October 02, 2005
Elite Universities and Women's Careers--Posner's Response to Comments
I cannot do justice to 135 comments! I have learned a great deal from them, but I will have to be highly selective in responding.
Let me make clear at the outset that it was not my intention to "lash out at women (or men) who take time off to raise their kids," or to turn men or women into wage slaves, discourage women from working or having children, or, for that matter, dictate admissions policies. Some comments suggest that I want women to stay home, others that I want them to work. I merely want them to make an unbiased choice. The point of my posting was to make the economic point that rationing scarce places in elite professional schools on the basis of grade point average and performance on standardized tests may result in turning away applicants who might be more productive because they would have longer working careers.
One comment adds a reason for my concern that I had not thought of, which is that admission to public professional schools, some of them elite (such as the law schools of Berkeley, Virginia, and the University of Michigan), is subsidized by state taxpayers. It is odd to subsidize the professional education of people who are not going to make a full commitment to the profession at the expense of people who would. Do taxpayers know that this is how their tax dollars are being spent?
The point to be emphasized is that, given scarcity of places, admitting X means rejecting Y; if Y, though a slightly worse student than X, is going to spend much more time in the workforce, what exactly is the good reason for admitting X rather than Y?
Now one interesting answer suggested by a commenter is that there is a market demand, on the part of law firms and other employers of lawyers (and other professionals), for more women; and if there is a high drop-out rate of women, law schools may have to adopt admission policies that assure that half or more of the students are female so that after drop-out there will be enough women left in the professional workforce to satisfy the market demand.
Similarly, if public interest law is assumed to confer net social benefits, and women are disproportionately drawn to public interest work (as several comments suggested), then, again given the drop-out factor, there is an argument for admissions policies that attract women.
A number of the comments complain about working conditions in law and other professions--about employer demands that make it difficult for women to work and have children. But there are many law jobs, for example in government, but also in many corporate legal departments, that are not as demanding as jobs in high-pressure law firms; my guess (and it is only a guess) is that even in those lighter jobs, there is a higher female than male drop-out rate.
One of my female former law clerks suggested that the logic of my position requires me to institute a system of penalties and rewards to make sure that I just hire women who are going to devote their lives to the law. But I am too selfish for that. I want to hire the very best applicants, regardless of the likely duration of their legal careers, and, therefore, regardless of whether they are male or female. But I have made a contract with this former clerk whereby I will buy her dinner once a year for as long as she remains in the profession, and if she leaves she will then buy me dinner once a year unless and until she returns to full-time legal work. Because of the difference in our life expectancies, this is a very disadvantageous contract from my standpoint. I hope that those commenters who took sharp exception to my posting will feel that I have been adequately as well as justly punished.
Posted by posner at 04:57 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lessig.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/988
Comments
I am heartily amused and impressed by your decision to make the dinner contract. I think this is also an appropiate opportunity to say that I was impressed to find a paper of yours being cited in my (English) criminal law textbook.
I salute you sir!
Posted by Marcin Tustin at October 3, 2005 08:14 AM | direct link
"I want to hire the very best applicants, regardless of the likely duration of their legal careers, and, therefore, regardless of whether they are male or female."
Why shouldn't law schools feel the same way, in order to provide the best academic experience for both students and faculty? In fact, if "elite" schools reject highly-qualified students out of speculation that they might leave the profession early, they might cease to be the "elite" schools, because the best students will go elsewhere.
Parenthetically, I wonder whether the skyrocketing cost of tuition will drive the best and brightest of the middle class to state schools, perhaps making those schools, in many ways, as strong as the ivy league. But that's another discussion.
BTW, I commend Judge Posner for his deal with his former law clerk, and it shows that he can disagree on policy or politics without being disagreeable personally. Unfortunately, there is too little of that type of civility in the world today.
Posted by David at October 3, 2005 11:56 AM | direct link
Some punishment, a nice dinner with an intellegent woman.
Posted by Cogliostro Demon at October 4, 2005 10:13 AM | direct link
Gift Baskets by Unique Gift Baskets offers snack and gourmet baskets, corporate gifts, new baby, birthday baskets, Gift Baskets for men, women www.gift-basket.2itb.com/Gift-Basket.htm
Posted by David Terver at October 4, 2005 06:02 PM | direct link
Gift Baskets by Unique Gift Baskets offers snack and gourmet baskets, corporate gifts, new baby, birthday baskets, Gift Baskets for men, women http://www.gift-basket.2itb.com/Gift-Basket.htm
Posted by David Mok at October 4, 2005 06:27 PM | direct link
THE IRISH FAIR TAX MODEL. How to boost the economy to 5% growth.
Irish wealth grew with over 167% between 1984 and 2002. Average European wealth grew at less than a quarter of that pace. Irish industrial jobs increased with 35% in this period, while in the rest of Europe industrial employment caved in. While the rest of the world was booming, the European economy gradually slided into stagnation or even recession.
Why is Ireland so different? Why could Ireland devellop into the second most prosperous country of Europe in barely a half generation of time? The Irish socio-economic model is a perfect synthesis of the social welfare state and Anglosaxisch liberalism. Its model differs from the rest of Europe by its "fair tax system": an optimal combination of MODERATE AND EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT SPENDING (35% of GDP) and A BALANCED REPARTITION of the TAX BURDEN between direct and consumption taxes.
The irish model provides the incentives for productive contribution, for dynamic entrepreneurship and a high participation rate. The Irish model is successful. Today Ireland meets the challenges of globalisation and the demographic time bomb. Ever more European countries adopt Irish policies, particularly in the East.
Also in England, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany could boost growth, job creation, and wealth by implementing the strategy of decreasing their demotivating taxation, and shifting the tax burden from income to consumption. Ireland showed that it can be done and that the strategy works. Where does one wait for?
More over the Irish success story, how and why can be found at following adresses:
(Dutch and Frensh versions now available at the same web site)
http://workforall.net/
http://workforall.net/EN_Tax_policy_for_growth_and_jobs.html
http://workforall.net/EN_Europe_direct_and_indirect_tax_burden.html
http://workforall.net/EN_Europe_social_security_sustainability.html
Posted by workforall at October 5, 2005 11:32 AM | direct link
Why should law schools feel differently than Judge Posner? One reason is obvious, a reason the judge touched on. They are not similarly situated. Presumably, Judge Posner's clerks serve him for a term of one or two years (though he may, of course, hire career clerks). States, on the other hand, subsidize schools to produce lawyers who will (hopefully) offer their services in the state where they studied for decades. Thus, their time horizon differs.
Posted by LegalHack at October 5, 2005 12:41 PM | direct link
Judge Posner,
Thanks for doing a retrospective. I think you made some valid points, and I like the way you analyze things according to an economic perspective and not just an emotional or knee-jerk one.
I think my issue with the admissions policy issue is that very few of us know, when applying to college, what turn our lives will take. If an 18-year-old is already married, pregnant, and plans to stay home permanently, then I would question the utility of her attending Yale at that stage of her life--why pay for it or even go through the stress, if you don't want that life? To that degree, you make a good point.
But in this day and age, most of us, even those with conservative values, are likely not to even meet our future mates until several years into college if not after. Then, most people work several years after that before they have kids.
If you asked me at 18 where I'd be today, I would have said "single." In fact, until I met my husband, I assumed I'd never marry, because I had bad luck in the men department. So why wouldn't I go to college, even grad school, if marriage and children weren't in my immediate future?
I made it to grad school before I even met my husband, and we still don't have children, so I am working. If I'd decided at 18 that I wasn't going to college or the workworld at all because I "might" get married someday and be home, I'd have been a couch potato at my parents' for a long time.
I think expecting college applicants to know what their marriage and motherhood plans will be, and screen them out based on it, probably won't fly simply because your average 18-year-old Ivy League-bound teen isn't going to be planning that far ahead. Most young people who talk abstractly of "future" plans are, at best, dreaming, unless the plans are already made.
To that degree, I sort of take the NYT article with a grain of salt, until I see these women at 22, married, and at home.
Again, cool blog.
(I hope my post has paragraph breaks--the preview didnt!)
Posted by Marian Shah at October 5, 2005 07:45 PM | direct link
What about those of us who enjoy education for education's sake and are willing to pay for it?
I am male, late 50's and earned an MBA in the 70's. I also earned an MS in Education in 2004.
My daughter recently finished her MBA and she and I are toying with the idea of going for doctorates together.
In her case it would be because it would be useful to her in her career. In mine, it would be simply for the pleasure of studying.
If forced, I could claim an occupational interest since I am also an adjunct professor at a local engineering school. However, I would only earn an additional $150 per semester for having a doctorate.
Should I be denied admission because I will not put it to good use? I agree that perhaps I should not expect the gov't, school or other entity to pay for it but that is OK, I can afford it.
Actually, in my case perhaps it would come down to age discrimination. Anyone know a good attorney in case it comes to that?
I greatly enjoyed the discussion and love the blog.
John Henry
www.changeover.com
Posted by John Henry at October 8, 2005 11:19 PM | direct link
