

While no doubt people don't want to have typos, people who don't have access to institutional machinery would be more likely to make mistakes, especially when sending out 100 cover letters. They may not have 5 people reading their materials. It's a shame if people would not be getting interviews if they simply make a mistake in an application (like if they put the wrong address or had a typo).

Same point with the email thank you. For any other job it seems downright weird to thank people (all the people in the interview) for doing what is their job. Most times you are thanking people to in turn reject you. Many people would not even think to email thanks you but at least some hiring chairs claim that is a tie breaker. Seems really odd..

Posted by: anon | Sep 16, 2018 12:05:57 PM

I assume there are fewer entries here because there are fewer candidates this year than in years past. Candidates also may be posting proportionally less because there a lower number of candidates, and this forum is super visible.

Also, I don't get how some can bemoan the process for being unfairly focused on prestige...then go ahead and cite the prestigious credentials of some individuals who are striking out as evidence of said unfairness. You can't very well have it both ways. There simply aren't enough jobs for all the qualified candidates out there.

To get more competitive, candidates should consider conforming their application materials to what we know hiring committees like rather than blaming the process. Make everything that is under your control absolutely flawless (and I don't mean improving credentials here: I mean perfecting your cover letters, FAR, writing samples, CV, etc). And faculty who aren't encouraging candidates to buckle down and regroup in this way actually aren't being helpful to qualified people who don't yet have jobs. Sympathy is cheap, and the system isn't changing in the short term. Some say successful fellows and VAPs are "mechanical." What they are is prepared to be successful in this process based on what hiring committees have been proven to be responsive to: complete, immaculate materials. Behind many a "perfect" candidate with few to no interviews is a somehow problematic paper application.

Posted by: seniorjunior | Sep 16, 2018 11:54:25 AM

anon_Zoe, the only signs I can think or are 1) they reach out to you earlier rather than later to schedule the interview (sometimes, committees fill the remaining spots at the end with people they aren’t wowed by but think there might be a chance) or 2) the best sign is if they reach out to you and invite you to have drinks/coffee/a meal with them during AALS. Many do that to try and get a jump start on recruiting the candidates they’re most interested in. It’s rare we invite someone out and then not issue them a callback.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Sep 16, 2018 11:36:19 AM

Thanks, AnonHiringChair. Is there any sign pre-AALS canidates can use to figure out if they’re in the top 3/top 6 group?

Posted by: anon_Zoe | Sep 16, 2018 11:01:52 AM

Try doing this multiple times and losing $475 a year plus the cost of staying at the Marriott (which is often $250) and travel to DC.

I do feel for those who paid the $475 and yet not a single interview. If you are not going on market again then it does not hurt to try to rally and email chairs with any updates to resume or to show interest in schools. I have found I picked up some more at lower ranked schools when I emailed them. I think some may have thought I was mot interested by geography or whatnot. Can't hurt to try. Some schools did not even realize I was in the book for that subject matter. You have to be assertive and take control because if you are not one of the fellows you can easily fall through the cracks which is what seems has happened to many. Schools talk to fellows programs and they advocate for their people. You have no one advocating for you so you have to do it yourself.

Posted by: anon | Sep 16, 2018 10:53:47 AM

anon_zoe, we typically interview 18 people and usually we have 2-3 standouts (who we call back) and 2-3 near-standouts (who are our alternates).

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Sep 16, 2018 10:49:39 AM

At this point the loss of $475 is a bit much to stomach given zero calls/emails. Oh well, lesson learned :-)

Posted by: Nonymouse | Sep 16, 2018 7:49:47 AM

How many of the candidates interviewed are typically the really serious contenders? 5/20? 10/20? All 20?

Posted by: anon_Zoe | Sep 15, 2018 7:00:21 PM

We are done for this year. I suspect that most committees are done.

I suspect that the number of FAR applicants will come down further next year.

This " Supreme Court clerks have been hired by Southern Illinois University, Northern Kentucky University, and a bunch of other schools outside the T50."
Very much a buyer's market.

Posted by: AnonComm | Sep 15, 2018 6:28:42 PM

Pro tip: even if you booked already often it is cheaper to rebook closer to conference. Many schools book more than needed so there are always last minute cancellations. Prices sometimes change too so even if booked already check the price closer to conference.

Posted by: anon2 | Sep 15, 2018 3:03:59 PM

FYI: The AALS website (on the FRC page) says the Marriott Wardman is fully booked, but I just booked a room on the hotel website without any issues.

Posted by: OnAnonAnon | Sep 15, 2018 2:32:49 PM

5+ interviews with schools in the T100 would be pretty impressive I think. For lower ranked schools, not so much.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Sep 15, 2018 12:01:46 PM

How many interviews at this point would indicate a strong candidate? Assuming they aren’t crim or business.

Posted by: anon_J_Doe | Sep 15, 2018 11:58:42 AM

I'm sure there are a handful, but I'd be shocked if there are many schools that have yet to make calls. We've made all of ours -- we basically have to by this point given that we need time to send the candidates some materials and have them send us some supplemental materials. Also, the calls reported here are only a small fraction of those that have been made.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Sep 15, 2018 10:14:24 AM

anon2, I’m glad you concur with my assessment that we are still unusually far from the end of interview invites. I’m intrigued by your suggestion that although this year’s timing is similar to 2016’s, some hiring committees may be carrying forward the late calling behavior of the abnormally-late 2017 cycle. The Kremlinology of law school hiring is beyond me, but your explanation seems the best fit for the fact that a significant number of top schools haven’t been reported on the spreadsheet yet. At the current pace, we might not even see HYS posted by the end of next week.

I’d further predict that, given how PhDs have greater appeal for higher ranked schools (former committee member told me), they will see a bit more in the way of interview invites as we enter the FRC scheduling endgame next week. Let’s see how it goes.

Posted by: anon | Sep 15, 2018 1:50:00 AM

Are there really that many schools that people are posting? In past years people posted most schools including the T14 interviews...There are alot missing as the post further down notes...at least 25-30 major schools. The Jewish holiday schedule also might have impacted scheduling this year since there are 2 weeks in a row where there is a major jewish holiday.

Posted by: anon2 | Sep 15, 2018 1:09:17 AM

@anon2 I think people are not filing out the spreadsheet. All of the interviews I have gotten this week seem to have been schools that were filling their last slots, because they had very few interview times available. There may be some schools that people have listed below that have not yet called. Although, I do believe Richmond has called....

Posted by: Anon3 | Sep 15, 2018 12:45:27 AM

In 2016, which followed a similar schedule to this year (last year AALS was late in November while in most years it is like this year in the 2nd week of October), almost all calls were made between August 27-Sept. 5. Is this year different for some reason? In past years, it looks like alot of schools were reported and it's unclear to me whether people are just not reporting alot of schools like in contrast to years past or whether schools got spoiled by the late timing last year which combined with the lower number of aals applicants has caused to delay meeting until this week or next. It just worries me a little when you compare this year to the 2016 spreadsheet where everything was almost all over by Sept. 14.

Anyone in the know?

Posted by: anon2 | Sep 15, 2018 12:14:13 AM

The argument below assumes that the fellows are not invaded by the very same bias as the aals process itself. In fact I think it is more likely Harvard faculty are reading articles for tenure track jobs than fellowships. Sure there is a fellows committee but I would think they rely even more on signals like references than when they are evaluating someone for the actual faculty. A fellow they can get rid of in 2 years so why invest more time evaluating them rather than potential faculty?

A lot of fellows don’t place because fellowship programs obviously are not picking the right people or are giving them support to be marketable or they are picking people who can’t move. A few years ago like half of the fellows did not place the first time on market. It’s better now but I personally know a lot of fellows who moved on. For many they were constrained geographically and that just won’t work in this market. And climenko has at least one every year as well as the others. Bigelow is the only one that consistently places.

Posted by: Anon | Sep 14, 2018 8:35:02 PM

The placement vs law degree/clerkship/fellowship question overlooks the possibility of actually sitting down to read candidates’ scholarship. That’s the real red flag.

Posted by: anon4 | Sep 14, 2018 7:13:42 PM

Also, this discussion generally assumes that a lot of the "elite" signals (top law school, top clerkship, top fellowship) are meaningless. But for schools trying to find the best future scholars, these are useful signals.

In fact, I would argue that there is actually a fairly strong UNDER-reliance on these sorts of signals in legal academia (and an over-reliance on law review placement as a signal). Which is a stronger indication of a scholar's potential: (1) the fact that a group of 2Ls at Emory were very impressed by an article (signaled via an ELJ publication) or (2) the fact that a group of tenured and tenure-track faculty at a school like Harvard--including typically specialists in that subject matter--were impressed by an article and research agenda (signaled via a Climenko Fellowship)? The answer to this question seems incredibly obvious to me. And yet, Climenko Fellows who place in, say, Stetson are regularly passed over in this process in favor of non-fellows who place in, say, Emory -- and on the basis largely of that relative difference in placement. This isn't to say that the top fellows don't generally do pretty ok (although I think there is usually at least one Climenko Fellow every year who completely strikes out). I'm just not convinced that they shouldn't do relatively better.

Posted by: anon3 | Sep 14, 2018 6:53:46 PM

Also BU, Notre dame, Michigan State, Dayton, Hawaii, Tuoro, ny law, Wisconsin, William and Mary, Richmond, new Hamp,

And most of t20

Posted by: Anon | Sep 14, 2018 4:04:01 PM

What schools are people waiting to hear from that advertised in the bulletin?

I haven’t seen Oregon, Wyoming, Kentucky, Richmond, WashU or Irvine on the list. Have calls been made?

Any AALS interviews from Brooklyn? The spreadsheet only shows a pre-AALS interview so far.

Posted by: Doe | Sep 14, 2018 3:41:18 PM

So much of this however irrational is about creating buzz. For that reason it’s very unlikely someone with no interviews will suddenly get a t14. It happens but if you are in that position it’s unlikely plus t14 schools often just go to scope out and never hire. Hiring chairs all talk with each other; t14 schools are going to go after the ones creating buzz.

That creates inefficiency in the process. The same 30 people are getting all the interviews and everyone accepts interviews even if they have no intent of moving to that school because they want to keep up the buzz. Schools want to know you are interviewing at their peers; if you don’t have that it is unlikely to be successful

For phd I suspect the problem is you are not making yourself two separate applicants. Being a legal scholar is very different from being an economist. You often have to have different papers and research agendas. I suspect people are not doing that

Posted by: Anon | Sep 14, 2018 3:36:06 PM

AnonHiring Chair writes: "Orin, first of all, let's be honest: this entire process is based on 'elite insider norms.'"

I appreciate the response, and the honesty, but I have a different view. Here I should emphasize that I am speaking in my personal capacity, not in the representative capacity of any current or past school or committee . But as I see it, from the school's perspective, the entire process is based on trying to find the best future scholars and teachers. I think there's an inherent tension, in that goal, between a candidate's mastering norms and having talent. Candidates who have mastered the norms can use that mastery to hide a lack of talent and interest. With enough insider prep and training, they can talk the talk, seem "polished," give the right caveats at the right time, know how to seem really interested without seeming too eager, etc. even if they don't actually have any significant ideas or interest. On the other hand, a candidate without the insider prep and training is exposed. They have to get through on their merits. As I see it, that tension suggests that schools trying to find the best future scholars and teachers should strive to deemphasize criteria that are based heavily on game-able norms like whether a candidate was informed of the (apparent) insider etiquette of writing thank-you notes. My 2 cents, at least.

Posted by: Orin Kerr | Sep 14, 2018 3:12:59 PM

I too have zero interviews, so there’s about 4-5 of us now. It’s hard to believe there’s been 1000-1500 interviews scheduled by now, but that’s probably the case at this point (assuming 5-10% of applicants are reporting on the spreadsheet).

It’s been said in this thread that the point of no hope is after we get past Sept. 15th or 17th. There’s still some days to go. And, if it’s any encouragement, many of the better schools have still not been reported on the spreadsheet. We PhDs may be most appealing to that segment of legal academia. Indeed, I think it’s too early to give up until we see HYS posted on the spreadsheet.

Posted by: anon | Sep 14, 2018 3:11:24 PM

I think part of the problem is the centralization of applications. Here is why. There is an opportunity cost to applying individually to programs. A big one. Lol. Trust me I’m going through it right now as I shift to applying to programs in other disciplines, because I don’t trust the AALS process to be predictable. However, the cost, hours searching for jobs & applying with customized material to each job, weeds out the people who would not seriously consider teaching at those schools. So someone with a Yale or Harvard PhD, likely won’t be competing against me for interviews at low teir schools because they don’t have to. And, in return, those low teir schools don’t waste their time interviewing candidates that would probably go to a teir 1 school anyway. I’ve never heard anyone in my discipline or other colleague’s disciplines that have 20-30 screening interviews. I told my Chair in my department and he thought I was exaggerating. He is an economist so in his eyes, that is a giant inefficiency for the schools and the candidates. Most of my colleagues get maybe 6 interviews 3 callbacks and a couple job offers. I’m not saying that HY peeps don’t get preference in other disciplines too...just saying that this centralized process creates this huge disparity and reinforces it in ways that I have not seen in political science, psychology, health, & sociology.

Posted by: Another anon | Sep 14, 2018 3:10:43 PM

Going to DC for one interview is a tricky question, particularly because some schools are not even sure what they're hiring in, or whether they will hire at all. I guess I would go to DC for one interview if I knew that that particular schools is hiring in my field, because then it would increase the likelihood of getting a callback.

Posted by: AnonP | Sep 14, 2018 3:02:28 PM

I think it is too late to decide whether travel for one interview is worth it--I think this process is all or nothing. Besides, why would two interviews (or three) make one believe "now, THAT number is worth it!" The odds aren't that much better in landing a full time job with a couple of more interviews.

Posted by: All or Nothing | Sep 14, 2018 2:50:44 PM

Anon10 - I'll take your interview if you dont want it ;) Still zero interviews for me... A bit relieved to hear I'm not the only one. It's just frustrating that I had to pay 475$ for what seems to be nothing.

Posted by: Anon11 | Sep 14, 2018 1:50:12 PM

The one interview problem is really hard. I do know people who had 1 interview at AALS and are now on that faculty. Good luck!

Posted by: Junior Prof | Sep 14, 2018 1:49:22 PM

Depends on how desirable the school is for you. On one hand, you don't want to broadcast you don't have alot of interviews. On other hand, you can ask for a Skype interview. Every year this issue arises on this board and some people ask for a Skype or phone interview. Could just say due to personal circumstances i am not able to make it DC that weekend so would it be possible to dn an interview over skype or phone

personally, i don't think it's worth traveling to DC spending over $800 for one interview. Not when they are interviewing 30 people.

Posted by: Anon1 | Sep 14, 2018 1:48:05 PM

What is the etiquette if only offered one interview? I just received a call requesting an interview at AALS. However, I would prefer not traveling to AALS for just one interview. Is there an alternative? How is this viewed by the Committee?

Posted by: Anon10 | Sep 14, 2018 1:33:50 PM

Not all schools are like that, so there is still some possibility you could get a job. At a minimum, if you decide to do this next year, fill out the online application (most state universities have a more open process) and write directly to hiring chairs.

You're right - this is not merit based AT ALL and not getting interviews should not in any way make you think you are any less of a scholar than anyone else. You would likely be better than alot of the people getting hired. It happens to alot of people, even those who do have T5 law degrees and perfect everything so don't think it is just happening to those without pedigrees. There are alot of people falling through the cracks. Without a top law degree, perhaps one would not get Yale but there really is no logical reason you would not be competitive at most of the nation's law schools, especially with a solid research trajectory.

I doubt anyone will do anything about it but the good intention of starting fellows programs has transitioned into something else entirely. It's original purpose was to help people who may be working in a law firm transition into academy, but it quickly turned into a reinforcement of the privilege those candidates already have and it disproportionately affects candidates who by nature of their personal circumstance can't move constantly. The system is too dependent on connections and applicants who check all the right boxes. And it's keeping out many worthwhile candidates. My goodness, people are spending $500 to be considered and not getting a single interview with equally as good publication records to candidates that have 20 interviews?

Posted by: Anon1 | Sep 14, 2018 1:09:23 PM

These more recent comments certainly make me feel better for striking out on FAR interviews. The bars for admission to the academy seem hardly merit based, and to hear others say it is some solace to those very bright and very intellectually curious individuals who didn't come from the privilege of private high schools, Ivy college educations, and T-5 JDs. It's like a good ol' boys club that I have never been, and will never be, a part of. It has definitely begun the fracturing of the self-deception that I could ever belong in such a group.

Posted by: anon | Sep 14, 2018 12:44:42 PM

I think some of the jd/phd people who have good publications but no interviews are too associated with their discipline. I have heard people tell others that you don't want to appear like you are more interested in your discipline. If striking out and the below biology poster aren't getting interviews, I think that may be a big reason.Pedigree too-Those people may have a T14 law degree but I think not having that and not having institutional support is a killer. In fact you probably need a T5 law degree, for most schools if you don't have institutional support and are freelancing it.

I personally don't think alot of people hired last year were any more special than alot of applicants who don't get jobs. Everyone really is great. What they often do have is institutional support. Most applicants who got jobs have one or two T50-T70, with some having T20-T40 who get the better schools and a handful having a T14 law review.

And yes, I agree, teaching quality + research is key. Many of the applicants like the below poster and striking incidentally have alot more teaching experience and a better record of good teaching than many of the people with institutional support who only taught a legal writing class with one years' worth of teaching evaluations. Those with institutional support may be awesome teachers no doubt but many of the phd candidates have more of a record to show for it just by the nature of having a phd.

Honesty, I don't think many of the schools care much about teaching because I think you would be seeing more of the people with established teaching records - albeit not in law but in their other discipline - getting more interviews like striking out and the biology person. .

For striking out and biology person not to have ANY interviews - NONE at more than 100 schools -OVER MULTIPLE YEARS is embarassing. We're not talking T50 schools. they don't even have any at T100 schools. And I'm talking interviews - not actual jobs or callbacks - when schools interview 20-30 people. That's really a shame and an embarrassment in my mind.

Posted by: anon | Sep 14, 2018 12:14:24 PM

It's a different market, even with the decline in candidates this year. Look at the early-career publications of the more senior profs on a hiring committee. More often than not, it appears pretty unlikely that they would be hired today by their school (or any other school, for that matter).

Posted by: anon | Sep 14, 2018 11:27:20 AM

Oh man, having T30 law reviews and no interviews is not surprising at all. Even aside from pedigree-bias, the good-ol-boys network, etc., there are just so many stellar candidates that, even this year, it is a buyer's market.

I have what I consider to be a very strong publication record for an entry-level candidate, which includes two T30 law review articles, another T60 (an empirical piece), a coauthored book with a prestigious university press, a second book (solo authored) under contract with a different but equally prestigious university press, an article with a top biology journal, and several other peer-reviewed articles and book chapters. (And, for what it's worth, extremely good teaching evaluations). I don't have any interviews this year, nor did I have any last year, which of course bums me out, but when I go back and look at who was actually hired last year by schools, most of the times I think: "well, damn, I would have picked them too."

Posted by: not surprised | Sep 14, 2018 11:19:20 AM

Any updates on lateral folks? This is the first year the lateral and entry level FARs have the button to distinguish themselves. I haven't seen much. As the previous poster stated - it would be interesting to hear an update on Striking Out.

Posted by: Nonymouse | Sep 14, 2018 11:07:16 AM

"Read the work, evaluate the publications and research agenda instead of relying on who so or so is advocating this year."

Also - gasp - evaluate whether the candidate would be a good teacher?

Posted by: anon | Sep 14, 2018 11:06:26 AM

And I think this whole process which was specifically designed to ensure that the old boys network mattered less in hiring reinforces it even more. Alot of great candidates get overlooked because they don't have people proactively advocating for them if they are not in a fellowship program or did not go to a small enough school where there is institutional support for people advocating for you. I have a selfish interest in this but I see alot of great people not get jobs and just do something because they don't have that type of support

I attributer alot of it to laziness and lack of time on the part of hiring committees. Read the work, evaluate the publications and research agenda instead of relying on who so or so is advocating this year. There was a poster on here before with T30 law review articles. As of last week they had no interviews. That's a disgrace. I wonder if that person can provide an update? I would be interested to know if they ended up getting any, since they wrote about giving up. I think they called themselves "StrikingOut." Seriously, no interviews, unbelievable!

Posted by: anon | Sep 14, 2018 10:43:55 AM

While true, as the previous poster notes, thank-you notes are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of elite insider norms that only a fraction of candidates have access to (specifically, those candidates who are at an institution--either as a student or VAP--with an infrastructure for getting students placed). Think of assembling and sending packets, having your references proactively call and advocate on your behalf, the game-theory involved in the FAR form (e.g., putting your teaching preferences into coherent groups like crim/crim pro instead of casting a wide net), and all of the other quirks of this process that are non-obvious to most candidates.

Posted by: anon | Sep 14, 2018 10:13:20 AM

Orin, first of all, let's be honest: this entire process is based on "elite insider norms." Second, the discrete point I was making was that, when we have had trouble deciding who to call back (say, for example, we have one call back slot left and are trying to decide between two candidates), we will sometimes consider who seemed more interested in us (given that we're in a geographic region that may not appeal to all candidates). When we take such things in account, a thank you note can provide some indication of that interest and help us decide between those two candidates.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Sep 14, 2018 10:02:18 AM

AnonHiringChair writes: "We have occasionally used them as a tie-breaker in situations where one of the candidates just seemed way more interested in us by virtue of their thank-you email. Also, it can't hurt -- I mean who is going to ding you for being nice?"

That's fascinating. And, to my mind, potentially troubling. Here's my concern. If writing thank you notes really gives you an edge, because within a set of elite insider norms it is considered "the right thing to do," then the insiders with connections who can tell them about the norms (and who are playing the game to maximize their chances) will write thank-you notes regardless of whether they are interested. On the other hand, the outsiders who don't have the elite connections to tell them the norms won't write thank-you notes even if they're super-interested because they don't realize this is the thing to do. The result, I would fear, is that highly valuing an e-mail -- so much that it is used to select which candidate to pick, presumably for a callback -- will favor those with connections to the insider norms and disfavor those without those connections. That is, a practice that within the norm is viewed as just favoring "being nice" is really favoring having enough connections to know how to play the game. That's my concern, at least.

Posted by: Orin Kerr | Sep 14, 2018 7:38:16 AM

Anon at 6:50 -- send thank you notes to everyone you interviewed with. It's the safest strategy.

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Sep 13, 2018 10:15:22 PM

Oregon, WV, or Irvine making any calls?

Posted by: Johnny_Doe | Sep 13, 2018 9:23:45 PM

I also disagree with Committee Member. Thank you notes to hiring chairs is common practice, and was done by all of my colleagues who were on the market with me at the same time (HLS, YLS grads & fellows).

Posted by: AnonP | Sep 13, 2018 7:11:39 PM

AnonHiringChair, the perennial question - a thank you note to just the chair or notes to everyone?

Posted by: anon | Sep 13, 2018 6:50:06 PM

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I strongly recommend you send thank-you emails. Most candidates do and, if you don't, you risk standing out in a bad way. Plus, we have occasionally used them as a tie-breaker in situations where one of the candidates just seemed way more interested in us by virtue of their thank-you email. Also, it can't hurt -- I mean who is going to ding you for being nice?

Posted by: AnonHiringChair | Sep 13, 2018 5:37:21 PM

Please don't email thank you notes.

First, it's part of our jobs. We aren't doing interview candidates a favor: you've earned your shot.

Second, we get way too much email already.

Third, it's hard not to come off as desperate or at least trying too hard. You want people to feel like they're lucky to have a chance to hire you.

Posted by: Committee Member | Sep 13, 2018 4:52:26 PM

I have done it but find it awkward. Who to email? Everyone? Do committe members find it awkward?

Posted by: Anon | Sep 13, 2018 4:36:26 PM

Thinking ahead... thank you emails after AALS interviews. Good idea or too much?

Posted by: Anon_Zoe | Sep 13, 2018 4:31:34 PM

Just a guess but I wonder if schools not on the list are more niche candidates whereas ones from the fellows program are filling it in since they are more in the know for themselves and others. It is odd San Diego would have so many filled in yet none for ASU. Perhaps ones that have a lot are interviewing people who are on here more (which I think tend to be fellows and phds) whereas laterals or those in a more niche subject matter (an immigration lawyer applying for immigration law who is out practicing law) is not on here.

Posted by: Anon | Sep 13, 2018 4:30:47 PM

Looks like hotel is booked already anyway, for Friday night at least.

Posted by: Late to Party | Sep 13, 2018 2:05:12 PM

Few t30 schools on the spreadsheet, a third or so it appears. Only 3 of the t14 are listed.

We are 4 weeks away from FRC, with the hotel deadline looming on the 19th. Would be nice if schools finished up their calls by then.

Posted by: Juan | Sep 13, 2018 12:36:10 PM

To Staff member: use your relationship to the law school to cultivate research. Try to talk to faculty members, have someone who will read your work. If you do that, that could overcome any bias from your job. Research is key, being at a law school you have access to libraries and resources more than a regular person at a firm is so act just like a firm person with resources and write law review articles. Post on ssrn and blogs. Make yourself into an academic. You have the best chance of your own school taking notice but if you set yourself up wright try the aals next year if you get a few law review articles in.

Without law review articles it is not worth doing. You need the law review articles. Use your job as an advantage not a problem.

Posted by: anon | Sep 12, 2018 11:48:29 PM

Anybody hear anything from Oregon?

Posted by: anonPacNW | Sep 12, 2018 8:34:25 PM

What subjects has Richmond made calls for?

Posted by: Anon_Zoe | Sep 12, 2018 8:25:05 PM

Post a comment