Uh . . . lawyers have skills?

Having taught in a public policy school, I can say it's hard to convey to students and employers what the "desired outcome" of the degree is.

There is also no institutionalized process of accrediting public policy analysts. Law school grads do not become lawyers until they pass the bar exam in a state. The only way that public policy grads can become public policy analysts is by getting a meaningful job of carrying out policy analysis, which given Dan's argument is a catch-22.

Right, so, I'm a lawyer and have practiced securities law, worked on the business side, and worked as a congressional staffer. Here are my thoughts on Dan's theory.

First, on the notion that "if you’re going to be writing laws, it helps to be a lawyer," in practice it's House or Senate Leg Counsel that drafts the statutes. The legal drafting skills allow you to comment on their work and make the drafting process move more quickly -- but that's ultimately a small part of the job, at least on the Hill. And it's definitely a smaller part of the job in the area of foreign affairs than, say, judiciary.

On signaling (i.e., "lawyers with significant policymaking experience are more likely to have the discipline necessary to be good at their jobs"), I do agree that law school is more rigorous intellectually than other professional schools. But providing policy advice is very different from the practice of law. No matter how deep your expertise in a given area, policy jobs eventually require you to make snap judgments without full data. This practice would make practicing lawyers extremely uncomfortable. It is perhaps more akin to investment banking or business development.

A two-hour meeting is an exceedingly long one on the Hill. The marathon sessions at financial printers that transactional lawyers routinely endure are unheard of outside of very limited circumstances (e.g., omnibus bills or filibusters).

Here are some of my alternative explanations. First, while the statutory drafting skills may be overrated, lawyers are good at wordsmithing very nuanced prose. The quality of writing -- and conclusory reasoning -- in the business world borders on the atrocious and is often waived around like a badge of honor. That won't cut it for a statement in the Congressional Record, which is scoured for even the vaguest sign of a policy shift.

Second, lawyers are perhaps the most unhappy professionals out there. My guess is that a lot of them move into the policymaking world because they dislike the practice of law, which is less common among businesspeople. It's quite remarkable that many top policymakers who were also businessmen *trained* as lawyers, but practiced law for a very short time, if at all. I'm thinking people like Bob Rubin, for instance.

Third, lawyers are at the top of the food chain in DC. On Wall Street (at least pre-financial crisis) they were comparatively low on the totem pole, both financially and in terms of respect. DC is the one environment that gives a lawyer a chance to be a leader, rather than a helper, and I bet that a lot of them find that an attractive value proposition.

Dan,

This is an interesting question -- and I share your annoyance being on the poli-sci end (and married to a lawyer no less!).

Your points sound plausible, but I'd throw out some others.

One is that for getting the senior level jobs we're talking about, connections matter hugely. Having lots of money, and being around people with lots of money, are good ways to get connected to people with power.

You also need to remember that we are not observing the whole process here -- only one particular outcome (cabinet job). It could be that the law route is higher risk, with higher reward:

A) As a KSG, Fletcher, SAIS, or wheverer grad, you have a good shot of being able to get a mundane job in your chosen field. By middle age, you have a good shot at being a GS-15 staffer in the federal govt, an analyst at a think tank, a foreign service officer, etc. Your chances of getting noticed by the high and mighty while toiling in those jobs is nonzero, but small. Even if you never become a top player, you at least enjoy your work.

B) As a top-5 law grad who starts at Aiken, Gump or its ilk, you may be doing work that's less inherently interesting (international business contracts, lets say), but you'll get to meet people at a much higher power level than that GS-15. Your massive salary will let you attend the A-list fundraisers. Once you've saved up you can easily take a year off to volunteer for a campaign. You're positioning yourself in the area where lightning might strike. But there's also a good chance you keep doing boring business negotiations forever.

Even if more cabinet picks come via route "B", it could be that an MPA still gives you a higher likelihood of doing work that is policy relevant on a day to day basis.

Also, laywers are trained to use argumentation and the machinery of the law to make their client's desired outcomes happen. They often enjoy the combat aspect of politics. MPA grads are trained to tell their client what that client ought to desire. They often wish political combat would stop getting in the way of objective, rational analysis. You tell me which person an up-and-coming political operator would want to have working for them? Maybe they _should_ prefer the MPA, but I can see why the lawyer would be more appealing.

The other expanation may just be that MPA programs are lame. Having taken KSG courses when I was working on my PhD in Cambridge, I was extremely underwhelmed with both the course content and the students compared to grad classes in the Harvard and MIT govt depts.

let me rephrase, shortly: MAs in international affairs are pretty useless for doing a career in the field. Although when you visit their webpages, they tell you: A generation of leaders, the leaders of tomorrow or, leading the future; in fact, they lead you towards dead-tracks.

Most of the people, after their very expensive master that should lead them to rule the world, enter finance, business, HR or even more absurd jobs (a friend of mine is a travel agent, now). Those who are a bit less lucky, end up beeing unemployed, as a lot of whom I know.

Some of the explanations you give here make sense, but they do not account of all those losers doing absurd things thereafter.

My point is quite simple: with an MA in int'l affairs, you dont learn anything deeply and correctly. Actually, you do not learn anything at all.

No big surprise that, knowing nothing, you are good for doing nothing.

I have a law degree and a PhD. In my experience there is simply no comparison between the two degrees. Law is, quite frankly, pretty dumb. It also stifles all creative and independent thinking. It's the ultimate think within the box activity. The number one quality for getting such a degree, apart from thinking inside the box, is tolerance for utter boredom.

How does a master's degree compare to a law degree? Obviously that differs with master's degrees, and with law degrees. The Yale law degree is much more intellectual than is usual. I do know, however, that friends of mine who did a master's in Middle Eastern studies and who had to learn Arabic and Turkish, amongst other things related to the history, politics, religion, and culture of the region, did something that is in my mind undoubtedly much more difficult intellectually than getting a law degree.

Why do lawyers get the jobs? Simple: because of networking (as pointed out by another commenter) and because they know nothing about policy. If you've studied something relevant, as my friends did, you have an opinion, and some honor attached to that opinion. If you're a lawyer looking for a different job, you're happy to adjust you're opinion to whatever is prevailing. That is, after all, an important skill of succeeding at law. A lawyer is likely to a be a good policy team player, therefore, a good old boy who doesn't cause problems; doesn't ask nasty questions.

So, yes: put the policy people in advisory positions and put the lawyers in managerial positions. As a friend of mine frequently says: the market is pretty efficient.

I agree with what has been written above: "The other expanation may just be that MPA programs are lame."

I went to college in Europe, in an unknown university. Despite being unknown, I learned there the fundamentals in economics and political science. I then went to SAIS. There, everything was "fast" and superficial. Not surprisingly, when at the graduation last year Robert Zoellick said that SAIS graduate have a good understanding of the balance of payments, most of the other students sitting next to me started laughing loud...

I am not attacking it SAIS. I have heard similar criticism about other places.

To make it short: jobs for Public Schools graduates do not require any particular knowledge. Consequently, these schools invest much more in creating "networks", than in preparing their students. Networks are those that permit their students to find cool jobs, it is rational for them to invest in them.

However, people that get job with important responsibilities have to understand "the world out there". It is then not surprising that the number of Public School graduates in this group is very low.

Some really good analyses here. I'd add that lawyers probably have an advantage in Democratic administrations. The last national Democratic ticket in which both candidates had not been through law school was the one in 1980, so one might expect job candidates with a legal background to have some sort of advantage.

Honestly, though, the thing that leaps out at me is the historical record. There have been many people with a legal education, including some really formidable lawyers, who have made major contributions to American foreign and national security policy in the modern era. Public policy schools haven't been around for as long, as Dan points out very fairly, so their graduates haven't had as much time to make a record of practical success in government -- but even given that, where is the record of success for such graduates? How many people have made the trek between a public policy education and significant diplomatic or other policy success where it counts, and how have they done it?

That's a question, not an argument. There are probably instructive examples from the last few administrations. There are not nearly as many, though, or so it would seem, which would reduce the value of an IR or other public policy credential relative to a law degree. It may not be fair to look only at the peak of the diplomatic food chain for illustrations, but if we were to do this we would see only one of the most successful postwar American Secretaries of State with a primarily academic/public policy background. That, of course, was Henry Kissinger. How closely does his pre-government experience track with that of public policy graduates today?

I doubt many public-policy students could survive 1L, although it would be useful for them to learn the nuts and bolts (as well as basic logic) via 1L, especially since so much of the other two years of law school is spent on policy.

If you’re a lawyer looking for a different job, you’re happy to adjust you’re opinion to whatever is prevailing. That is, after all, an important skill of succeeding at law. A lawyer is likely to a be a good policy team player, therefore, a good old boy who doesn’t cause problems; doesn’t ask nasty questions.

I disagree.

First off, you're being quite conclusory (there's a fine lawyer word for you!) in asserting that lawyers-turned-policymakers are happy to adjust their opinion to whatever is prevailing. I for one would not go to work for a stridently anti-trade policymaker, for instance -- and the fact that I have marketable business and legal skills gives me options outside of government.

Second, lawyers are very good at doing due diligence, document review, and so forth. They dislike making decisions without knowing all the relevant information. If anything, this means they are *more* likely to ask the tough questions -- which may be a reason that they get hired. Obama, for instance, does not strike me as the type who wants to fill his administration with yes-men.

I for one would not go to work for a stridently anti-trade policymaker, for instance —

I think that my point stands. You may be a principled lawyer, but principled lawyers are, by definition, rare. And even then they are activists first and foremost, rather than lawyers. Lawyers, whether they work inhouse or via a law firm, serve the interests of their clients, however the client defines his interest. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, of course.

and the fact that I have marketable business and legal skills gives me options outside of government.

Yes, but those are options as a lawyer, not options as a policy maker. Non-lawyer policy makers also have non-policy making options outside of government.

Second, lawyers are very good at doing due diligence, document review, and so forth. They dislike making decisions without knowing all the relevant information.

Such reviews and questions are procedural, not substantial. Setting aside the usually exaggerated problem of legal interpretation, lawyers work the law, or within the law; they do not make the law (unless they're activist judges). Of course being a lawyer can give one a good idea why a particular law does not work well in terms of procedure (i.e. why it fails as a law), but that's separate from whether it works substantially (i.e. in terms of public policy, with all of its ties to economics, political science, history, philosophy, and all that other mother jazz 'practical' people like to dismiss).

Obama, for instance, does not strike me as the type who wants to fill his administration with yes-men.

Given the procedural role of lawyers, this does not contradict anything I said. In fact, it fits the profile of a man who knows what he wants from the system (who is clear on the substance, on vision) and who hires assistance to help him procedurally, to get what he knows that he wants, rather than substantially, which would have seen them helping him to define his vision.

As both a law and Fletcher grad, I'd only like to add Tim Geithner, a SAIS grad, to the list.

So, let's review:
SoS: Lawyer
Dep SoS: Lawyer
Treasury: SAIS grad
DoD: PhD
Commerce: Fletcher grad
AG: Ok, well, that's a lawyer...
DHS: Lawyer

These are just the ones that jump out at me, but come on...of arguably the 6 top cabinet posts, one is a Fletcher grad and the other is SAIS, and we're complaining?

The point about lawyers being able to get stuff done in govt probably does deserve some credit, in addition to my cynical points above.

Far more of policy is implementation than analysis and design. I'm reminded of visiting a major military command that handles engagement with allied nations in a region of the world. From what said, figuring out the big-picture strategy of what they wanted to accomplish with whom was easy, and took relatively little of their time.

The _real_ work was squaring what their analysis said they should do, with what their budget, policy guidance, regulations, and controlling legislation said. As in, what sorts of things were they required to do, allowed to do, or forbidden to do. Since money from Congress comes in small and separate pots, which dollars could be spent for what purposes in which countries -- and how could things be reprogrammed as conditions changed? What about relevant bilateral agreements and international treaties? Did decision-making processes, procurements, and grant awards follow all of the proper procedures?

The other big item was negotiating with the relevant allied countries on the details for joint exercises, equipment sales, etc.

This work was being carried out by military officers who often had MPA-type backgrounds in regional studies and IR, but on a day to day basis much of the work was really law and accounting.

I suspect it would be similar in USAID, many State Dept positions, or in domestic agencies like EPA.

This is just one school, but...

Kennedy School grads in the top ranks of the Obama administration (so far):

Pete Rouse - MPA '77 Senior Adviser, former Obama Senate office chief-of-staff

Shane Donovan - MPA '86 (also M.Arch and A.B. from Harvard), Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Nancy Sutley - MPP '86, Director of White House Council on Environmental Quality

Also the COO of his campaign was Betsy Myers, MPA '00

In the outgoing Bush administration, senior-level HKS grads included:

Keith Hennessey MPP '94, Director of the National Economic Council (being replaced by Larry Summers)

Daniel Mudd MPP '86, was CEO of Fannie Mae

Andrew Card '80 (did not graduate), was chief-of-staff