This follows up on a 2017 post on this topic, which takes as its starting point the 2017 PGR section on the study of philosophy in law schools.
Some terminology: by "general jurisprudence," I mean the core philosophical questions about the nature of law, the relationship between law and morality, and the nature of legal reasoning; by "normative jurisprudence," I mean the myriad philosophical attempts to make normative sense (or provide normative rationalizations) of different substantive areas of law, like torts, contracts, criminal law, property, anti-discrimination law, free speech, and so on.
1. The main reason to consider a JD/PhD program at the same university is that it almost always involves saving time on your coursework--that is one of their main advantages, along with a better chance of continuity of supervision and interaction with faculty mentors.
2. Many students, however, do the law degree at one place, and the PhD somewhere else. This can make good sense, depending on a student's interests and the strengths of differing schools. (In the law school here at Chicago, we have had terrific students with PhDs (or DPhils) from Oxford, Princeton, NYU, Brown, Michigan, and CUNY, among other places; in addition, outstanding law graduates from here are now pursuing PhDs in philosophy at Princeton, Pittsburgh, and Cornell, among other places.) (As an aside, a student with a common-law law degree and a suitable background in philosophy can do a 2-3 year JSD here in the law school at Chicago focusing on general jurisprudence.)
3. Legal academia is more pedigree-sensitive than academic philosophy (and I'm sure many of you think academic philosophy is way too pedigree-sensitive!). Four law schools dominate the market for new law teachers: Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, and Yale. (With the exception of Stanford, these are also three of the top four faculties in scholarly influence, as well as the four schools that graduate the most Supreme Court clerks.) On a per capita basis, Yale is ahead of the other three in placement in law teaching (a selection effect), and these four are ahead of everyone else (see, e.g., this from 2011 and this from 2007, although not much has changed in the interim). On a placement success rate basis (i.e., percentage of academic job seekers who actually get tenure-track jobs), Chicago and Yale generally dominate. Stanford Law has no serious interest in legal philosophy, so is not worth considering. Harvard Law has recently added junior faculty in normative jurisprudence (in addition to senior faculty with philosophical interests--like Richard Fallon and Cass Sunstein [constitutional theory], John Goldberg [tort theory], and Henry Smith [property theory]), so it is a better choice than previously (it still has noone in general jurisprudence, however).
Recent Comments