You bring up an interesting point. I am the father of two daughters, and pay for an expensive private school education for them. I have a wife who is college educated and dropped out of the work force to raise my two kids.

My friends and I joke that we are financing an education that will end in motherhood.

I think along with the negative externality that Posner cites, there are positive externalities that occur from having a well educated mother. Having a good education is like purchasing insurance. If we assume a traditional husband-wife relationship and the husband becomes unable to work, dies, or divorces the woman, the women should be able to get back into the workforce and utilize the skills she acquired in college.

There is a positive externality that is not accounted for when the children are consistently exposed to a well educated mother. She should be a better decision maker and rear a better child.
This should be a future benefit to society.

Posner is correct when he states that tuition is not at a market clearing price. However, even though business and law schools are generally not subsidized, the main of education is. This skews the tuition rate for every school, including graduate schools that have nothing to do with business, law or medicine.

His idea of raising tuition is good, if we get rid of all the subisdies and government intervention throughout the educational food chain.

Is it possible that elite schools' nondiscrimination policies are responding to the fact that there is far less demand for their graduates' services (as distinguished from demand for the social cachet of an elite credential) than their graduating class sizes would imply?
If there were no chromosomal divide, with its ideologically uncomfortable skill/preference distinctions, wouldn't optimum graduating class sizes be lower? I think so. So aren't these policies working well if the underlying agenda is to either maximize the sizes of elite schools' faculties and administrations, or to provide continuing market opportunities for second and third tier programs that sevice the "non-elite"?

Jack Shafer at Slate.com has already debunked this as another unsubstantiated "trend" article. There's been an irritating spate of these from the Style writers.

Regarding Jeff's point above, I don't think anyone doubts that the benefit to the individual (and the individual's family) is greater. Posner specifically mentions reducing marital search costs and marrying a person with a higher expected income.

However, against the benefit to the individual the benefit to society is less by lowering the supply of capable workers in a given profession, and thus increasing the price.

The situation is particularly interesting if we think about public education, where the state is subsidizing all or part of the tuition.

An alternative, or maybe not an alternative but a caveat, to Posner's theory is conditional scholarships rather than higher tuition. If a student finances her own education privately, she should be able to do whatever she wants with that education, including not using it formally. However, scholarships should be reserved for those who are going to pursue a career with the education they are given.

I think the same holds true re: public universities. Admission should be contingent on an agreement that the student will work the degree for a set number of years.

"Admission should be contingent on an agreement that the student will work the degree for a set number of years."

You don't really think this is true, do you? The rebates program makes some sense, if we think that the loss of workers is a significant problem. But what can be gained from a policy that forces people to work in a profession that they have found they dislike and/or have little aptitude for? There is information that you cannot get without having actually practiced in the field -- if that information tells you to do something else, it benefits nobody for you to ignore it.

Just one question, that woman who graduated from Harvard and went on to Yale Law and then the career of mother and attorney, was this a concious veiled reference to Hillary?

People will probably call me archaic and sexist, but there is something to be said for division of labor and specialisation of labor based on gender. It is a biologic-cultural reality even at the "elite schools" and among the "elite classes". Maybe there is something basic and fundamental about it that cannot be overcome.

somewhat related to this topic:

http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2005/08/more_on_labor_m.html

It would be interesting to look at a graph of labor force participation rates for 1) men and 2) women. The graph would report the % of people age 25-64 that are working, 1960-2005. It it were possible to look at it by level or type of education, it might also be interesting.

The graphs for men and women might look a lot different. It might be nice to discuss or explain this a little bit.

Anecdotally, I see lots of working moms today. There are a lot of programs for working moms in corporations. Not making lists of employers that are friendly to woring moms is not good. There are all kinds of things for working moms today that possibly did not exist 30 years ago. Employers are very accomodative to moms (work at home, flex time).

http://www.workingmother.com/mainstory.html

there was an inadvertent typo in my previous posting:

"working" not "woring"

labor force participation rates for men at Professor DeLong's blog:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/07/four_out_of_fiv.html

"However, scholarships should be reserved for those who are going to pursue a career with the education they are given."

So, all scholarships are to be awarded retrospectively? Then, what about liberal arts colleges (though colleges which predominantly make up the "elite" schools)? For instance, is an English or History major who goes on to law school and practices law "pursu[ing] a career with the eduction they are given[?]" What about a Music major? You get the point.

The problem is a practical one. Many students choose a major because they are required to do so. As a graduate of an "elite" liberal arts college, it more than obvious at these schools that academic interests are one thing, entering the work force in a chosen profession quite another. To only subsidize that very, very low percentage of students who enter a field directly using their undergradate degree (or graduate degree, provided, according to your terms, it is sufficiently similar enough to their major), would do a disservice not just to those students individually, but to all liberal arts students who are subscribe to a pedagogy of lifetime learning.

That said, I tend to agree with N.E. Hatfield both in principle and in disclaimer. But that may be more of a cheap way out of this argument because I don't have my own proposal.

Rebates are a cute idea, but if they don't account for more of the externalities they'll just end up skewing the calculus even more. The cost of making the rebates fairer (and so, inevitably, more complicated) could easily swamp their benefits. If you want more women to work despite being married with kids, it'd be easier to just get rid of the "marriage penalty" tax.

BTW, the trackback function on this blog doesn't work. If you're interested, I did a follow up post at http://spitbull.blogspot.com/2005/09/half-time-show.html

Re: R and Matt's comments on my previous comments.

I didn't intend to convey the idea that the student had to work in a profession associated with the degree he or she received. Any job will do. So, a person who got a music degree could go to law school and satisfy the requirement.

Re: scholarships being given retroactively. Don't be snarky. Obviously the scholarship would be given same as always, but the student would have to pay it back if he or she chose not to work, at all, in any field of his or her choice.

Re: R and Matt's comments on my previous comments.

I didn't intend to convey the idea that the student had to work in a profession associated with the degree he or she received. Any job will do. So, a person who got a music degree could go to law school and satisfy the requirement.

Re: scholarships being given retroactively. Don't be snarky. Obviously the scholarship would be given same as always, but the student would have to pay it back if he or she chose not to work, at all, in any field of his or her choice.

And, as a side note, my scholarship proposal is not completely unheard of. The Golden Apple Scholarship currently follows a similar paradigm.

Although I am not really that well versed on the details, students get a scholarship in return for agreeing to teach in the inner city.

I think Judge Posner misses (or intentionally avoids) the true point of the NYT article: what this trend means for feminism. That's a much more interesting question than whether ivy league schools need to adjust their tuition a bit to compensate for "lost" donations (as if they were "owed" those donations in the first place, when the professional schools charge students $30k/year and then treat them with all the respect given lab rats, until it comes time for "donation" season).

I am not an expert on feminist theory, but I think the argument goes something like this. The pioneers of the women's lib movement in the 60s and 70s opened doors for women that were unprecedented and gave them the opportunity to, finally, become part of the power structure of America, both in the corporate world and in goverment. Those positions of power are reserved, largely, for graduates of the elite institutions. Those pioneering women who opened the door for all women feel, understandably, that women with such opportunities have a responsibility to exercise their potential. By giving up those opportunities to stay home and raise a family, the argument goes, they are doing something profoundly destructive -- they are setting back the cause of women's rights, undermining the gains made by those women who sacrificed their own personal lives to even the playing field.

I understand the feminist backlash at today's generation, which often takes for granted the gains that have been made over the past 30 or 40 years. But I think that, as an argument, the backlash is ultimately unconvincing. Conquering discrimination was, and continues to be, an important goal. However, no individual "owes" his or her life to a cause. A Harvard Law grad who wants a personal life has every right to that life, even if it means that he or she might not fulfill their professional "potential." There are many lawyers who could be, perhaps, chief justice of the supreme court if they dedicated every waking moment to the law. But many of them want to go home at a reasonable hour and spend some time with their kids. There is nothing wrong with that. Similarly, a Harvard Law grad has the potential to make millions at a large law firm, but he or she might sacrifice some of that money for a job that offers more intersting work, better hours, or both. That is a deeply personal decision, and it is not society's business, or that of his alma mater, what he decides.

A broader point here is that the professional world has become, in many ways, anti-family. Lawyers and doctors, especially, are expected to work absurd hours and are paid, in return, absurd amounts of money. But this leaves many of them unsatisfied on a personal level. It also destroys marriages and creates entire generations of kids raised by nannies. I am not surprised that many bright, successful people are not satisfied with this life. Perhaps the professions need to reform themselves to become more accommodating to families. After all, families are the backbone of our socieity. Rather than lash out at women (or men) who take time off to raise their kids, academics -- feminists and otherwise -- should take a long, hard look at what the legal profession has become. They might not like what they see.

Posner signs onto the agenda of pursuing the objective to "open up places [at elite professional schools] to applicants who will use their professional education more productively; they are the more deserving applicants."

There is little to quibble with here. Law schools already subsidize public interest work and the legal profession incentivizes pro bono work. If the legal profession and legal academia prioritize productivity, because lawyers do good things and the more highly qualified the lawyer, the better s/he is at doing good things, then we should promote our best lawyers, whether male or female, to do good things. I see nothing wrong with mandating that entrants to law schools commit to performing pro bono work or to working for a minimal number of years, 5, 8, whatever, so long as it isn't, say, 15. This will also work to reduce the quantity of lawyers, which is always a good thing.

I am interested in the same concepts you raise. Originally I thought about three fundamental ways we evaluate a process. The first is apparent and primarily legal, that of logic. The second way, follows from the first, which is rational. The world of economics is more rational than logical. The third way I thought about for a long time, and that is emotional. The emotional context of a decision interacts differently.

But recently, I realized a fourth way to think. This way explains the success of many decisions that are counter intuitive.

Consider accepting an applicant to professional school.

Logically, the best person should be accepted. There is a standard for review, based upon various policies and recently confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Michigan decision.

Rationally, a school should Pareto optimize its applicant pool by choosing a portfolio of people that they hope would be successful. Obviously, you cannot choose all people.

Emotionally, a school should do what is in its best interest of the decision makers at the time, which usually focuses on the interests of the faculty making the selection process.

But in terms of relationships, the school should focus on maximizing the size of the endowment and prestige. Beyond any particular person or interest, the school will go on.

This explains why schools must be flexible with their policies. Harvard is starting to learn that it is hard to challenge the US Military and still get your valuable grant money. Yale has been complaining about a whole variety of issues related to the faculty, but quite frankly I found the student culture quite uncompelling when I visited my brother.

At Stanford, I thought the selection process was quite fair. There were many women in the class.

Now I have to say one thing, that will surprise everyone. At Wharton, the women are down right beautiful. Wharton by far has the best looking women of any elite graduate school. If you would say this at Yale, they would call you sexist but at Wharton, they would call you honest.

I have to give credit to the selection committee at Wharton for accepting so many beautiful, intelligent, and friendly women.

I think this seems to follow the rule Pareto set forward as the 80/20 rule. It seems quite remarkable that Wharton has 80% of the beautiful women that attend elite business schools in this country. The other 20% are evenly distributed.

If you don't believe me, visit the school.

"the legal profession incentivizes pro bono work."

Not the legal profession I work in. Some law firms speak well of it, provided that you meet your regular billable requirements, and that's about as good as it gets.

"I see nothing wrong with mandating that entrants to law schools commit to performing pro bono work or to working for a minimal number of years, 5, 8, whatever, so long as it isn't, say, 15."

Why not 15, if 8? Since you think that the state is better equipped to determine how a person should devote his or her own labor for 8 year, why not 15, 20, 30 years?

And how would it improve the quality of legal service to force people to work in the profession who do not want to? Do you expect people who are forced to perform a job to work very hard at it?

Finally, how would it reduce the number of lawyers? Do you think it would deter people from entering law school? The number of people it deters would be less than the amount of people who are forced to remain in the profession, I would guess.

As suspected, Winfield, it turns out that you are not the free market proponent you pretend to be.

I disagree with Judge Posner's premise that there is a "labor market distortion" in the number of law school graduates who do not spend full careers as practicing attorneys. This assumes that there is an unmet demand for lawyers, when I suspect that the opposite is true. In fact, I would argue that this "trend," to the extent supported by the evidence, is a positive one:

1. Law schools attract way more people than the number of lawyers who are needed to contribute to the common good. This is for a number of reasons, familiar to anyone who has spent time with law students or recent law school graduates - people go to law school for the prestige or not having a better idea of what to do, and they wind up getting tracked into the profession by a combination of debt, non-monetary sunk costs, and peer pressure.

2. A surplus of lawyers is a bad thing, particularly because unlike other businesses, lawyers have a number of ways to enlist the coercive machinery of government to enable them to make a living without their being much in the way of independent demand for their services. In particular, the number of lawyers is a primary driver of the number of lawsuits, especially class action and/or contingency fee lawsuits where no client needs to be persuaded to pay (except as a proportion of what, in a marginal case, may be seen as a windfall recovery) for the lawyer's services.

3. How to fix the imbalance between an excess supply of lawyers and the market's relative inability to discourage prospective law students from entering an overcrowded field? Fortunately, the solution presents itself: if some number of spots in law schools are being taken by women who will have short or part-time legal careers, instead of men who will practice full time, the surplus is partly corrected.

What about the idea that, if graduate schools cease to ration their spots based on ability but instead charge what the market will bear, then the people going to law schools and business schools will be the slow-witted offspring of rich parents, and the "external benefits" of which you speak will not be captured.

I suppose the market might be able to correct this by making more loans available, but someone of modest means and superlative ability would probably hesitate to go $1M in debt just for a shot at a decent law or business career after 3 years of school.

I think we've talked about college, professional school and elite professional school without making the proper distinctions. I've done it too above.

With regard to elite professional school, I think all those spots should go to people who want to practice (or teach). Those graduates have the best training and should use it. Moreover, they take the place of someone who want to be practicing.

Regarding the force labor problem above, if we limit the discussion to elite professional school, I think the problem diminishes. If a student has the slighest inclining that they don't want to practice law, then they shouldn't except the invitation to study

(sorry for the cut off)

Anyone who wants to study a profession but not practice can go to a less-competitive school, and not worry about being forced to do a job they don't like.

"If a student has the slighest inclining that they don't want to practice law, then they shouldn't except the invitation to study."

This is silly. Most incoming professional students have no way of knowing whether they will enjoy, or be any good at, practicing the profession they are planning to study. But they might turn out to be very good at something else.

"Anyone who wants to study a profession but not practice can go to a less-competitive school, and not worry about being forced to do a job they don't like."

So you would only designate, say, the top five schools for a forced labor requirement. Isn't your aim more easily acheived by in the current system, where students from those less competitive schools can replace the students in the more competitive schools who drop out of the work-place?

We (you) have made up a problem here, and then composed inane solutions for the non-existent problem. There is no shortage of professionals in this country. To the extent that there is a shortage of medical doctors, it is due to the fact that there are fewer medical schools than other professional schools, which is in turn due to the fact that medical schools require more capital expenditure.

Schooling is only part of the equation in any profession, and the market bears out that truth.

I imagine that Posner's proposed policy might result in wage distortions for elite college grads, perhaps in turn creating a slight disincentive to attend a top school - even for those candidates who wish to pursue a lucrative career.

R.--

I don't really think it's that big of a problem, either. It's an interesting thought experiment. I certainly didn't make it up, as you say in your post.

The question is not, at least to me, is the current system working. It is. Should we all just post comments which say "Current system is good." That's not really very interesting. At the very least, I'd like a post on why the current system is better than any of my, or anyone else's, inane solutions.

The interesting question to me is how can we get the best education to people who most want to practice in a given profession. It's not about just correcting for shortages, but raising the quality of the profession overall. Yes, of course, education is only part of the professional equation, but it's still important.

Posner suggested raising the barriers to entry through higher tuition. I suggested (above) making scholarship money contingent on practicing a certain number of years or that money has to be paid back, and later added that it makes the most sense in the elite professional school context.

Tom -- fair enough. the tone of my most recent post was unreasonable and you did not make up this issue, although I think the comments have expanded it to "all professionals" whereas Posner presented it as a gender issue.

But all of my objections stand. I don't think there is much to be gained from your proposals. To the extent that this is an interesting problem, it is interesting because of the gender implications. The professional setting seems like one particularly good example where a free market works -- discounting the initial problem of access into the market. There isn't any labor shortage. If someone from one of the top schools leaves the market, there is an equally qualified candidate from another school to take his or her place. If the replacement actually enjoy the profession, that person is probably more qualified, and at that point in the career, where he or she went to professional school is of secondary importance.

I'm not sure what to say about the issue as Posner presented it. On the one hand, it would be a real problem if the number of women entering top professional schools and then leaving the profession created some sort of market shortage, but it hasn't. If the rate of departure from the profession were higher at the top schools than at other schools, it might eventually create a levelling effect, whereby the lesser schools' endowments slowly crept up to the level of the top schools'. But that isn't likely to happen -- the stratifications in endowments has only increased in recent years.

It wouldn't do for a school to limit the number of female slots up front to try to counter this issue, or to try to figure out which applicants will leave the profession early to run families. A school could try to gain a slight advantage through the policy that Posner suggests -- it might increase its endowment over time. But it could also create a big public relations backlash if the effect was to keep women out of the classes -- which seems to be the desired effect.

So I guess, yes, I don't see much wrong with the current system, and I don't think there's much valuable to say in this thread.

Not to interrupt all this great experimental thinking about innovative ways to discourage elite women from having children (by penalizing them for spending time with them) but a technical sidenote: I think the average sex ratio of undergraduates at elite institutions is closer to 60-40 percent female, rather than the 50-50 ratio Posner suggests. (That is, if I’m correctly recalling the research we did in examining sex ratios as an explanation for courtship behavior, or lack thereof, on college campuses--subsequently published as “Hanging Out Hooking Up Looking for Mr Right” (NY: Institute for American Values)). The only exceptions to female-dominated campuses were certain elite technical and math schools (MIT, Cal Tech etc) and for reasons that perhaps Richard Posner can explain, the University of Chicago.

Dear Dick,
I suggested the tuition rebate plan in my book proposal, "Housewives from Harvard," three years ago and on Sixty Minutes last fall (the latter earning me a coveted #77 on Bernard Goldberg's screwup list). The idea occurred to me then, because, when I looked into the lives of the women who announced their weddings in the selective Styles section of the New York Times in 1996, I found them all at home with their babies, advanced degreees and all, and I see no reason that society should subsidize this delusional and unproductive variant of finishing school. Now I read in your blog that professional education is not subsidized. Surely that cannot be right. Why do they keep hounding me for donations? Are all the donations to, say, the University of Chicago Law School not tax deductible? And do the rest of us taxpayers not therefore make up the difference in the cost of running the government caused by the diversion of money from the fisc into the coffers of the law school in order to subsidize legal education there?
And surely tuition doesn't cover the cost of legal education at state schools, does it?
btw, readers, lose the community service move. These women only work at their childrens' schools. Darwin lives.

Not to sound like a broken record, but you are all completely missing the point of the NYT article. Nothing in the article suggested that professional schools are suffering financially from the fact that some female graduates choose to take a few years off to spend time with their kids. The article does not suggest that schools are in danger of losing needed funds, or that the stay-at-home grads stop contributing, or that schools would consider admitting fewer women (or charging them higher tuition) to compensate.

Rather, the article is concerned that the "best and brightest" women, by choice, are not advancing as far in their careers as perhaps they could, and it asks what this trend means, from a feminist perspective.

Specifically, the article states that women are concluding that it is "unrealistic" to have both a career and a family, at least while the children are young. To me, this raises the issue of whether the legal profession should better accommodate families with more flexible hours and expectations, perhaps in exchange for lower pay. Many corporations and government agencies have made it possible for parents (men and women) to have both a career and a family. In fact, the traditional corporate icon was the "family man." Why, now, do law firms in particular demand such sacrifice from employees that they must choose between work and a personal life? This issue should be in the forefront, not some absurd economic calculation about how many women professional schools "should" admit.

I do not care about the law schools one way or the other. But I do not want my tax dollars going to pay for Hurricane Katrina, because some millionaire gave money to the U of C Law School to turn out these princesses and is deducting it. As far as I'm concerned that's no different than the wasteful scandals at the United Way or any other tax subsidized charity.
If the society continues to subsidize these girls' delusion that they are equal to men because they spend three years in torts class and all before they return to the June Cleaver role, they will never be motivated to stay and fight for the changes you describe.
Anyway, if you read the article closely, you see it's not about big bad law firms with killer hours. They say almost nothing about knowing they cannot keep a career on track with careful nurturing for a few years, and most of the firms I know have provisions for such arrangements already. They are talking about staying home until the two or three kids are in school or even gone to college. I wasn't the best student at the law school, but I can add, and that is a minimum of eight or nine years out of the work place. There is nothing firms can do that will keep these women, who have a lethal combination of impenetrable narcissism, perfect madness mothering, and husbands for whom they are a Darwinian advantage, at work.

I'd like to know what everyone thinks about the gender gap in top coporate jobs viz. this discussion.

At Harvard Law School, I was a minority: I belonged to the "public interest" community--students who are interested in taking jobs in the non-profit sector rather than the big firms where most of their classmates end up. There were very few men in this community. Women seem much more likely than men to pursue work in the public interest, whether it be because they are more compassionate or because the non-profit sector is more family friendly. Regardless, we need more ivy-league educated lawyers to dedicate themselves to public service. If the men are more likely to take the corporate jobs, where supply surely exceeds demand, and the women are more likely to take the public interest jobs, where demand likely exceeds supply, shouldn't that count for something?

I don't think that the ratio incoming class/applications less than one implies that demand exceeds supply. If I date two or more girls at the same time doesn't mean there are more girls than guys in the dating market or that I am in great demand. Everybody dates as many people as possible before marrying. And everybody applies to several places before choosing a school.

And, anyone who wants to study medicine law or management can do it, whether or not they can get a spot on Harvard that's another question.

I think what's happening to girls is that they are realizing that the corporate career path is not that great: outsourcing, less job security, smaller salaries per hour, having to pay huge educational debts, mortgages and so on.

They get a much better quality of life for a lot less work if they marry a rich guy or at least someone who makes 300K plus. Divorce laws are quite biased in the wife's favor, so girls get more from marriage than guys. There's no point in becoming corporate slaves if they have another much better option.

Whether or not they can find a rich guy, that's another issue.

These days the payoff of a professional degree is becoming more and more like a lottery ticket, if you don't become a CEO, law firm partner, MD at an investment bank or a highly paid surgeon, then you will likely live paycheck to paycheck the rest of your life. In any case you will have little personal or family time when you enter such careers.

So increasing tuition to replace girls with highly paid guys will not work, because the supply of highly paid jobs is determined outside the educational system and it will not increase; it is decreasing, instead. So smart girls will be replaced by mediocre guys who might become unemployed or working outside their fields anyway. Higher tuitions will not increase efficiency, it will just redistribute income from alumni to universities.

Thinking in general equilibrium terms is becoming out of fashion, unfortunately.

All of this seems to be a twist on the value of public education vs. a private education or the Commons vs. the Lords Spiritual& Temporal. A quick test, who said this, "You can send them to the Ivy League or you can send them to the Service Acadamies, but the fact still remains, a muttonhead is a muttonhead." ;)

I believe some of these comments were made by other posters in some form or another, but I'd like to raise them again: raising tuitions and offering rebates for a "productive" legal career would have the primary effect of discouraging lower- and middle-class applicants from becoming lawyers. The societal effects of that trend are far more scary than any "danger" to law schools posed by alleged decreases in donations.

First, last I checked, none of the elite law schools is hurting in the donations department.

Second, increasing the already astonishing amount of debt required for most of us (myself included) to become a practicing lawyer will further drive the profession toward being populated by those with great family wealth - i.e. those with right-leaning political and social sensibilities.

Third, it's unclear to me that any change in the overall productivity of lawyers as a result of decreased participation by women is even demonstrable. Look at the revenues of major law firms. Look at profits per partner. Look at trends in billable hours. Look at the overall amount of legal work generated and billed in recent years. How can anyone claim that productivity is down, when it appears to be skyrocketing on all fronts?

Fourth, several of Judge Posner's general assumptions are troubling: that lawyers of any stripe (even the "innovative") actually produce net benefits to society in excess of their pay, that the productivity of a lawyer (or anyone) is measured primarily in revenues they generate or income they produce for themselves, that a "working career" as a lawyer somehow indicates an ability to repay law school debt (even before his increase)... And what of all the transaction costs imposed by lawyers on the economy? Has anyone done this calculation: the risks offset by lawyering in corporate transactions versus the amount of fees generated by that lawyering? What is the cost of "overlawyering"?

"But I do not want my tax dollars going to pay for Hurricane Katrina, because some millionaire gave money to the U of C Law School to turn out these princesses and is deducting it."

Can anyone tell me what this sentence means?

Dear Judge Posner,

In calculating the benefits and costs of your prosposal, I believe that you did not calculate the political and emotional outrage that such a proposal would provoke from many people, especially women. This is not to say that your proposal is mean spirited or sexist. However, given that the proposal will impact the attendence rates of women much more than it will impact the rates of men, many people will view the proposal as "turning back the clock" on women's rights.

Given our country's history of great prejudice against women, I believe that one has to be sensitive to such a reaction. Moreover, because women are socialized to rear children and men are socialized to be breadwinners, it is slighlty troublesome that under your proposal women would be socialized out of an opportunity to attend elite institutions. Of course, women can choose to defy social norms, but this is not easy to do.

In short, what is gained by your proposal is most likely offset by the harm it would do to gender relations.

cheers,

Neerav Kingsland

Using the term "maximum possible value" for your education is a bit too vague - certainly too vague to be used as a basis for radical changes in the education system.

Next, even women who leave the workplace after a few years can establish a network of professional connections. Those professional connections can be of great value to her children, perhaps greater then any designer jean degree the children may one day earn.

She then ships her child to an elite school where her connections help another generation get connected to a large network. Adding value to the school and her family.

How do you calculate the value of these networks for the family unit? The revealed preference is that they must have great value.

The following issues exist in Judge Posner's article.


Measuring demand versus supply by examining applications versus acceptances is faulty and misperceives the application process. Because of the subjectivity of the application process, smart applicants to elite law schools apply to multiple law schools (anecdotally, approximately 4-6, and as many as 15). There is also a vanity-oriented approach to applying to schools to which an applicant is not at all qualified on the "off chance" that he or she may get in anyway, which improperly inflates the applicant pool. Acceptance rates -- if properly adjusted for the multiplicity of applications and the demonstrably unqualified applicants -- may not reflect any "excess" demand, making an increase in price an improper solution to a nonexistent problem.


Also, measuring a "productive" career as being one that remains within the confines of the profession of the school at which the applicant studied ignores two important factors. First, one should consider the fluidity with which many graduate degrees, particularly law degrees, may be used for other endeavors that are nonetheless economically productive, sometimes at a compensation rate higher than that of a lawyer at a law firm (i.e., an investment banker), sometimes at a lower rate (i.e., an unsuccessful screenwriter of legally-oriented television shows). Those graduates still work, but they are not in the "profession" and are therefore deemed less "productive" and unworthy. Second, even those legal positions that are a drain on the economy, being funded by taxpayer resources (say, being an employee of the federal government as a member of the appellate judiciary) may be socially productive in an important and meaningful way despite being less highly compensated than the similar vintage of a private law firm attorney. Measuring productivity as the amount of money earned in the private practice of law ignores the variations on the economically productive uses of a law degree and the economically unproductive -- but unquestionably necessary -- uses of a law degree within the practice of law. This this estimate appears impractical. From a results perspective, using Judge Posner's estimate of productivity to set the price of legal study would further widen the holes in important parts of the profession from elite schools (those being pro bono and government service, despite the financial aid options already available) and shift the composition of the law school classes not from a mix of genders to more men but from a mix of economic backgrounds to more wealthy people. The gender mix may be muted, but it would still be disproportionate from Judge Posner's perspective for all of the reasons women currently apply to law school.


The idea that law schools are not contributing their maximum economic productivity to the legal profession by providing a number of women who will drop out demonstrates a lack of practical familiarity with the economic model of the large law firms that absorb the overwhelming majority of the graduates of the elite law schools, male and female. Large law firms operate on one important principle -- leverage. Partners are few, associates are many, and this "pyramid" structure depends on attrition over the years to perpetuate itself. To state the obvious, there are fewer women at the partner ranks of the "AmLaw 100" law firms than there are at the associate ranks, by a significant percentage. As each class progresses towards partnership, the firm depends on more and more associates choosing other paths -- government service, pro bono (once the law school loans are paid off), smaller, so-called "lifestyle" firms, career options outside of the law and, yes, motherhood. To provide the large law firms with a large number of employees who will work their tails off while they are untethered by family commitments, never seek accommodations for their families once they veer onto the "mommy track" (unlike the men who abandon young associates to tuck in their kids and then "work from home"), and, most importantly, never threaten a try for the partnership is an economic boon on which the large law firms have come to depend, especially after the merger mania in the late 90s and the jump in 1999 to the $125K standard-NY-firm starting salary, both of which further pushed the firms to leverage their teeming hordes of associates. Admitting more men in the long term would result in more unemployed 8th year associate men as the partnerships would continue to be unable to assimilate those "surplus" associates -- who need to work to provide the sole or dominant income for their families -- into the ranks of the partnerships. The admission of women in large number to law schools satisfies the demand for many entry-level associates while allowing for their attrition and the market to tighten in symmetry with the pyramid structure of the large law firm economic model.


Lastly, the rebate idea is simply silly. I enjoyed my experience at U of C, but my intention of giving any donation to the law school is determined less by my earning power and potential and more by my frustration with its faculty.

This is, by far, the worst idea posted on this blog so far. All this would do is discourage less risk averse students from attending college. The motivation is also deeply troubling: this is social engineering with market mechanisms.

Btw: is there any evidence for an undersupply of well-educated men in the labor market? Simply pointing to the high demand for education isn't the same.

I find it very interesing that Posner never seems to question why these elite women were dropping out of the workforce in the first place. It is often because these women overestimated how much the professional world had evolved since women entered the workforce en mass (which is sad to say not that much). Could the skills and talents of 50% of some graduate school classes be so worthless that we are not all debating how we can keep these valuable women in the workforce instead of throwing up our hands in the matter?
The loss of these women from these professions is exactly that -a loss. Could Poser really be so stupid as to not realize that some of these women are dropping out because they find most professions are still absolutely incompatible with and some outright hostile to employees who are also raising young children? Such attitudes are mostly due to inflexible work arrangements, and a professional culture that still treats child rearing as some sort of silent hobby that one should never actually discuss or need to work around.
Even though today's generation of men helps with child rearing more than previous generations, it is still only a minimal amount. Whether a woman is a professional or not, in the year 2005 she still does 90% of the child care for most individual families. How about actually treating employees who also happen to be mothers (or parents) by taking this into consideration in a sincere way?
After so many years of struggling, or fighting with the lack of adequate, quality child care many women simply throw in the towel. A better solution would be to examine how we could re-invent the workplace to keep these high achieving women in it. What additional incentives could we offer (like more on-site child care)?
Could the "family-friendly" policies that some firms already offer be utilized more effectively without fear of retribution or loss or advancement opportunity? Could someone really take a few years off to raise a young child to pre-school age and then return? Most western industrialized countries have far more extensive family/work balance programs and generous child care arrangements that the pathetic assortment in the U.S.
By re-examine the working world entirely and make it more compatible for members of both genders who want to work and utilize the skills they worked so hard to obtain in their professional education and yet maintain a
part-time or flexible arrangement. There is absolutely no reason why most professions cannot reconfigure themselves along this line- it is only out of an outdated stubborn (male) tradition that they do not. To suggest that new models of work for most professions cannot be implemented displays a lack of rigorous intellect and imagination (and I would argue that Mr. Posner lacks both). Most women want what men have always had - rewarding professional work and a family life and the current work enviornment have all been created with only a male (and one without child care oblications)in mind. To say that these women are "choosing" to waste their professional education is false and insulting. The professional world hasn't figured out how to re-structure itself to fit this new work paradim for all working parents. Posner should talk to some of the Men of Generation X and Y. Many of them feel more pressure and desire to deviate from the traditional career models too, and both genders could benefit tremendously from professions that help them accommodate family obligations. Instead of discouraging applicants to eilite schools who do not work full time with higher tuition -Why not make it easier for both genders to work part-time without having that be career suicide? Posner's so-called "solutions" are nothing more than a reward for the very ineffective and outdated labor model that is the main cause for women dropping out of the work force in the first place - not biologic destiny. So nice try Posner - now go back to the drawing board.

while successful lawyers and businessmen command high incomes, those incomes often fall short of the contribution to economic welfare that such professionals make. This is clearest when the lawyer or businessman is an innovator, because producers of intellectual property are rarely able to appropriate the entire social gain from their production. Yet even noninnovative lawyers and businessmen, if successful--perhaps by virtue of the education they received at a top-flight professional school--do not capture their full social product in their income,

But the whole argument rests on the presumption that the professional education is the source of this positive externality, that the individual would not have produced this gain without the professional education. I find that dubious.

An intelligent, hard-working, and creative individual may well make these sorts of contributions as a lawyer, but might also make equivalent contributions as an engineer or businessman. In other words, it may well be the case that the professional education is not really the basis for the contribution, and therefore none of this value should be credited to it.

I am unwilling to accept the underlying assumption without any support whatsoever.

"An addendum to my prior post -- I utterly, and I do mean UTTERLY, reject the notion that women, as a class are victims, and need to be treated differentially."

How nice that you are willing to extend the personal experience of not needing to be treated differently over 3 Billion of your fellow humans. Would you care to discuss the class, race, and cultural entitlements that contributed to your success in life? Perhaps you believe you simply worked hard.

None of you get to tell any woman, (or man for that matter) what they can or cannot do with their education. There are fundamental liberty interests at stake. Unless you are a loan officer at Sallie Mae you do not have a legally recognizable interest in career productivity.

Back when the topic was Affirmative Action the concern about higher education was all "meritocracy" and "standardized tests." (Which has the effect of disadvantaging many African Americans in admissions.) Now that the topic is gender, the same people are worried about the use and productivity to which the degrees are put. (Which, as a test, would have the effect of disadvantaging many Women in admissions.)

I declare the subtext of both concerns to be a bias/preference towards white males in elite universities.

Do nothing.

There are already too many lawyers.
Too many of every profession.

We need more women in Universities.

Yours

MONICA: The professional world hasn't figured out how to re-structure itself to fit this new work paradim for all working parents.

First of all, 'paradim' is not a word. The word is "paradigm." Secondly, the professional world always adapts to social paradigm shifts. It does so cautiously and with the preservation of its own interests in mind. Changes have set in; and those changes have permitted 'working parents' to commit to even more onerous schedules! Thirdly, I would note here that "all working parents" do not have an inalienable right to a professional job. We do not live in a Marxist utopia. Good thing! I like my freedom of speech and my individualized iPod. Lastly, it is a sad presumption of many ideological movements that their impact on the world will be positive in precisely the way intended. Feminism aimed to improve the lot of women, and succeeded in a great many ways. Unfortunately, by granting women equal access to the workplace, feminism also granted women equal access to work 18 hour days slaving away for The Man! The real question is why feminists ever thought slaving all day at a corporate prison would be a victory for liberty and freedom! To continue on that point, I certainly like my profession, but many people would hate it. Why are you assuming, Monica, that most American women want to be professionals their entire lives? The entire reason Posner posted his post is that studies indicate the opposite: American women with advanced degrees from elite universities, in significant numbers, are working for a few years at highly prized professional occupations and then opting out of their careers to raise children in a traditional manner. The question is not one of equal access to universities or to the workplace (which is implicitly extant if women can make such choices); the question properly framed is whether this behavior benefits society at-large.

No one (sane) is presuming that disincentivizing women who plan to work for less than 5 years in their chosen profession would obstruct other women from taking their places. Indeed, there would be no problem if all the qualified women at elite universities who planned to work less than 5 years were replaced with qualified women who planned to work more than 8 years after graduation. Posner's argument in no way promotes the exclusive interests of white males. To read it as such is to succumb to irrationality and bias.

If the men are more likely to take the corporate jobs, where supply surely exceeds demand, and the women are more likely to take the public interest jobs, where demand likely exceeds supply, shouldn't that count for something?

It does. Public interest lawyers pay less for school. Their loans are reduced. And saying you want to do public interest makes it easier to get into law school. You can also get a stipend for public interest summer jobs.

Here's the thing. Women who go to law school and quit being lawyers after a mere few years get corporate jobs, because that's how they finance their super-early retirement and attract a super-rich mate to finance their child-raising. So even women are rejcting public interest in mass numbers. That percentage of public interest lawyers is majority female perhaps says something about ideology. I'm sure that the percentage of conservative law professors who represent public interest groups in amicus briefs to the federal courts is overwhelmingly male. But, those guys aren't poor, and they weren't hanging out at the Rape Crisis Center in law school.

I have not read all the comments, so forgive me if this has been addressed.

If we accept that there exists a market for diversity in corporatations which demands women and minorities, can we expect that a reduced supply of women will drive up the wage of the reamaining women. Of course, the impact of substitutes (males) will create an upper bound on the wage (apart from the marginal revenue product of labor).

Therefore, can we say that the propensity for women to exit the labor market creates a positive wgae benefit for those that remain in the market? Can we furhter state that this acounts for some of the convergence between male and female salaries?

J Williams "because that's how they finance their super-early retirement and attract a super-rich mate to finance their child-raising."

Is that really the level at which we are viewing the women alluded to in the article?

Posner: "raise tuition to all students but couple the raise with a program of rebates for graduates who work full time...The real significance of the plan would be the higher tuition, which would discourage applicants who were not planning to have full working careers"

(a) How is this not covered by college loan programs? If you don't work and can't pay off your loans, your loans will pile up with interest, giving a pretty strong incentive to work. If you don't work and *can* pay off your loans (or didn't need to take loans) then you probably are beyond the point where you'll be taking token penalties into consideration.

(b) If we are concerned about a "finishing school" model taking over at elite professional schools, where women stalk rich, or soon-to-be rich, men to "to finance their child-raising" shouldn't we lower tuition radically? This will flood the school with applicates who are qualified but discouraged from applying because of entry cost, and the presumption that the class entering will be moneyed, like it unfortunately is, will go out the window.

(c) The way this system will be implimented will be very difficult to manage. If the lowest performer in a law school class can't find a job should he be penalized under the "not working" clauses? What about the 50% student in a bad job market? What about the 90% who decides to just do wills and mortgages privately for his friends? The alumni office will turn into an government unemployment office - checking in on how many job interviews have taken place.

"And saying you want to do public interest makes it easier to get into law school."

No it doesn't.

"Women who go to law school and quit being lawyers after a mere few years get corporate jobs."

Many of them do. Many of them do not. Since more women enter public interest jobs than men, this statement is at best misleading.

"So even women are rejcting public interest in mass numbers."

For the reasons stated above, this is also misleading, at best.

"That percentage of public interest lawyers is majority female perhaps says something about ideology."

Hmmm. What do you think it says about idealogy, exactly? Aside from refuting most of what you said earlier in your own post, I don't see what this says, in particular, at all.

"But, those guys aren't poor, and they weren't hanging out at the Rape Crisis Center in law school."

Is this an attempt at humor? What do you think it says about "ideology?"

DEAR Jack Sprat (Wow! you can use spell-check - I missed a word in my post- so what? I suppose that makes you superior! Wow- I'm impressed!). Seriously Jack: regarding your comment on my post, you are correct in asserting that changes have set in. I would argue that those changes simply have not sunk in deep enough and it will take more time for them to do so. What is concerning to me about Posner's proposals is that they don't take that into consideration.
His proposals seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater (literally). If society does not address the difficulty of women being able to balance a professional career with the raising of children, then one consequence for our society is that many women who do want children (and that will still be the majority of women) will drop out of their professions entirely - OR - many women will continue to forgo child-bearing alltogether because they find the risk to their careers too great.
This is already happening on a massive scale in other countries particularly Europe with some populations dipping well below replacement level and this has huge consequences to all. That isn't beneficial to society in the long term. Some how there must be a better way. The point I was trying to make is that the workplace as a whole is still in flux and currently woefully inadequate with regards to adjusting to the needs of parents(and in particular to mothers). Raising a child is not raising a puppy- your German shephard will not grow up to pay for your Social Security or become the next productive citizen or modern professional. So, it is certianly not in the interest of society to continue down the path of ignoring the needs of all its employees (particularly half of its employees or half of the country's population) in balancing work/family/life issues. Even child-free employees want more of a work/life balance and could benefit from such policies. This is a higher priority in most other industrialized nations. Posner neglects examining a very important part of this story and over-simplifies it. It is not all women who are dropping out of the workforce - it is specifically some
high-achieving mothers of young children who are leaving the professional world (incidentally not for their entire working lives) because they are too often saddled with the entire weight of responsibility for raising those children in conjunction with an inflexible workplace. I don't assume for one moment that there aren't women who are leaving because they find working at home as a stay-at home parent to be satisfying- of course some are. And incidentally, maybe men shouldn't be "slaving away 18 hours a day" at their corporate prisons either. Maybe everyone can envision a working enviornment that is more palpable to family life for men and women.
Many women would rather be able to keep one foot in the working world via part-time or flexible options and one foot in the home - to achieve that essential balance of one's life skills that men have always taken for granted.

In response to: "The professional schools worry about this phenomenon because the lower the aggregate lifetime incomes of their graduates, the lower the level of alumni donations the schools can expect to receive."

Is there any good reason to believe that the relevant measure in determining likely donations should be students' aggregate *personal* lifetime incomes, given that they may share in family income with spouses? Female students who end up leaving the working world to raise children commonly have husbands, and those husbands typicall contribute to their family income.

And should we suppose that the average female students' expected aggregate share in and control over a lifetime family income is less than male students'? Perhaps female students in fact do even better than male students in terms of the money they end up having available to donate to alma mater by tending to marry men who earn still more money than their average male classmates.

If so, and assuming female alums may not donate in strict proportion to their personal income but rather in proportion to their family incomes, it could be that donations could be maximized by admitting more female students, rather than more male students.

In addition, even if this is only close to true, each female student displaced to make a place for a less gifted male who is likely to have a longer career will probably bring down the male donation average. So, from a purely donation-maximizing point of view, the female student's donation potential should not be compared with her average male classmate's donation potential, but with the donation potential of the average male who would take her place.

Finally, it may be that average male and female students alike enjoy the presence of the opposite sex and the romantic opportunty this presents sufficiently that a student body at close to 1:1 male/female ratio improves future donations overall. One could easily imagine a married couple who met in school being unusually generous donors. If so, the creation of such couples may represent a windfall that schools might try to encourage.

It seems to me far from clear how this would actually work out, and I see no reason to suppose that the current scheme does or doesn't actually maximize donations.

"No one (sane) is presuming that disincentivizing women who plan to work for less than 5 years in their chosen profession would obstruct other women from taking their places. Indeed, there would be no problem if all the qualified women at elite universities who planned to work less than 5 years were replaced with qualified women who planned to work more than 8 years after graduation. Posner's argument in no way promotes the exclusive interests of white males. To read it as such is to succumb to irrationality and bias."

I think it necessarily follow that fewer women will attend given the above hypothetical criteria. There are only so many women with sufficient credentials who want to work more than 8 years. Thus, limiting admission to these women results in fewer qualified applicants, and therefore fewer women in each class. Though there may be equal numbers of males and females in the next tier of applicants (once u elminate the highly qualfied women who are unlikely to work long), there is a cascade effect. There would likely be more qualified males in each tier of applicants that are willing to work more than 8 years, even if there are equal numbers of male and female qualifed applicants. Barring some compensatory affirmative action, this kind of criteria would lead to fewer women in the professional schools.

PALOOKA: There are only so many women with sufficient credentials who want to work more than 8 years.

Who says that number is prohibitively small? You have no idea whether there are enough women with the sufficient credentials to go around. You just made a presumption, which is fallacious -- and fallacies are irrational. You've also proven your bias by presuming a fact that supports your case and your case only. So, I'm right.

MONICA: "What is concerning to me [sic] about Posner's proposals is that they don't take that into consideration."

Apparently, it's not just your inability to spell "paradigm," but aan absolute unfamiliarity with the English language, at least in its Standard form. "What is concerning to me" is that your sentence makes no goddamn sense. But then, that isn't just a grammatical problem.

MONICA: "If society does not address the difficulty of women being able to balance a professional career with the raising of children, then one consequence for our society is that many women who do want children (and that will still be the majority of women) will drop out of their professions entirely - OR - many women will continue to forgo child-bearing alltogether because they find the risk to their careers too great."

We're not talking about all women, we're talking about highly educated soon-to-be or already upper-class women. The corporate workplace already has addressed their concerns. It gives them maternity leave and child-care and doesn't mind that they leave after 5 years, because there are plenty more women exactly like them gaming the system in quite the same way. And it doesn't mind that men and women do not have the same long-term career goals, because federal laws prevent them companies from doing anything about it, e.g., firing women because they're pregnant. So there is no crisis. Unless you want to remove the protections we provide for women in the workplace -- how about pure competition? no sexual harassment laws? no anti-pregnancy discrimination laws? -- the different lifestyle choices of men and women with continue to be reflected in the "professional world". What's more, there is nothing wrong with that. Women desiring to be mothers is good, if that is their genuine aspiration. Women having 10 year long careers is good, if that is their genuine aspiration. The point is to guarantee that the qualified women who want to work for 10 years are getting into the elite law schools instead of the qualified women who want to work only for 3. Changing our societal conception of masculinity or revamping our entire workplace model in accord with your Marxist utopian fantasies is really irrelevant to that social welfare objective.

The workplace is not "inflexible," it is adaptive to its own needs first. It flexes all the time. It just doesn't flex into a Marxist fairytale, which is your problem with it. Go live in stagnant Europe then. See what it is like to live as a young person in countries with no growth and huge social entitlements guaranteed for its older citizens.

"And saying you want to do public interest makes it easier to get into law school."

No it doesn't.

Actually, it does. It's called an essay.

"Women who go to law school and quit being lawyers after a mere few years get corporate jobs."

Many of them do. Many of them do not. Since more women enter public interest jobs than men, this statement is at best misleading.

"So even women are rejcting public interest in mass numbers."

For the reasons stated above, this is also misleading, at best."

Nothing in my post is misleading, if you can read without unnaturally truncating the sentences. The majority of law students who are interested in careers as public interest lawyers, while they are still in law school, are women. But it is not necessarily the case that the majority of public interest lawyers -- working lawyers who have passed the bar -- are women. In fact, if you consider military lawyers to be public interest lawyers (and law schools do so in considering to reduce your loan repayments), quite a few are male. And if you add in public interest groups that are majority male, like the Landmark Legal Foundation or The Center for Religious Liberty and Originalist Justice, or the Cato Institute, you have a much larger pot. The point was that the poster I was responding to assumed that "public interest" = "identifiably liberal causes that are the basis of law school clinics" and assumed that the only people who become public interest lawyers are those who are interested in identifiably liberal causes while in law school. Hence, the ideology comment. And it's spelled with an "o". Look it up.

Are there assumptions in my previous statements? In fact there are. I assume that a reasonably intelligent reader would understand that by "women who work for a mere few years" I meant "the women likely affected by Posner's reform proposal and that we are discussing in this forum." I did not mean, "any and all women on the planet Earth, including those non-existent women possibly raised in a hypothetical by a Leftist who is maliciously distorting the meaning of my text." But thanks for trying.

In any event, the percentage of law students who become public interest lawyers is ridiculously small, say, 5%. Approximately half of law students are women. If there are 100 lawyers total, 50 are women. In that universe, even if all public interest lawyers are female, there are still 45 female lawyers who are not public interest lawyers. My point, obvious to anyone with a brain, was that those 45 are taking corporate jobs. The goal is to make sure that those 45 keep working, instead of opting out of work after a few years. Why? Because it's better to have women in the workplace and in professional schools who actually want to be there. They shouldn't be there just because it's an easy way to subsidize their babies. And, frankly, that is explicitly how many view it. Posner isn't being sexist at all. He's saying let the women who really want to be lawyers be lawyers. Hee's not promoting alienation; he's seeking to eliminate alienation and promote total social welfare with his proposal.

If discrimination in the labor market is responsible for even a small fraction of the discrepancy between male and female labor force participation rates, "profiling" is not a good option (since you folks don't seem to like talking about ethics, consider that discrimination against women may diminish in future, upsetting your calculations).

Note also that almost as many men as women say they would drop out of the labor force, if they could.

Those who are unable to spell "an" should not complain about those who misspell paradigm.

If you want to design a system that will maximize alumni contributions, then admit women who can attract the very highest net worth males. Since the women will probably survive the husband, she can donate all his money to her school.

Indeed, why don't you just admit the best little golddiggers the admission office can find, consistent with academic standards of course.

Of course the admission office will need to make sure the girls have good bloodlines. Don't want your girl losing her looks at a young age and being replaced by a trophy wife who will give the old guys money to a less deserving school.

A bonus of the good bloodlines approach is your girls may be able to catch more then one high net worth fish in her prime fishing years.

Just imagine how bad the admissions office that turned down Anne Nicole must feel.

"Who says that number is prohibitively small? You have no idea whether there are enough women with the sufficient credentials to go around. You just made a presumption, which is fallacious -- and fallacies are irrational. You've also proven your bias by presuming a fact that supports your case and your case only. So, I'm right."

Oh, Sprat. I am saying that introducing criteria which favors men over women will result in more men in the class. That should not be a controversial point. Men are more likely to work many years in a high paying career, therefore, introducing this criteria will lower the number of women admitted because it decreases the applicant pool. The calculus changes as the number of schools does, however. The more schools institute such policies the less likely a school will be able to find or attract women that fit its new criteria. If a prestigious school adopted a policy similar to those discussed here, it may well be able to attract additional female applicants because of the unique nature of their school (though this may not necessarily be true). As the number of schools instituting this policy change, they lose this competitive edge, though.

It's not that I think the population in question is "prohibtively small." Indeed, highly qualified female law school applicants are probably slightly more abundant than males. But any policy which decreases the female applicant pool more than the male will necessarily result in fewer women admitted, unless compensatory admission policies are adopted.

Ummm... I couldn't make it through all the comments, so maybe this was already mentioned, but it's pretty obvious to me that if you meet your spouse in one of these institutions, you are going to be much more likely to give money to that institution. Not only that, but your spouse will probably be more involved in the alumni association (more time!), and that in and of itself has value.

law school essays serve primarily one purpose: to ensure that the applicant can write coherently, about anything. Often applicants don't write about law at all, or about anything related to law school. If you want to write about public service, great. You don't have to.

If the applicant cannot think of anything to write outside of "I want to do public service," but finds that he or she cannot honestly write that essay, I would suggest a profession that involves less writing.

Not that I should have taken the time to respond. This thread has deteriorated, which is not surprising, since Posner did not offer a proposal with much interesting to say for it.

JW: I'm not sure which schools you are referring to, or the details of their loan repayment programs, but I think it a tortured definition of "public interest" that includes the JAG Corp.

I also can't say which post you were referring to, originally, for the reason that your original post was incoherent. Too bad it doesn't stand on its own. You followed that up with being needlessy insulting. Congratulations.

I personally haven't met any women who admit, frankly, that they have entered law school in order to subsidize their babies. Perhaps we run in different circles. (In fact, I would be rather disappointed if we did not.) Nor do I think that it would make any sense for someone seeking to "subsidize their babies" to enter law school. Law school costs a lot. It doesn't subsidize anyone's babies -- you pay for it, regardless of whether you work afterwards or not. If the women you are concerned about are not in fact the women taking public service jobs, they aren't receiving any subsidies for their educations.

I didn't think that Posner's goal was to make women work who did not want to, but to distribute law school slots to those who plan on practicing. I don't think his plan is feasible, and I don't consider the loss of those women who choose not to practice particularly disturbing. I do not, however, accuse Posner of being sexist. I do accuse you of being a sexist, JW, and I'd accuse you of many less savory terms were this not such a civil forum.

"Because it's better to have women in the workplace and in professional schools who actually want to be there."

Why do you get to decide that? Why not let the fact that women are willing to pay $100K to go to law school operate as evidence that they want to (and are entitled to) be there.

I understand why people (especially men) here might be bothered that a woman would do well on a meritocracy exam and take a place in an elite school. But you don't get to dictate what they do with their degree, via subsidies or otherwise. Just like you don't get to tell your neighbor to have fewer children because it decreases property values on your block.

I knew all along that you folks didn't really believe in all that liberty interest stuff.

As an aside: Are you similarily bothered that Posner wasted a coveted spot in the Yale English Department by using his degree simply to get a good law school spot, where now his English skills are used to make his opinions read prettier for 1Ls and thereby cover for his constant dismissal of individualized justice (or even vested State law) for institutional policy ends? See, e.g. Flamino v. American Honda.

"Posner isn't being sexist at all. He's saying let the women who really want to be lawyers be lawyers."

Actually, he said: "...it will be on average a smaller benefit than the person (usually a man) whose place she took..."

It seems to me that Posner is worried about Women (who "on average have a greater taste and aptitude for taking care of children, and indeed for nonmarket activities generally, than men do") taking the place of Men. It seems he thinks women's proper socio/biological place is raising babies, cleaning house, and servicing men (provided they don't do it on the market.) It is, after all, what he said.

I think law school teaches child-rearers of any gender several valuable lessons about how NOT to raise or teach children.

And notice the entitlement in this fragment:

"...it will be on average a smaller benefit than the person (usually a man) whose place she took..."

It is the MAN's place that she TOOK. Why? Because the sentence assigns it to him!

One could have written it as:

...it will be on average a smaller benefit than the person (usually a man) who might take HER place...

But then that would assign the right to the spot in the elite school to the woman who earned it based on the objective merit criteria that we so value on this blog.

Before you criticize my non-approved use of cut-up method and deconstruction, take a minute to realize I am right about the effect of Posner's text.

Thank you, drive through.

I'm wondering, Jack Sprat, just what kind of competition you seek to encourage by the removal of sexual harassment laws. Do you think the sexual harassment laws somehow interfere with the free market? Which market is that? Groping isn't a market.

Other than that small quibble, Sprat, I say keep up the good work. You are fast becoming the least reasonable person on this blog, which is quite an accomplishment.

Oh, and one more thing. The number of law schools that have viable loan repayment programs for people who choose public interest work is very small. Even at those schools, the effect of those programs is grossly outweighed by the disincentive for public interest work provided by huge tuition bills.

I am male, have a strong desire to do liberal public interest work, and am instead taking an offer to work at a large corporate law firm. (one with a generous pro bono policy) While I could live and start a family on a public interest salary, I cannot live, start a family, and repay my student loans on one. You could call me a sellout, or you could say the system didn't properly incent my potential contribution to social welfare.

I wonder, given that Posner's goal is maximizing economic return from law degrees, would he support the same post-grad subsidy for those who choose to work for the ACLU or Lambda Legal? Would he support it at a level that would actually enable people to take those jobs and live comfortably? I doubt it. If you only value work by what it pays, then those jobs are inferior.

And along those same lines, why shouldn't the decision to raise children get a loan subsidy?
I think if we stopped undervaluing less quantifiable economic factors and took "family values" rhetoric seriously, it would deserve a subsidy. No matter what gender does it, raising healthy, well-educated children is perhaps a better investment in society than another Wachtell associate staying up until 4am to construct a tax shelter for an offshore bank.

"You could call me a sellout, or you could say the system didn't properly incent my potential contribution to social welfare."

Or one could say your talk about "social justice" and "public service" was just that, talk. I don't blame you for "selling out," but you'd think you could at least accept that decision as your own, rather than blaming others.

P.S. How ironic that by choosing corporate over public interest, I seem to be contributing to society's undervaluing of the non-economic benefits of public interest work. Wouldn't the world be a better place if more of us volunteered to be a loss-leader? Kind of leads one to respect those people who put child-care before big money.

"but you'd think you could at least accept that decision as your own, rather than blaming others."

How would I go about doing that? Maybe I should talk about the decision honestly on a public forum. Would that work for you? Who did I blame? I did the calculation before I entered law school, and I am not seeking to rationalize the consequences now. The discussion this week has talk of women choosing child-care and/or public interest over more lucrative options. My (perhaps stereotypically "male") choice is relevant to that discussion. I would prefer a subsidy, wouldn't you? It would have changed my decision. Doesn't make me look good to say it but it is the reality.

If Posner is for subsidies to support corporate law jobs, it is a legitimate question to ask why not subsidies for public interest jobs or informed child-care.

Linda - you've got your panties in a knot! Stop being so bitter. Relax and have an orgasm and you'll feel much better.

Sandra Day O'Connor is an example of a woman who attended an elite college and who also took several years off to stay home with her children.
Was her education a waste?

POSNER: "...it will be on average a smaller benefit than the person (usually a man) whose place she took..."

Right. Person. Meaning...it could be a woman. So, let the women (or men) to whom the benefit will be greater take the job. I don't see how stating that women are persons is sexist, Corey.

And to another comment, sexual harrassment laws surely do interfere with the function of the marketplace. It requires a compliance officer in the company, a redrafting of company documents and contracts, sexual harrassment training and trainers, and firing otherwise productive employees who say the wrong thing to the wrong person. It also results in lawsuits, some of them frivolous, which a company would rather settle than litigate (because of bad press), which, obviously, costs money. So, yes, imposing huge costs on companies does impede the function of the market. It raises the cost of doing business, which effectively raises a barrier to entry to the marginal firm.

ME: "Because it's better to have women in the workplace and in professional schools who actually want to be there."

COREY: Why do you get to decide that?

Well, Corey, it's a Law and Economics website, and the question implicit in Posner's post is "How do we increase total social welfare given the present situation?" If improving totoal social welfare is the goal, it's rather obvious that a qualified attorney with a constant work ethic working for 8 years contributes more to society than one working for 5. Look:

5x2 = 10
8x2 = 16
16 > 10

The point is not that "I get to decide" as some sort of Evil Misogynist (you really need to get over your self-hatred, Corey; it's ok that you have a penis). The point is that society is better off if qualified women attorneys work longer, and there is no reason why elite universities shouldn't factor market demand into their admissions decisions. That just isn't a sexist statement. It likewise isn't racist to insist that elite universities should factor market demand into using race in admissions, as you argued, Corey, however many weeks ago. If law firms and businesses want professionals who work long-term, universities should seek out students who want to be long-term employees, whether male or female. I think there are plenty of women out there who are willing to work long-term. Apparently, you think all women want is to have your babies. You're the misogynist, Corey.

PALOOKA: I am saying that introducing criteria which favors men over women will result in more men in the class.

Who says it favors men? It favors persons with a certain work ethic. The point is that you don't know how many women out there who posess such a work ethic aren't getting into elite universities because they are being edged out by the slightest of margins by women without it.

corey: I am male, have a strong desire to do liberal public interest work, and am instead taking an offer to work at a large corporate law firm.

Here is the solution. Meet a nice woman at your law firm who wants to work as lawyer for a few years, then quit to have babies; tell her that you'll quit instead of her! Then you can raise then children and do liberal public interest work, while she can continue to work in the corporate world! Problem solved!

Monica, Don't be concerned with "Jackie", s-he is just insecure and in order ot prove how sophiticated and intelligent s-he may be, have ass-u-me-d the post of Grammar and Syntax Nazi. ;) Have a better one.

As with any tort, the harassment itself impedes business, probably more than any measures taken to stop it. That's why the measures are taken. I would guess the number of "otherwise productive" workers who just happen to enjoy harassing others is less than the number of of "otherwise productive" workers whose productivity is harmed by the harassment.

In general, the idea that a free market is one in which individuals are not given a means to address wrongs committed against them is a novel one, to say the least.

University of Chicago Law School should only admit women who've had hysterectomies.

Dear Jack Sprat: What planet do you actually work on? You act like because a small fraction of U.S. corporations with more than 50 employees offer a paltry UNPAID maternity leave of less than
12 weeks that somehow the child-care dilemma of the U.S. is solved? Wow - that will be news to millions of parents!
The absence of quality, affordable child care; pre-kindergarten programs; and after-school activities is a daily concern for millions of working American parents professional or otherwise. The U.S. is one of only seven countries that do not offer some sort of PAID maternity/paternity leave to its citizens. The lack of quality, affordable day care is one of these most pressing issues young families face today. The U.S. system is a pathetic patchwork of Kentucky-fried day care at best.
Also, you apparently cannot read. I have never in any post advocated anything remotely similar to a "Marxist Utopia." I have only advocated for sensible work/life balance policies that despite your fanatsy are NOT readily available, enforced, or utilized (without repercussions) by the majority of U.S. workers (male or female).
Such policies benefit all employees (whether they have children or not)and they would also go a long way to help retain the employment of high-achieving professional women the original article was referring to. Should we screen out qualified men who want to leave the practice of law after 3 years as well? I've certainly met many disgruntled male lawyers in my day, many who did in fact leave their practice after only a few years. Maybe these male lawyers didn't change their mind to raise children but they still didn't put in your pre-requiste
10 years? So, should we simply change the graduate school admission process to only include those applicants of either gender who solemnly swear to remain in a particular profession in a certain capacity until death do they part? Or for at least 10 years? Should we charge retroactive higher tutition for a man who leaves the practice of medicine after less than 10 years as a an unhappy physician(as an aquantance of mine just did)? How absurd. And the next time you start spouting off your "free market" talking points you might want to actually dust off a little research about our own stagnant economy and Europe's actual ecomonic growth.

Posner: "which would discourage applicants who were not planning to have full working careers (including applicants of advanced age and professional graduate students)."

I applaud posner for pointing out that this would discourage 'applicants of advanced age' - which presumably would include all the 're-training' initiatives that Bush is offering to combat outsourcing - but does anyone who supports this logic support disincentives for disabled or ill students?

If a student has had cancer, and is significantly more likely to relapse than another student, why should he take the place of a healthy student? If one student has a P(.90) of 25 years of work, and the cancer survivor has a P(.50) of 25 years of work, 'total social welfare' gets an additional 10 years of service out of the healthy person (plus not covering the health insurance costs). Any takers?

"The point is that society is better off if qualified women attorneys work longer, and there is no reason why elite universities shouldn't factor market demand into their admissions decisions. That just isn't a sexist statement."

You are right, that statement is not sexist. That statement reflects the other criticism I made, namely, that shools should not get to impede the liberty interest of certain women who seek admission for a utilitarian social welfare goal. To repeat my example: Preventing your neighbor from having children will increase the market value of your house. (Sad but true) Do you seek the right to do so? Should society deter pregnancy on your behalf?

You have noticed that I have switched to arguing a liberty interest as a way to avoid discrimination against women in admissions, where before I was arguing for using race as a factor in admissions to avoid practical effect discrimination against certain minorities. How perceptive... it seems my goal might be to increase or maintain female or minority enrollment in college.

Have you also noticed that when the issue was practical effect discrimination against minorities, you defended the "objective" merit criteria that perpetuated it? And now that the issue is women in college, you advocate applying an ex post degree utilization study as an admissions factor that would also (in practice) reduce enrollment of women. What is your goal?
To increase abstract social welfare? Even if it means looking away from sex harassment? How technocratic of you.

"Right. Person. Meaning...it could be a woman."

Right, except it will be: "(usually a man) whose place she took"..."in most cases it is indeed the wife"... and the final sentence Posner writes:

"Were admission to such schools based on a prediction of the social value of the education offered, fewer women would be admitted."

I agree with Posner that the effect of using social value (defined in his narrow L&E way as he does in the text) would be to admit fewer women. He admits it. In fact, he clearly designs his subsidy to avoid being overturned by courts narrow "practical effect discrimination" jurisprudence.

The declaration that this is a L&E website does not exempt discussions here from critique. In fact, it invites mention of the widely known and difficult to refute concerns with L&E method.

It would be interesting to consider a tax cut targeted or specific to people downsized at legacy corporations or companies that lost in deregulation. This might stabilize things and help people transition to new jobs.

Also, on the logic of not admitting older people due to concerns over donations to a university and lifetime earnings: you may need to consider strength of good feelings toward university in addition to lifetime earnings. A lot of 20 year olds who get a law degree like all their undergrad classmates may not appreciate the opportunity as much as a more mature person with more unique work experiences. This appreciation may translate to higher donations, more unique or differentiated success and thus desirable notoriety for a university, etc

You must work in your profession 10 years in exchange for a professional education.

You must work on my plantation 10 years in exchange for passage to this country.

Smells like... indentured servitude!

one more thing on older students: they may have lots of real-world experience and situations that may be valuable to young people. young people's education (and possibly earnings) may be enhanced through interactions with these people.

So someone takes a few years out to raise children. Are you jealous that person had the opportunity to do so? Big deal. Raising children is damn hard work.

I've worked all my life without a break and I don't know a single woman who has NEVER worked. Not one. Almost every woman I know went back to work six weeks after the birth of a child. Of the few women I know who stayed home to care for children -- every single one, including the wives of some very rich and hardworking men -- went back to work mostly after said children started first grade...although I do know ONE woman who waited until one of her kids could drive before she went back to work.

I didn't see any kind of actual research in that NYT article by the way -- you guys are going to have to have numbers to present this as really being a problem. And then you'll also have to present numbers on everyone else who doesn't actually go on to work in their degree field, and why, and was that a waste of their education?

I wonder how many of you sour grapes people couldn't get into an elite school and therefore want to keep someone else out of one?

I am VERY tired of people who wish to make things even harder than it already is. Yes! Let's make MORE rules, shall we? There aren't possibly ENOUGH RULES in life!

Of course, we're going to make those rules for people who ARE NOT US. Because WHITE GUYS DON'T NEED MORE RULES! NO! Everyone ELSE needs rules!

Sheesh! Okay, enough ranting. Normally, I'm pretty reasonable but this is just silly. Bunch of misogynists wrapping yourself up in the flag of "public interest".

Thanks to the few of you who are voices of reason in a sea of idiots.

So someone takes a few years out to raise children. Are you jealous that person had the opportunity to do so? Big deal. Raising children is damn hard work. And of course the person spending the most time with the children shouldn't have any education, right? That'll benefit those kids!

I didn't see any kind of actual research in that NYT article by the way -- you guys are going to have to have numbers to present this as really being a problem. And then you'll also have to present numbers on everyone else who doesn't actually go on to work in their degree field, and why, and was that a waste of their education?

I am VERY tired of people who wish to make things even harder than it already is. Yes! Let's make MORE rules, shall we? There aren't possibly ENOUGH RULES in life!

Of course, we're going to make those rules for people who ARE NOT US. Because WE DON'T NEED MORE RULES! NO! Everyone ELSE needs rules!

Sheesh! Okay, enough ranting. Normally, I'm pretty reasonable but this is just silly. Bunch of misogynists wrapping yourself up in the flag of "public interest".

My thanks to the few of you who are voices of reason in a sea of idiots.

"Although not rigorously empirical, the article confirms..."

I can't believe that a professor at any respectible university, much less the University of Chicago, would write such a ridiculous phrase. A study that is not rigorously empirical can not, by its very nature, confirm any finding. It could, perhaps, suggest directions for future research, but to confirm a result, a study must be rigorous and comprehensive. You make me embarrassed for my alma mater. U of C used to have academic standards.

Thank you anonymous! I couldn't agree with you more. Posner & company do have a misogynist undercurrent in their proposals.
The fact is that most families rely on two incomes, and they will only continue to do so. A woman's professional education therefore will be an important component for sustaining the family's income throughout a lifetime. Spouses die, get sick, lose jobs, and a woman with a professional education (even if she has to dust it off from staying at home for a few years) is in a better position to take the family's financial reins if or when that situation arises. So really- what is the big deal if a woman with a professional education takes some time out of the workforce? She will lose a portion of her potential lifetime earnings, but that is a sacrifice felt most severely by HER and her own family. Most women do end up having a more fluid career track than men because they are more likely to do the 24 hours a day seven day a week unpaid labor/service of a parent. Rather than punishing women for picking up the incredibly difficult task of raising the next generation of lawyers, maybe Posner should advocate that more professionally educated men return to the home to relieve their wives (at least for a few years).
If there was more give and take among men's career tracks then both parents could trade some time out and then return back in to the workforce. Just making such transistions more palpable to men and women and their employers would help. After the Women's movement women flooded the into the workforce and into higher education, but there was never any equivalent simultaneous flood of men into the home to take on full-time child care duties. That's why we are all in this predicament some 30+ years after the women's movement.
I took 18 months off to stay at home with my child and then I went back to work full-time. Is my professional education worthless because I took a mere 18 months out of the workforce to raise an infant to pre-school age? Was my law school attendance a "waste of time" with no value? I guess in Posner's eyes it would be. I didn't know at the time that I would take that particular amount of time out- it could've been more - it could have been less- it was not predictable as a starry-eyed law school applicant.
That is the real fallacy here. Very few people can predict with absolute certainty where their life will take them. Ask around any cocktail party and see how many people did anything remotely similar to what they first selected as their undergraduate major. There is no way to come up with a system that can "guarantee" who will stay with a particular profession in a narrowly defined context for a certain "acceptable amount of time" defined arbitrarily by a cabal of Ivy League alumi. If I were applying to law school today should I be quizzed about my intention to have a child? Should male applicants be quizzed about their intentions to sire children and demand a detailed plan for whom will raise them to school age? Let's concentrate on making it easier, not more difficult for eveyone to balance work and family. While we are at it, maybe we can acknowledge that the value of a professional education is best determined by the actual individual who obtained it.

Three brief points: (1) Posner must surely recuse himself from any discrimination cases. He displays such bias against women in the work place that his attitude creates a presumption that he will not afford any female litigant a fair hearing. (2) Posner argues about the drop-out rate from the profession. Well take a look at the "Law firm X welcomes it's 2005 Associates" adverts. It is clear that over two-thrids of the available jobs are going to the 50% of male graduates. Thus having female graduates has made it easier for the guys. It logically follows therefore that only one-thrid of the jobs are available for female candidates. Fact: Women still are discriminated against before they even land their first professional job!! Never mind the glass ceiling, it's a struggle to make it to the ground floor. (3) All women suffer from the presumption that they will leave the profession to marry a wealthy professional and live happily ever after in luxury provided by a man. NOT TRUE. There are women out there who are DEDICATED to the legal profession, who can't get an opportunity to practice in the first place thanks to this arachaic attitude!!!! Kind regards to ya'll. From a truly irritated, frustrated, dedicated and potentially fantastic lawyer.

COREY: That statement reflects the other criticism I made, namely, that shools should not get to impede the liberty interest of certain women who seek admission for a utilitarian social welfare goal.

If you truly believed that, Corey, then you wouldn't support affirmative action, because it rests on granting elite universities the same broad, sweeping authority. That affirmative action rests on the same sweeping authority was was pointed out by the dissents (and conceded by the majority) in the case! Try not being a hypcrite for a day.

COREY: In fact, he clearly designs his subsidy to avoid being overturned by courts' "practical effect discrimination" jurisprudence.

Then it isn't, in all practical effect, discrimination. So what are you complaining about? That Posner isn't sexist?

COREY: When the issue was practical effect discrimination against minorities, you defended the "objective" merit criteria that perpetuated it? And now that the issue is women in college, you advocate applying an ex post degree utilization study as an admissions factor that would also (in practice) reduce enrollment of women. What is your goal?

I don't have a "goal." Unlike you, I am not a raving ideologue.

Anyway, in the case of race, my concern was with admitting to universities objectively qualified minorities who were willing and capable of doing the work and pursuing long-term careers with their degrees. In the case of gender, my concern is with admitting to universities objectively qualified women and men who are willing and capable of doing the work and pursuing long-term careers with their degrees. What is at issue here is the "pursuing long-term careers with their degrees" part. Using objective testing ensures that the candidates are qualified in both the context of gender and race, but, as is relevant here, preferring qualified women who intend to work for 10 years over qualified women who intend to work only for 3 is an objective method of ensuring that qualified female graduates work for a long time.

Corey admits that he is adopting inconsistent positions in order to increase the number of women and minorities in universities. That's his goal. To call him a hypocrite on that basis is to be deliberately obtuse.

What is more interesting is the reverse positions (which many on this thread hold). Sprat, you oppose Corey both in this thread and the affirmative action thread, on seemingly inconsistent grounds. Where the inconsistent positions each result in keeping women and minorities out of universities, how can the inconsistency be explained, except that you are motivated by the purpose of keeping women and minorities out of universities? Is that your position, Sprat, or are you just a hypocrite?

MONICA: If there was more give and take among men's career tracks then both parents could trade some time out and then return back in to the workforce.

Or, instead of completely revamping our society, admissions policies to elite universities could favor women who intend to work a long time over women who plan to make their career into a pit stop. How in Mother Teresa's name is that sexist? It rewards those women who work hardest!

R: Where the inconsistent positions each result in keeping women and minorities out of universities, how can the inconsistency be explained, except that you are motivated by the purpose of keeping women and minorities out of universities? Is that your position, Sprat, or are you just a hypocrite?

Actually, if you read my posts on affirmative action, you would have noted that I am a "minority". I certainly have no intention of keeping minorities out of elite universities. In fact, part of my point in supporting objective evaluative methods -- SATs and unweighted gpa -- is to deprive admissions boards of unfettered discretion, which leads to arbitrary and capricious decision-making. I didn't propose that elite universities should have unfettered discretion in any posts here. What I did is note that Posner's proposal is neither abritrary nor capricious.

Additionally, part of my post on race was that extreme Leftists (at least the ones who post here) consistently assume that minorities need help to get into school, as if they aren't smart enough to pass standardized tests. I see the same biases here: that women simply can't do the work, that women simply won't rise to the challenge of higher standards, that there won't be enough intelligent women to enroll if women are asked to work longer. That isn't true. And no one who believed that women and minorities possessed equal intellectual and moral capacities would oppose using objective methods to evaluate work performance or incentivize productivity.

Frankly, I think Corey is a bigot. All you have to do is check the archives of this page to see I'm not the only one who thinks so.

What? The race and gender card again? How blase'! How about setting it up like the Service Acadamies, each State gets to enroll the top two applicants on a yearly publically administered test. Irregardless of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation. What could be fairer than that? To those who didn't make the grade, tough luck, and enjoy the rest of your life.

Oh, BTW, as for the use of the education, a stipulated requirement for enrollment is required. That is each graduate must work or serve X number of years in the profession.

PALOOKA: I am saying that introducing criteria which favors men over women will result in more men in the class.

Anonymous (Jack Sprat?):Who says it favors men? It favors persons with a certain work ethic. The point is that you don't know how many women out there who posess such a work ethic aren't getting into elite universities because they are being edged out by the slightest of margins by women without it.

Me: Still, in any one group of women (law school applicants) a subgroup within that group of women is smaller; in this case those elite law school applicants who wish to work longer than 8 years is smaller than all women elite law school applicants.

A few law schools could probably implement some of the policies here and still manage to maintain their balance of women and men. They could conceivably do this by appealing to those women who wish to work 8 years or more, even if they lose those who wish to work less. However, if the policies under discussion here were systemic, I think it's unavoidable that fewer women would attend law schools (unless those who decide not to apply because of the contraints are replaced by those who choose to apply because of them). I just don't see the former group being smaller than the latter, however, and therefore conclude that the policies under discussion will result in fewer female applicants and fewer female admittees to elite law schools.

I agree with you in your objection to the criticism the policy as "sexist" or whatever. Disparate impact does not imply an invidiousness. Requiring upper body strength of police officers has disparate impact on women but it seems to me a reasonable qualification of the job. Likewise, Posner's suggestions can be defended as based on legitimate, rational reasons, even if I personally feel that reasoning in this case is particularly weak. I think Posner over-estimates the social value of elite education, and under-estimates the benefits of the behavior (even on one's career and social contribution through that career) he is wishing to discourage.

JOHN WILLAIMS: You didn't read my post very carefully. I specifically asked why people like you, Jack Sprat, and Posner are only concerned with the women who are leaving the workforce prior to your arbitrary 10 consecutive years worth of contribution when there are also men who abandon the law (for example) for new careers. What appropriate measures should we use to screen out such men during the admission process?
To be obsessed with what some women do or do not do with the professional education and training that they earned and they paid for - is simply misogynistic. I'm curious for your comments on my point that people's individual life circumstances and career goals may change after the obtainment of thier professional education and therefore no system could accurately predict which individual woman or individual man will be in a particular profession for the long haul in the way you may desire.
Finally, in all my posts I am always challenging the general presumption that being in the workforce with no time out for family obligations while children are young as the only appropriate working model. Just because something has traditionally been that way does not mean it is effective. It also does not mean it cannot be changed. It is a system that is obviously not working very well for millions of American families. If by trying to suggest alternatives (other than Posner's punishing women for obtaining graduate degrees) and working on solutions to enhance both male and female participation in the professional world and at home is -in your words- "revamping all of society" - then so be it.
What's wrong with revamping the working culture of America? Today both genders switch career paths an average of seven times throughout their lives. Why should the focus only
be on women? I advocate family friendly policies because I believe they benefit men also. I believe that younger generations of both genders want and can benefit from a more fluid work model thoughout their lives that allows for more family/life participation. What is wrong with that?

I do not think that it is misogynist or biased to ask whether child-rearing is societal utility maximizing use of an elite undergraduate or professional education and what should be the response of elite universities and professional and other graduate schools to a reported change in the ethos of women university from that prevailing in the 1970s when women were first admitted to previously all-male colleges and admitted on an equal basis to law and medical schools. For example (and purely as a hypothetical) if elite college or professional graduates, by virtue of increased time with their children after leaving active employment, should increase the likelihood that their children (rather than others from less privileged backgrounds) will be accepted at elite colleges that increase social stratification which is not optimal for American society -- any more than is social stratification due to inherited wealth (although there is currently some dispute about that, too).

Moreover, I think that the hyperbolic comments and responses show what an important issue this is.

I think that it's important for women to have the choice of sticking with professional or other "elite" employment or making money and allowing a house-husband to take care of children if he should be up to the task. But my preference is not a determinant of what maximizes social utility.

Creating incentives for individuals to define themselves as parents or full-time professionals, as mothers or �more deserving applicants� prior to professional school is efficient only if we accept the binary that Ms. Story�s article proposes and Posner�s rebate system reinforces. Assuming that most policy-makers, political representatives, and business leaders�and many of their advisors�are professionally educated; that a participant in both market and non-market activities is more likely to give appropriate consideration to both categories of activities in making decisions; and third, non-market activities (notably, parenting) are economically necessary for market activity to continue, wouldn�t we be economically worse-off if professional schools financially induced their graduates not to engage in non-market activity?

I am amazed at how shrill some of these posts are. While Judge Posner has thrown a bomb into the crowd to encourage discussion, I don�t understand the often nasty attacks on him.

Still, is Judge Posner�s starting point correct? Do we have a labor market distortion that some professional schools may want to correct? Do highly educated women, who drop out of the workforce to care for children, use limited resources that could be put to better use? Then we do a series of tests: Who is harmed? How are they harmed? What actions can be taken?

Is society harmed? Judge Posner tells us that when these women drop out of the work force they deny society the value of their professional services. Professional services that others would have been happy to supply, if they had been given her slot in the school.

But is society suffering from this �sub-optimal� situation. If a shortage for these professional services exists, then wouldn�t society bid up the price to encourage these women to work more? The resources are there if the price rises, so let the market solve this service shortage if and when it shows itself.

Are men in the profession hurt? Perhaps not. If half of the women drop out of the workforce on a regular basis, reducing the amount of professional services for sale, wouldn�t that tend to put upward pressure on the income of the people still working in the profession, holding demand constant? (But not enough of an increase to encourage women to re-enter)

Could it be in the best interest of the male students to have these female drop outs in the profession as a means of keeping competition down and their salaries up. (Of course some professions that reach a tipping point of female participation seem to see a drop in incomes for the entire profession.)

Some people are hurt. The school slots that went to �dropout� professionals did prevent �hard working� candidates from entering. As a result, society may pay higher prices for these professional services, all else being equal. Of course, if you have too many �hard working� professionals you might push wages lower and you create even more incentive for people to drop out for other pursuits like child rearing. I don�t know when the dog catches his tail in this story.

Are the professional schools harmed? I see no competitive advantage for a school to offer Judge Posner�s solution. They will charge higher tuition then other schools, but if you work really hard for many years in the profession, we will send you a rebate check, that we hope you will return with interest. Of course recordkeeping would be fun, checking to make sure graduates are working full time for each year. (Would they need to show billable hours.)?

So who has an incentive to correct this labor market distortion? Female applicants who may want to raise children don�t want it changed. Males who are admitted don�t have much incentive to change the system. The schools that implement the Posner solution may place themselves at a competitive disadvantage for attracting students; unless this high tuition with rebates idea will be a selling point (I doubt it.) Potential �hard working� candidates suffer but it is balanced with the gains to females (and their partners) who want to raise children.

Judge Posner�s solution of shooting a mouse in the house with a shotgun is not one of his better ideas.

From a public policy perspective, I think the topic does touch on the problem of those who demand equality of results as a measure of true equality.

Anonymous (Jack Sprat?):Who says it favors men? It favors persons with a certain work ethic. The point is that you don't know how many women out there who posess such a work ethic aren't getting into elite universities because they are being edged out by the slightest of margins by women without it.

Me: Still, in any one group of women (law school applicants) a subgroup within that group of women is smaller; in this case those elite law school applicants who wish to work longer than 8 years is smaller than all women elite law school applicants.

That is static, Palooka. Once the policies change, the enrollment pool will change, too. It is true that under Policy 1 (no requirement that women work longer) the number of women in the pool who want to work longer is necessarily a subset of the whole pool, but that is not necessarily true under Policy 2 (with the requirement in effect). Under Policy 2, the women who don't want to work for as long as required drop out of the pool, and will be replaced by other women who meet the requirements of Policy 2. You are speculating that enrollment will not be constant because after the drop off, other women will not fill in the gap. I disagree with your speculation. I think, if anything, enrollment at elite universities will go up as applicants who applied to somewhat lesser law schools or b-schools decide that getting into an elite university is slightly easier.

MONICA: What appropriate measures should we use to screen out such men during the admission process?

Make them marry women like you, Monica, and then they will stay at work all the time.

It seems to me that any solution to solve this problem is likely to be costlier than the problem. If we raise up-front tuition by enough to dissuade people who might drop out of the workforce from doing so, we're going to raise it so high we will have all kinds of other horrible distorting affects. (Do the present value calculation on what income a Harvard law graduate is likely giving up when she drops out of the workforce.)

Anything we do to discourage people from dropping out of the workforce creates still more distortions: people being unable to respond to the conditions of their lives without paying some horrible price. As an obvious example, imagine the career woman who plans to go back to school, but has a baby with Down's Syndrome. She very likely will need to drop out of the workforce to take care of her child. Making it financially painful for her to do so won't make the world a better place in any sense. (Yes, you could imagine elaborate rules for deciding when the person could drop out of the workforce and still get their rebates. Now we're down to micromanaging peoples' lives from afar. This never seems to go well when done by government employees, and I doubt it will work better with university employees.)

MONICA: What's wrong with revamping the working culture of America?

Given that a feasible solution is simply to require admittees of elite professional schools to promise to work for the next 10 years in their profession, revamping our entire work culture is an inefficient solution. I'm not sure why you'd completely rebuild your house simply because you lost the key to the front door.

Try to win an election with that tax-and-spend crap. You'll lose. Every time.

SHRUTI: wouldn�t we be economically worse-off if professional schools financially induced their graduates not to engage in non-market activity?

No one here has suggested that professional schools insist their graduates refrain from engaging in sexual intercourse.

In general, the idea that a free market is one in which individuals are not given a means to address wrongs committed against them is a novel one, to say the least.

Really? Because the First Amendment is supposed to protect the free marketplace of ideas, and if sexual harassment laws infringe on the First Amendment, then situations in which victims of sexual harassment unable to recover for a harasser's exercise of his speech rights would be examples of "a victim who cannot redress her wrongs in a free market." Not "novel" at all. Many people hold the view that the First Amendment bars federal sexual harassment laws.

As with any tort, the harassment itself impedes business, probably more than any measures taken to stop it. That's why the measures are taken.

That's nonsense. It is quite often the case that "blackmail suits" are settled simply because of bad press. In those cases, there may not have even been an actionable wrong; but the "wrongdoer" knows that paying up front is cheaper than litigating itself to victory and vindication. Likewise, overprotective measures taken within the company -- to the extent they prevent the assertion of false claims -- save money, but that doesn't mean that the measures are effective at preventing harassment, or taken for that purpose. They're taken to save money from false claims, which, in turn, do not arise if the measures are taken (because they are false), so the savings never actually materialize (shareholders never see it). That's why it's just -- in effect -- a cost. It's blackmail insurance, and it is a barrier to entry for the marginal firm.

MONICA: And the next time you start spouting off your "free market" talking points you might want to actually dust off a little research about our own stagnant economy and Europe's actual ecomonic growth.

I would suggest that you read the newspaper, or an economics journal on the EU. American growth outpaces that of France and Germany, and the growth of Eastern European nations with flat-tax schemes outpaces that of Western Europe. There is an internal debate within the European Economic Community involving France and Germany's ability to rig the European Central Bank to ignore its deficit-spending, which is dragging down the regional economy. Why? Because France and Germany have huge entitlement systems, much like you insist we adopt in the United States. They cut into growth. They also cause resentment amongst younger voters, who do not believe that those entitlements will be solvent (in part because of the low birth-rate) when it is their turn. Gerard Shroeder, in fact, LOST his recent election in part because of the massive entitlements that his coalition has, until now, seemed unwilling to cut. So, they aren't just my "free market" talking points; they were Andrea Merkel's talking points, too. And she beat Gerard Shroeder.

If anyone is ignorant of the realities here, it is you. You're blinded by your love for Marxist fairy-tales, Monica.

ALBATROSS: Now we're down to micromanaging peoples' lives from afar. This never seems to go well when done by government employees, and I doubt it will work better with university employees.

If that is the case, then why would we command government to completely revamp our work culture, which would require much more micromanagement? We wouldn't, because that would be irrational.

I know certain posters have alluded to what I am going to say, but let me address it directly. In spite of my vast respect for Judge Posner, this is not an economics problem; it is a social problem. As such, it deserves a social response. Attempting to evaluate the issue within the parameters that Judge Posner suggests is to propagate the institutional histories and structures that are at the root of the problem.
Moreover, I think that the problem may very well grow to being not simply a women's issue, but a generational issue. I think there will be a general trend away from working the type of hours that have been traditionally required of professionals given the lessons that we have learned from watching our miserable parents. With respect to the specific issues of women in this regard, I have to believe that the traditional feminist viewpoint (at least as it has been embraced in my experience) that women should be treated the SAME as men does not serve women, who are, indeed, DIFFERENT from men. I, as a professional woman and a mother, desire social and institutional structures that recognize this distinction and do not penalize me for it. If I can work humane hours and do interesting work, I will stay in the workforce. The interesting problem from an economics standpoint is the effect of this type of drain of talented women from the workforce because of inflexible institutions organized around male values. We shouldn't be considering instead how to keep women out of the pool altogether by making it more costly to pursue an education.

So no one else has a problem with raising tuition to better compel people to work 10 years on the grounds that it resembles indentured servitude?

Student Loans are not dischargable, if you raise tuition high enough it locks people into careers, which is exactly what Posner proposes to do.

Maybe the real question isn't, "is ____ sexist?" but rather "why are we so willing to perfect wage slavery for reasons of economic efficiency?" If, as I believe, the motivation is sexist and the "cover" or justification is utilitarian... why is it assumed to be such an effective cover?
Does hearing that the result is efficient really end the moral inquiry for people who support this plan?

Incidentally, higher tuition also has a negative effect on class mobility. Potential students from lower income backgrounds are less likely to believe that they can afford to pay, and are less likely to get up front financing. Posner's proposal would also discriminate against the poor of both genders in practice, and to the extent that poverty is correlated to race, against minority applicants.

Erica, I am in general agreement with you and can identify with your view on the role of work in our lives.

Which poses one problem to your analysis given that I am a man. Several others who are criticizing the proposal are also men. Perhaps men aren't DIFFERENT in a hard, all caps sort of way, but are socialized to be slower on average to spot the harms in slavish devotion to efficiency.

Perhaps you have read Carol Gilligan's "In a Different Voice," and would recall that she concluded that the highest level of moral development was actually a synthesis of the "female" ethic of care and the "male" ethic of justice.

If so then there are things that men and women can learn from each other in common struggle against inflexible application of utilitarian calculus by men who have yet to escape their chronic undervaluation of caring and social relations.

Anyway, I am happy to see feminists and more women in general posting here. I hope they will continue to see this as a good site for oppositional prose.

I wonder what the econonomic impact is of all the people who "drop out" of their jobs to read and argue blog postings all day, and whether more men than women are wasting their educations in doing so?

ERICA: The interesting problem from an economics standpoint is the effect of this type of drain of talented women from the workforce because of inflexible institutions organized around male values. We shouldn't be considering instead how to keep women out of the pool altogether by making it more costly to pursue an education.

And this is the sad problem with people on Corey's side of the issue. No one is discussing "keeping women out of the pool altogether". We're discussing kicking out women like Erica and Monica in favor of just as qualified (if not more qualified) women who want to work harder than they do. That is not a "drain," it's called an incentive. The women being "punished" are LAZY. And the writings of Carol Gilligan, while intriguing, are wholly irrelevant to this issue, Corey. Stop using this forum as a Male-Feminist Matchmaking Service and bending over backwards to kiss the arses of the women who post here. You might try respecting them as equals, Corey, by responding to the substance (or lack thereof) in their posts, instead of treating them like attention-starved children and offering sycophantic and false praise. That won't make them want to have your babies, Corey.

CHRIS WILLIS: I wonder what the econonomic impact is of all the people who "drop out" of their jobs to read and argue blog postings all day, and whether more men than women are wasting their educations in doing so?

You should know, Chris, because YOU'RE FIRED.

By the way, N.E. Hatfield, I have no problem with your two suggestions: particularly the the stipulation signed upon enrollment. Limiting the number of applicants to 2 per State doesn't seem to be enough students to meet market demand, and it wouldn't apply to private schools without a law. But objective public testing sounds good.

Prof Becker:

In reading your post, the question that struck me was why women who will not have long careers would spend >$150,000 on an Ivy League education. This seems like rather a waste of money, as you suggest in the post. Obviously, one possibility is that they are making consistent and systematic errors (i.e. think they will have long careers but then don't). However, it seems problematic to base a theory on the assumption of people making consistent mistakes. Its even more difficult to make this assertion when a singifcant fraction of the women today are saying they do not intend to stay in the work force (or at least a signifcant fraction of them say this). Obviously this gets back to the question of why women are spending the money when future income does not seem to justify it.

I would suggest that you allude to the answer in your post, but do not fully explore it. You note that assortive mating may explain why women graduating from elite insitutions do not work (they marry men with high earning potential). HOwever, might this not explain the puzzle. Women go to these elite (and expensive) institutions because its the most efficient way to meet someone of their socioeconomic/intellectual calibre. If tihs is true, doesn't it have the further implication that it is not inefficient.

For example, imagine we took the extreme position of banning women from elite instituions. Wouldn't this imply that either people would not marry like-to-like (implying enormous gains to trade) or that the "market" would have to develop some other way to like to signal like. Either of these possibilites seem likely to be very costly. In short, is there really inefficiency even if most women at elite institutions choose not to have long careers. If there is not inefficiency why should we worry about it?

"That is static, Palooka. Once the policies change, the enrollment pool will change, too. It is true that under Policy 1 (no requirement that women work longer) the number of women in the pool who want to work longer is necessarily a subset of the whole pool, but that is not necessarily true under Policy 2 (with the requirement in effect). Under Policy 2, the women who don't want to work for as long as required drop out of the pool, and will be replaced by other women who meet the requirements of Policy 2. You are speculating that enrollment will not be constant because after the drop off, other women will not fill in the gap. I disagree with your speculation. I think, if anything, enrollment at elite universities will go up as applicants who applied to somewhat lesser law schools or b-schools decide that getting into an elite university is slightly easier."

If one is willing to lower standards, then one can always fill the class with a proportionate amount of women. However, even you concede most of these new applicants would be people who fomerly could not get into an elite law school (as you speculuate they will come from business chools applicants and lower law schools). That means the more competitive females are replaced with less competitive ones, which results in fewer women being admitted because the female applicant pool is less competitive than before (unless compensatory admission criteria is added as well).

I agree that there is a possibility, albeit slim and highly speculative, that comparatively qualified women will fill the spaces of those leaving the applicant pool. This seems to me unlikely, as those highly qualified applicants who wish to seek a career in the law are already applying. There may be a few highly qualified individuals who decide to attend law school because of the new criteria. But it is highly unlikely that their numbers would equal or exceed those deciding not to attend law school because of the new policy.

ERICA: "The interesting problem from an economics standpoint is the effect of this type of drain of talented women from the workforce because of inflexible institutions organized around male values. We shouldn't be considering instead how to keep women out of the pool altogether by making it more costly to pursue an education."

I agree, with one caveat. I do not think that inflexible institutions demanding crazy hours are a "male value." I think that it is a mixture of capitalism and greed run amuck. Employers want to squeeze as much work as possible out of employees, and the employees, at least when they happen to be "professionals," rarely object, because they think that the long hours will bring them higher salaries and quick advancement. What they do not realize is that the lost utility (having no life outside of work, never getting to see kids, etc.) rarely justifies the marginal increase in salary that the lifestyle brings.

We instituted a mandatory 40-hour work week for "blue collar" workers long ago, and encouraged the formation of unions, to get rid of sweatshops. It worked, and now the average unskilled worker lives a much better life than his counterparts did 100 years ago. "Professionals" are now the only employees who are expected to work unlimited hours. This arrangement does not serve the overall interests of the average professional, but I see no indication that society will debunk the myth that it does.

Crystal,

I think you're onto something: In both cases, we have two different goals:

a. Being individually fair in admissions decisions, which means taking the people who are the most objectively qualified.

b. Tweaking our admissions to accomplish some other goal--more professionals from the school actually working a full careef, or more minority professionals.

In both cases, there's also substantial dispute about whether the programs as proposed/implemented do more good than harm.

"And this is the sad problem with people on Corey's side of the issue. No one is discussing "keeping women out of the pool altogether".

Posner is, why don't you use the little scroll button on the side of your browser, go back to Posner's post, and see who he thinks will "usually" take the place of women... hmmm.

Now re-read the last line of his post. I will make it really easy for you:

"Were admission to such schools based on a prediction of the social value of the education offered, fewer women would be admitted."

Did you feel you responded to the substance of Erica's post my calling her lazy Jack? Or did you hope to discourage her and Monica from posting further?

How can we predict which women will have children?

Two women got to a top-ranked law school, say UGa. or FSU. One marries and has children, the other's womb is barren. The first woman drops out and raises her family, the other, rises to be Chief Judge of the 11th Circuit. How can we tell which is which at 21?

Posner argues that when female graduates of elite institutions drop out of the workforce to stay at home, there is an overall drop in labour productivity. However, it is precisely because the female spouse is dedicating herself to the household that her husband can be fully professionally productive (and, therefore, presumably be worthy of his elite education). If there was a complete and equal division of labour, both partners would only be partially professionally productive, and this would not mean any difference in overall economic/labour production. Of course, if we all did not have families or personal lives, then we would all be professionally productive and overall economic production would increase. In this regard, university admissions committees should also be weeding out those men and women who dare to have a social life, care about public issues etc which all take away from their time in their cubicles.

Posner misses the central point of the article, which pertains to the social and feminist implications of the women most equipped to break the glass ceiling being more interested in cleaning it. There is nothing necessarily wrong with staying at home and taking care of one's family - - the women who choose this path are not empty Stepford wives. However, that this is such a consistent trend speaks to prevailing social discourses that advance a certain vision of an ideal life for women, and implicitly and explicitly pressures women to pursue this. And even when it is a rational ie. economic decision as to which spouse stays at home (that is, when the wife's income is lower than her husband's, even with equal qualifications), this still points to broad-based sexism and sexual discrimmination. There are plenty of women who genuinely choose to drop out of the workforce and find fulfillment elsewhere; however, given prevailing social norms and pressures, and the continued discrimmination in terms of labour compensation, it is unfair and inaccurate to penalise women for their 'choice' to leave the workforce.

Posner has an extremely limited conception of what is socially and economically worthwhile and an even more questionable measure of productivity. This is an inherent flaw with economic analysis that seeks to address social and political questions when it articulates no normative foundations itself. In Posner's world, women yet again have to defend their choices: women must justify why they choose to pursue a career and not dedicate their resources to the family, and now, they must justify why they should be educated if they do not plan on being productive corporate drones - - even though it is precisely their choice not to that enables such corporate drones to exist.

Both Posner in his editorial, and Ms. Wexler, sourced in the article itself, are stuck in the 70's. That is, they believe that the only real measure of worth of a person is that income that they produce. And that such an elite education gone underutilized, either in its intrinsic value of income production (Posner's point), or its social change value(Wexler's point), is tragic. Ms., excuse me, Dr. Wexler, goes so far as to lament this is something that she thought "would be solved by now." A generation has passed these two by. The 70's did produce a generation of women who flooded America's Colleges and Universities under the lie that "you can have it all." That, as a woman, you are entitled to a full professional career with all of the opportunity and compensation that accompanies, with no drag placed on it by family issues. AND, you are entitled to be the best Mother, with no prejudice on the fact that someone else actually raises their child 12 of the 15 hours that they are awake every day.

As Posner points out, the fact is that many of these women did eventually realize this under the stark reality of, well, reality. That you get what you pay for. That you get out of things what you put into them.

We all should have hope that women in today's elite universities see education, not as a job or husband producing "investment," rather an exercise that grows the mind and heart. And one that will pay dividends either in a career, or equally(or more), at home.

They realize that motherhood is more than daycare. That it is taking a primary role in building the next generation. A much more noble and difficult cause than taking $1, and turning it into $1.40(pre-tax)...

How does one reconcile this article to declining fertility rates everywhere in the West? Raising the bar for women's entry to professional schools will actually make the fertility decision that much more difficult. Is it not more likely that women will postpone/give up on babies if the cost of their education has been greater?

"But I do not want my tax dollars going to pay for Hurricane Katrina, because some millionaire gave money to the U of C Law School to turn out these princesses and is deducting it."

Can anyone tell me what this sentence means?

Posted by R at September 27, 2005 01:05 PM
Dear R
I just glanced back here to see if there was anything I could use for an article I'm writing on this subject and found your post. Although I generally don't respond to commens like Can anyone tell me what this sentence means, because it's an implicit comment that the stance is so stupid no one could understand it.
But assuming it was just a passing fit of lack of understanding of basic principles, I will say that there's a public burden of all costs of government including Hurricane Katrina. If someone gives the U of C a million dollars, he usually deducts it as a charitable donation and pays less taxes. If the cost of government does not go down, the rest of us pay more taxes. If the U of C uses the money to pay for the non tuition part of legal education for students who then go into babysitting, I am indirectly paying for that with my tax money.
Get it now?

Your definition of "productivity" is the foundation upon which you premise your conclusions (generalizations is probably a better word.) Since your definition is so narrow, your conclusions are too.

If education at these prestigious colleges has sunk to the point where it is only about who makes more money with their degree and how much money they can give to their alma mater until they die, then I recommend the leaders of these colleges go back and try to get in touch again with the reasons they initially chose the field of education for their profession. Believe me, it is a much broader and more honorable calling than what you have painted in this article.

"Although women continue to complain about discrimination, sometimes quite justly, the gender-neutral policies that govern admission to the elite professional schools illustrate discrimination in favor of women. Were admission to such schools based on a prediction of the social value of the education offered, fewer women would be admitted."

I find it ironic that in the conclusion, the author uses the phrase "social value" when he is really referring to the pure market-driven economic value of making lots of money as opposed to any other type of "socially" valuable, productive and enriching activity. I know many professional women who don't drop out of the work force when they are raising families, but rather take jobs with high social value, but less pay, simply because those jobs are both professionally and socially rewarding and allow adequate and meaningful time with family. In addition, these women are among the most organized, effective and creative people I know because circumstances require them to juggle so many responsibilities and still succeed in work and at home. They have to -- there simply is no other choice. How can that be a waste of an education - elite or otherwise? Furthermore, the conclusion of the author is a sad reflection on our society that we value making money (by men in particular) over taking even a reasonable amount of responsibility for raising a family -- our next generation of money earners and social contributors.

The obvious extension of your argument, Judge Posner and Mr. Becker, is that giving medical treatment to gentlemen of your age has a diminishing marginal utility, and we should deny medical assistance to men over the age, let's say, of fifty. For that matter, food and shelter have a diminishing marginal utility for men your age.
The point of this comment is to illustrate that economic analysis is not appropriate for every question.

fight for woment'right

مركز تحميل