It seems a tad silly that this is directed towards first-year students. Those to be selected are likely to have shown promise in another graduate field. It is axiomatic to say that nearly all law students at top schools showed promise in their undergraduate work. To differentiate students who merely profess to be interested in legal academia from those who would excel at it requires something more than an undergraduate record and a great essay, namely, a record of excellence in graduate work and/or teaching.

Another solution -- to award the fellowship to students who top the class in their first year of law school -- doesn't solve the problem, either. I can say without doubt that law school grades are wildly unpredictable. And I can't imagine they predict the ability of a person to do serious, original, and valuable research, as first year doesn't really have anything to do with the ability to teach or the ability to practice law (much like the LSAT is a poor predictor of success in law school).

Targeting J.D. students for academia is neither necessary nor appropriate. I cannot say without sarcasm or humor the J.D. curriculum is designed to educate law students for careers in legal practice. However, it is not particularly calculated to prepare students for careers in legal academia. Separating students 'destined' for professorships is a bad idea in several respects. Legal academics should have training in the real-world practice of law. Otherwise, theory becomes disconnected from reality and legal theory becomes useless. Moreover, those chosen few may find out that they aren't really suited for the academic life -- what then? Theory is great, but it's not exactly contract drafting.

The basic law degree is considered graduate education -- more accurately, professional education -- but it's not the sort of graduate education that is required of students in other disciplines. Many J.D.s already labor under the conceit that their degrees are as rigorous as doctorates in those other fields and it's silly to reinforce that misconception. We aren't required to undergo oral exams or comprehensives or defend serious research [and a "presentation" is hardly a defense]. I couldn't even consider the bar exam to be as rigorous as those tests.

One of the reasons "no law school has offered training comparable to that received by students in other graduate programs" is precisely because a very few institutions do offer graduate law programs. The J.D. is simply not intended to be actual preparation for the professional study & teaching of law. The LL.M. (or S.J.D.) might not currently be the best solution, but it's better than this one. If it takes a few more years, well, what's the rush? Aren't there too many people that want to be professors anyways?

My real difficulty with this is the lauded "improvement" without any. There's a little more research, a little more writing, a tad bit of public speaking. I might be more amenable to the proposal if it included rigorous training on research methodology and classroom pedagogy. Intuition is great, but training is better. Then again, that's probably what an LL.M. should be for. You just can't pack it all in to three years without shorting professors out of the legal (and hopefully a bit of real world) instruction they need in order to connect with future students.

Without a serious attempt at reform of legal academia, just let it all sort itself by the end of law school. The researchers and writers know who they are. They'll publish a note or two in school, go on to clerk, maybe nab an LL.M., and then throw themselves to the wolves at the meat market. They'll struggle through the first few years of juggling classes & writing (publish or perish!): a few will be brilliant, more will falter, some will fail horribly and permanently damage the psyche of an aspiring lawyer.

After all, that's the way it's always been!