While noting that Stata does not shy away from holding its own initiatives up to data should not surprise, a summary report on the initial six months of Stata's YouTube Channel usage might interest readers. If there is any surprise in a summary (and descriptive) blog post (here), perhaps it's the degree to which this project is succeeding. What Stata is doing is certainly generating interest (thus far, anyway) and I assume we'll see similar efforts by others in the near future.
Information on two separate (Main and Advanced) Causal Inference Workshops at Northwestern Law School this summer follows.Both workshops will be taught by world-class
causal inference researchers. Registration for each is limited to 100 participants.
Main workshop: Monday – Friday,
June 24-28, 2013
Advanced workshop: Monday - Wednesday,
August 12-14, 2013.
For information and to register for either or both workshops: (click here)
Overview and Target Audience: Most empirical methods
courses survey a variety of methods. We will begin instead with the goal of
causal inference, and discuss how to design research to come closer to that
goal. The methods are often adapted to a particular study. Some of the methods
we will discuss are covered in PhD programs, but rarely in depth, and rarely
with a focus on causal inference and on which methods to prefer for messy,
real-world datasets with limited sample sizes. Each day will include with a
Stata “workshop” to illustrate selected methods with real data and Stata
code. We will
assume knowledge, at the level of an upper-level college econometrics or similar
course,of multivariate regression, including OLS, logit, and probit;
basic probability and statistics including conditional and compound
probabilities, confidence intervals, t-statistics, and standard errors; and some
understanding of instrumental variables.
Advanced Workshop Overview and Target
advanced workshop seeks to provide an in-depth discussion of selected topics at
the causal inference research frontier.Our target
audience is empirical researchers who are familiar with the basics of causal
inference (from our main workshop or otherwise), and want to extend their
While I've discussed the Stata instructional videos previously, recent notable additions to the video collection include a helpful 3-part series on Introduction to Margins. The entire collection of instructional videos can be found here.
From the Stata blog: "StataCorp now provides free tutorial videos on StataCorp’s YouTube channel." A direct link to Stata's YouTube "channel" (here). This is, of course, a wonderful move by Stata. While the current collection of videos is limited, more are "forthcoming." My only quibble is that the videos are broken into quite small (and short) discrete sessions (thus far, 24 separate videos accounting for just under 2 hours of instruction). Any quibbles aside, well worth a look.
Yale Law School will begin offering a Ph.D in law, with the first incoming class arriving in Fall 2013. I learnd of this from a WSJ story; the Yale press release is here. From the latter:
"Because the level of the scholarship expected of entry-level law professors has risen quite dramatically, increasing numbers of law professors now pursue Ph.D.’s in allied disciplines like economics, history, philosophy, or political science. Because such disciplines train students in standards and questions that are different from those of the law, the natural next step for the legal academy is to create our own Ph.D. program that can focus on the questions and practices of the law itself. Students obtaining a Ph.D. in law may, of course, engage in interdisciplinary studies, but their work will be anchored in the framework of legal scholarship." (Dean Robert Post)
The program is clearly designed to prepare individuals for careers on law faculty; and, interestingly, the program is only open to individuals who have already received a J.D. This makes it an interesting move by Yale, both from a "possible pool of candidates" perspective and (more broadly) given some of the other changes in law schools recently (and their likely knock-on effects for faculty hiring). I'll have to mull this last bit over a bit more before commenting further, but my knee-jerk reaction is that this will further polarize the ranks of law school faculties with respect to credentals, focus, etc.
In related news, Gordon Silverstein, a political scientist formerly at (inter alia) Berkeley, will assume the position of Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs at YLS, effective Monday. He'll be in charge of the new Ph.D., as well as existing the LL.M. and J.S.D. programs. Congratulations, Gordon!
For any students (or faculty, for that matter) contemplating a summer research project, Andrew Gelman (Columbia--Poli Sci) offers quite helpful, quick advice on how to approach writing up a research paper (here).
Always-provocative lawblogger Vivia Chen's recent post "Too good for Big Law" has drawn a fair bit of attention. She notes work by our very own Bill Henderson (using data from the NLJ) suggesting that associate to partner odds -- that is, the ratio of Biglaw associates hired from a particular law school to Biglaw partners from the same school -- for many elite / T14 schools are lower than those for lower-tier places.
Bill responded with his usual meticulousness at the Legal Whiteboard, offering the "statistician edition" of the Careerist post. After a suitable discussion of the potential caveats, he does a nice job of rounding up a range of possible explanations for this finding. At Above the Law, David Lat casts his vote for "Selection Effects," "Inter-Generational Privilege," and "A Better Plan B" as the most likely drivers among among BH's explanations. And Bruce MacEwen at Adam Smith Esq. lays out the data in all its glory, and has some thoughtful ruminations on why we might not want to take the results too seriously, and why (and how) we might. There's also an exposition at TaxProfBlog. For its part, the NLJ offers an interactive chart that puts some of their data in visual form (including tuition for the schools in question).
Of course, I just couldn't help myself from digging into the data a little. All of the commenters above make the point that, for this comparison to work, the numbers cannot be changing much from year to year; for example, at one point Henderson says "I analyzed this same data four years ago and got essentially the same results." So I found the same NLJ data from 2010, and did a little comparison.
The vertical axis correspond to the (2011) percentages listed at Bruce M's post; the horizontal one is the same numbers for 2010. (My UH number is a bit different from his, but the others are spot-on). Red "Xs" are the "Top 14" law schools, while black dots are the rest; I labeled a few of the outliers. The data are noisy: the simple (Pearson) correlation between the two years is 0.32. But the correlation is driven almost entirely by the difference between elite and non-elite schools: the correlation among non-elite schools only is 0.06, while that among elite schools only is a paltry 0.02. Moreover, the aggregate differences between Top 14 and non-Top 14 schools are large, averaging 17.2% vs. 28% in 2010 and 15.9% vs. 40.5% in 2011.
So, while the data are noisy, the larger pattern still holds: More elite schools have consistently lower "partner yield rates" than do less elite, tier-one schools. While this doesn't begin to get at the various reasons why this might be happening, it does lend some support to the idea that there's something here worth looking into.
Over at Concurring Opinions, Dave Hoffman's (Temple) fascinating post features a simple graphic that speaks, quite literally, for itself and potentially implies a lot for how first year civil procedure is traditionally structured and presented. Well worth a look.
Although I cannot personally vouch for this particular course (Harvard, Stats 110--Probability, Fall 2011, with Prof. Joe Blitzstein), others can (and do so gushingly). What I can heartily endorse, however, is disseminating the entire course via iTunes (and free of charge).
The good folks at Princeton University (specifically, at the Firestone Library) have put together a nice portal that includes quite helpful online tutorials designed for folks seeking to becoming more familiar with Stata basics. The graphics facilitate "learning by doing." Indeed, and as often the case, the tailored tutorials are far more user-friendly than the typical product user guides and reference material.
Although the immediate target audience for Richard J. Ball (Haverford) and Norm Medeiros' (Haverford) paper, Teaching Students to Document Their Empirical Research, includes advanced undergraduates, this helpful paper will benefit all those engaged in teaching empirical methodology as well as their students. If this is what is expected from undergraduate students engaged in empirical studies, we should expect at least as much from law students. The abstract follows.
"This paper describes a protocol we have developed for teaching undergraduates to document the statistical analysis they do for empirical research projects in such a way that their results are completely reproducible and verifiable. The protocol is guided by the principle that the documentation prepared to accompany an empirical research project should be sufficient to allow an independent researcher to replicate easily and exactly every step of the data management and analysis that generated the results reported in the study. We hope that requiring students to follow this protocol will not only teach them how to document their research appropriately, but also instill in them the belief that it is an important professional responsibility to do so."
I couldn't help noting that among the nine law school Deans that Brian Leiter characterizes as "transformative" during the past decade, at least two (Syverud and Van Zandt) were expressly noted for building a "strong empirical studies presence." The tally goes to three (of nine) if one construes (as one objectively should) the description of Hurd's decanal tenure at Illinois ("cutting edge of interdisciplinary work in multiple areas") as a clear--albeit indirect--reference to her efforts to enhance that faculty's capacity for empirical legal research. As Brian's post correctly notes, the actual number of plausibly "transformative" Deans exceeds (but surely includes) the nine highlighted. I also strongly suspect that the correlation between the list of transformative Deans and a law school's capacity for serious empirical work is both positive and robust.
Once folks finish spring semester grading, those with time and interest might want to explore UCLA's wonderfully rich online treasure-trove of helpful, practical stats resources (here), which include classes, seminars, etc. (here). Not only are the resources organized topically, but but specific statistical packages as well.
George Mason University School of Law's Law and Economics Center is hosting a Workshop on Empirical and Experimental Methods for Law Professors on May 23-26, 2011, in Arlington, VA. Interestingly, this is the second entrant into a growing market for programs specifically addressing law professors and empirical legal scholarship. (We've previously noted similar programs jointly sponsored by Wash U/Northwestern.) A more detailed description of the GMU Workshop, as well as contact information, follow.
"The Workshop on Empirical and Experimental Methods for Law Professors is designed to teach law professors the conceptual and practical skills required to (1) understand and evaluate others’ empirical studies, and (2) design and implement their own empirical studies. Participants are not expected to have background in statistical knowledge or empirical skills prior to enrollment. Instructors have been selected in part to demonstrate the development of empirical studies in a wide-range of legal and institutional settings including: antitrust, business law, bankruptcy, class actions, contracts, criminal law and sentencing, federalism, finance, intellectual property, and securities regulation. Class sessions will provide participants opportunities to learn through faculty lectures, drawing upon data and examples for cutting edge empirical legal studies, and participating in experiments. There will be numerous opportunities for participants to discuss their own works-in-progress or project ideas with the instructors.
The Workshop will begin on Monday May 23, at 8:30 a.m. and conclude on Thursday May 26, at 12 pm. Classes on May 23, 24 and 25 will run from 8:30 am to 5pm, and include lectures, group sessions, and opportunities for participants to present their own empirical projects or “works in progress.”
Tuition for the Workshop on Empirical and Experimental Methods is $850 for the first professor from a law school and $500 for additional registrants from the same school.
Those interested in the Workshop should contact Jeff Smith directly at:
"John Keyser and I co-teach a course called “The Role of Social Science in the Law” at the Washington and Lee Law School. While John and I taught a fairly ordinary version of the course during our first time teaching the class, this year we have added simulations in which law students have to assume the roles of attorneys who are faced with using or critiquing the use of social scientific research in mock cases. Given our experiences in creating this course, I am interesting in finding out which law schools and law school professors are offering courses on empirical methods for law students. Specifically, I’m interested in courses that don’t simply teach the methods themselves, but take the additional step of using these new skills to (1) examine how judges and lawyers use/abuse social scientific research in the courtroom, or (2) examine how social scientists study judicial behavior. I’d also be interested to hear what textbook or articles the professors use, as well as any simulation materials."