Brian Leiter's Law School Reports

Brian Leiter
University of Chicago Law School

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

August 11, 2015

Top 40 law faculties in scholarly impact, 2015

Gregory Sisk & colleagues have updated their scholarly impact ratings (last edition), looking at mean and median citations to tenured faculty scholarship for the years 2010-2014 inclusive, using 2015-16 faculty rosters as the benchmark.  (Sisk et al. rank 70 faculties; I print the top 40, below.)  The weighted score represents the sum of the mean citations for the tenured faculty times 2, plus the faculty median.  Where the median is low relative to the immediate competition that's an indicator that a few highly cited faculty are carrying the school; in other cases, where the median is quite high, it's an indicator of more across the boards scholarly output.  By noting age, one can see that some faculties are heavily dependent on their most senior members for their citations.  Ties reflect the normalized weighted scores.

Citations to faculty scholarship is, of course, only one metric of scholarly distinction.  Some schools that experts would reasonably assess as top 20 (like Southern California) underperform by this measure.  Still, the metric is a useful check on uninformed opinions, and tracks rather well the actual scholarly output of different schools.

In the fall, I hope to put together new lists of the most-cited scholars by specialty utilizing the Sisk data.

Detailed Scholarly Impact Ranking of Law Faculties, 2015-16

(based on citations for the period 2010 through 2014)

Ranking

Law   School

Weighted   Score

Mean,   Median

10   Most Cited (Tenured) Scholars

(* indicates 70 or older in 2015)

1

Yale University

1766

638,   490

*B.   Ackerman, A. Amar, I. Ayres, J. Balkin, W. Eskridge, D. Kahan, H. Koh, J.   Macey, R. Post, R. Siegel

2

Harvard   University

1384

520,   344

R.   Fallon, J. Goldsmith, L. Kaplow, L. Lessig, M. Minow, S. Shavell, C.   Sunstein, *L. Tribe, *M. Tushnet, A. Vermeule

3

University of Chicago

1300

468,   364

D. Baird,   O. Ben-Shahar, T. Ginsburg, B. Leiter, S. Levmore, R. McAdams, M. Nussbaum,   E. Posner, G. Stone, D. Strauss

4

New York   University

1123

397,   329

R. Barkow, S. Choi, *R. Epstein, B. Friedman,   S. Issacharoff, *A. Miller, G. Miller, R. Pildes, *R. Stewart, J. Waldron

5

Stanford   University

1013

369,   275

*L. Friedman, *P. Goldstein, *R. Gordon, P.   Karlan, M. Lemley, M. McConnell, M. Polinsky, D. Rhode, D. Sklansky, A. Sykes

6

University of   California, Irvine

994

392,   210

D. Burk, J. Chacón, E. Chemerinsky, C. Fisk, B.   Garth, R. Hasen, C. Leslie, C. Menkel-Meadow, A. Reese, G. Shaffer

7

Columbia   University

945

348,   249

R. Briffault, *J. Coffee, K. Crenshaw, R. Gilson,   *K. Greenawalt, T. Merrill, *H. Monaghan, *J. Raz, *R. Scott, *P. Strauss

8

Duke University

910

312,   286

M. Adler,   J. Boyle, C. Bradley, J. Cox, M. Gulati, L. Helfer, H.J. Powell, A. Rai, S.   Schwarcz, E. Young

9

Vanderbilt   University

812

303,   206

L. Bressman, C. Guthrie, N. King, J.   Rossi, E. Rubin, J.B. Ruhl, S. Sherry, C. Slobogin, R. Thomas W.K. Viscusi

9

University of   California, Berkeley

808

300,   208

*R. Cooter, S. Davidoff Solomon, D. Farber, *M.   Feeley, I. Haney Lopez, P. Menell, R. Merges, P. Samuelson, J. Yoo, *F. Zimring

11

University of Pennsylvania

780

289,   202

T. Baker M. Berman, S. Bibas, W. Bratton, S.   Burbank, J. Fisch, G. Parchomovsky, D. Roberts, P. Robinson, E. Rock, D.   Skeel, C. Yoo

12

Northwestern   University

756

277,   202

R. Allen,   B. Black, S. Calabresi, D. Dana, S. Diamond, A.   Koppelman, J. McGinnis, J. Pfander, *M. Redish, D. Rodriguez, D. Schwartz

13

Cornell   University

748

273,   202

G.   Alexander, J. Blume, *K. Clermont, M. Dorf, V. Hans, M. Heise, E. Peñalver,   J. Rachlinski, S. Schwab, L. Stout

13

University of   California, Los Angeles

733

272,   189

S.   Bainbridge, D. Carbado, K. Crenshaw, J. Kang, R. Korobkin, H. Motomura, N.   Netanel, K. Raustiala, J. Salzman, E. Volokh, A. Winkler

15

Georgetown   University

636

239,   158

R. Barnett, J. Cohen, D. Cole, L. Gostin, N.   Katyal, D. Langevoort, D. Luban, L. Solum, R. Tushnet, R. West

15

University of Michigan,   Ann Arbor

640

230,   180

R. Avi-Yonah, S. Bagenstos, D. Crane, R.   Eisenberg, S. Gross, J. Litman, C. MacKinnon, A. Pritchard, C. Schneider, B.   Simma

17

University of Virginia

608

231,   146

D. Brown, J. Duffy, B. Garrett, J.   Jeffries, D. Laycock, C. Nelson, S. Prakash, F. Schauer, A. Spencer, *G.E.   White

17

George   Washington University

600

226,   148

M. Abramowicz, N. Cahn, B. Clark, R. Glicksman,   O. Kerr, W. Kovavic, *R. Pierce, J. Rosen, M. Selmi, D. Solove

19

University of   Minnesota, Twin Cities

564

203,   158

J. Carbone, T. Cotter, R.A. Duff, R. Frase, K.   Hickman, C. Hill, B. Karkkainen, A. Klass, H. Kritzer, B. McDonnell, R.   Painter, M. Tonry

20

University of   Texas, Austin

554

199,   156

R. Bone, R. Chesney, F. Cross, D. Jinks, *S.   Levinson, T. McGarity, *L. Sager, C. Silver, W. Wagner, *J. Westbrook

21

George Mason   University

537

196,   145

D. Bernstein, H. Butler, D. Ginsburg, M. Greve,   B. Kobayashi, N. Lund, A. Mossoff, I. Soomin, J. Wright, T. Zywicki

21

Washington   University, St. Louis

533

193,   147

S. Appleton, L. Epstein, P. Joy, P. Kim, D.   Law, S. Legomsky, *D. Mandelker, N. Richards, H. Sale, B. Tamanaha

21

Boston   University

532

192,   148

J. Beermann, S. Dogan, J. Fleming, *T. Frankel,   W. Gordon, K. Hylton, G. Lawson, T. Maclin, L. McClain, M. Meurer

24

University of   California, Davis

519

191,   137

A. Bhagwat, A. Chander, G. Chin, W. Dodge, A.   Harris, D. Horton, K. Johnson, P. Lee, M. Sunder, D. Ventry, R. Villazor

25

Case Western   Reserve University

479

171,   137

J. Adler, C. Burke Robertson, G. Dent, *P.   Gianelli, B. Hill, S. Hoffman, K. McMunigal, L. Mitchell, C. Nard, M. Scharf

25

University of   Notre Dame

468

161,   146

R. Alford, A. Bellia, *J. Finnis, N. Garnett, R.   Garnett, M. McKenna, J. Nagle, N. Newton, M. O’Connell, J. Tidmarsh

27

University of   Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

467

169,   129

V. Amar, P. Heald, D. Hyman, J. Kesan, K. Lash,   R. Lawless, J. Mazzone, *M. Moore, J. Robbennolt, S. Thomas, R. Wilson

27

Emory University

460

161,   138

R. Ahdieh, J. Bailey, M. Dudziak, M. fineman, T.   Holbrook, M. Kang, J. Nash, *M. Perry, R. Schapiro, J. Witte, *B. Woodhouse

29

Cardozo Law   School/Yeshiva University

442

154,   134

B. Frischmann, M. Gilles, M. Hamilton, M. Herz,   A. Reinert, M. Rosenfeld, B. Scheck, A. Sebok, A. Stein, S. Sterk, E.   Zelinsky

29

University of Arizona

441

160,   121

J. Anaya, D. Bambauer, K. Engel, *R. Glennon, D.   Marcus, T. Massaro, M. Miller, *C. Rose, W. Sjostrom, R. Williams

29

University of Colorado,   Boulder

437

154,   129

A. Gruber, M. Hart, P. Huang, S. Moss, *C.   Mueller, H. Norton, P. Schlag, A. Schmitz, P. Weiser, *C. Wilkinson

29

Ohio State   University

434

160,   114

M. Alexander, D. Berman, G. Caldeira, M.   Chamallas, S. Cole, R. Colker, J. Dressler, D. Merritt, P. Shane, D. Tokaji

33

University of North   Carolina, Chapel Hill

431

150,   131

A. Brophy, J. Conley, V. Flatt, M. Gerhardt, T.   Hazen, M. Jacoby, W. Marshall, R. Mosteller, G. Nichol, M. Papandrea, G.   Polsky, J. Wegner

33

Brooklyn Law   School

421

150,   121

W. Araiza, M. Baer, A. Bernstein, D. Brakman   Reiser, I. Capers, M. Garrison, E. Janger, *R. Karmel, E. Schneider, L.   Solan, N. Tebbe, *A. Twerski

35

Indiana   University, Bloomingon

414

141,   132

H. Buxbaum, F. Cate, K. Dau-Schmidtz, C. Geyh, M.   Grossberg, W. Henderson, M. Janis, D. Johnsen, L. Lederman, A. Parrish

35

University of Utah

413

149,115

R. Adler, A. Anghie, P. Cassell, R.   Craig, L. Davies, A. Guiora, F. Hessick, C. Hessick, C. Peterson, *A. Reitze

35

Fordham   University

408

145,   118

J. Brudney, N. Davidson, H. Erichson, M.   Flaherty, S. Foster, J. Gordon, B. Green, S. Griffith, C. Huntington, T. Lee,   E. Leib, R. Pearce, B. Zipursky

35

University of   San Diego

399

159,   81

*L. Alexander, D. Dripps, V. Fleischer,   O. Lobel, D. McGowan, F. Partnoy, M. Ramsey, M. Rappaport, T. Sichelman, S.   Smith

39

Florida State   University

395

140,   115

F. Abbott, K. Alces, R. Atkinson, S. Hsu, S.   Johnson, W. Logan, D. Markell, E. Ryan, M. Seidenfeld, N. Stern, F. Tesón, M.   Utset

 

39

Arizona State   University

393

142,   109

*K. Abbott,   D. Bodansky, R. Clinton, *I. Ellman, A. Fellmeth, J. Hodge, E. Luna, G.   Marchant, *J. Murphy, M. Saks, R. Tsosie

39

University of   Southern California

393

142,   109

J. Barnett, R. Brown, S. Estrich, A.   Gross, A. Guzman, G. Hadfield, G. Keating, E. Kleinbard, E. McCaffery, R.   Rasmussen, D. Simon

39

University of   St. Thomas (Minn.)

393

147,   99

T. Berg, T. Collet, R. Delahunty, *N. Hamilton,   L. Johnson, J. Nichols, M. Paulsen, G. Sisk, S. Stabile, R. Vischer


August 11, 2015 in Faculty News, Of Academic Interest, Rankings | Permalink

August 10, 2015

Clinton's Higher Education Policy Proposal (Michael Simkovic)

Bloomberg reports on former Secretary of State and Senator Hillary Clinton's policy proposal for higher education.  The proposal combines federal matching grants to encourage state investment in public education with increased oversight and cost control measures.  The federal grants would be funded by increases in income tax revenue, through limits on itemized deductions for upper middle class taxpayers. In other words, the proposal is to tax the educated middle class to pay for education, while increasing federal government oversight and control.   

Details are sparse, but it appears that increased federal funding would be available exclusively to public institutions.  If enacted in its current form, this policy could provide public universities with a large advantage over their private non-profit and for-profit competitors.  

Clinton's proposal incorporates some elements of an earlier proposal by Senator Sanders for more extensive public funding for higher education.  Sanders' plan would provide more funding for higher education than Clinton's proposal, and fund it through a financial transactions tax.  Sanders' funding mechanism would likely be more progressive than Clinton's, but would also be more dependent on a single sector (financial services).


August 10, 2015 in Guest Blogger: Michael Simkovic, Of Academic Interest, Weblogs | Permalink

More comments on proposed Income Based Repayment regulations (Michael Simkovic)

Jake Brooks at Georgetown comments on the Department of Education's proposed regulations for Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE).  Brooks focuses on the cap on monthly payments, notch-and-cliff rules around the repayment period, and definitions surrounding interest rates, focusing mainly on technical problems with several of the proposed rules.

Gregory Crespi at SMU comments as well, arguing that spousal income inclusion rules and the long repayment period (25 years) will discourage many professional students from enrolling.  Crespi thinks the Department of Education's enrollment estimates are too high by a factor of 3.  If Crespi is correct, then estimates of the cost of the program to taxpayers, and of the benefits to professionals, may be greatly exaggerated.  

Frank A. Pasquale at Maryland also comments, arguing that the marriage penalty (previously identified by Phil Schrag) should be softened, the repayment period should be shortened, and estimates of the costs of the program should also include its potential benefits to taxpayers in terms of increasing the educational level, and therefore the income, of the workforce, which would increase tax revenue and reduce costs of various social programs.  In other words, the Department of Education should use cost-benefit analysis rather than just cost analysis.


August 10, 2015 in Guest Blogger: Michael Simkovic, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

Newspapers’ negative law school coverage, 2010-2015 (Michael Simkovic)

In a recent column, the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof confessed, “One of our worst traits in journalism is that when we have a narrative in our minds, we often plug in anecdotes that confirm it.”  The quote is timely, given recent controversy surrounding New York Times’ coverage.

Newspapers tend to emphasize anecdotes over data.  This gives journalists, editors, and their sources tremendous freedom to frame a story.  A few individuals can serve as ostensible examples of a broader phenomenon.  But if those examples are unrepresentative or taken out of context, the news story can be misleading by omission and emphasis.  If you get your information from the newspaper, you might worry more about stabbings and shootings than diet and exercise, but you are roughly 38 times more likely to die from heart disease than from violent crime.

Similar qualitative problems—sensationalism, reliance on extreme and unrepresentative anecdotes, lack of context, and omission of relevant data and peer reviewed research—characterized press coverage of law schools and the legal profession.  (See New York Times; The Wall Street Journal; New York Times again)

Newspapers conflated a generally weak labor market—in which law graduates continued to have substantial earnings and employment advantages over similar bachelor's degree holders (see The Economic Value of a Law Degree; Timing Law SchoolCompared to What? (here and here); Recent Entry Level Outcomes and Growth in Lawyer Employment and Earnings)—with a law-specific problem.  They criticized law schools—and only law schools—for practices that are widespread in higher education and in government. (see competitive scholarships; school-funded jobs, measuring employment / unemployment)   And they uncritically reported research, no matter how flawed, that fit the anti-law school narrative. (see Failing Law Schools' problems with data and citations; a free education as a hypothetical alternative to student loans; and other inapposite comparisons (here, here and here)).

Newspapers' sensationalist law school coverage may have helped their circulation—negative coverage attracts eyeballs—but it mislead students in harmful ways.  Recent research suggests that each year of delaying law school—for example, to wait until unemployment declines—is counterproductive.  Even taking into account the potential benefits of graduating into a better economy, these delaying strategies typically cost the prospective law student more than $30,000 per year because of the high opportunity cost of lower earnings with a bachelor's degree instead of a law degree.  The longer the delay, the higher the cost.

So which newspapers and journalists provided the most negative coverage?  And how has the news slant evolved over time?  For an explanation of methodology, see the footnote at the bottom.*

Net-negative newspapers ranked

The most negative newspapers were the Wall Street journal, the Chicago Tribune, and the New York Times, in that order.  The Wall Street Journal was exceptionally negative—more than 7 times as negative as the average newspaper.  A few newspapers, such as the Orange County Register, were net positive.

Net-negative stories by year

2011 to 2013 were exceptionally negative years, with dramatic reductions in negativity in 2014.

Did negative press coverage cause a decline in law school applications, independent of the events being covered?  Differences in press coverage can move financial markets, according to research exploiting variation in local coverage of identical national events and local trading patterns, so perhaps press coverage can also affect other markets.  (The leaders of Law School Transparency apparently believe that negative press coverage can reduce law school applications.  One of them explained his efforts to pitch negative news stories in specific parts of the country where he thought law school enrollments were too high.) (PDF here)**   

The New York Times and WSJ both went negative early, but the Wall Street Journal remained more negative for a much longer period of time.  Most of the uncredited (no byline) stories in the NY Times and WSJ about law school were negative.  

The WSJ had an unusually deep bench of anti-law school journalists.  By contrast, most newspapers had a few very negative journalists and otherwise a fairly even mix of slightly negative and slightly positive journalists.  The most anti-law school journalist was Ameet Sachdev of the Chicago Tribune, whose coverage was about twice as negative as either David Segal of the New York Times or Jennifer Smith of the Wall Street Journal.

Net negative journalists

Geographically, the hardest hit areas were New York, Illinois (Chicago), and Washington D.C.  (This is counting the New York Times and Wall Street Journal as New York papers).  Ohio was the only state that saw net positive coverage.  

Net negative stories by state

The pattern of coverage does not seem to have much relationship to the strength of the local legal employment market, but rather seems to turn more heavily on idiosyncratic editorial policies at particular newspapers that happen to be headquartered in certain states.  

 

*  I asked my research assistant (a third year law student) to gather articles about legal education and the legal profession from the top 25 U.S. newspapers by circulation for which data was available from Proquest back to at least 2010.  My RA then rated each article as "positive", "negative" or "neutral" depending on whether the article would have made him more or less likely to attend law school if he had read it while deciding.  For each newspaper or journalist, the number of positive articles was subtracted from the number of negative articles to arrive at a net-negative count, and newspapers were ranked on this metric.  There are some obvious limitations of this approach--it doesn't measure how positive or negative each article is, it assumes that one positive article can balance out one negative article (negative articles probably have a bigger impact than positive ones), it relies on the opinion of a single third year law student.  It also lacks context—perhaps newspaper coverage about all topics is generally negative.  Perhaps newspaper coverage of all higher education was negative during this period.  Nevertheless, this approach may provide some useful insights.  All editions of the Wall Street Journal and New York Times tracked by Proquest are combined, but identical articles published in different editions are counted only once.  The WSJ blog is included as part of the WSJ.

** Contrary to popular belief, there is little evidence that larger law school graduating class sizes predict worse outcomes for law school graduates, nor is there evidence that smaller graduating class sizes predict better outcomes.  See (Timing Law School and a summary).  In a recent robustness check considering many alternative definitions of cohort size (but not yet reported in the draft paper), McIntyre and Simkovic continued to find no evidence that smaller graduating cohorts predict higher earnings premiums for recent graduates.


August 10, 2015 in Guest Blogger: Michael Simkovic, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Professional Advice, Science, Student Advice, Weblogs | Permalink

August 07, 2015

“Risk Sharing” Bill is a Covert Tax on Higher Education (Michael Simkovic)

Higher education provides massive benefits to the public fisc.  These benefits come in the form of additional payroll and income tax revenue, less dependence on social welfare, and student lending profits.*  Based on tax revenue alone, the government’s “cut” of the higher education earnings premium is typically far larger than tuition collected by the college that provides the education. 

While there’s a lot of talk about the government subsidizing education, it’s actually the other way around.  The public return on investment in higher education helps sustain the government’s expenditures in other areas that are unlikely to provide much of a financial return, like military spending (roughly 25 percent of the federal budget, including veterans' benefits).  Even taking into account public subsidies to higher education, the federal government already taxes higher education far more heavily than many other investments.

Two Senators, Jeanne Shaheen and Orrin Hatch, want to tax higher education even more, although they euphemistically call their new tax “risk sharing.”   Under their proposal, the federal government would shift some of the downside risk of education investment—delays in loan repayment by some student borrowers**—to colleges, but would not share the upside.***

Risk typically comes with rewards.  If the government would like to “share the risk” of education investment with institutions of higher learning—like a corporation offering restricted shares to its employees—then along with student loan losses, why not offer colleges a proportionate share of the student loan profits and marginal increases in tax revenue ? 

Real risk sharing—on both the upside and downside—would mean a massive increase in public investment in education, not additional taxes on this already overly-taxed sector of the economy.

 

* Because of progressive income taxes and payroll taxes, the federal government keeps approximately 40 cents of every extra dollar earned because the workforce is more educated.  Federal student loan programs are profitable under conventional methods of accounting because the repayments the government receives exceed financing and administrative costs.  Some have claimed that federal student loans are not profitable by arguing that if the government charges less than private lenders would charge, the government is still “losing” money it could be making.  This calculus typically ignores the effects of lower pricing on boosting enrollment, increasing the volume of lending, and increasing tax revenue.  This argument is the essence of controversial “fair-value accounting” claims, although the argument is typically framed in terms of cost of capital considerations.

** These charges for delayed repayment are not necessarily compensation for losses, but rather an estimate based on non-repayment of loans in the first few years after studies end. This estimate could enable the government to double-dip, charging institutions for delayed repayment in early years while recovering accrued interest, principal and collections costs from student borrowers in later years when their incomes are higher and their employment is more stable.  

*** Some indeterminate fraction of this tax revenue would be returned to colleges that serve low-income students through DOE grants.  However, those same institutions are the ones who are most likely to have students who struggle to repay their loans-and will therefore be the ones to pay the tax.  The grants awarded could be substantially lower than the taxes collected.  The bill is likely to be a drain on resources available for education, especially net of transactions and compliance cost.


August 7, 2015 in Guest Blogger: Michael Simkovic, Of Academic Interest, Student Advice, Web/Tech, Weblogs | Permalink

August 06, 2015

Florida State's Dean Weidner to step down this summer

Story here.  He truly has been a transformative Dean, firmly establishing Florida State as a national player in legal scholarship.


August 6, 2015 in Faculty News, Of Academic Interest, Rankings | Permalink

August 05, 2015

Do increases in the cost of college pay for themselves? (Michael Simkovic)

College costs more than it used to.  It's also worth a lot more than it used to be worth.  The increase in value of a college education exceeds the increase in the cost of a college education by a very wide margin.

How much has the cost of college actually increased?  It may be less than you think.   

According to the Department of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics, at 4 year institutions, average college tuition is up about $1,900 in real (inflation-adjusted) terms in the five years from 2008-09 ($21,996) to 2012-13 ($23,872).  This is an average increase of less than $500 per year. The real increase during this 5-year period has been higher at public colleges ($2,100) than at private non-profit and for-profit colleges ($1,400).  

That's before taking into account scholarships and grants.  

After subtracting scholarship and grants, according to the College Board, real net tuition and fees at 4 year private non-profit institutions have actually gone down.  Real net tuition and fees increased at 4-year public institutions over the last 6 years by about $1,000, or about $170 per year.

So how much would the value of higher education need to increase to justify this increase in cost?  The increases at public institutions come to around $5,000 more for a bachelor's degree.* 

That extra $5,000 will pay for itself if 4-year colleges spend the extra money in a way that boosts their former students' real annual earnings relative to high school graduates by $220.**  When we take into account increases in college completion rates over time and longer life expectancy, the required increase in annual earnings could be even lower.

So yes, improvements in the quality of education can easily pay for increases in the costs of education.   If the rising earnings premiums and increase in completion rates within race over the last three decades are caused by increased college expenditures, tens of thousands of dollars in increased expenditures per bachelor's degree have more than paid for themselves so far, and by a very wide margin.***

Slide1 Slide2

The labor economics literature generally suggests that the marginal rate of return to higher education is high, whether the "margin" is defined as upgrading individual education from high school to 4 years, from 2 years to a bachelor's, or from a bachelor's to an advanced degree.  Within a given level of education and category of institution, those with more resources can generally do more to boost their students' earnings.  A high marginal rate of return to education means we should invest more in higher education if we want the economy to grow faster, and invest less in things with lower marginal rates of return. (See here).

Investing more in education without increasing taxes means that tuition will likely increase.  When we consider the benefits education provides, more investment in education is a good thing.  When we consider our political system's allergic reaction to tax increases, increasing tuition may be the only realistic way to get there.  

* Multiplying $1,000 by 5 years (assuming it takes 5 years to complete a bachelor's degree), we get an increase of $5,000 at public 4-year institutions (and a decline in cost at private institutions).  For an individual, the aggregate increase in real net-tuition during 5 years of college might be less.  The idea of the estimate is to compare the aggregate cost of college for individuals who completed college 5 years apart.

** This assumes a 40 year career and nominal (real) discount rate of 6 (3) percent.  The $220 figure is before taxes and represents the aggregate social benefit to the government as tax collector and to the graduate, who will earn higher wages.  If the entire cost is placed on the student, assuming 35 percent tax rates on the earnings premium, real annual earnings premiums would need to increase by $340 to make the student better off after taxes.

*** The differences in earnings in the column charts are raw differences by level of education rather than estimates of causal differences.  However, the change in the raw differences over time may provide a good proxy for the change in the causal earnings premium over time.


August 5, 2015 in Guest Blogger: Michael Simkovic, Of Academic Interest, Professional Advice, Science, Student Advice, Web/Tech, Weblogs | Permalink

More flawed coverage of student loan working paper (Michael Simkovic)

Over at TaxProf, Paul Caron covers a student loan working paper inaccurately.  Caron's headline is "NY Fed: Federal Aid For College Has Jacked Up Tuition (Especially In Graduate Schools)." (Emphasis added).

I've already discussed some of the methodological limitations of the working paper in question (read the bottom of the post).  Beyond these serious issues, the working paper notably is not the view of the NY Fed (it is the individual work of 3 researchers, two of whom happen to work at the Fed) and it does not make claims about graduate school tuition.  The study focuses on undergraduate tuition.

From the study:

"The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System."

"In this paper, we used a Bartik-like approach to identify the effect of increased loan supply on tuition following large policy changes between 2008 and 2010 in the maximum federal aid amounts available to undergraduate students."

Kevin Drum at Mother Jones manages to do an even worse job than either the WSJ or TaxProf, declaring "As Federal Aid Goes Up, College Costs Rise Enough to Gobble It All Up."  The claim in the working paper is not that an extra dollar of aid increases tuition by a dollar.  The claim is that federal aid is associated with an increase in tuition of between 0 and 65 cents for every dollar of aid--depending on the type of aid and the control variables selected by the researchers--but the study failed to account for the fact that much of that increase in tuition will be returned to students as increased grants and scholarships.


August 5, 2015 in Guest Blogger: Michael Simkovic, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Science, Student Advice, Weblogs | Permalink

August 04, 2015

ABA Council approves merger of the two Rutgers law schools...

...which will remain in their current locations (Camden and Newark), but operate as a single unit.  Two points worth noting:  Rutgers began developing the merger before Hamline/William Mitchell, and unlike the latter, the impetus was not dwindling enrollments.


August 4, 2015 in Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

Supreme Court clerks, ten years later