Aspiring Law Professors: 10 (More!) Pre-Conference Tips

Tim has a very helpful post on pre-conference tips I thought I would add 10 of my own to the mix.  They overlap a bit, but I've tried to add something new.  Here it goes:  

1. Get organized.  You were probably contacted by phone for an interview, perhaps they followed it up with an email, and then perhaps a folder or letter with some promotional material will come in the mail.  Develop a system to organize all of this.  If you are anything like me things get lost in your massive email Inbox.  When I was on the market I created a separate GMail account to forward all of my appointments related correspondence to for quick searching (and iPhone accessibility).  For the paperwork, I made a binder with separate tabs for each school, all of their materials went into the binder under their tab.  This was also my briefing book for game day, before my next interview I flipped to the appropriate tab and brushed up on the school, their hiring needs, committee members, etc.  Be careful though, if you put too much stuff into the binder you'll slow yourself down.  Use good judgment in what to bring with you. 
2. In tip #9 Tim recommended compiling information about the school and the interviewing team, this is the kind of stuff you should put into your briefing book.  Regarding the interview team, ask your point of contact "Who will be in the interview room with me?"  Some schools have two rooms running simultaneously, there may be 10 people on the committee but you may only be meeting with 5 of them.  Which 5 matters, try and find it out.  
3. Do you know what areas the school is hiring in?  They may be advertising for Civ Pro, Crim Law, and PR but since the advertisement things have probably changed and they have no need whatsoever for Civ Pro.  You probably want to know that before someone asks you "So, what is your ideal package?" and you start with "Well, I love teaching Civ Pro."  That's honest, but if you also love Crim Law and PR that's honest and a better place to focus your attention.  You're locked into your interests as expressed on paper, but that doesn't mean your discussion needs to focus on those points when you have other interests that fit.  Now, some schools may not know what areas they are hiring for, and some may be looking for best athletes, but if you can get a sense of what each school you're interviewing with is interested in, it will help you target your discussion points in the interview.  Consider another example, let's say your top 3 teaching interests were Evidence, Crim Law, and PR.  Chances are the school you are interviewing with thinks you are a fit, but you don't know why.  Was it your teaching interests?  Your scholarship?  Your overall awesomeness?  You probably have experience and scholarship related to each of those topics and you only have 20 minutes to convince the hiring team that you are their person for whatever spot they are filling.  Knowing they want an Evidence prof and scholar will help you focus your discussion on your evidence related scholarship and experience, and focus less on your valuable/interesting/meaningful PR stuff that is nice to have, but is perhaps not what they are looking for this year.  Caveat: don't be over-programmed and don't over think this stuff, instead  recognize that there is a limited amount of time for you to shine so you want it to be targeted.  Some committees may be split on hiring priorities so being overly programmed will box you in, be prepared to go where the conversation takes you.  Having some advance information can help here.   
4. Do you know what the format of the interview will be?  I interviewed with some schools who just wanted to get to know me.  I interviewed with other schools whose only question was "Tell me about your work in progress."  It's nice to know the format ahead of time because not every school is the same. 
5. Get to the conference early.  Check in.  Get your paperwork.  Walk the route for your interviews and figure out which way you turn (seriously) when you get out of the elevator.  Check where the stairs are in case the elevator goes out...it happens.  If you know you have 30 mins between interviews and it only takes 10 minutes to walk from one tower to the next you can relax, hit up the restroom that you scoped out ahead of time, grab a bottle of water and still get to your next interview with time to spare, rather than running to the next door to sit in a chair and worry. 
6. Be skeptical of anything that's written by an anonymous commenter on any blog.  They probably want the interview slot that you have. 
7. (Tim's rule #8 Reemphasized).  Think twice before commenting on a blog (even anonymously), especially if it is about the interview you just landed.  Some committee members see this as an exercise of poor judgment, and remember that nothing is ever really anonymous.  If a school filled up all of their interview slots, then has a drop out in late September and a few days later AnonCandidate posts "Interview with ___." Nobody will know who you are, save for the committee... woops! 
8. Have you thought about your teaching philosophy?  You'll read on a lot of these blogs that this is a writing job, and you may think that teaching doesn't matter.  Think again!  Seven of the schools I interviewed with spent approximately 5 minutes in D.C. asking me about my approach to teaching.  If you haven't given it much thought it will show.  If you want to reflect on it there are some good books on the topic.  Here's one. 
9. Who from your law school will be in D.C.?  Do you know any of them?  Do they know you will be there?  Do they know who you are interviewing with?  Committee members can introduce you to people that you'd like to meet but are afraid to meet.  They can also go up to people they know on committees and say "I  heard you're interviewing Greg McNeal, he's great." This is true no matter where you went to law school, in fact the fewer the candidates from your school the more attention and support you are likely to get.  The Case committee went to bat for me big time in D.C. and I appreciated it.  Moreover, when you're all alone in the hotel it's nice to link up in the lounge with people who aren't candidates and with whom you (probably) aren't interviewing.  They can give you follow-up tips, and might even tell you some stories that will make you laugh and feel better about your performance.  It's good for your sanity and it's good networking.
10. Keep your recommenders, mentors and advisers in the loop.  They will be happy to hear that you are successful and will also want to know that they should be expecting a phone call.  This is a courtesy and it's good strategy, the last thing you want is a flustered recommender who isn't ready for a phone call, or even worse...one who is at the conference and could have put in a good word for you if only you had kept them in the loop...

Finally, if you're reading about how to prepare for D.C. it means you're heading there.  Congratulations, most people don't even get one interview.  You've gone from a massive pool of applicants to a much smaller group and you should treat this as a learning and networking experience.  Hopefully you will be successful, but if not you'll have made lots of contacts and you'll be better prepared for next year. 

PRIOR RELATED POSTS:

Aspiring Law Professors:  The Non-Elite JD

Aspiring Law Professors: The PhD

Comments

[lookingovershoulder]

It's rather disturbing that committee members may frown upon persons posting information regarding interviews on Prawfs, especially because the person posting the information is not necessarily the same person who received the interview. Just another dysfunctional aspect of the process, I suppose.

[anon]

Yeah, your #7 is going to induce a lot of panic out there. It seems strange that faculties would care about something like that, but if they do, I really wish I had known that before this process started.

[Tim Zinnecker]

Greg piggybacked on my comment, which I intended to be directed at personal web pages, Facebook postings, etc. I'm less concerned about (and didn't have in mind) "comments" posted on blogs.

[BDG]

Greg, do you have specific knowledge that there are people who are upset about anonymous comments reporting that a school has scheduled an interview? I would have said I couldn't imagine that anyone would care about that, and I've never met anyone who said they did. More concretely, in what way do you see it (or do you think others would see it) as poor judgment?
(And let's distinguish between the simple fact of scheduling an interview and making editorial comments about the interviewers, such as "that committee was a bunch of dolts," which, yes, obviously would be stupid.)

[Greg McNeal]

#7 sure got people interested. In response to the comments and BDG's question, let me tell you the genesis of this suggestion. When I was at AALS last year (Annual Meeting not meat market) I linked up with some friends who were on appointments at schools I didn't interview with. I brought up the PrawfsBlog comments section. The discussion that followed went something like this: One person remarked that he couldn't believe people were posting about interviews they landed, and doing so under their actual name. He said he would be way more risk averse, and would be especially worried that someone would think this revealed a lack of discretion (noting that some of his colleagues were a bit kooky about blogs, and didn't "get them."). From that we got to talking about the wisdom of posting anonymously and whether any comment was truly anonymous. You're rarely anonymous to blog owners because of IP logging. You're anonymous to blog readers, but as I pointed out, someone who wants to can put together facts and make some guesses about who an anonymous commenter was. Hard to do, but not in all circumstances. (e.g. "Interview with ___ school in tax and jurisprudence" narrows it down pretty quickly).

Okay, so with all of that said let me expand on point #7 a little bit. You're a candidate competing for a coveted, nearly impossible to land position. The hiring process is sometimes irrational, insular, and fraught with all kinds of biases. In DC there are 40 candidates interviewing with the school you are interviewing with. At the call back there may be as many as a dozen candidates, usually less. It's competitive and it's complicated by all kinds of variables that are beyond your control. Part of landing the position is a combination of being the best candidate you can, while also minimizing the number of reasons someone might vote against you (e.g. the things within your control). Sometimes what gets you is a section in one of your articles that wasn't very well reasoned. Other times it's a recommender who inadvertently un-recommends you. It could be a response to a question during your job talk that someone thought was snide. It could be you don't meet one faculty member's demographic criteria. It might be that someone just doesn't like you for whatever reason. In short, there are lots of justifications for any given faculty member to rank you higher or lower or advocate for or against you. Little things can make a difference at the margin.

Knowing this, why risk alienating even one faculty member (even a kooky one) at any point in this process? I think it's insane that a faculty member would frown upon blog comments by a prospective candidate, I personally would never be that insane (I have my own very specific yet different insane tendencies)...but there are all kinds of irrational reasons why faculty members speak out or vote against or vote to rank a candidate lower than others. It's smart to minimize the reasons. Let me frame it this way: What is your expected gain from posting a comment to a blog? What is the potential harm? The biggest gain I see is that you will have anonymously earned the admiration of other AnonLawProfCandidates, and perhaps the good feeling that comes from knowing that you contributed information to the blog comment marketplace. You're one part of a collective effort that won't survive without you. That feels nice, I get it, I blog, I comment on blogs, but if you're on the market I'd be a bit cautious from August to January. That stinks, the system shouldn't be that way, etc., but remember that on the other side of the benefit ledger is the potential loss. The biggest loss you could face is the kooky irrational professor out there who votes on your candidacy and ranks you lower. Or worse, decides to more closely scrutinize your C.V. and finds a non-blog comment related reason to speak out against you in a hiring meeting... Unlikely, sure, but what's the benefit and what's the possible albeit unlikely cost? In a sometimes irrational process, discretion is the better part of valor.

[anon2]

I think the hypothetical professor must not be just "kooky," but perhaps stupid as well, since people may post callback information regarding their friends (as I have).

If a law school entrusts these decisions to someone that insane, I'm willing to let my application be 86ed. I understand that in most places, hiring reflects peculiarities of some sort, but basing a decision on a wild guess that the posted information relates not only to a specific candidate but was also posted by that candidate, is beyond pale.

If this is how things are done at Pepperdine, I'm glad my atheism disqualifies me.

[Greg McNeal]

Anon2- I agree, the hypothetical professor is both kooky and stupid.

As for your second point. I think you're overreading what I wrote, my point is that something stupid can make a difference *at the margin*. This is one unlikely example among many. The point is that it's unlikely that someone would take any one thing and vote against a candidate on that basis alone, rather they may take their one idiosyncratic and kooky issue, add it up with a few others, and come to an overall judgment about a candidate. The goal is to minimize the reasons that someone might vote against you, including kooky, stupid, and insane ones.

As for your "if this is how things are done at Pepperdine" comment. First, it's not. Second, I don't even know how you could draw that conclusion from the post. The comment explains the genesis of my post, which was based on conversations with friends last year at AALS. I've never claimed to be writing on behalf of my school (I'm not). To make the inferential leap from my personal observations and my suggestion to be cautious and prudent throughout this sometimes irrational process to the conclusion that I'm here writing about how things are done at my school or at any other school is pretty illogical.

[Dan Markel]

FWIW, I think Greg's comments here were well-motivated but we do well to remember that faculty (especially the insane ones) should not make any inferences at all about information appearing on blog posts. As the blog-owner of Prawfs, I won't ever reveal the IP logs or whatever of the commenters on those threads who act with the veneer of responsibility. But it's important to stress that many anon comments are actually from faculty who are sharing the information with the market place, and are not emanating from allegedly indiscreet candidates. So please, if you know some faculty member prone to making stupid and irrelevant inferences--do something, say something, and educate them. Don't feed the beast of idiocy.

[NewProf]

This is great advice, Greg -- all of it.