Abritrariness*

So, if you follow me on Twitter you know I got a job offer the other day (if you don't follow me on Twitter, don't worry, you're not missing anything. And guess what! I got a job offer the other day!). 

Which is all very exciting, and I'm very pleased, but I continue to be amazed/amused at how arbitrary hiring can be. People who like my resume REALLY like my resume, and seem to want to interview me just to make sure I'm not some kind of troll or antisocial freak, because they seem determined to hire me unless I suck in person. And let's be honest - they like my Ph.D. They look at the Ph.D. and think, "OOoooh! She can research and write and will do so without complaint! Snatch her up!" 

On the one hand, this is perfectly great. I am happy to trade on whatever employment capital having a Ph.D. gives me. On the other hand, it feels a little bizarre when legal employers consider a history Ph.D. "impressive." It's true that the Ph.D. is a proxy for some academic ability (and discipline/perseverance, although really, if I were truly disciplined, I would have taken less time to get the damn degree!). But it is by no means an accurate proxy for legal brilliance or competence. Having a Ph.D. does not guarantee law school success, and while I've been a fairly successful student, I'm not at a super-top-elite school, and I'm not at the top of my class. I haven't set the legal world on fire.

And the fact is, many employers are perfectly aware of this. Given their lack of response, it seems clear they look at my resume and think, ""Law school record good but not completely outstanding. Oh, and she's done some other stuff. That's nice. Pass." This is the case even with lots of employers who say they really really value research and writing. 

Anyway, I originally started this post a few days ago, and I've been wondering why I find this so baffling, this contrast between people who want to hire me and people who don't. Lord knows that academic job applications are similarly arbitrary, in that they're all about "fit" - there are a lot of things that a given employer will want in an applicant that won't necessarily make their way into a job ad, and so even if you have all the specified qualifications, someone else may just "fit" the job better (maybe they attended a similar school for undergrad and you didn't. Maybe they taught high school before going to grad school so can guide the department's education program, and you didn't. Maybe they don't overlap with the department star's research interests and you do, or maybe they do, and you don't. Maybe they match the hiring chair's image of "ideal" candidate in race, gender, age, persona, whatever, and you can't). I don't even think "fit" is necessarily a bad thing. It's frustrating for job candidates, because you can never really know what a search committee is looking for, but it's inevitable that a department will have preferences and desires you can't know (and can't meet, because it's impossible to be everything to everyone). 

What I just realized today is that I find law hiring baffling because somewhere in my subconscious I still believe that there is a "right" way to do things, and that if you do things the "right" way, certain identifiable results (jobs/opportunities) will follow. I have, of course, tried to do as many things "right" as I can (though I have not done all the right things, like be in the top 10% of my class), so I keep thinking I should be able to predict the results that ensue. In fact, I think I find the employers who want to hire me (at least in part) because of my Ph.D. more baffling than employers who don't, because hiring me (at least in part) for my Ph.D. feels like not hiring me for doing the "right" things. 

I have no idea why I think this about law when I think I got over this about academia. Maybe it suggests that there really is (or I think there is) a more-defined accepted path that one is "supposed" to follow for academic success? And that law is just enough broader than academia that you can't target the "right" things as easily? I don't know. Maybe it's just that I'd been in academia long enough that I did become able to predict how a given employer was likely to react to my application - I could parse the different cultures/requirements at different schools well enough to know how I'd look as a candidate, and I haven't been in law long enough to figure that out. 

Anyway. It's just kind of weird, and kind of frustrating in that I'm not very good at predicting who will think I'm qualified, and who won't. That's an important job-hunting skill that I'm still developing. But hey! I got a job anyway. 

*I really wanted to call this "arbitration," except of course that means something else entirely. It just feels like there should be a better noun to mean "something that is arbitrary."

Comments

[What Now?]

Congrats on the job -- that's exciting! And no doubt a huge relief as well. Can you say something about the job? I know that you're doing bar exam review this summer; do you have to pass the bar before you start this job? I'm just realizing that pretty much everything I know about career paths after law school comes from the movie "The Firm" ... and let's assume that it's not typical of law careers!

[MLU]

Congrats on the job!!!! I assume you accepted??

[Z]

Congratulations!

You know, I was hanging out last weekend with these 20something law students. I think they are more hireable than me due to age, and they think the opposite due to age + PhD. So, we're all terrified, I suppose is the meaning of it.

[Krazy Kitty]

I think we all need a reminder sometimes of how impressive having a PhD can be for people who don't have PhDs... And it's true that it is a proof of some qualities that might have nothing to do with whatever field you want to work in but still make you desirable for the job.

[undine]

Congratulations! And having a history PhD is and should be impressive.

[Seeking Solace]

Congrats!!!

I think those in the legal field find a PhD impressive because often those with a JD are considered to have an "inferior" doctoral degree. I was actually told on more than one occasion the my JD was not of the same caliber as a PhD. I would never trade my law degree for anything. And, I would write and defend a dissertation anytime after having sat for the NY bar exam. :)

[AS]

Hey there, first, congrats on the job!

Second, a story for comparison -- we are in similar situations re: medieval PhDs and law degrees (CR hooked us up on FB). When I did my Fall OCI for 2L summer, employers were NOT into the PhD, figuring that it meant I was going to fly to academia as soon as possible. (It was also the height of the law-recession.) Interestingly, other Ph.D. and joint degree candidates at my school had similar experiences.

Career services called in a favor and got me an interview with a firm known for being "quirky" -- sure enough, when I ended up down there for interviews, there were attorneys calling HR to beg to be on my interview schedule, because they too were former medievalists/historians/etc.

I start there in August. :)

[New Kid on the Hallway]

AS - that's so interesting! I never thought of that before (maybe because I had been in academia for a while before doing the JD, so assumed employers would see it as "been there, done that"), but it totally makes sense. I do occasionally get asked if I want to teach again (but mostly by one of my LOR writers who thinks I should!) - it may not come up as much for me because I'd say my law school is a less likely one than yours to be seen as a feeder to academia. It is true, though, that when I went through 2L OCI, the job I got was with a firm that didn't hire out of its summer program (so they didn't have care if I fled to academia), and so far, I've been applying for clerkships, so they don't have to care if I fly to academia, either. So who knows what firms would think.

Intriguing! (My 2L firm was "quirky," too - I think I definitely play better with employers who have at least something somewhat non-traditional about them.)

And congrats/good luck for August!

[phd me]

Congrats on the offer - and, I assume, job! I can't believe you're already moving into your new field. Those law school years really flew by - to me; I'm sure they didn't for you!

[bj]

You're having a bit of imposter syndrome here, I think. Having a Ph.D. does mean something -- we can debate exactly what, but at the very least does mean that you did something that took a long time and got it done.

Folks who hang out in academia do tend to discount the Ph.D. (because everyone has one, and it doesn't actually qualify you to do anything specific, like a JD or an MD or an MA in teaching or social work), but it does mean something.

It'll be interesting to see if you can eventually figure out why some employers like it and some don't (quirky firms, non-traditional, general awe, . . . ). I guess you'll have some data if it turns out that all your colleagues are former historians (who, in turn, might value the Ph.D. more 'cause they only thought about getting one before taking the LSAT and going the JD route)

[jo(e)]

Congrats on the offer!

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Thanks for the congrats, all!

@bj - yes, there is probably some imposter syndrom going on, because I know the PhD does mean *something.* I guess it's really the inconsistency - if the PhD is a good thing to have, it should be that to everyone, right? Which is ridiculous when I put it that way. I'm just still adjusting to the new profession.

@Z - I've run into that. I keep thinking employers will want the young 'uns because 1) they'll be around longer 2) they have energy and 3) employers won't have to break them of "bad" habits before training them up as the employers like (they're more easily cowed!) (which isn't necessarily true, of course). But then I run into people who came to law school straight out of undergrad who talk about being intimidated by people who've had "real" experience (the EIC of our law review, who is one of the most impressive people I've ever met - in a good way - made a comment once about being intimidated when s/he started because almost everyone else on the editorial board was older than s/he was/had real world job/life experience. Which I had totally never thought of, because this person is just so brilliant and nice and good at what they do and good with people - *s/he* intimidated *me*, despite me being 15+ years older! or would have intimidated me if they weren't so good with people). But then, when I went to grad school straight out of undergrad I was initially very intimidated by the non-trads, so I totally understand - it just literally didn't occur to me at all that anyone could be intimidated by ME.