We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
This line clearly shows: what is wrong above all things is your mentality. You expect to get something pretty substantial - a job which involves knowledge transmission and knowledge creation about law - for what is basically nothing: undergraduate and master's degrees. You have completed some exam. What do those show? Nothing useful to the faculty board recruiting for a particular uni, except that you know your basics of law and have done some work toward a specialisation. Have you proved yourself in any meaningful way? Have you done a PhD project? A substantial piece of research that results in a book-length writing? Have you published substantial pieces of work in peer reviewed journals? Seemingly, not - would be very surprising if you had, considering your current stage of education.
Sure: the job market is bad, if you operate on the assumption that the market's expectations until now have been correct, i.e., that these expectations resulted, overall, in the recruitment of high quality people. What you don't want to do is to be operating under this assumption. Please revise your opinions and build your profile accordingly, because, to be clear, this way of recruitment has most certainly not resulted in recruitment overall of high quality people. Even among those who are high quality, their quality has been undermined by being among intellectual inferiors.
If you have a PhD in which you have done well and have made the most of other opportunities necessary for those preparing for a career in academia - you have a meaningful, highly original, substantial contribution to knowledge as your end result of your PhD, your PhD is from a good uni, if you were well-supervised (your supervisor was a person with meaningful contributions in the field, who supported you not only with thesis feedback but also in job search), if you have done temp teaching jobs at your uni during your PhD which has built your teaching experience CV, if you have done research assistant jobs which has built your exposure on that side, if you have maybe managed to get a paper into a journal - and you are still having problems, then we have a meaningful basis on which to talk about whether or not the job market is bad. Until then...