The Philosophers' Cocoon

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" post, 'Prospective Student' writes:

I'm a prospective PhD student, but I'm also a prospective J.D. student. I would like to enter a joint J.D./PhD program. I don't really care where. I love philosophy, and I want to write a dissertation and attend conferences. Surely, I want to teach; but I'm sticking to weak generalizations about my interests because I'm still a student.

My dilemma is this. I'm not really interested in the philosophy of law or value theory. I want to do a joint PhD/J.D. strictly out of interest and financial gain. I'm hoping to write a dissertation in metaphysics or in a related area. But I'm also hoping to graduate with a J.D. so I can leave academia if I can't find a job. I'm okay with not finding a job in philosophy. I'm not ok with not writing a dissertation, publishing, or attending conferences. I hope to do this my entire life, even if I'm not a professional philosopher.

That being said, will departments think that this is not feasible if I lack an interest in philosophy of law? For example, I am thinking about applying to UCSD for metaphysics and then UCSD law school; would it be audacious of me not to include that information in my statement of interest for UCSD and then, if I were accepted, to inform the department that I would like to go ahead with the joint program (or otherwise do a joint program elsewhere). Thanks all.

In response, Craig wrote the following (which I have abridged due to its length):

My advice here is not to do the JD/PHD if you aren't interested in philosophy of law or value theory. You are right to suspect that programs will look askance at this. This is in part because a phd is hard and requires tremendous concentration, and disrupting it for three years to study a topic mostly unrelated to your research is going to make it far, far less likely that you'll succeed…

[B]y seeking the JD/PHD, you are going to limit the schools you might attend, on both hooks. There are good law schools where you won't find good phd programs (not naming names, b/c I don't want to be a jerk), and there are good phd programs without competitive or any law schools (e.g., UCSD does not have a law school). If you want a shot at academia, give yourself the best possible shot by going to the best possible school–it matters significantly.

Finally, your goals as I understand them would be far better served considering these projects in serial. A JD/PHD program is not a good way to save time or money or to increase one's employment chances–it is a good way to do interdisciplinary research…

Although I'm probably not in the best position to judge (more on this below), I'm inclined on the basis of my own experience to agree and disagree with Craig. As someone who barely made it through my PhD program (and have seen more than a few people not make it), I know in a very personal way just how psychologically difficult it can be to go through a PhD program without a backup plan waiting in the wings (which a joint JD/PhD program might have given me). When I had been in grad school for seven years, and it looked like I would never finish the degree, I was positively terrified. I had nothing to fall back on for an alternate career–and I wished for all the world that I had pursued a joint JD/PhD (which my grad institution, Arizona, offered!). When I entered grad school, I had no interest in moral or political philosophy: my primary area of focus had been metaphysics. Which is one of the reasons why I didn't pursue the JD. Oh, how things change! Several years later I was doing my comp exams in ethics and political, and a JD would have very much been up my alley. So, I'm not sure it's a good idea to choose or not choose a joint program on the basis of one's interests (which can, and often do, change in grad school).

The more salient issue, I think, are the job-prospects involved. However, here too I sort of disagree with Craig. As Carolyn Dicey Jennings' recent job-market analysis shows, only 37.4% of all philosophy PhDs get tenure-track jobs three years out of grad school, and in fact, when the figures include those with unknown AOSs the figure drops to just 26.5%). Given that, as far as I can tell, a fairly sizable number of candidates even coming out of top-ranked Leiter programs don't get tenure-track jobs, this makes a philosophy PhD an enormous risk no matter what one does–no matter how good the program one joins might be (and it is worth bearing in mind significant grad program attrition rates as well!). Although pursuing a joint JD/PhD may or may not harm one's chances for an academic job, one's chances for those jobs were bad already. So, why not at least have a good backup? Finally, on that note, I'm less convinced that a joint JD/PhD would significantly harm one's chances for a good career in law. Although of course the highest-rated law schools (Harvard Law, etc.) tend to have the best placement records by far, I've known more than people who made fine careers in law for themselves (including becoming a partner at top law-firms) not coming out of a top-program.

For these reasons, I'm more sanguine about joint JD/PhD programs. Although, admittedly, I never went through such a program myself–and so I'm surely far from well situated to judge–I can say, retrospectively, that I wish I had availed myself of the opportunity at Arizona. In any case, I'd be very curious to hear from who are better placed to judge–people who either did pursue a joint JD/PhD, or else grad-program placement directors who have seen how well individuals do with joint degrees.

Do any of you have any helpful insight? I think this is an important (and not oft-discussed) issue!