Where are the HKS graduates?

Not in the top ranks of the incoming Obama administration. David Brooks:

Jan. 20, 2009, will be a historic day. Barack Obama (Columbia, Harvard Law) will take the oath of office as his wife, Michelle (Princeton, Harvard Law), looks on proudly. Nearby, his foreign policy advisers will stand beaming, including perhaps Hillary Clinton (Wellesley, Yale Law), Jim Steinberg (Harvard, Yale Law) and Susan Rice (Stanford, Oxford D. Phil.).

The domestic policy team will be there, too, including Jason Furman (Harvard, Harvard Ph.D.), Austan Goolsbee (Yale, M.I.T. Ph.D.), Blair Levin (Yale, Yale Law), Peter Orszag (Princeton, London School of Economics Ph.D.) and, of course, the White House Counsel Greg Craig (Harvard, Yale Law).

What is striking in this list is the predominance of law school graduates, even though law schools make no claim to teach you policy and politics--unlike, say, the Harvard Kennedy School.

HKS faculty members have been active in the Obama campaign, and many of them (such as Jeff Liebman and Samantha Power) are expected to land senior positions. Also, HKS graduates figure prominently among political leaders abroad: the presidents of both Liberia and Mexico are HKS graduates. 

But in the U.S., the situation seems quite different. 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 HKS has done to make itself visible and relevant.  Why?

Comments

[Tord Steiro]

Perhaps law grad's are better suited to protect special interest groups and lobbies?

Just a thought.

[gre_wireless]

I am not very familiar with the HKS curriculum, but I hear a lot of people that do not want to go through a PhD and want to graduate from a nice "development program" (their words) going to HKS.

i.e., first, HKS may be more of a development program and a lot of graduates make nice careers at the World Bank or UN

second, it might be that HKS has not been able to attract the most ambitious (it mostly attracts people that like economics but do not want to go through the PhD)

third (coming from 2), there is a selection bias: those who come to HKS are into econ, not politics and the program is too short to shape their ambitions

[Jeff]

A couple of thoughts on this... it's simpler, and you can hedge your bets with law school.

It's simpler because 95% of the admission criteria is based on a single multiple choice test, the LSAT. Once you get your scores back you know immediately where you can be admitted (with the caveat of course of those whose families have given money to a school and don't have to rely on the test).

You can hedge your bets because if you don't end up in politics after graduating from a top law school, you can always "fall back" on a nice job at a firm.

What do you fall back on if you don't get work in politics (or development) after HKS?

[Onesimo Flores]

Further qualification is needed. Mexico's president attended the mid career program, after he had already been leader of Congress and President of his political party. The causality is reversed, Calderon attended the HKS because he was a prominent politician, and not the other way around.

Where are the MPPs and MPAIDs?

[Onesimo Flores]

Further qualification is needed. Mexico's president attended the mid career program, after he had already been leader of Congress and President of his political party. The causality is reversed, Calderon attended the HKS because he was a prominent politician, and not the other way around.

Where are the MPPs and MPAIDs?

[Tillman]

Lawyers really just have more time on their hands, have been trained to lie and twist words and arguments, have generally a larger pool of money to work with when entering the political realm and, since they are mostly from upper-middle class families, are familiar with cultural mannerisms--sounds like a politician to me.

But what does it matter anyways? The system of politics is based on connections and patronage and law schools are top-notch spots for elites to be gleaned by special interests.

Looking at the course listing for the Kennedy School, I notice you have the first listing as"Markets and Market Failure." What? Market failure? What is that? Some socialist-Marxist rhetoric? Rejection!

Let's be realistic here.

[minderbender]

I don't think it's accurate to say that "law schools make no claim to teach you policy." In fact, it's hard to see how you could separate the study of law from the study of policy, because so much policy consists of law. At any rate, I took plenty of law school classes that were explicitly about policy ("_____ Law & Policy" is a pretty common form of course name), and I can't think of a law school class that didn't touch on policy in some way.

Possibly things are different in other countries that rely less on the legal system to make policy. Still, most countries make policy through laws of one sort or another.

[Rupert Simons]

We may not be in the top flight of the administration (yet), but HKS people were all over the campaign. Besides, lawyers dominate politics in every democratic country I know, except for France! And is France a better place for being run by enarques? Probably not.

[William]

Rupert Simons, although I agree with the main thrust of argument, I should point out that ENA (Ecole nationale d'administration, which means "National Administration School") is -- precisely -- a public policy school, and not a law school. That said, many high-office French politicians have been exposed to some kind of legal education. Interestingly, Sarkozy is one of the few top-rank officials not to have graduated from ENA. But enarques still dominate the French political landscape.

[William]

I just re-read your message and realized you actually had it right. Sorry about that! I wholly agree that France is probably adversely affected by the ubiquity of enarques within its political elite. In terms of percentages, though, the predominance of Harvard/Yale law grads in the new administration almost rivals that of enarques in the French government, which is quite a feat.

[ZKu]

Perhaps, HKS attracts more 'policy-driven' people who want to do the right thing than 'reelection-driven' people who want to do the thing for their career.

[michael philipps]

I think another way to see it is as follows.
To be a policymaker in the US, you don't need any formal training. Street smarts and networking is all that needed . In other words, in America , you can become anything you like--if you have the smarts and connection--and hence realize your American dream ( whch is a nice thing, I suppose ! ) Second, as connections and networks is essentailly an upper-class and elite prerogative, it nicely insulates the system from the pernicious lower class subversions. Third, although the lack of apprepriate educational preparation of the policymakers, as you seem to allude to, can entail certain amount of wastes and inefficiency to the system, but who cares? America afford it ,or at least up to this point of history !

[wamelke]

HKS trains policy analysts ... and the leadership courses at HKS are about group dynamics. By contrast, the training of lawyers tend to be deeper and much more thoughtful than the at HKS.

[matt wilbert]

First, I don't know why organizations are so fond of hiring lawyers for non-legal tasks. I haven't seen any evidence that they are particularly good at them. I agree with the people who said (paraphrasing) that the reason is that lots of smart people who aren't all that interested in being lawyers go to law school because it gives them a trade while keeping their options open. I'm just not sure why it keeps their options open.

On the other hand, HKS graduates are unlikely to make as much money (or at least to have the option to make as much) as HLS graduates. I suspect HLS attracts a higher-powered and perhaps more ambitious cohort. I'm sure there are lots of great people at HKS, but I know some pretty serious bozos who went there (for MPPs--I don't think I know any MPAIDs) so perhaps the admissions standard is lower and the product not as trusted.

[Nicholas]

Law school is really a generalist program. Most lawyers can pursue dozens of specialties and develop subsequent interests totally unrelated to their education. HKS trains policy analysts who build careers in particular specialties. If you look at Tim Geithner (Darmouth, SAIS), his policy degree set him on the path to becoming Treasury Secretary. Maybe the head of USAID for HKS? Or some of the Deputy/Under Secretaries of State?

[Youri_Kemp]

Hello all,

While it is important to note that lawyers, would probably make more money over a lifetime than does a policy analyst, you can't neglect to mention places where HSK graduates would end up outside of elected office--public service at the highest levels.

These civil service posts, affects policy in a very important way. Basically, the intel that, let's say, a Dick Cheney would depend on, would be from someone with an policy background who knows how to navigate staff, potential loopholes in the civil service systems and can give credible advice to on the ground impact of policy--the latter is critical.

In many instances, public policy graduates end up as career long diplomats, who worked through the civil services and have distinguished careers.

Your MPA would not get you the loads of cash at the onset, but if you are a well trained poicy analyst, and you network dilligently, you can make a professional success in your Ministry/Department and make a mint, in the private sector, working as a consultant to companies looking for credible and sound inroads to politicians and what ever have you.

Another important aspect, lawyers and doctors, are very high-profile--so too are businessmen, who come from top MBA programs and want to make wads of cash in high finance. These types of career paths always make for good politicians, because their apearance marks success and people are drawn to it--half of the battle is won, in convincing the electorate that you are capable and ready to lead. In fact, people then beg you to lead.

To put it bluntly, who wants to follow a broke dreamer--or the appearance of a broke dreamer?

Aside from another fact that politics, in many instances, is a cut throat business. From time began, lawyers and professionals that are not readily assailable by the fancies of a changing political and economic directorate, fair much better when economic disaster hits and are ready to stand up, under any circumstance, to face the political backlash of their positions--this is so true in many developing countries.

Best,

Youri
http://globalviewtoday.blogspot.com/

[Richard]

Most troubling of all, the incoming U.S. Treasury Secretary went to SAIS! Ick.

[alex]

minderbender: "it's hard to see how you could separate the study of law from the study of policy, because so much policy consists of law"

No, law is the mechanism by which policy is often enacted. The actual policy is more important than the details by which it's implemented, especially at the level of the president or congress.

minderbender: "I can't think of a law school class that didn't touch on policy in some way."

Defense policy? Agriculture policy? Education policy? Health care policy? All of those subjects have important policy ramifications. Law is hardly unique in that regard.

Nicholas: "Law school is really a generalist program."

Generalists who happen to specialize in the practice of law?

Nicholas: "Most lawyers can pursue dozens of specialties and develop subsequent interests totally unrelated to their education."

That's begging the question. The real issue is why can they "develop subsequent interests totally unrelated to their education" more so than people in other professions.

Why not biologists? (no I'm not a biologist). Their training is certainly more relevant than law school for important public policy areas like health care and environmental issues. Furthermore, while not as intensive as in say physics, their mathematical training is certainly far more intensive than in law school. This leaves them better prepared for economics and for statistical analysis of the effects that various policies have. In fact, in general, their grounding in the scientific method leaves them better prepared for the analysis of myriad policies.

[KY Choong]

Isn't it partly because there are many more lawyers than public policy school graduates? Given a random selection of any 10 people with graduate degrees, what is the probability that there will be more law graduates than public policy school graduates?

[A. Lyons]

One argument we could consider is the role of party leaders. I imagine if Dukakis, a one time professor at HKS who relied on HKS advisers, had won in 1988, then the democratic party might look quite different and HKS could have been well-represented in his administration, eventhough Dukakis also went to HLS. (See NYT article HARVARD'S KENNEDY SCHOOL: IS COMPETENCE ENOUGH?) But that didn't happen and the most powerful democrats, who have made the decisions about who gets appointed to high level positions in the past two democratic administrations went to HLS and YLS.

Barack and Michelle went to HLS and Bill and Hillary went to Yale Law School. So three of the most powerful democrats in the country formed social networks and networks of advisors and mentors during their time at these two schools.

Look at all the people who gained experience in the Clinton administration coming back for round number 2.

Another approach, which simply observes the phenomena(the growing influence of HLS and YLS) is to just look at the notable alumni page on wikipedia and try not to be impressed by the accomplishment and influence of HLS and YLS. HLS is extremely well represented.

Newly Elected Senators and Senators retaining their seats:

Former Governor Mark Warner ’80 (D-VA, Carl Levin ’59 (D-MI), Jack Reed ’82 (D-RI), Michael Crapo ’77 (R-ID), Russell Feingold ’79 (D-WI), Carl Levin ’59 (D-MI), and Charles Schumer ’74 (D-NY)

(note Ted Stevens '50 (R-AK) and Elizabeth Dole '65 (R-NC) who graduated from HLS lost their re-elections.) Not to mention Obama and YLS alums: Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joseph Lieberman and Arlen Specter.
(so prior to the election 13/100 Senators went to either HLS or YLS)

Current Governors: James Doyle ’74 (D-WI), Jennifer Granholm ’87 (D-MI), Tim Kaine ’83 (D-VA), Deval Patrick ’82 (D-MA), and Anibel Acevedo-Vila LL.M. ’87, who is governor of Puerto Rico. (Not to mention Mitt Romney, an HLS and HBS alum, presidential candidate and former governor and Eliot Spitzer disgraced former governor of NY)

Robert Rubin, Robert Reich went YLS...

8 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices (Ruth Bader Ginsberg attended HLS before graduating from Columbia and John Paul Stevens went to Northwestern)

If you were choosing what school to go to in order to prepare for a career in public service and wanted to get as high up in office as quickly as possible. You might want to get a law degree.

Being both a HKS and HLS student, I can't help but think of the response I get at HLS from people who seem perplexed and skeptical at the idea of a joint degree with HKS. It is sometimes hard to argue with them--any job you can get as a joint degree student you could get with just a law degree. But when you look at it the other way around, why combine a degree at HKS with a law degree, it is hard to argue against the added value. I was told by the OCA at HKS that the joint degree alumni from HKS advanced the furthest, the fastest and are the best compensated for their work.

[Steve Sewall]

Where the law regulates, governs and in this sense controls politics and business as well, public policy's more modest role in both arenas is inherently advisorial. The flipside of this coin, and I should think the true appeal policy studies, is that where the law attracts those motivated by (mere) ambition, the appeal of policy is to those who aspire to wisdom: to the search for wise policy. These are stereotypes, I know, but bear with me.

Consider that Obama, a lawyer himself, has surrounded himself with lawyers. Could this indicate a need for control that risks excluding the open-mindedness that is a prerequisite for wise policy? Is Obama aligning himself not just with lawyers but with the same control-driven forces that have dominated global finance since 1945 and Bretton Woods, when the dollar became the world's global reserve currency? One thinks of his close ties to Robert Rubin of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, two outfits that bear major responsibility for the mess we're in now. Then there's Obama's choice of Rubin protege Geithner to head up the Fed. And finally there's Larry Summers! Still, Obama's global roots, his intellect, his mass appeal and his regal bearing suggest an independence of spirit that may enable him to manage these individuals rather than being managed by them.

Now let's talk policy for a minute. Obama knows that Wall Street, the Fed and Treasury have been desperately flooding the world's central banks with paper dollars - nearly three trillion so far - in an effort to "jump start" (Obama's phrase; he will stand or fall by it) the American financial system and to maintain the dollar's role as the world's global reserve currency. Yesterday Bloomberg News reported that the total could go well over 7 trillion. Yes, Virginia, that's trillion:

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

Does this policy strike Obama as wise? Instead of wasting our resources on a financial system that is plainly broken (Steve Randy Waldman) and on a Bush-like attempt to dominate a world that the world no longer sees us able to dominate, should the United States not be repairing and preparing itself - its infrastructures and its people as opposed to its banks - to be a strong, smart member of an emerging community of nations that is dominated by no single nation, but managed in an entirely new (and recently evolved) spirit of competition and cooperation that was anticipated by figures like Lincoln and Martin Luther King, two name two of Obama's mentors?

Obama, I submit, is now walking this tightrope between policy and control, wisdom and dominance.

[EM]

I think there is a different mentality with policy school folk. I'm actually at the Heinz College right now, and I haven't met the kind of arrogant, smug jackasses that make great politicians, power brokers, and rich people.

I'm not trying to stereotype, but people in policy programs just tend to be more interested in working their way up through the ranks and forming/implementing policy in productive ways than in becoming, well, a political appointee or politician. Lawyers are often...more contentious, more ambitious.

[ESR]

Professor,

HKS grads in the administration and campaign:

--Pete Rouse, MPA '77, Senior Advisor to the President, formerly Obama's Senate chief-of-staff
--Joani Walsh, MPA '07, on the Agency Review Working Group in the transition (http://change.gov/learn/working_group_members)
--Betsy Myers, MPA '00, was the COO of the Obama campaign
--Josh Gotbaum MPP/JD '76 (so granted he did both HKS and law), leading the Economics and International Trade transition team

Mentioned for slots:

--Michelle Rhee, MPP '97, Chancellor of D.C. public schools and name-dropped for Education Secretary
--Shaun Donovan, MPA/M.Arch '95, head of NYC housing department, mentioned for HUD

[steph]

just coming from the mpp program, i am not surprised at this, given the expressed interests and ambitions of most of the class. i'm more interested in development, so i'm probably biased in that direction, but i think that a significant percentage of people who go to the kennedy school either have more international interests, or if they have domestic interests, are more focused on local government. (there were a few people really intrested in campaigning, etc., and most of them were doing joint law degrees.) the majority of the people that were domestically focused but at a national level were interested in national security policy, so may be looking at different avenues. judging from the quality of people that come to the school, and especially as a mid-career, i think that it is relevant - but policy degrees may not have as solid a history of getting you good jobs - it is a less well understood degree, and programs vary widely in content and quality.

as a side note, matthew yglesias was mocking the predecessor to larry summers and said "he has a master's degree, but not in economics" - it turns out he has an mpp from the kennedy school. so i guess we do go somewhere...

[T]

I would second this post and ask, where are the political science phds? HKS teaches the same courses that a PhD in in any international political economy program takes plus the phds have the added bonus of, well, a phd. Oh wait, there's Condi...