Empirical Legal Studies

Why Are "Happy" Women Lawyers Departing Law Practice? The Enduring Importance of Selection Effects

While women attorneys continue to depart the practice of law at persistently high rates, most survey research fails to detect evidence of gender differences in job satisfaction among attorneys. To explore this seeming paradox, Joni Hersch (Vanderbilt) and Erin Meyers (Vanderbilt--student) exploit data from the 2015 cohort of the National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG). The NSCG data set "contains 91,000 observations, with 1,928 having earned a JD. Our analysis sample includes respondents with a JD who are not retired and do not also have a PhD or MD. The resulting number of observations is 1,770. The NSCG provides detailed data on demographic characteristics, job characteristics, and job satisfaction, including a direct measure of overall job satisfaction."

Their paper, Why are Seemingly Satisfied Female Lawyers Running for the Exits? Resolving the Paradox Using National Data, argues that this "paradox" flows from selection effects. Specifically, the authors argue that the "apparent similarity of job satisfaction between genders likely arises from dissatisfied female JDs sorting out of the legal profession at higher rates than their male counterparts, leaving behind the most satisfied women." An excerpted abstract follows.

"This Article also provides a detailed examination of the specific working conditions that are associated with dissatisfaction for female lawyers before this sorting occurs, and compares job satisfaction of lawyers to that of other professions. The resulting analysis finds that recently graduated female lawyers have lower average satisfaction with their salaries relative to male lawyers, but that this result is likely due to differences in employer types. The data further indicates that a male-female satisfaction gap exists only among JDs, and not among those with other professional or graduate degrees. This finding suggests that analysis comparing lawyers to other professions could help to pinpoint unique characteristics of the legal profession that create dissatisfaction among women at the outset of their careers and causes them to exit the profession."

The Visual Display of Data--"Graphs v. Tables"

This enduring "chestnut" of an issue warrants periodic refreshing. An on-going discussion is found here. Those interested in the long-standing “classic” treatment of such issues, Edward Tufte’s, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (2^nd ed., 2001) delves into the “theory and practice in the design of data graphics,” and includes illustrated examples of the “best (and a few of the worst) statistical graphics, with detailed analysis of how to display data for precise, effective, quick analysis.” Finally, in a 2011 essay Andrew Gelman (Columbia--Statistics) wades into these matters with a normative (and intentionally provocative) take favoring "tables over graphs." The Gelman paper's abstract follows.

"The statistical community is divided when it comes to graphical methods and models. Graphics researchers tend to disparage models and to focus on direct representations of data, mediated perhaps by research on perceptions but certainly not by probability distributions. From the other side, modelers tend to think of graphics as a cute toy for exploring raw data but not much help when it comes to the serious business of modeling. In order to better understand the benefits and limitations of graphs in statistical analysis, this article presents a series of criticisms of graphical methods in the voice of a hypothetical old-school analytical statistician or social scientist. We hope to elicit elaborations and extensions of these and other arguments on the limitations of graphics, along with responses from graphical researchers who might have different perceptions of these issues."

2019 CELS--Date and Location

On the heels of a stunningly successful 2018 CELS, hosted by the University of Michigan Law School and co-organized by Professors James R. Hines Jr., J.J. Prescott, and Sonja B. Starr, I wanted to alert those interested that the 2019 CELS, scheduled for November 8-9, 2019, will be hosted by Claremont McKenna College (Calif.) and co-organized by Professors David Bjerk, Eric Helland, and Dan Krauss.

Data & Property Rights

While the array of issues incident to "data" and property rights (or "ownership") continues to grow both in number and complexity, many of the immediate, practical questions relate to the evolving relation between empirical scholars and their data sets and journal editors when it comes to the manuscript review process. A wider-angle lens, however, as well as an international perspective, are developed in a recent, brief working paper/report, Data Ownership. In it, Teresa Scassa (Ottawa) takes up broader questions concerning data "ownership," what ownership may mean, and how whatever it may mean can vary across jurisdictions. While certainly not the last word on these complex issues, an interesting take and perspective on a set of issues that will not likely go away anytime soon.