What does it take to make the policymaking A list?
As Barack Obama prepares to announce his foreign policy and national security team, I find myself reflecting on something Dani Rodrik blogged about last week: If you are bright and are contemplating a potential career in American politics, you go to a top law school–not a public policy school. This does not seem to have ...
As Barack Obama prepares to announce his foreign policy and national security team, I find myself reflecting on something Dani Rodrik blogged about last week: If you are bright and are contemplating a potential career in American politics, you go to a top law school--not a public policy school. This does not seem to have changed much in recent decades despite everything [Harvard's Kennedy School of Government] has done to make itself visible and relevant. While I'm glad that the Fletcher School can claim at least one cabinet appointment, Rodrik raises an interesting question -- why do law school grads get the foreign policy jobs coveted by public policy school grads? I can think of a couple of reasons. The first is really simple -- if you're going to be writing laws, it helps to be a lawyer. The second reason is simple path dependence. The original gangsters of the foreign policy community were lawyers. The best way to get a top policymaking job is to made your mark by serving as a loyal deputy to past top policymakers. Since people are more likely to hire their own, it's not surprising that lawyers would hire other lawyers. The second reason is signaling. Follow this logic: A top policymaking job requires three key attributes: leadership, discipline, and policy expertise Policy expertise can be earned from various sources -- a public policy degree is one avenue, but hardly the only one A public policy degree, on the other hand, is much more fun to earn than a law degree. Which means it requires less discipline. By getting a law degree, aspirants to top policymaking jobs are signaling to observers that they can grind their way through a serious amount of drudgery. Ergo, lawyers with significant policymaking experience are more likely to have the discipline necessary to be good at their jobs. Commenters are encouraged to proffer more reasons in the comments. On the other hand, I have no explanation for this: Of the first 15 cabinet and White House appointments announced by president-elect Barack Obama... three earned degrees from the nondescript buildings off the Strand that house the London School of Economics. The selections of Peter Orszag as budget director and Pete Rouse and Mona Sutphen to the senior White House staff means the LSE only has two less graduates than Harvard in team Obama. LSE currently has one more than traditional American powerhouse universities Princeton (Michelle Obama’s alma mater); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Michigan Law School. Mighty Yale can boast only one graduate, Gregory Craig, the next presidential legal counsel, though Hillary Clinton and James Steinberg will triple the score if they end up at the state department.
As Barack Obama prepares to announce his foreign policy and national security team, I find myself reflecting on something Dani Rodrik blogged about last week:
If you are bright and are contemplating a potential career in American politics, you go to a top law school–not a public policy school. This does not seem to have changed much in recent decades despite everything [Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government] has done to make itself visible and relevant.
While I’m glad that the Fletcher School can claim at least one cabinet appointment, Rodrik raises an interesting question — why do law school grads get the foreign policy jobs coveted by public policy school grads? I can think of a couple of reasons. The first is really simple — if you’re going to be writing laws, it helps to be a lawyer. The second reason is simple path dependence. The original gangsters of the foreign policy community were lawyers. The best way to get a top policymaking job is to made your mark by serving as a loyal deputy to past top policymakers. Since people are more likely to hire their own, it’s not surprising that lawyers would hire other lawyers. The second reason is signaling. Follow this logic:
- A top policymaking job requires three key attributes: leadership, discipline, and policy expertise
- Policy expertise can be earned from various sources — a public policy degree is one avenue, but hardly the only one
- A public policy degree, on the other hand, is much more fun to earn than a law degree. Which means it requires less discipline.
- By getting a law degree, aspirants to top policymaking jobs are signaling to observers that they can grind their way through a serious amount of drudgery.
- Ergo, lawyers with significant policymaking experience are more likely to have the discipline necessary to be good at their jobs.
Commenters are encouraged to proffer more reasons in the comments. On the other hand, I have no explanation for this:
Of the first 15 cabinet and White House appointments announced by president-elect Barack Obama… three earned degrees from the nondescript buildings off the Strand that house the London School of Economics. The selections of Peter Orszag as budget director and Pete Rouse and Mona Sutphen to the senior White House staff means the LSE only has two less graduates than Harvard in team Obama. LSE currently has one more than traditional American powerhouse universities Princeton (Michelle Obama’s alma mater); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Michigan Law School. Mighty Yale can boast only one graduate, Gregory Craig, the next presidential legal counsel, though Hillary Clinton and James Steinberg will triple the score if they end up at the state department.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
