I may be hopelessly old-fashioned, but I believe academic scholarship demands evenhanded objectivity. An academic should present all sides of an issue fairly, weigh those arguments, and reach a conclusion that, to the extent humanly possible, is not merely a reflection of the academic’s predispositions. One must openly acknowledge the weaknesses of one’s conclusions as well as the strengths of the arguments against one’s conclusions.

An advocate also needs to deal with the opponents’ arguments, but the advocate begins with a pre-determined conclusion. In writing a brief, a lawyer is trying to convince the court to rule in favor of his or her client, not to weigh both sides evenhandedly and objectively.

Many faculty candidates are practicing lawyers or work for organizations that have a particular policy position. They’re advocates. In my experience, some candidates find it difficult to make the transition from advocacy to academic analysis, and their job talks (and their early scholarship) often reflect that.

Here’s a question to test that: “Make the strongest argument you can against your position.”

If a candidate can do that in a way that would satisfy those on the other side of the issue, that candidate is probably ready for the academic world. If the candidate can’t effectively do that, there are two possibilities. First, there may be no strong argument on the other side. But, if that’s the case, the candidate is dealing with a trivial issue that really isn’t worth talking about. If the issue is a debatable one and the candidate can't make a strong argument for the other side, then the candidate needs to work on academic analysis. And we on the hiring side have to think about whether the candidate, over the long run, is capable of doing that. I have met many people, including a few academics, who simply aren’t capable of seeing another side of issues they care about.