Why Don’t More Women Want To Be Law Professors?
For several years, the number of women in law schools has been very nearly the same as the number of men. But more men want to become law professors.
Among entry-level applicants for law teaching this year, the ratio of men to women is about 3:2. (The figure is based on the list of participants in the Association of American Law Schools recruiting program, the normal route to law teaching.)
Many schools want to increase the number of women on their (largely male) faculties, but the task is difficult if for every two women applying for jobs, there are three male applicants.
As reflected by the overall stiff competition for teaching jobs, being a law professor is a wonderful thing. Professors get to work on whatever interests them. The hours are embarrassingly flexible—few other jobs let you leave town for the entire summer. The pay, while less than in private practice, is very good. Nobody is supervising you on a day-to-day basis. And you can avoid co-workers you don’t like.
So why don’t more women law graduates apply for this most perfect of jobs?
Perhaps men are more likely to accumulate the credentials for entering academia: things like high grades, strong faculty recommendations, post-graduate fellowships, prestigious clerkships and prized work experience. An unequal distribution in these things might explain why men apply for teaching jobs more often than do women.
Though I haven’t tested it, I have a hunch that there is another explanation for the gender disparity: the surplus male applicants are the weakest candidates in the entire pool. If one were to eliminate, say, the bottom one-third of all of the applicants for teaching jobs, the gender ratio would return to 1:1.
Women, I suspect, apply to be professors only when their credentials make them competitive. Men, however, apply even if they are unqualified.
Because men imagine they are better than they really are and they care less about being rejected, they toss their hats in the ring. Women are less likely to exaggerate their chances of success and they consider failure an unacceptable outcome, so they only go forward with the application if they have a decent chance.
If the hiring process were perfect—everyone getting the faculty position they deserve—then this explanation would present no problem. But because of the vagaries of the process, some of the weakest candidates always make it through.
Men will luck out more often just because there are more of them; some of the women who refrain from applying would succeed if only they were to take a chance.
If my hunch is right, the overall result will be a continued gender imbalance in legal academia. Ignorance and hubris give men an advantage.