Abstract

Excerpted From: Sara L. Ochs, Imposter Syndrome & the Law School Caste System, 42 Pace Law Review 373 (Spring, 2022) (183 Footnotes) (Full Document)

Legal academia is a profession of hierarchies and barriers. Barriers to entry prevent all but a select few from entering the exclusive profession, and those who do gain access often face engrained and inflexible hierarchies upon entry. Those academics who fall outside the limited purview of the concept of the “traditional” law professor, whether because of their race, gender, or the content of their course load, endure stigmas, biases, and prejudices from students, colleagues, and administrators. Constant exposure to this treatment can plant deeply seated doubts in non-traditional legal academics, often causing them to fear becoming exposed as less educated, knowledgeable, or accomplished than their qualifications represent. This fear, christened by psychologists as “imposter syndrome,” has emerged as a widespread psychological phenomenon with a strong foothold in legal academia, and one which adversely impacts those faculty members viewed as non-traditional law professors.

It is well settled that law faculty positions are not created equal. Indeed, for decades, scholars have recognized the strict hierarchical structure of legal academia, by which faculty are ranked based on their role in the law school and, specifically, their assigned course load. Tenured or tenure-track faculty members--the vast majority of whom are professors of doctrinal or casebook courses --occupy the upper echelons of this hierarchy, enjoying the greatest levels of power and significant monetary and non-monetary rewards

. Many law schools relegate professors of experiential-based skills courses, such as legal writing professors, academic success and bar prep faculty, clinic professors, and research librarians, who this Article will broadly refer as “legal skills professors” or simply “skills professors,” to the lower-levels of the law school hierarchy. Law schools often deny skills professors the job security, monetary benefits, and privileges to which their doctrinal faculty counterparts are entitled.

Due to their placement at the lower rungs of the law school hierarchy, and their discriminatory treatment as “others” in legal academia, skills professors often endure severe feelings of self-doubt. Being made to feel as though they do not necessarily belong in legal academia often leads skills professors to feel like frauds; they expect their colleagues and students to eventually determine that they are not qualified as experts in their curricular areas, and they convince themselves they should neither be teaching nor writing scholarship. In other words, skills professors are highly susceptible to and affected by feelings of imposter syndrome.

In recent years, imposter syndrome has experienced a surge in societal recognition, and both popular and scholarly resources abound on how afflicted individuals should “cure” their imposter syndrome. Yet, as many psychologists recognize, imposter syndrome is not just an individual problem; instead it often manifests from one’s social context and the manner in which they are treated by their peers. Indeed, those who are treated as less valuable or “worthy” of accolades than their peers and especially those who are subjected to discrimination by their institution--whether by their employer, educational institution, or community in general--are often more susceptible to imposter syndrome.

Despite this research, imposter syndrome is still stigmatized as an individual problem, with the onus on the self-proclaimed “imposter” to change themselves to mitigate their imposter feelings. Instead, as others have begun to recognize, imposter syndrome needs to be treated as an institutionalized problem stemming from inequality, and the onus thus lies with the institution to promote equality in efforts to minimize imposter syndrome. In the context of legal academia, this means skills professors--who often suffer from imposter syndrome due to their rank in the law school caste system--are not at fault for their imposter syndrome, nor should they bear the burden of “fixing” themselves. Instead, this responsibility lies with their academic institutions.

Despite greater media and pop culture references to imposter syndrome, a significant and expanding body of interdisciplinary literature examining the presence and impact of imposter syndrome in higher education, and abounding anecdotal stories of imposter syndrome among faculty members at law schools, relatively little legal scholarship has explored imposter syndrome in legal academia. Specifically, no work has yet to analyze the role that the engrained law school hierarchy plays in fostering imposter syndrome among legal skills professors.

This Article seeks to fill that gap by examining how the law school faculty hierarchy generates feelings of imposter syndrome in skills professors, as well as the damaging effects of these feelings. Utilizing qualitative responses from teaching faculty and staff at American Bar Association (“ABA”) accredited and approved law schools nationwide, this Article analyzes the causes of and practical impact imposter syndrome has on skills professors, specifically regarding their relationships with colleagues; teaching; relationships with students; publication and promotion of scholarship; and personal health and wellbeing. The Article further identifies the secondary impacts such hierarchical-induced imposter syndrome has on skills professors’ students and their law schools more generally.

Part II of this Article explores the current literature on imposter syndrome, including its root causes and general symptoms. It then provides a succinct overview of the law school hierarchical structure that seeks to disadvantage skills professors and contributes to the widespread presence of imposter syndrome in legal academia. Part III then utilizes written responses from skills professors nationwide to identify the causes and impacts of skills professors’ imposter syndrome and specifically evaluates how imposter syndrome practically affects skills professors’ work, relationships, and wellbeing.

Finally, Part V identifies common themes from the survey that support the conclusion that hierarchical-induced imposter syndrome in skills professors often solidifies the hierarchical strata that initially caused it, thereby promoting a recurring cycle of classism and discrimination. In addition, skills professors’ imposter syndrome creates unexpected secondary impacts on their students and their law school administrations. This Part concludes by arguing imposter syndrome is an institutionalized, rather than individualized, problem. Therefore, rather than placing the burden on legal skills professors to mitigate their feelings of imposter syndrome, the responsibility instead lies with law schools to reduce the insidious presence of imposter syndrome in legal academia and remedy its detrimental impacts. To do this, law schools must tear down the hierarchies in legal academia and work towards equality for skills professors.

[ . . . ]

Imposter syndrome is universal. As Manfred F.R. Kets De Vries has recognized, “To some extent, of course, we are all imposters. We play roles on the stage of life, presenting a public self that differs from the private self we share with intimates and morphing both selves as circumstances demand. Displaying a façade is part and parcel of the human condition.” Indeed, almost all respondents to the questionnaire recognized that they had been impacted by imposter syndrome at least once in some way during their time in legal academia. Feelings of imposterism are not always accompanied by devastating effects. In small doses, feelings of being an imposter or an outsider can promote “intellectual humility” and foster critical thinking, while also pushing professionals--and especially academics--to excel.

Unfortunately, for most skills professors who endure a barrage of daily inequities stemming from the law school caste system, imposter syndrome is not limited to small doses. Instead, feelings of being a fraud or of not being good enough are often all-consuming both within and outside the workplace, with significant consequences for skills professors’ work and wellbeing, as well as their students’ educational experiences. Skills professors are often made to feel like frauds by the precise hierarchies and barriers in legal academia that were erected with the intent to marginalize and exclude them.

It will take concrete steps to dismantle the law school caste system and achieve equality among all castes. Until this change occurs, skills professors will continue to be treated as second class citizens, and the recurring cycle of imposter syndrome will persist, the effects of which will significantly deter the efficacy of law school administration and education. Addressing feelings of imposter syndrome and the sources of those emotions--either internally or institutionally--is far from a comfortable feeling. Yet, it is important to remember, as Dean Darby Dickerson has said, “[r]aising some up does not diminish the work of others. Instead, it improves the whole of legal education.”

Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Louisville, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law.