February 04, 2017

Judge Gorsuch should speak out in defense of judicial independence in light of Trump's latest disgraceful behavior

Excellent point by my colleague Eric Posner.

February 4, 2017 in Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

February 03, 2017

Deans of 20 ABA-approved law schools in California call on California Supreme Court to intervene and reset the scores for bar passage

Here is the letter:   Download 2 1 17 LTRtoCalSupCt (003)

It's quite clear there's no real justification for California failing more bar takers than any other state in the country.

February 3, 2017 in Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

February 02, 2017

I'm not sure we should hold high school antics against nominees to the federal bench...

...but founding the "Fascism Forever Club" does raise questions about one's judgment, even allowing for age!

(Thanks to Michael Swanson for the pointer.)

ADDENDUM:  It appears Judge Gorsuch attended a high school run by quite liberal Jesuits (unlike the late Justice Scalia who went to a famously conservative Jesuit high school in New York).   I imagine his liberal teachers tended to deride conservatives as "fascists," ergo the conservative students decided to "zing" them back!

ANOTHER:  This story confirms that it was, indeed, a joke (and not even an actual club).

February 2, 2017 in Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

Should a law school Dean be writing op-eds in support of controversial (or even uncontroversial) political appointees?

That's an issue posed by a dispute between Nancy Staudt, Dean of the law school at Washington University, St. Louis--who wrote an opinion piece in support of Andrew Puzder, Trump's nominee for Secretary of Labor, who is also an involved alum of Wash U--and Emeritus Professor Richard Kuhns, whose open letter you can read here:   Download Puzder letter Kuhns.  Professor Kuhns thinks it was inappropriate for the Dean to write this column; I am inclined to agree.  But I am curious what others think about the propriety of Dean Staudt's piece.  Signed comments only: full name and valid e-mail address.  Submit the comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.

February 2, 2017 in Faculty News, Law in Cyberspace, Of Academic Interest, Professional Advice | Permalink | Comments (5)

January 30, 2017

"Malevolence tempered by incompetence"

This is one of the more incisive and damning analyses of Trump's executive order on refugrees and visas.

January 30, 2017 in Of Academic Interest | Permalink

January 27, 2017

Startling development: Harvard Law students think they are more important than they really are!

Some want to play an "indispensable" role in the search for a new Dean.  I'm sure student feedback on candidates will receive some weight, but that's about it.  Were I a betting man (I am not), I would bet on  John Goldberg or John Manning--both current HLS faculty--to be chosen as the new Dean.

January 27, 2017 in Faculty News, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

January 26, 2017

Cost-benefit analysis and the late Justice Scalia spell trouble for Trump's proposed border wall

Interesting analysis by my colleagues Daniel Hemel, Jonathan Masur, and Eric Posner.

January 26, 2017 in Of Academic Interest | Permalink

January 23, 2017

The increasingly ugly demise of Charlotte Law School

A local news outlet records the details.  Charlotte is now betting on an Education Department under Besty DeVos being more favorable to them!

January 23, 2017 in Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

January 19, 2017

Established datasets, proxies, and customized data collection: The case of international LLMs (Michael Simkovic)

How should researchers make tradeoffs between the costs of data collection, the speed of the analysis, the precision of the measurements, reproducibility by other researchers, and broader context about the meaning of the data: how we might compare one group or one course of action to another, how we might understand historical trends, and the like?

Must we always measure the precise group of interest, with zero tolerance for over-inclusion or under-inclusion?  Or might one or a series of proxy groups be sufficient, or even preferable for some purposes?  What if the proxies have substantial overlap with the groups of interest and biases introduced by use of proxy groups are reasonably well understood?  How close must the proxy group be to the group of interest?

These are important questions raised by a group of legal profession researchers which includes several of the principal investigators of the widely used After the JD dataset. 

Professors Carole Silver, Ethan Michelson, Robert Nelson, Nancy Reichman, Rebecca Sandefur, and Joyce Sterling (hereinafter, Silver et al.) recently wrote a three-part response (Parts 1, 2, and 3) to my two-part blog post from December about International LLM students who remain in the United States (Part 1) and International LLM students who return to their home countries (Part 2).  The bulk of Silver et al.’s critique appears in Part 2 of their post, and focuses mainly on Part 1 of my LLM post.

My post, which I described as “a very preliminarily, quick analysis intended primarily to satisfy my own curiosity” used U.S. Census data from the American Community Survey and two proxy groups for international LLM (“Masters of Law”) graduates to make inferences about the financial benefits of LLM degrees to international students who remain in the U.S.  Silver et al. agree with several of the limitations of this analysis that I noted in paragraphs 5 through 8 of Part 1 of my post.  They also note that historically, many LLMs have returned to their home countries and argue that the benefits of LLM programs to returning students may be greater than the benefits to those who remain in the United States.  (While I am skeptical of this last claim—especially if we focus exclusively on pecuniary benefits—it seems likely that both groups benefit).

Silver et al. have also helpfully made several additional points about limitations in my proxy approach and ways in which proxies could over-count or under-count foreign LLMs.  The most important of these limitations can be addressed with a few modifications to the LLM proxy group approach.[1]  Those interested in the technical details are encouraged to read footnote 1 below.

Returning to broader questions about the use of proxy groups, my view is that proxy groups can be helpful and potentially necessary for certain kinds of analysis.

Suppose that we wish to know the temperature in New York’s Central Park before we take a stroll, but we only have temperature readings for LaGuardia and Newark airport.  While neither of those proxies will tell us the precise temperature in Central Park, they will usually be sufficiently close that we can ascertain with a reasonable degree of certainty whether we should bring our winter coats, wear sweaters, or proceed with short sleeves.  Indeed, readings from Boston or Philadelphia will probably suffice, particularly if we’re aware of the direction and magnitude of typical temperature differences relative to Central Park.

Should we refuse to venture out until we can obtain a temperature reading from Central Park itself?

Continue reading

January 19, 2017 in Guest Blogger: Michael Simkovic, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Science, Weblogs | Permalink

January 17, 2017

Science at work: the "most influential" people in legal education

Blog Emperor Caron reports.  Thanks to the many Deans and law faculty who have been regular readers and correspondents over the years!

January 17, 2017 in Law in Cyberspace, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink