Top twenty lessons learned from international travel

Having not done much international traveling, I found this post on Tim Ferriss’ blog very interesting – you may or may not agree with all aspects of the points made by the guest poster – Gary Arndt (of Everything Everywhere), but they are certainly worth a look — here’s a taste of the first three:

Poll for Voir Dire users

We haven’t really tried much polling here on Voir Dire, so I thought I’d give it a try. Please excuse any glitches – I am not an expert at polling or on wordress features, so this is trial by error. This poll is pretty simple and just examines internet habits – in the future maybe we’ll open it up to more fun topics 🙂

Instant Karma boost!

You can instantly boost your karma score by checking out our two new opportunities for karma improving action:

Free Rice – Play vocabulary building game to earn free rice for those in need – see our hyper link here and permanently in our blog roll.

SPCA-LA  – promote the humane treatment of animals by taking a few minutes to play some games on our Social Vibe icon on the right column of this blog.

No more MS Word?

Maybe, at least for a while – apparently they did a no-no. See the story here and an excerpt below:

But it’s no joke. In August of this year, a court sided with a small Canadian company called i4i that holds a 1998 patent on the way the XML language is implemented, finding that Microsoft was in violation of that patent. The result: Microsoft was told to license the code in question from i4i or reprogram it, or else Microsoft Word would have to be removed from sale in the market. The original ruling gave Microsoft until October to get its legal affairs in order, but appeals pushed that out a bit.

Now a federal court has upheld that original ruling — plus a fat, $290 million judgment against the company — imposing the new January 11 D-Day on the matter. Microsoft Word and Microsoft Office will both be barred from sale as of that date — though naturally you’ll still be able to use copies of Word and Office that you already own, and Microsoft will be allowed to keep supporting those copies.

Facebook Dilemma — Should we be “friends” with colleagues?

OK, so I’m a pre-tenure professor lucky to have lots of friends and acquaintances from multiple phases of life including high school, college and grad school. I also have several academic colleagues who I consider friends – we discuss pop culture along with more serious matter at conferences. Inevitably this leads to looking for easy ways to stay in touch – I actually joined Facebook to see some conference photos a colleague posted after we were all back at our respective institutions. Every now and again I get a “friend” request from a colleague I don’t know that well – I almost always accept these. I don’t use different “groups” on Facebook. It may not be the most professional choice – but I figure if you want to be my friend — you should get to see all of it – the good and the bad, the intellectual postings and the less formal ones that lead to jabs with my oldest and dearest friends. I should also say that I have also enjoyed learning more about the colleagues who I am friends with in this manner — what they are interested in, what they are doing at any given time.
I’m sure others have more cautionary tales…. But I, for one, enjoy getting to stay in touch with colleagues in this manner in this brave new world. Other opinions?

On the Fallacy of Judges as Umpires

Much has been made of the whole “judges as umpires” business, popularized by John Roberts.  Indeed, Dahlia Lithwick has a column in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/208123) arguing that Sotomayor’s testimony over the past weeks will make it harder for Obama (or any other president) to appoint a justice who does not subscribe to this mechanical jurisprudence.

Much less has been written about why Roberts’ justice-as-umpire analogy simply does not work (or does not work in the way he thinks it does).  Most basically, umpires work within the rules of baseball; Supreme Court justices help set the rules.  Certainly the analogy works better for lower court judges, who handle more “routine” cases than Supreme Court justices (though there have been several studies showing that lower court judges also make policy).

But even if one were to concede that judges ought not make new rules, then if judging is like umpiring…this is an argument for judges having a lot of discretion (not minimal discretion).  Indeed, umpiring can even be empathetic.  For example, at every level (with the exception of MLB), umpires are not bound by the formal definition of the strike zone.  Indeed, umpires often call strikes that are a ball width off the plate.  Why?  Because it is a hittable pitch.  Moreover, strikes keep the game moving.  Without strikes, there are no hits and no outs.  The game grinds to a halt.  The game cannot even end without strikes (since there is no clock).  As long as the zone is “fair” to the hitters, there is a lot of discretion.  (Even at the MLB level, there is a 2 inch margin of error given when evaluating umpires.)  Thus, sometimes one has to stretch the zone a bit to keep the game moving.  Another example:  a batter cannot intentionally be hit by a pitched ball.  If he does, he is not entitled to first base.  But, a batter is allowed to be frozen by the pitch (at least under NCAA rules).  So, how do you determine whether or not the batter was intentionall hit or whether he froze?  Context and judgment.  Even if judging is like umpiring, this analogy does NOT require a judge to be deferential to Congress.  Or engage in minimalism.  In some cases, it commands precisely the opposite.

On second thought, maybe Roberts has it right:  good judges should be like good umpires.  They should be fair, even if it means bending the rules a little bit.  They should keep things moving.  They should take into account context when making their rulings.  For Roberts to become the Tim McClelland of the Supreme Court, he’ll need to be less mechanical and more “fair” in the upcoming terms.

Things to Read

So, while I was away last week in beautiful Bermuda, I had some time to catch up on some leisure reading.  My two major non-academic hobbies are baseball and our Brussels Griffon, Boss.  Those of you who have similar interests would enjoy reading:

The Yankee Years, by Joe Torre and Tom Verducci.

One Nation Under Dog, by Michael Schaffer

A book I read earlier this summer, which I cannot recommend enough to baseball fans is:

As They Seem ‘Em, by Bruce Weber.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the best book of the summer:  In Defense of Judicial Elections.

Bruno-mania

Last Friday, I received a phone call from a reporter with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. She was in the process of writing a story regarding Sacha Baron Cohen’s new movie, Bruno. The story centered on an effort by Movieguide, which is published by the pro-family values interest group Christian Film & Television Commission, to convince local government officials to injunct screening the movie on the grounds that it offends contemporary community standards. The Movieguide press release contains a laundry list of reasons as to why the group feels the movie is obscene.

A few things struck me as particularly interesting about this effort. First, the Motion Picture of Association of America, a rather conservative organization in its own right, gave the film an R rating. It seems to me that convincing local officials to screen an R rated movie and determine that it is obscene is a largely fruitless endeavor. Second, I wonder whether this effort might have a boomerang effect by convincing those who otherwise might not see the movie to view it, something that apparently occurred when explicit lyrics warning labels were placed on albums in the 1980s. Lastly, I wonder if this was largely an opportunity for Movieguide to generate some nice press for itself. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram story alone was picked up by more than 20 other newspapers, ranging from the Modesto Bee to the Charlotte Observer. So, perhaps the effort was more about generating publicity for organizational maintenance purposes than genuinely trying to convince local communities to prohibit the screening of Bruno.

The Joy of Minor League Baseball

Following up on Chris’ excellent post regarding Mariano Rivera’s 500th save, I thought I’d share a quick post encouraging readers to check out a minor league baseball game.

Why?

1) They are cheap. While it’s easy to spend upwards of $75 a ticket on a major league baseball game, one can typically get great seats at a minor league game for less than $10. During the week, most franchises have specials that cut this even further. When I was in graduate school, the Binghamton Mets (AA) had a two for Tuesday special (that continues to this day). With a student ID, I could get seats on the third base line for about $4 and enjoy 2 for 1 Yuengling lagers.

2) They have tons of local color. Almost all minor league franchises have something unique to offer, especially regarding ballpark drink and fare. The Binghamton Mets sell speedies, marinated meat served on a hotdog roll. The Fort Worth Cats (Independent) feature beer from Rahr, a local brewery. The Quad Cities River Bandits (A) are holding a “Van Down by the River” contest at every game this season, giving fans the chance to take in a game from—you guessed it—a van down by the river.

3) You get to see the future stars of major league baseball. The most exciting part of minor league baseball is the opportunity to see the future stars of the game. While I was growing up, I had the opportunity to see Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, Deion Sanders, Andy Pettitte, and Mariano Rivera play for the now defunct Albany-Colonie Yankees (AA). Rob Guidry even made a rehab start with the team. In graduate school, I remember watching David Wright and Jose Reyes play on the same team. There was no doubt those kids were going somewhere.

Rivera’s Historic (?) 500th Save?

One of the things that is great about sports is that every game you have the chance of seeing something you have never seen before.  In that sense, it is the ultimate reality TV.  The other night, while watching the Yankees-Mets game (apologies to Mets fan Bob Howard), we witnessed such a moment.  With the Yankees leading by a run, they put in the best closer of all-time, Mariano Rivera.  He got the last out of the bottom of the 8th.  In the top of the 9th, with the bases loaded and 2 outs, Rivera’s turn to bat came up.  This was only the third time in his career (since 1995) that he batted in a major league game.  The Mets closer, Francisco Rodriguez (no slouch himself), fell behind 2-0.  Rivera worked the count to 3-2, and then Rodriguez delivered ball 4.  Not only had Rivera walked, but he got credit for a run batted in, since the runner from 3rd scored on the walk.

This got me wondering…has a closer ever earned an RBI in an MLB game.  A quick google search yielded….nothing.  My hunch is that the issue is “no.”  Closers generally enter the game in the 9th inning (or later) and if/when their time to bat comes up, they are generally pinch-hit for since the game is tight and ABs are valuable.  Moreover, there was no such thing as a “closer” until the 1970s–it is a modern development of the game.  Certainly, pitchers who have served as both starters and closers have RBIs (Derek Lowe, Ryan Dempster, etc.)  But….has a pitcher serving as a closer ever received an RBI?

If not, then Rivera’s Hall of Fame career just got even better.

On the new legal economy

Two interesting things to examine on the new legal economy:

First, Bill Henderson has a very interesting post on ELS. Check out the differences in salary distribution in 1991 and 2007 that he documents and discusses:

Second, a very intriguing take on the latest developments of the legal economy downturn for big firms and the downturn’s ramifications can be found on Law Shucks (hat tip Nancy Rapoport). The site describes itself as “a self-deprecating look at life in and after BigLaw.”

What Drew You to the Study of Law and Courts?

I’d like to extend my sincere thanks to Jeff and Andy for the opportunity to guest blog on Voir Dire. Hopefully, the readers will find what I have to say at least marginally interesting. I plan to cover a number of topics, some academic, some not so much. Jeff and Andy were kind enough to give me fairly substantial leeway in terms of my posts and I plan to take them up on that offer.

I’ll begin with one of my favorite questions to ask prospective graduate students and faculty members: What drew you to the study of law and courts? Over the years, I’ve heard a wide range of answers to this question and they never cease to fascinate me.

I’ll share an abridged version of own narrative.

My father is an attorney who spent 20 plus years as a county legislator. My mother is a schoolteacher. Growing up, my parents instilled in me a strong sense of the importance of these career paths, although I was drawn most heavily to the law. I entered the University of Scranton fully set on going to law school. I could see the “Collins and Son, P.C.” sign in my head.

However, during the course of my studies at Scranton, two things occurred. First, I spent a summer working as a law librarian. This gave me a keen sense of the day-to-day activities of lawyers. I came to realize that the romantic view of lawyers often portrayed on television and in the movies rarely meshed with the real business of attorneys, even litigators. Second, I became fascinated with the life of academics. It occurred to me that a career spent educating, researching, and never leaving a college campus was exceptionally appealing. Indeed, I recall speaking with a faculty member at Scranton about my career path. When asked what I was interested in doing post-undergraduate, I replied “I kind of like your job.” With those words, I finally managed to get the courage up to explore something other than law school.

So there you have it. The offspring of an attorney/politician and a schoolteacher grows up to teach political science and law. It seems kind of silly that it took me into my early twenties to figure that one out.

Race in the War on Drugs: The Social Consequences of Presidential Rhetoric

The Voir Dire team has recently publicly posted on the Social Science Research Network their paper from the Empirical Legal Studies conference, “Race in the War on Drugs: The Social Consequences of Presidential Rhetoric.”  The abstract is available below the fold.

The *real* victims of the financial crises …

… the high end financial executives, of course. Gawker provides a funny youtube video chronicling life after the high life in NYC (below). Perhaps this guy can find fulfillment on Odd Todd – a site devoted to helping those who are unemployed pass the time. Warning: pretty much all of the links in this post (and the youtube video) contain what some may consider coarse language and potentially offensive subject matter; nothing horrible, but not “G” rated, by any means.

Why model?

The Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science Blog has a post on an interesting paper by J.M. Epstein concerning modeling. Here’s an excerpt:

In summary, while most mathematical treatment of statistical modeling tends to be focused purely on prediction, there is a good reason why the cost of interpretation should be considered. Epstein’s list of why interpretability matters should motivate us to care:

1. Explain (very distinct from predict)
2. Guide data collection
3. Illuminate core dynamics
4. Suggest dynamical analogies
5. Discover new questions
6. Promote a scientific habit of mind
7. Bound (bracket) outcomes to plausible ranges
8. Illuminate core uncertainties.
9. Offer crisis options in near-real time
10. Demonstrate tradeoffs / suggest efficiencies
11. Challenge the robustness of prevailing theory through perturbations
12. Expose prevailing wisdom as incompatible with available data
13. Train practitioners
14. Discipline the policy dialogue
15. Educate the general public
16. Reveal the apparently simple (complex) to be complex (simple)

The impact of the down economy on academia…

… more specifically on hiring trends, on Leiter and Alfred Brophy on the Faculty Lounge Blog here and here. They make some interesting comments and predictions. I may post on this later when I’ve had more time to think about the topic, but I’ll posit two quick thoughts here: 1) any downturn in the economy creates institutional reactions, true, but it also creates personal reactions to those reactions. If teaching loads go up or tenure becomes more difficult (two of the predicted effects of the economic downturn), then academia becomes less attractive to certain individuals who may pursue alternative career paths. This, in turn, has its own implications. 2) A downturn in the economy also creates opportunities for those institutions who are better situated to deal with it – poaching may become more prevalent as more financially flush institutions are able to attract laterals from relatively less well off institutions.

Check it out – “Predictably Irrational”

                 

I have taken to listening to books on tape – or, more accurately on IPod – during my commute to work. Recently, I began listening to a book written by a behavioral economist, Dan Ariely. In “Predictably Irrational” he argues that, contrary to the assumptions we typically see in social science, people act irrationally in many situations. However, he suggests, we can predict this irrational behavior. He also has a pretty cool website. Below the fold is some copy for the book and a fun picture of the author from his website.

How does the top 1% do?

Very well, actually, and a lot better than in previous years, relatively speaking. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has posted some interesting analysis on its site regarding how the very well to do have faired vis-a-vis the rest of the crowd over time. Below the fold are a couple of particularly interesting graphs.

Are you a problem solver? Need a problem solved? Now there’s a social network

The New York Times reports on Innocentive, a company that’s all about solving problems – and highly varied ones at that. Here’s an excerpt:

Dwayne Spradlin, president and chief executive of InnoCentive, said in an interview that the company had solved 250 challenges, for prizes typically in the $10,000 to $25,000 range. According to the Web site (www.innocentive.com), the achievements include a compound for skin tanning, a method of preventing snack chip breakage and a mini-extruder in brick-making.

“Odds are one or more products in your home has been innovated in our network,” Mr. Spradlin said. “Procter & Gamble has products that were innovated on the InnoCentive network.”

InnoCentive began in 2000 as e.Lilly, an in-house innovation “incubator” at the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, Mr. Spradlin said, with the company posting problems that its employees had been unable to solve. From the beginning the results were good, he said. “Most of our companies tell us they have a one-third or better solve rate on their problems and that is more cost-effective than anything they could have done internally.”

Here are some of the problems that are currently available to be solved:

We are interested in finding ways for people to make long-term habit changes in lifestyle. This is an Ideation challenge so your creativity and experience qualify you to participate in this challenge. Responses are expected to be about 2 written pages. (award $20,000)

My solution: spankings for adults when they engage in bad habits; problem solved, but there may be limitations

Design a long chewing product that does not require disposal. The product can dissolve in the mouth or break-up and be swallowable with no negative health impact on the body. (award $100,000)

My solution: I have this product I’m “developing” – I call it “salt water taffy”

We are looking for a technology that allows a timed-release flavor change to occur in a food product. (award $50.000)

Wait a minute, didn’t Willy Wonka already invent this? Oh yeah, he did, but it turned Veruca Salt into a giant blueberry.

Yale prof on elite education

William Deresiewicz‘s article, “The Disadvantages of an Elite Education: Our best universities have forgotten that the reason they exist is to make minds, not careers,” appears in the current issue of The American Scholar. [hat tip to Prettier Than Napoleon blog]

Don’t stand so close to me

No, really, please do not stand next to me … if you are not considered socially desirable. As opposed to the Police song in which the narrator has mixed feelings about the attractive subject standing so close to him (for fear of scandal or worse), recent research suggests that it can also be detrimental to be in close proximity to people who are not deemed attractive by society. This truism has been tied to political behavior by Shankar Vendantam in his recent Washington Post article. Here are some selections:

Imperfect selection systems: A lesson from Brett Michaels?

Selection systems can sometimes be imperfect. This may occasionally be revealed when a great candidate or performer comes to a position through unusual circumstances or a “fluke”. Witness Brett Michaels’ (lead singer of “Poison”) VH1 reality show, “Rock of Love” (or Rock of Love 2 for purists). The show’s ultimate winner (and hence Brett’s ‘Rock of Love’) turned out to be Ambre Lake (on the left) who nudged out Daisy De La Hoya (on the right – and, yes, she is apparently related to the well known boxer, Oscar De La Hoya). Curiously, Ambre was almost cut from the show (i.e. not chosen by Brett to continue to ‘rock his world’) very early on – not even past the quarterfinals. She was only saved when one contestant chose not to remain on the show after being chosen by Brett. But, as the show wore on she gained momentum and ended up beating out all of the other contestants.

Now, all of this is to suggest that scenarios such as this may provide information on the imperfections of any selection system. We can think of other instances in which great performers were not early picks; or, alternatively, situations in which stand out performers only attained the position which enabled them to excel through a “fluke” situation. Instances that come to mind include athletes who were not high draft choices or college stars but went on to do great things in the pros (e.g. Johnny Unitas or Scottie Pippen). Similarly, we might think of actors who were not the first choice for roles, but ended up being praised for their performances or winning academy award. Of course, the flip side of this idea are situations in which “high draft picks” turn out to not do so well down the road. The worlds of athletics and entertainment are full of these stories.

Are there, perhaps, applications in political science or law? Great judges who were not obvious picks? Perhaps political leaders who were good performers, but attained office by fluke? Obviously, there may be somewhat of a subjective element in assessing who was a great performer; but this notwithstanding, it may be the case that studying these instances could reveal interesting things about our method of selection in a given field. Another application might be academia – are there cases in which eventual academic stars did not start out as “high draft picks”? And, if so, what can we learn from this, if anything?

Ghostwriters in the sky?

The New York Times has an interesting article on ghost writing in medical academia – here’s the lead in:

The drug maker Merck drafted dozens of research studies for a best-selling drug, then lined up prestigious doctors to put their names on the reports before publication, according to an article to be published Wednesday in a leading medical journal.  The article, based on documents unearthed in lawsuits over the pain drug Vioxx, provides a rare, detailed look in the industry practice of ghostwriting medical research studies that are then published in academic journals.

Read more from the NYT story here. The JAMA article can be found here. Hat tip to Science & Law Blog.

A city in a time of cholera

The New York Times has an intriguing article on how the city of New York was influenced by and how it reacted to the cholera epidemics of the 18th century. It is an interesting case study for students of public policy and perhaps topical given recent threats of epidemics.

Despite the epidemics of ’32 and ’49, people still flocked to New York and other teeming cities. But the first outbreak bolstered support for the Croton Aqueduct system to bring clean upstate water to the city, a project, completed in 1842, that led to the phasing out of private and neighborhood wells that were often polluted with human and animal waste. In 1849, the municipal government banished more than 20,000 pigs to the outer reaches of the city. A similar effort in previous years had provoked riots, but this time a public chastened by epidemic complied.

Finally, after the work of Dr. Snow in London and a lesser cholera outbreak in New York in 1866, the Metropolitan Board of Health was established with doctors in commanding roles and broad powers to clean up the city. Inspectors went to houses and burned clothing of people who had just died. They cleared the filth, spread lime and instructed survivors in proper sanitation.

Cities had learned, or should have, that epidemics as a consequence of urbanization were their responsibility to prevent and control.

Who are the most powerful members of Congress?

 It’s all right here:

Check out more on this graphic on the Monkey Cage Blog.

The law of ‘Battlestar Galactica’

Over on Concurring Opinions Blog, Daniel Solove and crew are featuring a three part interview with the creators, writers, and producers of the sci-fi tv show ‘Battlestar Galactica‘. The focus of the interviews is the role of law in the show; topics include trials and tribunals, necessity vs. moral principles, torture, and deference to the military, among others.

Finally, two independently great nerdy things (i.e. sci-fi and legal academia) come together to produce something really great. Surely, supernerds Ira Glass, David Sedaris, and Sarah Vowell are involved somehow.

Labor relations explained through sock puppets

I think that the title pretty much says it all. Congrats to the television writers on their successful strike! What did they actually win and what did we learn? (Hat tip to Balkinization)

It’s the economy stupid – Robert Reich on being “Totally Spent”

As the presidential candidate field narrows and the parties begin to square off against each other we will be hearing many familiar “competing yet somehow similar” solutions to how to handle the economy. Will any of the usual strategies offered by the candidates work? Robert Reich doesn’t seem to think they will. In his NY Times op-ed piece,”Totally Spent,” he writes:

The problem lies deeper. It is the culmination of three decades during which American consumers have spent beyond their means. That era is now coming to an end. Consumers have run out of ways to keep the spending binge going.

The only lasting remedy, other than for Americans to accept a lower standard of living and for businesses to adjust to a smaller economy, is to give middle- and lower-income Americans more buying power — and not just temporarily.

He adds that familiar fixes such as tax breaks for businesses or fed rate adjustments will not ultimately be effective solutions. The problem, he explains, is much deeper.

Marriage as a mundane and boring non-profit business – but in a good way!

In The Atlantic, Lori Gottlieb’s article, “Marry Him!The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough” advises women to heed just what the title indicates. While it’s certain to be an argument-starter, it’s also a very interesting read, regardless of how you feel about her views. Here are some excerpts:

What I didn’t realize when I decided, in my 30s, to break up with boyfriends I might otherwise have ended up marrying, is that while settling seems like an enormous act of resignation when you’re looking at it from the vantage point of a single person, once you take the plunge and do it, you’ll probably be relatively content. It sounds obvious now, but I didn’t fully appreciate back then that what makes for a good marriage isn’t necessarily what makes for a good romantic relationship. Once you’re married, it’s not about whom you want to go on vacation with; it’s about whom you want to run a household with. Marriage isn’t a passion-fest; it’s more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business. And I mean this in a good way. (Emphasis added)

and…

Settling is mostly a women’s game. Men settle far less often and, when they do, they don’t seem the least bit bothered by the fact that they’re settling.

and finally this …

But then my married friends say things like, “Oh, you’re so lucky, you don’t have to negotiate with your husband about the cost of piano lessons” or “You’re so lucky, you don’t have anyone putting the kid in front of the TV and you can raise your son the way you want.” I’ll even hear things like, “You’re so lucky, you don’t have to have sex with someone you don’t want to.”

The lists go on, and each time, I say, “OK, if you’re so unhappy, and if I’m so lucky, leave your husband! In fact, send him over here!”

Not one person has taken me up on this offer.

I initially saw this article posted on VC and the comments there are almost as interesting as the article. There’s also an interview with Lori concerning the article here.

Update: The men respond here. Actually, it’s Dr. Helen Smith’s post, but a ton of male comments follow (along with some comments by women). Perhaps this puts a whole new spin on John Edwards’ “Two Americas” – apparently it’s split on gender lines, not class 😉 I had no idea that there was this much discontent out there.

Interdisciplinary faculty, publishing, teaching loads, and the costs of legal education

In the seemingly never ending discussion of the utility and appropriateness of hiring  interdisciplinary scholars for 3-4 tier law schools Alfred Brophy offers a fresh perspective that gets to the bottom line. First, no one has offered any systematic evidence that interdisciplinary scholars are better or worse law teachers than non-interdisciplinary scholars – when I see such evidence, then we can begin discussing its accuracy and insightfulness. Until then, Brophy does a wonderful job of stating the obvious – and I mean this in a non-sarcastic way – hard to believe, but true. The real question here is about law faculty publishing vs. law faculty teaching in tier 3-4 schools. In most of these schools, the non-law faculty have anywhere from a 3-2 teaching load to a 4-4 teaching load. The expectations for these professors regarding research are certainly lower than their counterparts at 2-2 load schools.  Brody sets forth an example of the potential savings to a law school and its students if such a teaching load.

So, take a hypothetical fourth tier law school with 21 faculty. Each faculty members costs $110,000 per year and teach 12 hours a year. Then increase their teaching load to 18 hours a year (a three-three load.) That increase by 50% in the teaching load would allow us to reduce the faculty to 14, for a savings of $770,000 per year. If all of that savings were passed on to student body of 630, that’s a savings of $1222 per student. That is perhaps not the earth-shaking transformation in legal education (or the cost of it) that we might hope for. Yet, this might very well be something some schools want to do and it’s a choice some students might opt for as well.

Brophy sets this forth as an all or nothing idea – abandon the writing requirement and have law faculty teach a 3-3 course load. I don’t think that most political science departments with a 3-3 load allow their faculty to do away with the writing component of their jobs – it’s less than what one finds at a 2-2 load school, but there are still requirements to publish. I know of a good number of people at 3-3 load schools who actively publish and do it well (and teach well). So, I am wondering what the new publishing standard for tenure and promotion in law schools might be with, say, a 3-3 or 4-4 teaching load.  Brophy wonders about why such teaching load adjustments haven’t already occurred:

Perhaps there is more of it already going on than I’m familiar with–but for the moment let’s assume that increases in teaching loads beyond 12 hours/year are rare even at fourth tier schools. Why we’re not seeing more of this? It would seem to me that there are sufficient opportunities for fourth tier schools to innovate in this direction, if there is a need for this and if it makes sense. In short, I’m wondering, if dropping scholarship is such a great idea, why hasn’t it happened yet? I wouldn’t imagine that the ABA’s accreditation standards (particularly 402) would prevent this change.

I have a tentative answer to Alfred’s question “why hasn’t it happened yet?” Some faculty at 2-2 load schools who loudly protest that we should emphasize teaching more and research less may not actually want to teach more classes – they may simply want more credit for teaching the 4 classes per year that they already teach.

So, again, I ask – what would be the proposed publication standard for tenure at a law school with a 3-3 load? A 4-4 load? A 2-2 load for that matter? I recognize that it’s hard to state such things specifically, but we’re looking for a ballpark figure here? 8 articles? A book and 3 articles? 7 articles? Placement and impact considerations? Teaching performance considerations? Other factors?

Presidential Candidate Crushes – “Who Loves Ya Baby?”

Lee Sigelman has chronicled all (or at least most) of the candidate crushes on The Monkey Cage. What can we say? People love their presidential hopefuls. Yup, Obama Girl, Hillary Boy, McCain Momma, they’re all there (and below):

Hillary Boy

Just when I think I’ve gotten caught up, along comes something new.

Or, in this case, something derivative and not nearly as good as the original. But something inevitable. We should have seen it coming.

Click here to find out for yourself.

Could “McCain Mama” be next? Nope, not next — it’s already been done.

And here, as a Hit Parade Extra, is yet another “Obama Girl” wanna-be video, this one (“You’re So Lame”) focusing on George W. Bush.

[Hat tip to Paul Gronke for Hillary Boy; I found the others by myself, though I’m not sure why I bothered]

In a piece of totally unrelated pop culture that does not warrant its own post, I do urge you to check out possibly one of the 21st century’s boldest ideas Cheeseburger in a Can. (hat tip to GeekPress)

Does your TSCS data sometimes feel sluggish or time-invariant?

… If so, then maybe it’s time you tried FEVD, that’s right, FEVD – or “Panel Fixed Effects Regression with Vector Decomposition” (stata command is xtfevd). It’ll have your data up and feeling better in no time.

Well, ok, maybe not all that. Just be glad that I didn’t provide one of those “rapid fire at the end of the message statements” regarding the potential not so great side-effects of the treatment. In a recent issue of Political Analysis, there is a series of articles on the perils of TSCS data that suffer from sluggish (slow moving over time) or time-invariant variables. In what some may consider an unprecedented move in statistical methodology,Thomas Plumper (University of Essex) and his co-author, Vera Troeger, actually propose an understandable solution to the problem. 😉 Here’s the paper’s abstract:

Apparently, someone doesn’t like STATA

On the Law and Letters Blog, Belle Lettre goes into some detail on exactly how much she hates the statistics software program STATA. Below is an excerpt from her rant (slightly edited to preserve our pseudo PG rating):

STATA is the worst program in the history of the world, and if I didn’t need to know how to read/do statistics better, I’d want to drop the class. If I wasn’t concurrently enrolled in an awesome Empirical Analysis of Gender Discrimination course, I would definitely drop it, except that I actually want to get an article out on sexual harassment by the summer, and I sort of argue for the use of empirical analysis of discrimination by courts and the EEOC.

Also, while the professors and the TA are awesome, I do not really understand the pedagogy of belaboring the basic DOS commands (granted, I suck at those, but dude, just give a handout) and rushing through, in the last half hour of class, the section on how to tell Stata to calculate the fraction of observations that are one standard deviation away from the mean for the two variables it took me three hours to figure out how to generate and code as dummy variables. I cannot, for the life of me, recall learning how to do this in class. Nor how to properly do a histogram and specify heights and widths and $#@&. I think I can calculate this stuff with a calculator and draw boxes on graph paper faster, but I have to send in log files. Which also took me a half hour to figure out how to do.

Thus, I do not get the point of making people muddle through basic DOS-like commands without instructive guides. Isn’t the point to teach the statistics, not “learn how to be frustrated at a &*$% irritating program”?! Tell people what stupid monkey commands to enter, but ask them to analyze the significance, which is the important part, right?

First, I’d like to say that I really like her phrase “stupid monkey commands” – it seems like a phrase that people could use in everyday conversation – much like another phrase I just learned, “leave Britney alone!” which can be used against someone when they are giving you a hard time (e.g. your paper discussant on a conference panel). But I digress.

Belle, stupid monkey commands and feeling frustrated and inept for no good reason are all an integral part of the development of a social science scholar. It’s kind of like the Socratic method in law school – there’s not a lot of solid evidence that it actually makes you a good lawyer and it’s usually pedagogically inefficient and even abused by some profs. But, it establishes the hierarchy and makes you “work for it”. If everyone just gave you the STATA code or taught their law classes in a concise, straightforward manner, then you wouldn’t learn to “think like a social scientist (or lawyer).” 😉

All fun aside, there is a “hide the ball” dynamic in almost every professional field, but hate the game, not the player (i.e. STATA). It’s funny that STATA should be criticized for being nonintuitive; when people came to discover it in the mid to late 1990s it was heralded as a great advancement, because it allowed you to perform some relatively high end statistical analysis (much more so than SPSS) and was much easier to use than other dos command based programs (e.g. LIMDEP, SAS, EVIEWS etc.). Now, STATA even has a windows based interface, although it’s not that great yet.

For what it’s worth there are some great books for the beginning STATA user – they’re kind of like the Emanuel’s law outlines of statistics. These can be found in the STATA bookstore, although you might find used copies cheaper on Amazon or elsewhere. I have found Lawrence Hamilton’s series of books very helpful. STATA also runs an email listserve where you can post your questions, but that can mean a lot of emails unless you take steps to get it in batches. I also find the UCLA statistics tutorial to be very helpful. Finally, and this is most important Belle, you need to convince your law school to hire more interdisciplinary legal scholars – not only will it help you with these STATA problems, but it will give bloggers endless fodder for debate.

Meanwhile, I think that this little video of “Nick Burns the Computer Guy” is relevant and appropriate to the topic.

Questioning the midlife crises

In the New York Times health section, Dr. Richard Friedman questions the viability of the seemingly widespread “midlife crises” among people (primarily men) of a certain age. He notes:

Why do we have to label a common reaction of the male species to one of life’s challenges — the boredom of the routine — as a crisis? True, men are generally more novelty-seeking than women, but they certainly can decide what they do with their impulses.

But surely someone has had a genuine midlife crisis. After all, don’t people routinely struggle with questions like “What can I expect from the rest of my life?” or “Is this all there is?”

Then, a study…

Of course. But it turns out that only a distinct minority think it constitutes a crisis. In 1999, the MacArthur Foundation study on midlife development surveyed 8,000 Americans ages 25 to 74. While everyone recognized the term “midlife crisis,” only 23 percent of subjects reported having one. And only 8 percent viewed their crisis as something tied to the realization that they were aging; the remaining 15 percent felt the crisis resulted from specific life events. Strikingly, most people also reported an increased sense of well-being and contentment in middle age.

And some reflections…

So what keeps the myth of the midlife crisis alive?

The main culprit, I think, is our youth-obsessed culture, which makes a virtue of the relentless pursuit of self-renewal. The news media abound with stories of people who seek to recapture their youth simply by shedding their spouses, quitting their jobs or leaving their families. Who can resist?

Most middle-aged people, it turns out, if we are to believe the definitive survey.

Except, of course, for the few — mainly men, it seems — who find the midlife crisis a socially acceptable shorthand for what you do when you suddenly wake up and discover that you’re not 20 anymore.

I guess I shouldn’t like this article since it denies me the American male birthright to have a midlife crises, but I thought that it was pretty interesting. I have some questions though. Do we really even know when a midlife crises is supposed to occur? You usually see it discussed in the context of men in their late forties or early fifties – does this mean that they expect to live to be 100? Perhaps we should call it a 2/3 life crises. What if you have a family history of, let’s say, lack of longevity – should you go ahead and start your midlife crises at 28? I think that there was a Northern Exposure episode on this issue, but I forget the details. Also, what implications does this have for the quarter-life crises (which allegedly affects males and females equally) that I heard so much about a while back?

Are the legal and medical professions ‘falling down’?

Apparently it’s not cool to be a doctor or lawyer anymore. Of course, this assumes that it ever really was. In fairness, law and medical schools turn down thousands of applicants every year and this provides at least some supporting evidence of each profession’s coolness or at least its relative popularity. The New York Times reports that people are rapidly becoming disenchanted with these two professions and are looking for something “cooler,” namely something more on the creative side of the occupational spectrum.

Edwards, Class Politics, and “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”

Enik Rising Blog (ER) has an insightful post on the politics of culture vs. the politics of class. With some help from Larry Bartels, ER makes a powerful case that for Democrats the road to the presidency is paved with class politics bricks. This stands in contrast to Frank’s book, What’s the Matter With Kansas? which makes the case that it’s all about cultural differences.

Where Frank’s book fails is that it largely buys into this culture argument. That is, he maintains that culture war politics are actually working – that working class whites are abandoning the Democrats due to cultural appeals. As Bartels shows, that’s not true. If anything, the class schism in this country has become more pronounced over the past few decades, with the wealthier far more likely to vote Republican than they used to be.

ER then goes on to argue that Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who is forcefully making the class based argument and that the culture based arguments are essentially, “not the way the [Democratic] electorate rolls.”  Here’s a final exerpt:

Strip away all the hot air about Republicans liking NASCAR and beer and Democrats liking Volvos and wine and you see that the real split between the parties is economic. And it’s not just rhetorical – poorer people do better under Democratic presidents than they do under Republican presidents. Poorer voters seem to get this, and there are a lot more of them than there are wealthy voters.

Thanks for answering my question on the writers’ strike

On Workplace Prof Blog, Jeffrey Hirsch (University of Tennessee) recently noted the settlement of the strike by David Letterman (who owns his show) and, more importantly, addressed  a lingering question that I had on the writers’ strike. The claim of entertainment executives is essentially that they can’t give writers a piece of the internet/digital profits because it’s too early; no one knows exactly how profitable such ventures will be. Hirsh writes:

Details on the Letterman deal have not emerged, but the show has essentially said that they gave the writers what they were asking for, which wasn’t very much.  This fits my understanding of the dispute, which seems not to be about any significant amount of money.  The writers are asking for a percentage of revenue that may come from the Internet and other digital sources, much like they do from more traditional sources.  The studios are objecting, in part because they can’t predict what will happen.  But, isn’t that what a percentage takes into account?  If there’s nothing, the studios don’t have to pay anything more.  If significant revenues eventually occur, they would have to pay–but why shouldn’t they?  This seems much more of a power play than anything related to studios bottom-line, a story that is quite familiar to those of us who have practiced in this area.

Of course, the obvious retort would be that while they (management) don’t know the expected profitability of the internet/digital ventures, they have taken risks and invested capital in the new idea – so, no one knows what the profit to investment ratio might be. Well, I’m pretty sure that it’s not a number that appropriately yields a zero percent cut for writers. If management is actually taking a loss, then, as Hirsch points out, 5% of nothing is nothing.  If it turns out to be profitable, then the writers still certainly deserve to have a stake in a gain that derives from their work. But, there should be an appropriate discounting of the writers’ cut, given that the risks were undertaken by management.  However, I hesitate to say that management executives took risks – the shareholders maybe – but I find it hard to argue that CEOs and other upper management are taking meaningful risks – as far as I can tell they do pretty well (what with the golden parachutes and all) regardless of whether ventures fail or succeed.

Caron’s wrap-up on why professors are so unhappy

Is available on TaxProf blog here. As you may have seen his second post on this question generated a good amount of blog buzz. Below are the blog links that discussed the issue:

• Stephen Bainbridge (UCLA), Are Law Professors Unhappy? And, If So, Why? (Business Associations Blog)
• Peter Black (Queensland), Are Legal Academics Miserable? (Peter’s Black Freedom to Differ)
• Eric Fink (Elon), Taking Stock, and Finding a Bull Market (Debris)
• Dave Hoffman (Temple), Bainbridge on Law Professor Well-Being (Concurring Opinions)
• Brian Leiter (Texas): Are Law Professors Unhappy? (Leiter’s Law School Reports)
• Glenn Reynolds (Tennessee), Are Law Professors Unhappy? Not This One! (InstaPundit)
• Tom Smith (San Diego), Why Are Law Professors (and Everybody Else) Unhappy? (The Right Coast)
• Ilya Somin (George Mason), Are Law Professors Miserable, and If So Why? (The Volokh Conspiracy)
• Ilya Somin (George Mason), Some Evidence on Law Professors’ Relative Job Satisfaction (The Volokh Conspiracy)

From what I have read of the posts’ comments (Volokh has some good ones) most don’t believe that law professors are unhappy as a general group, but that some may be. Potential reasons for unhappiness include the real or perceived irrelevance of their work and real or perceived competitiveness in the academy, among others. Of course, a good number of commenters suggest that even if law professors (and I’m guessing that they mean professors generally) are unhappy, then they should get over it.

After having had many, many conversations concerning peoples’ employment happiness (some being voluntary on my part; some not so much) with people from a wide variety of occupations , I’ve come to the conclusion that nearly everyone believes that their job is really hard, really important and socially-redeeming,  and that they are really underappreciated, and really underpaid.

A trend in lateral hiring?

On Prawfsblawg, Michael O’Hear wonders about what is driving the perceived trend in more lateral hiring in law schools. I say ‘perceived trend’ because I haven’t seen any hard evidence of it. I’m pretty sure that he’s right that such a trend does exist, although I wonder about the magnitude. Could it just be that more fanfare surrounds lateral hiring because of websites like Brian Leiter’s  Law School Reports? O’Hear notes:

If there has been a broader upswing in lateral hiring, I wonder if it has been more supply or demand driven. On the demand side, the importance of the U.S. News survey has made law schools more sensitive to their reputation within the national legal academy, and lateral hiring seems more likely to provide an immediate reputational bump than entry-level hiring. On the supply side, as a member of our Appointments Committee in the recent past, I was surprised by the number of direct contacts we had from faculty members at other law schools looking to move on. (I once even had an expression of interest from someone I was calling for a reference check for an entry-level candidate!) Perhaps the greater connectedness of the academy in the Internet age has spawned a generation of junior faculty members who feel less attached to their home institutions than previous generations and who are more motivated to make moves that will enhance opportunities or status within the national academic community. Likewise, for junior faculty members who are not entirely satisfied with their current situations (for geographical reasons or otherwise), the Internet provides opportunities to build a reputation relatively quickly, and also facilitates the sort of networking that may pave the way for lateral moves.

On the Conglomerate Blog, Gordon Smith follows up by commenting that this activity may be driven by a broader trend – the spread of scholarly ambition beyond the top law schools. He says:

Notice the implicit assumption: that the driving force behind lateral hiring is scholarship. Of course, this is widely understood, but making that assumption explicit highlights the spread of scholarly ambition beyond elite law schools. While lower-ranked law schools may have their own unique missions — and thus may be worthy receptacles of institutional  investment by faculty members — they also serve, in some instances, as “farm teams” for higher-ranked schools. Oddly, the quickest path to increased reputational capital for lower-ranked law schools probably does not come from hiring laterals, but from producing laterals for elite law schools.

All of this causes me to wonder: Is there any development in legal education of the past generation that has had a more important influence on the teaching of law than the spread of scholarly ambition beyond elite law schools?

I think that most would agree that both trends are found in political science as well, to one degree or another. I’m not sure if all of the lateral movement in pol sci is upward – there appears to be a lot of “sideways” movement as non-top tier departments vie over productive tenured (and almost tenured) faculty. Given that I know that most people don’t like going on the market and generally don’t like the transaction costs of moving, I am left to wonder if the internal compensation mechanisms and incentive structures of academic institutions don’t play some role in the lateral movement trend. Could it be that the market compensation level for academics is becoming more transparent and national in scope?  It seems that (at least) three forces are clearly at work: (a) schools are willing to pay a premium for lateral candidates; (b) home institutions are sometimes willing to make counter offers; (c) faculty are actually willing to move if they do not.

What are the implications of these trends? Is it becoming a winner take all market? Will institutions have to adjust to keep up in this marketplace?

Yet another presidential candidate quiz

From the NYTimes – How well do you really know the candidates?

1. Mitt Romney’s real first name is:

A) Mitten

B) Joe-Bob

C) Willard

2. Asked to name his most prized possession, Fred Thompson picked his:

A) Winchester rifle

B) Trophy wife

C) Autographed picture of Ronald Reagan

3. Which Temptations song did Maya Angelou invoke in a recent radio ad for Hillary Clinton?

A) “Ain’t Too Proud to Beg”

B) “Treat Her Like a Lady”

C) “My Girl”

D) “The Girl’s Alright With Me”

4. Looking wistfully at the candidates running to replace him, George W. Bush said he liked everything about campaigning for president except:

A) Homesickness for favorite pillow

B) Getting viruses from the press corps

C) The awesome responsibility of preparing to govern the most powerful nation on earth

5. During the campaign, Barack Obama learned that Dick Cheney is:

A) His worst nightmare

B) A distant cousin

C) Not really a bad guy once you get to know him

6. Speaking at a livestock auction barn in Iowa, Hillary Clinton said she expected voters to inspect her, and offered:

A) “You can look inside my mouth if you want.”

B) “You can take a gander at my withers.”

C) “You can examine the stock I came from.”

7. Ratcheting it up in New Hampshire, Romney charged Giuliani with being:

A) A person in a glass house who throws stones

B) A rolling stone who gathers no moss

C) A twice-divorced, thrice-married ferret-hater

8. Giuliani retorted that Romney was:

A) A person in a glass house who throws stones

B) A rolling stone who gathers no moss

C) A flip-flopping ferret lover

9. Somewhere along the line, reporters have noticed, Hillary Clinton dropped:

A) Bill

B) The Celine Dion theme song

C) The black pantsuit

10. Texas Gov. Rick Perry endorsed Rudy Giuliani by comparing him to:

A) A great stallion with one sore hoof

B) A pickup truck with one undesirable option

C) A great date with bad breath

11. BEYOND BARBRA AND OPRAH: Match the candidate with the celebrity backer.

A) “Nature Boy” Ric Flair

B) Kevin Bacon

C) Forest Whitaker

D) The Osmonds

E) Melissa Gilbert

F) Merle Haggard

G) Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling

H) Pat Sajak

I) Sean Penn

1) Hillary Clinton

2) Barack Obama

3) John Edwards

4) Rudy Giuliani

5) Dennis Kucinich

6) Mike Huckabee

7) Fred Thompson

8 ) John McCain

9) Mitt Romney

12. When asked if he ever inhaled, Barack Obama said:

A) “I’m not going to talk about what I did as a child.”

B) “That depends on what the definition of inhale is.”

C) “That was the point.”

13. In Iowa, John Edwards drives:

A) The Man-of-the-People Express

B) The Main Street Express

C) A beat-up sedan formerly owned by his father, the millworker.

14. Among the special interest groups running political ads in Iowa were two nursing associations that said that if Dick Cheney “were anyone else, he’d probably:

A) … be having Christmas dinner alone.”

B) … be dead by now.”

C) … be under indictment.”

15. Mike Huckabee compared his fast rise in the polls to:

A) The miracle of the loaves and the fishes

B) The parting of the Red Sea

C) The battle between Chuck Norris and David Carradine in “Lone Wolf McQuade”

16. In speeches for his wife, Bill Clinton makes fun of the idea that Hillary had a plot to become president that boiled down to:

A) Save Arkansas, then the nation, then the world.

B) Go to a state I’ve barely seen and marry some pale politician who has a $26,000 salary and a $42,000 debt.

C) Help Bill into the White House, endure endless crises and unimaginable embarrassment. Then it’s my turn.

Answers below the fold….

Can you name the SCOTUS justices? Charles Barkley nails it

A while back I blogged on a recent paper by Jim Gibson and Greg Caldeira in which they argue that people have a better knowledge of the Court and its activities than prior studies suggest. But, at bottom line, how many people can actually name the justices of the US Supreme Court, and – more importantly – can they do it under pressure? Former NBA star and sports analyst Charles Barkley can – and does it while enduring significant razzing from his peers. It’s all about having the right “technique” and frame of mind – as we see in the video below.

See? It’s all about ingenuity and not blowing your cool under pressure. He handles the situation with a lot more finesse and aplomb than fellow former athlete and sports commenter Dan Marino does here:

Money, marriage, and being “average”

On the Conglomerate Blog Gordon Smith has an interesting post on a recent WSJ article regarding a study on how much money people would need a potential mate to have if said potential mate was “average” looking.  Here’s an excerpt:

The survey polled 1,134 people nationwide with incomes ranging between $30,000 to $60,000 (squarely in the median range for nationwide incomes). The survey asked: “How willing are you to marry an average-looking person that you liked, if they had money?”

Fully two-thirds of women and half of the men said they were “very” or “extremely” willing to marry for money. The answers varied by age: Women in their 30s were the most likely to say they would marry for money (74%) while men in their 20s were the least likely (41%).

… In the Prince & Associates study, 61% of men in their 40s said they would marry for money….

The matrimonial price tag varies by gender and age. Asked how much a potential spouse would need to have to be money-marriage material, women in their 20s said $2.5 million. The going rate fell to $1.1 million for women in their 30s, and rose again to $2.2 million for women in their 40s….

Men have cheaper requirements. In the Prince survey, their asking price overall was $1.2 million, with men in their 20s asking $1 million and men in their 40s asking $1.4 million.

Frank calls the price tag “surprisingly low, given the new landscape of wealth.” He continues, “While $1 million or $2 million may sound like a lot to people making $30,000, it’s hardly enough to transform someone’s life or make them ‘rich’ by contemporary billionaire standards.”

First, Gordon is right when he notes later in his post that Frank is horribly out of touch with what it is like to earn 30k per year. Second, I’m guessing that a person’s price point may also be influenced by their personal definition of “average looking.” It has been my experience that this definition varies quite a bit from person to person. As usual, the “Seinfeld” show is instructive on this point. While I couldn’t find a Youtube video on this episode, here’s my very rough memory of a classic scene featuring Jerry and Elaine discussing this matter.

Jerry: So, what percentage of people would you say are really attractive?

Elaine: I don’t know, maybe 25 percent or so?

Jerry: Oh, no way! It’s maybe 4-6 percent, tops. There are really very few good looking people out there.

Elaine: Then what’s getting all of these average looking people together?

Jerry: Alcohol.

Social Science Research Network enters the citation count business

On TaxProf Blog Paul Carron reports here that SSRN has entered the fray on scholarly citations:

SSRN has now entered the citation count field with its new “References & Cites” feature.  To check it out, go to SSRN and click on “Search,” and then “Beta Lab.”  In the left column, you will see the “References & Cites” with statistics on:

• Papers with Resolved References: Total number of papers in the SSRN eLibrary with resolved references.
• Papers with Cites: Total number of papers in the SSRN eLibrary with one or more resolved cites from other papers (described above).
• Note: The links for the two pages containing a paper’s References and Cited By links (when available) are on each paper’s SSRN abstract page.
• Total References: Total number of references to other papers that have been resolved to date, for papers in in the SSRN eLibrary.
• Total Cited by: Total number of cites to papers in the SSRN eLibrary whose links have been resolved to date.

Rhetoric Wars

On BlackProf blog, Marc Lamont Hill has some interesting commentary on political rhetoric wars promoting policy initiatives – you know, a war on drugs, a war on gangs, and so on. Andy and I have a paper on this topic here. Here’s an excerpt of Hill’s comments:

For decades, politicians have used the rhetoric of war in order to draw public support for questionable domestic policy initiatives. In 1971, President Nixon launched a full scale “War on Drugs” that has heavily tipped the criminal justice scales against poor people, petty drug users, and small time dealers. More recently, after the September 11 tragedy, President Bush unleashed a War on Terror that has undermined any semblance of individual privacy and civil liberty for the entire nation.

How I learned to stop worrying and love the Carnegie Report

On the Empirical Legal Studies Blog Bill Henderson has a post titled “Why I worry about the Carnegie Report (2007): Four data points.” It is a very interesting critique of the Carnegie Report which, in turn, purports to provide a constructive critique of the state of U.S. legal education. My take on this situation is that one can only expect so much out of such reports. They are rarely the catalyst for change in any given institution or discipline. There is an extremely bad joke about psychiatrists and lightbulbs that goes something like this: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Answer: Well, only one, but it takes a long time and the lightbulb has to really want to change. And this seems to be (at least one) of Bill’s primary criticisms of the report – it doesn’t tell us how to get the discipline to change.

Speaking as an outsider, I don’t get the impression that the majority of law profs really want to change the way things are done, or they only want to change things slightly and not in a way that leads to systemic change (i.e. they have different views of how things should be changed). However, it may be that this institutional inertia presents each school with the possibility for increasing its relative market share within legal education. I don’t think that many schools below the top 30 are going to drastically drop in the rankings by adopting innovation; similarly most schools in the top 15 will likely stay in the top of the rankings. Thus, the former have incentives to engage in innovation and the latter will probably do fine without it. So, to get back to the lightbulb analogy – I do not know how to get the discipline to change, or even a school for that matter, but a school can change if it really wants to do so and it is likely at the school level where a catalyst for broader change could occur. If a number of schools begin making gains in legal academia through innovation, then others will likely follow. People love to copy success stories.

Again, being an outsider, I will limit my offerings for innovation. I only submit 3 brief possibilities for a given school.

1. Many schools already have internship programs – you should have more of them – at the local, state, national and international levels. It has been my experience (and I do have some on this matter) that internship programs are efficient and, if properly run, can provide an excellent opportunity for students to learn a valuable combination of the theoretical and applied aspects of a given field. It also leads to greater employment opportunities for your students and often better alumni relations, since your internship sponsors are often alumni.

2. Engage your students and even alumni in the research process. They will find it more rewarding than you might think. Students and alumni likely rail against professors spending “too much” time on research because they are not exposed to it and feel that they have no stake in it. They do have a stake in it. If profs shut down on research, the institution’s prestige suffers – it has a long lag time, but it ultimately suffers; and their degree becomes less marketable – especially if they are looking for opportunities outside of their home state. Schools should encourage faculty co-authoring with students and alumni and invite both to research presentations and other research related activities.

3. And this is most important – listen to Jim Chen. Again, listen to Jim Chen. He is right, and deep down, you know it.

That’s it – I’m done. I’m sure that there will be plenty of people ready, willing, and able to set me straight – at least perhaps a meaningful dialogue will begin.

More on AMC’s “Mad Men”

Apparently, I’m not the only person who finds AMC’s show “Mad Men” intriguing. Concurring Opinions pays tribute to the show and discusses some of the ironies involved when a show that pulls the curtain back on the world of advertising also has to, um, advertise products. The show incorporates a number of interesting techniques, including mixing story product placement with commercials and providing factoids about the advertising business (and products) right before commercial breaks. Here’s an excerpt from the Concurring Opinions post:

Old Polls: The coming 3 day work week

Apparently, a good percentage of people in the 1950s (but not a majority) believed that we would be enjoying a three day work week by now. Were robots going to do all the work? Is it like George Jetson worked – just pressing the button once in a while?

On legal practice experience, visiting assistant professor programs, and Moneylaw

On the Volokh Conspiracy (and on the Leiter and Caron blogs) they note the rise of visiting assistant professor programs (VAPs) in law schools as a pathway to legal academia (i.e. tenure track positions in law schools). A related hot topic in legal academia is the seemingly perennial debate on the merits of a highly experienced practitioners vs. legal scholar types (e.g. publishes, well known in academic circles, etc.). (The new Harvard VAP program discussed in the Volokh post is ostensibly geared toward practicing lawyers with lots of experience.)

Two quick points on these matters:

Presidential candidate match game

USA Today has a candidate match game that allows you to compare your answers to policy questions to the various candidates. Here’s the intro from the USA Today story.

About the game

Polls suggest Americans are concerned primarily with a few key issues in the 2008 presidential election. USA TODAY researched candidate positions on those top issues — Iraq, immigration and health care — as well as a few others that may influence the election. We then came up with 11 multiple-choice questions that would help differentiate the candidates and their stances.

Get a grip (on perfectionism) … and get a hobby

There are two seemingly unrelated stories in the New York Times. The first story tells us that the platitudes and motivational sayings that we see in movies, television, and in sports — “be the best you can be,” “don’t settle for second best,” etc., are not necessarily your friends. Being a perfectionist can apparently have a detrimental effect on various aspects of your life – not that I am personally in any danger on this matter (Andy will attest to that). Here’s a brief excerpt: