Monthly Archives: May 2008

US News and the Costs of Ethical Behavior

Our US News score is lousy. The methodology is very bad — and any large private school without a very big endowment is going to suffer under it — but even so I think fails to reflect some of our real strengths when I look at who is doing relatively well out of the system.

Brian Leiter says, and who am I to gainsay him?, that many, many schools “massage” the data they report to US News,

Schools hire unemployed graduates as research assistants, hand out fee waivers to hopeless applicants to improve their acceptance rates, inflate their expenditures data through creative accounting or simply fabrication, cut their first-year enrollment (to boost their medians) while increasing the number of transfers (to make up the lost revenue), and so on. Because more than half the total score in U.S. News depends on manipulable data, schools intent on securing the public relations benefits of a higher rank simply “cook the books” or manipulate the numbers to secure a more favorable U.S. News outcome.

I'm 99.9% sure that this law school does exactly none of those things. I think our administration is honestly reporting its stats — honest to a fault, some might say.

Indeed, I know of a case where we have a person (not the Librarian) who doesn't have tenure, who has a joint faculty and library job, carries two titles, but has been spending increasing amounts of his/her time teaching students, coaching moot court teams, doing all the things great faculty members do. Why not count this person towards our faculty for student/faculty ratio purposes, I asked? Wouldn't be right given how the rules treat library staff, came back the answer.

There are two related issues here: The first is to what extent one can ethically lawyer the numbers to one's advantage. Not being involved in those decisions, I have no idea where the line is, nor what the tradeoffs are on pushing it. There's no question some schools went a lot too far, and paid for it in embarrassment when they got caught.

The second issue is what, if Leiter's claim is correct, it means for law schools that don't engage in any of the shenanigans he describes. On the one hand, I'm quite proud to be able to say that we are not cheating. On the other hand there's always Leo Durocher's warning to contend with, that “Nice guys finish last.”

Posted in Law School | 4 Comments

Taddeo Meets Local Bloggers

Annette Taddeo had a meeting with some local bloggers — it happened to be on a day while I was out of town.

You can read about it South Florida Daily Blog and Incertus.

Update: more links, lifted from SFDB: Bark Bark Woof Woof and Miami-Dade Dems.

Posted in Politics: FL-18 | Comments Off on Taddeo Meets Local Bloggers

Something Uplifting For a Change

South Florida Daily Blog calls this the Best Sport Story Ever.

Who am I to argue?

Posted in Kultcha | 3 Comments

Friday McCain-Bashing: Out of Touch

Crooks and Liars, John McCain's Top 10 Out-of-Touch Moments

Sample:

2. “Great progress economically” during the Bush years. If Americans’ financial woes are all in their heads, John McCain’s assessment of George W. Bush’s economic leadership is pure hallucination. Asked by Bloomberg’s Peter Cook on April 17 if Americans would say they are better off today “than before George Bush took office more than seven years ago,” McCain replied:

“I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there’s been great progress economically over that period of time.”

Mugged by reality, McCain’s firm response to the classic Ronald Reagan question (”are you better off now?”) lasted exactly 24 hours. The next day on April 18, the so-called maverick acknowledged Americans are “hurting badly” and concluded, “Americans are not better off than they were eight years ago.”

Bonus bash: Arizona Republic, n tight Senate votes, McCain not a maverick: When it matters the most, he seldom bucks his own party

And this one really deserves weekly posts of its own: We’ll ‘never’ see the McCains’ tax returns?

Posted in Politics: McCain | Comments Off on Friday McCain-Bashing: Out of Touch

I Should Jesticulate More

MoneyLaw: Teaching Evaluations Again

Nonverbal behaviors appear to matter much more than anything else in student ratings. Enthusiastic gestures and vocal tones can mask gobbledygook, smiles count more than sample exam questions, and impressions formed in thirty seconds accurately foretell end-of-semester evaluations. The strong connection between mere nonverbal behaviors and student evaluations creates a very narrow definition of good teaching.

…show a few seconds of a teacher on tape with the sound off. A group of students is then asked to evaluate the teacher on a number of measures. These evaluations — again based on sound off seconds — turn out to be remarkable close to the evaluations the same teachers receive at the end of a semester from their regular classes. In short, looks, movement, expressions, etc, may trump everything else.

(quoting from Bias, The Brain, and Student Evaluations of Teaching, 82 St. John's L. Rev. 235 (2008))

Posted in Law School | 1 Comment

CFP ’08 Accepts Our Panel on ‘The Transparent Society’

I'm delighted to report that my proposal for a panel on “'The Transparent Society' — Ten Years Later” has been accepted for CFP'08, thanks no doubt to the sterling panelists I was able to assemble. Our panel is now scheduled to take place on Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 3:30-5:00(PM) in the George room at the Omni Hotel in New Haven.

Computers, Freedom and Privacy is the most fun conference I go to; the program can be variable, I admit, but the hallway conversations are always fantastic. Come – it's fun.

Cfp.jpg

Here's the panel description:

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the publication of David Brin's controversial book, “The Transparent Society”. The book argues that in the face of the explosion of sensors, cheap storage, and cheap data processing we should adopt strategies of vision over concealment. A world in which not just transactional information, but essentially all information about us will be collected, stored, and sorted is, Brin says, inevitable. The only issue left to be decided is who will have access to this information; he argues that freedom, and even some privacy, are more likely to flourish if everybody – not just elites – has access to this flood of data.

Brin proposes a stark choice: either the information will be “secret” and “private”—in which case only governments, always potentially repressive, will have access. Or, the information will be “open” and “public” and we will all be transparent to each other. Given this choice, Brin argues, better to be naked to each other than to empower a few with unique access to information about the many. The attempt to protect privacy as we know it carries too great a risk, as it leads if not inevitably than at least all too easily to a world of enormous information-driven tyranny in which the powers — primarily governments — with access to our 'private' information will abuse it. In contrast, a high-transparency world with very little privacy is one in which citizens have tools that allow them to monitor their governments.

Brin proposed a paradox which infuriated a good segment of the privacy community. It is normally an article of faith for privacy advocates that privacy empowers, and the removal of privacy is at least disempowering and at worst oppressive. Brin counters that privacy advocates have it exactly backwards: trying to maintain traditional ideas of information privacy in the face of technological changes he sees as (now) inevitable is what will disempower and perhaps oppress; only a program of radical information openness, nakedness even, stands a chance of leveling a playing field on which information is truly power.

The reception of “The Transparent Society” reflected the audacity of its claims. Some dismissed it; some attacked it; a few embraced it. What is striking, however, is that the ideas have had staying power: the book remains in print, it is regularly footnoted, and it comes up in discussion. Right or wrong, “The Transparent Society” has become more than a polar case trotted out as a good or bad example, but an as-yet unproved but also un-falsified challenge to how we think about privacy — one that demands continuing reflection (or, some would say, refutation).

The tenth anniversary of publication is an appropriate time to do that reflection at CFP.

About the presenters:

David Brin (remote participation)

David Brin is the author of “The Transparent Society,” the inspiration for this panel. He is a noted futurist and science fiction writer.

Alan Davidson

Alan is the head of Google's Washington, DC, government affairs office. Previously he was Associate Director of the Center for Democracy & Technology. Alan is a frequent speaker and presence in national privacy debates, and a frequent CFP participant.

J. Bradford DeLong

Professor of Economics, University of California at Berkely

In addition to his work as a macro and economic historian, Brad has written extensively about the economics of information and the Internet. He runs a very popular economics and culture blog, “Grasping Reality with Both Hands: Economist Brad DeLong's Fair, Balanced, and Reality-Based Semi-Daily Journal” at http://delong.typepad.com/. Brad served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy in the Clinton administration, 1993-95. He is also a founder-member of the Ancient, Hermetic, and Occult Order of the Shrill.

A. Michael Froomkin (Moderator)

Professor of Law, University of Miami

Michael has been writing about privacy, encryption, and anonymity for almost fifteen years. His writings include “The Death of Privacy?”, 52 Stan L. Rev. 1461 (2000). He is a founder-editor of ICANNWatch, and serves on the Editorial Board of Information, Communication & Society and of I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society. He is on the Advisory Boards of several organizations including the Electronic Freedom Foundation and BNA Electronic Information Policy & Law Report. He is a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. He is also active in several technology related projects in the greater Miami area.

Stephanie Perrin

Stephanie is the Acting Director General of Risk Management, Integrity Branch, Service Canada. She is the former Director of Research and Policy at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and was prior to this a consultant in privacy and information policy issues, president of her own company Digital Discretion Inc., and a Senior Fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Centre in Washington.

She is the former Chief Privacy Officer of Zero-Knowledge, and has been active in a number of CPO associations, working with those responsible for implementing privacy in their organizations. Formerly the Director of Privacy Policy for Industry Canada's Electronic Commerce Task Force, she led the legislative initiative at Industry Canada that resulted in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, privacy legislation that came into force in 2001 and has set the standard for private sector compliance. She is the principal author of a text on the Act, published by Irwin Law.

Zephyr Teachout

Visiting Asst. Prof. of Law, Duke University

Zephyr is one of the leading practitioners and theoreticians of online political organizing. She directed Internet organizing for Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign.

Zephyr is noted for advocating the Internet as a tool for creating local offline groups. publications include “Mousepads, Shoeleather and Hope: Lessons from the Howard Dean Campaign for the Future of Internet Politics”(Editor) (forthcoming August 2007, Paradigm Publishers); “How Politicians can use Distributive Networks” (New Assignment, November 2006); “Youtube? It's so Yesterday,” (with Tim Wu) (Washington Post, November 2006), and “Powering Up Internet Campaigns,” book chapter in Lets Get This Party Started (Rowan and Littlefield, 2005.) She is currently writing about the meaning of corruption in the American constitutional tradition.

Posted in Talks & Conferences | 4 Comments