The Faculty Lounge

A Review of Andrew Mellon, by David Cannadine

Thanks very much to Al and the others of the Lounge for the invitation to post a few thoughts for the next two weeks.   I’ll be blogging about banking regulation, O. Henry, capital regulation, and a few other topics from the pre-market, pre-appointment side of the legal academy.    As I do, I’m mindful that if blogging before tenure is an extreme sport, as Christine Hurt and Tung Yin have said, then blogging as a neophyte pre-appointment must be the kind of dangerous activity usually reserved for folks who like to blow stuff up on YouTube.  Let’s hope no one gets hurt. 

Promises of blogging about banking regulation may send the Lounge’s readership en masse to mini-putt, or their preferred equivalent (full disclosure, and with all modesty: I am very good at this version of mini-putt).  To avoid that mass exodus, I’ll start with a topic of likely broader interest than banking regulation, and instead review a book that readers interested in more than banking and financial history will likely enjoy.

I just finished a biography of Andrew Mellon, written by David Cannadine.  It’s an extraordinary book, and reflects Cannadine’s impressive range as a historian.  Mellon would be a worthy subject of a biography on the basis of any one of his roughly four personal and professional identities: (1) one of the leading bankers/financiers/businessmen in the waning years of the Gilded Age; (2) the longest-serving Secretary of the Treasury in US history, spanning three Administrations; (3) one of the leading art collectors of his day, including through his purchase of much of the collection from czarist Russia’s Hermitage, a collection he gifted to the U.S. as the National Gallery; and (4) a successful defendant in a high-profile tax evasion prosecution that doesn’t, by Cannadine’s telling, reflect FDR's and his Attorney General Homer Cummings’s proudest moments.  As a bit of social history, Mellon -- the man and the book -- offers an additional, fascinating glimpse at a sordid and scandalous divorce, after which Mellon continued to care for his wife and his in-laws, beyond even the obligations imposed on him by the divorce settlement.

I’ll confess that I read the book exclusively as a perspective on financial, business, and political history, and that I am something of an art history nincompoop.  At first, my eyes got glassy during quite lengthy discussions of this Veneziano or that Raphael, and I still could not under the pain of torture or the pleasure of a billion dollars distinghuish a Veneziano from a Harpignies.  Indeed, to include the last sentence in this post I had to look back at the book to find references to one artist whose presence in Mellon's collection burnished his reputation as a leading collector, and to another whose presence Cannadine characterized as Mellon's false start.  And Raphael's name is familiar to me mostly as the red-bandanaed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.  (Here’s a good opportunity for my first Brophyan trivia quiz, however: name the painter and the painting associated with the genius collector and the one associated with the modest tyro, as between Veneziano and Harpignies).  But Cannadine’s telling makes these various facets of this secretive, powerful, in many ways brilliant, in other ways quite corrupt man come to life, even for a culturally illiterate hayseed like me.  I highly recommend it.

Even from a financial historical perspective, the book does leave several questions unanswered.  I’m most intrigued by the sparse telling of the founding of the Federal Reserve, a topic I expect will be the subject of my dissertation.   Mellon’s papers didn’t contain a word about Mellon’s own views on the Fed, even though the subject itself was widely debated, and Mellon almost certainly would have had very strong opinions on the subject.  As part of my research on this topic, I expect the views of powerful regional bankers – Mellon was, even at that late point, only barely becoming a national presence, and even there by virtue of a half dozen or so very successful investments in several Mellon-sponsored enterprises – on the existential question of the Federal Reserve, and once resolved, the questions of institutional design will be very important.  I'm especially interested in how these regional bankers viewed the vital question of the Fed’s “independence,” a term used at cross-purposes by supporters and detractors alike (independent of the government was the aim of Nelson Aldrich and Paul Warburg; independent of the bankers the aim of Wilson and, to a lesser extent, Carter Glass).

But do read the biography if you are interested in financial, business, art, political, or even a certain species of social history in the late 19^th and early 20^th century. 

Haunted House

This is one of my favorite photographs from the summer; I don't know anything about the house (other than that it's in Wylliesburg, Virginia -- which is where I took the picture of the Paul Carrington roadside marker). Anyway, I wanted to post it because I really like this -- but I don't have much to say about it, other than perhaps this: is it haunted?  If not, it sure ought to be.  It surely must go back to the antebellum era, which I think is a key variable related to degree of haunted-ness, and it isn't inhabited by anyone who's alive.  The clincher, of course, it that it's in the rural south, too.  I'm going to show this to my students when I teach Stambovsky this fall -- because I think the mere appearance of this house would put a reasonable buyer on notice that it might be haunted!

What a gorgeous house it once was -- and perahps might be yet again.

PSU: On Death's Door

Bill Turnier sends along this ESPN story about my former University of Alabama colleague Gene Marsh's work on behalf of Penn State.  That was high stakes they were playing for.  People interested in monument law will be interested to see that the JoePa Statue makes a cameo appearance in the article.

Update: Dan Filler -- who is also a former University of Alabama colleague with Gene and me (though none of us are still at UA) -- predicated a while back that Gene would be the go-to guy for Penn State's NCAA troubles.  And I should add that Gene was an absolutely fabulous teacher and colleague at UA.  When I arrived there in 2001 I was already an experienced teacher, but I learned a ton from him about teaching.  Among his many talents were the ability to take complex concepts and make them understandable without sacrificing nuance.  Extremely difficult to do.

Free Book!

As part of its Free Book Friday series, the University of North Carolina Press is holding a drawing for a free copy of my new book Colors of Confinement: Rare Kodachrome Photographs of Japanese American Incarceration in World War II.  

It's easy to enter the drawing.  Head over and check it out.

Arms Control Blog

Last month my colleague at the University of Alabama Dan Joyner started the Arms Control Blog.  The blogging team in addition to Dan is: Marco Roscini, University of Westminster Faculty of Law; Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont, Rochelois, Besins & Associe; Zeray Yihdego, Oxford Brookes University Faculty of Law; Eric Myjer, University of Utrecht Faculty of Law; David Fidler, University of Indiana School of Law; Barry Kellman, Depaul University College of Law; Dieter Fleck, Formerly of the German Ministry of Defense; and James Fry, University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law.

The illustration is from Amnesty International.

"Likeable" Much? Part 2

The On Hiring blog at the Chronicle of Higher Education is back with another post on the topic of likeability.  (My post on their prior "likeability" post is here.)  This time, the topic is, "What Does Likeable Look Like?"  The author offers the following two characteristics as a starting point:

1. Confidence balanced by humility

2. Making people feel valued/not making people feel stupid

I must admit -- that's a great start.  Closely related to these, I would add:

3. The ability to take joy in the success of others

Here's an example of what I mean.  At each of the law schools where I have taught, the dean has announced faculty accomplishments (e.g., publications, presentations, awards, etc.) at the beginning of each faculty meeting.  (I have adopted that practice as dean at University of Dayton.)  A faculty colleague once wrote me an e-mail message complaining about the practice that read something like this: "Only insecure people need to hear their accomplishments read out loud in front of everyone."  I replied that, to the contrary, "Only an insecure person cannot take joy in the success of others."

The blog author ends her post with:

Do these characteristics resonate with you? What else can we add to this list?

What do you think about her suggested characteristics and mine?

Faculty Hiring: University of South Carolina Law

This just in from our colleagues at USC Law:

The University of South Carolina School of Law invites applications for entry-level, tenure-track faculty to begin in the fall of 2013. Qualifications for these positions include a record of excellence in academia or in practice, the potential to be an outstanding teacher, and demonstrable scholarly promise. The School of Law is especially interested in candidates who could teach in the areas of clinical legal education, environmental law, or taxation. We are also especially interested in candidates who could teach criminal law and have expertise in its international aspects. We also invite applications for tenured faculty at the rank of either associate or full professor to begin in the fall of 2013.

Qualifications for these positions include significant scholarly achievement and a record of excellence in teaching. The School of Law is particularly interested in candidates in the areas of professional responsibility and taxation. Interested persons should send a resume, references, and subject area preferences to Prof. Joseph Seiner, Chair, Faculty Selection Committee, c/o Kim Fanning, University of South Carolina School of Law, 701 S. Main St., Columbia, SC 29208 or, by email, to hire2013@law.sc.edu (electronic submissions preferred). The University of South Carolina is committed to a diverse faculty, staff, and student body. We encourage applications from women, minorities, persons with disabilities, and others whose background, experience, and viewpoints contribute to the diversity of our institution.

Civil War General Trivia

Which Civil War General died in this house at right?  Where is the house?

Self-Service Education (2)

    In my last post, I described what seems to me a growing tendency among students to prefer to consume their legal educations in the same way they consume virtually everything else: with the least possible interaction with other human beings.  This tendency arises partly from habit (that’s just how we do things); partly from a consumerist approach to education (it’s my education, I’ll take it the way I like it); and partly from what seems to me to be a declining interest in cultivating the skills associated with face-to-face relations among human beings.  If I’m right about this trend, how ought legal educators and professionals think about it?

    First, self-service simply is not an appropriate mode for acquiring higher learning.  On the contrary, even at its best it institutionalizes a form of standardization that can provide a really good education only by accident.  Good teaching is not algorithmic; each student needs something a little different; a few may need something very different.  Self-service education is acceptable only if you think that teaching is something that is done best by mass-produced communications aimed at no one in particular. 

    Now, I don’t want to overstate the case; a good deal of ground can be covered with many students by feeding them a diet of pre-packaged material from which no deviation is possible.  But as a teacher and advisor, I have always felt that to know what my students need I must see their faces, while they are performing, in my presence.  By definition, students with trouble can’t fully articulate their own problems, so an affirmative diagnosis is often necessary, and that is a skill and an art that must be performed in person.  I need to palpate my students, metaphorically speaking, to teach and advise them effectively.  Every teacher starts in every circumstance with a predicted script, but the best teachers stand ready to throw away the script when they sense a problem in the classroom, just as the best athletes stand ready to scramble on a broken play.

    The concept of self-service education denies what a real education fundamentally is: an improvised, often messy and meandering collaboration between a teacher and a student, an expert and a novice.  Instead, education is reconceived as a deliberate and unilateral act of acquisition by the student.  Teachers are merely props, means to their students’ ends.  The teacher’s experience, expertise, and hard-acquired judgment are denied; they drop out of the equation.  That’s bad enough, but it also has consequences.  Teachers do not unilaterally construct themselves; they are constructed partially by their students.  Students who treat their teacher like a walking avatar whose only purpose is obediently to spit out information demanded by the student, in a form and at a time demanded by the student, will not elicit from the teacher his or her best performance.  You might say: A teacher must always give his or her best performance.  I respond: This merely denies the premise I wish to assert: that good teaching is not an imposition of will, from either side of the lectern, but a mutually constitutive, ongoing, relationship.  Both parties must participate fully and in good faith if the teaching and the learning are to approach their potential.

    In the end, it is the decreasing attention to the relationship aspect of the educational enterprise that most troubles me about what I think I detect in a growing number of aspiring legal professionals.  Today at least, it is not possible in the legal profession to attain one’s objectives without the ability to engage and to inspire other human beings face to face.  Lawyers constantly must influence the behavior of others – clients, witnesses, judges, other lawyers, court and law office staff – and often that influence can be exercised best, or even only, in person.  Students who fail to cultivate the necessary skills of in-person engagement will later find themselves unable to obtain their professional goals – not always, perhaps, but certainly sometimes. 

    Still, the biggest question is whether this will at some point cease to be the case.  Eventually, the generation now in law school classrooms will run things.  If they behave no differently in positions of leadership than they now behave in positions of apprenticeship, will the art of in-person communication and influence become irrelevant?  Although I’d like to be able to rule this out, I’m not sure I can.  In the meantime, then, those of us in positions of trust are left with a difficult question of stewardship.  Do we insist our students achieve proficiency in a skill we know to be valuable at the moment?  Do we, in other words, double down on our current position, resisting present trends on the ground that they are maladaptive?  Or do we let it go, betting instead on the emergence of a world in which such skills have limited currency?

2012 Asia-America Institute in Transnational Law

So, as some of you guessed from the photos (or because I told you before I left), I just recently returned from teaching in a joint Duke-Hong Kong University summer program – the Asia-America Institute in Transnational Law.  This was the first time I taught in the program, or visited Hong Kong, and I think I miss it already. 

 I had a great group of students from all over the world, including a fair number from Hong Kong and Mainland China.  I also had wonderful hosts from HKU – Douglas Arner and Simon Young – who many Loungers no doubt already know, as well as unofficial private dining guide, Chin Lim, who -- when he is not advising governments on their trade agreeemnts -- provides some of the best conversation, restaurant advice, and luxury car spotting of anyone in Hong Kong.  Class was held in the new (mostly finished) law school building, that will be amazing when fully open -- latest technology in the classrooms, fabulous conference space, great views from faculty offices (!!  -- I have a view of a dumpster from my Duke office). 

The photo above is the big Buddha in Lantau, an excursion taken with new friend, Haochen Sun -- assistant professor at HKU (and currently finishing up his Duke SJD), unofficially known as "the best ever North Carolina-Hong Kong liason and tour guide."  Many of you in the IP area probably already know Haochen, but if not you can plan to meet him next year when he visits at UC Davis.

Anyway, though I loved Hong Kong, it is good to be back with the Loungers again. Happy summer to all!

Peter Conti-Brown Stepping into the Lounge

It's my pleasure to announce that Peter Conti-Brown, who is an Academic Fellow, Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford, is stepping into the lounge to sit with us for a spell.  Close readers of the faculty lounge may recall that I blogged about Peter's "Scarcity Amidst Wealth: The Law, Finance, and Culture of Elite University Endowments in Financial Crisis," which appeared in the March 2011 issue of the Stanford Law Review a while back.  Cribbing now from the Rock Center's description of Peter:

He writes in the areas of banking, bankruptcy, corporate, and administrative law, with a focus on the law, economics, and history of banking and bank regulation, financial and fiscal crises, debt regulation, central banking and the Federal Reserve, and corporate governance for banks and other financial institutions.

Conti-Brown's articles have appeared in the Stanford,  UCLA, and Washington University Law Reviews, among other journals.  He is also the editor, with David Skeel, of the book When States Go Broke: Origins, Context, and Solutions for the American States in Fiscal Crisis, published by  Cambridge University Press.  He has been quoted in print and online articles published by Reuters, The Economist, The New York Times, US News and World Report, among others.

Conti-Brown graduated from Harvard College, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, and Stanford Law School, and clerked for the Hon. Gerard E. Lynch on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Conti-Brown will be a PhD candidate in history at Princeton University beginning in 2013, where he plans to focus on economic and financial history and write a dissertation  on the financial, intellectual, and political origins of the Federal Reserve System.

Long-time readers of the facutly lounge may recall that I was a student of Judge Lynch (and here) back in the days when he was Professor Lynch.  That was a fabulous intellectual experience.

Welcome, Peter.  Looking forward to your posts!

Kovarsky on Impending Execution

Danielle Citron wrote about this yesterday over at co-op and Frank Pasquali wrote about it at balkinization. Professor Lee Kovarsky of the University of Maryland has more details on the troubling facts surrounding the impending executation of Marvin Wilson.

Since the Supreme Court lifted the effective moratorium on the death penalty in 1976, Texas has executed more than four times as many people as any other state. On yet another issue, Texas is poised to break new ground in capital sentencing: it is defining the category of offenders with mild mental retardation (MR)—offenders that are supposed to be exempt from execution under the Eighth Amendment—out of existence. Marvin Wilson is scheduled for lethal injection in one week, despite the fact that he received a 61 on the standard Wechsler full-scale I.Q. test, a score placing him below the first percentile of human intelligence and far below the I.Q. threshold for mild MR. His adaptive functioning actually registers at a level consistent with a more severe variant of MR.

In 2002, Atkins v. Virginia categorically barred states from executing offenders with MR. The Court observed that people with MR are less culpable for their crimes and that they are not equipped to defend themselves at the guilt or punishment phases of their capital trials. In defining MR, the Supreme Court relied on the clinical criteria set forth by the leading clinical authorities. Indeed, all variants of clinical MR definitions have shared roughly the same criteria for nearly 100 years.

 Under that framework, Mr. Wilson was evaluated by Dr. Donald Trahan, a court-appointed, board certified neuropsychologist with 22 years of clinical experience as an MR specialist. After meeting with Mr. Wilson for eight hours, reviewing his school and medical records, and administering or evaluating a battery of leading neuropsychological testing, Dr. Trahan concluded that Mr. Wilson clearly had mild MR. At Mr. Wilson’s MR hearing, the State presented no evidence whatsoever; it has never offered any expert opinion, in any form, challenging Dr. Trahan’s clinical diagnosis.

Although the Supreme Court barred states from executing offenders with MR, Texas courts have created their own test for the condition— the so-called “Briseño factors” (named after the case that announced them). The Briseño factors are not recognized by clinicians or medical professionals, but Texas uses them to determine which defendants with MR will actually receive the Eighth Amendment exemption that Atkins announced. Texas courts developed the factors because, unlike in most other death-penalty jurisdictions, the Texas legislature has not bothered to define the condition statutorily. The factors constitute wildly under-inclusive criteria for MR. As the AAIDD wrote in their recent brief in Chester v. Thaler, another case involving the Briseño factors that is pending before the Supreme Court: “[The Texas] impressionistic ‘test’ directs fact-finders to use ‘factors’ that are based on false stereotypes about mental retardation that effectively exclude all but the most severely incapacitated.” The Texas Court of Criminal appeals—the state supreme court for the purposes of criminal adjudication—has actually indicated that it formulated the Briseño factors with Steinbeck’s Lennie in mind. On two separate occasions, the state court observed that Mr. Wilson could not have MR because, among other things, he had a wife and a child.

Attorneys for Mr. Wilson have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to consider whether the Briseño factors represent an unreasonable application of Atkins. Without judicial or gubernatorial intervention, Texas courts will have successfully hollowed Atkins into a rule that protects virtually no offender capable of going to trial.

 Here are some relevant links: the CERT PETITION, the NEUROPSYCH REPORT, the NEUROPSYCH REPORT ADDENDUM, and the STATE FINDINGS.

ABA Standards Review Committee to Revisit Interpretation 301-6?

After last year's flurry of activity, the ABA Standards Review Committee had apparently seemed to back off its proposed changes to the minimum-Bar-passage standards in ABA Interpretation 301-6. After the SRC's meeting last month, its appears that the Committee may be revisiting 301-6. See the article on ABA Journal online by Mark Hanson, ABA Committee to Revisit Bar Passage Accreditation Standard (July 16, 2012). So far as I can tell, the Committee's focus is on reducing the 5-year "look-back" period for eventual (multiple attempts) Bar passage, which is currently 75% overall or in 3-out-of-5 years.  Earlier, there had been some talk of going to a 2-out-of-3-year look-back.

I just sent the SRC comments opposing any such change, Comments on Look-back Periods and Eventual Bar Passage Rates. The comments are now available on SSRN (http://ssrn.com/abstract=2121116). Here's the abstract:

In its current review of the ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, the Standards Review Committee (SRC) had decided against proposing substantive changes to minimum Bar-passage standards for law schools. At its July 2012 meeting, the SRC indicated that it may be reconsidering the five-year “look-back” period for eventual Bar passage rates (over multiple attempts). In these Comments, I oppose cutting the look-back period. First, the “eventual” passage rate for the most-recent calendar year is primarily a first-time rate. A two-out-of-three-year standard, which some had proposed, would really be a two-out-of-two year standard. Second, the SRC is relying, at best, on overall national rates. Overall rates measure the average performance of law students, and are not appropriate for setting minimum standards for law schools. Overall rates also do not respond to concerns about the effect on minorities and on historically black law schools. Overall national rates also do not account for widely varying state minimum passing (“cut”) scores, which is especially important in setting an absolute, rather than a state-relative, eventual Bar passage rate standard.

As usual, there are some tables and charts. There is more information available about eventual Bar passage rates than you would have thought.  Not as much as we need.

posted by Gary Rosin

Saving (Independent) Bookstores. How About Co-ops?

If only I had a ton of money, I'd open a bookstore.  Really.

When Borders closed its stores, much of the Philadelphia metro area lost easy access to books.  That's not to say that some physical bookstores don't remain.  There are a few Barnes and Nobles, though they are  absent in areas I suspect house many of the remaining consumers of hard-copy books.  There are a very few independent bookstores selling new books - my local favorites are Joseph Fox and Children's Book World.  There are some niche stores: Whodunit.  And of course there are a few used bookstores.

But I cannot comprehend, for example, why Philly's Main Line suburbs - home to two successful and large Borders - do not yet have an independent or chain general interest bookstore.  And I suspect that several other areas of the country are similarly experiencing a disconnect between supply and demand.

I understand the general problem: Amazon is crushing the competiton with low prices and infinite selection.  Yet after a trip to upstate New York - and delightful,smartly curated little bookshops like the Spotty Dog Books and Ale in Hudson and the Golden Notebook  in Woodstock - it appears that a few entrepreneurs have found the market gap.  Maybe it's not random that these towns get lots of vacationers.

Here are some things that seem essential for new bookstores to flourish today.  First, they  must be well-curated.  Few stores can afford the rent and inventory to provide a comprehensive library on-demand.  Even B&N seems to be abandoning that aspiration.  And there is good reason: if you really need a book NOW, you can often get it digitally NOW in your HOUSE.  But many readers want to discover gems can provide that guidance.

Second, bookstores must build human and community ties that cause readers to pay slightly higher prices than on Amazon.  Good curation will be lost if customers simply use the store for ideas...and order online.  But because many people value the existence of a bookstore, they may be willing to spend more at least on occasion.  Buyers need to have some skin in the game - one way to create this might be through Bookstore Co-ops.  Bookstores can also use their space to support community activities - and these activities could be tied to fundraising.

Third, bookstores must be destinations.  Cafes, bars music...all of these provide a second reason to go to the bookstore.  Kramerbooks in DC has used and drink as a magnet for years.

This week, the Washington Post had three articles tracking a conference on saving indie bookstores here, here and here.

Hey: at least Amazon will likely lose its tax advantage soon.  

And then there's this . . .

Yes, I realize how geeky it is that my major trip highlights include a visit to the apple store.

Deadlines (and Their Disregard) in Academia

There is a great post today on Inside Higher Ed on the importance, and more than occasional disregard, of deadlines in higher ed.  The author describes different types of deadlines, from the hard deadlines for tenure and promotion, to the less firm deadlines like textbook submission dates, to the almost illusory self-imposed deadlines for our own research and return of student asignments.  Two of the author's observations particularly resonated with me.  First, as an administrator, I see the costs of missed deadlines that are often invisible to students, faculty, and others.  Second, I found myself nodding as I read the following account of faculty feedback on student writing assignments:

Deadlines matter in our interactions with students as well. My feeling is that if I am going to hold students strictly accountable to a deadline, then I too need to be accountable in similar ways. When I give my students writing assignments, each assignment is accompanied by a specifically articulated series of deadlines for when drafts and peer reviews are due, a deadline for each stage of the writing process, each of which students are expected to meet.  But my assignments also include deadlines for myself, essentially promises of when I will return things like graded papers. Holding students strictly to deadlines, but then failing to return work in a timely manner, sends a message of hypocrisy to students that they immediately detect and disdain. I hold myself as accountable to self-imposed deadlines, just as I hold my students accountable. By advertising my own deadlines for tasks like grading, in this case on the writing assignment itself, I create a mechanism that forces me to be accountable.

I follow the author's practice of announcing a self-imposed deadline for returning student assignments, and I find that the deadline both focuses and disciplnes my work.  If I miss the deadline, I then owe students an explanation that I would find worthy for excusing late submission of their part.  Not only does this respect their efforts, but I hope it models behavior that will be expected post-graduation.  How many faculty do something similar?

Name that Confederate Monument

Shall we start off August with a trivia question?  Looking through my pictures I see a picture of a Confederate Monument that I haven't used for a trivia question yet.  Name the town where this Confederate Monument is located.

Call For Papers: Local Government Works-In-Progress

Marquette University Law School is hosting a Local Government Law Works-in-Progress Conference on Friday, September 21, 2012  and possibly Saturday, September 22 as well.    The conference will provide an opportunity for local government law scholars to present works-in-progress and receive feedback from colleagues.

The registration deadline is August 13, 2012.  Register here.  The deadline for abstracts and papers is September 4, 2012.  Submissions and questions should be directed to: matthew.parlow@marquette.edu.

Brown on Law Bloggers

Over at theracetothebottom.org, Jay Brown is continuing to talk about his paper on law bloggers, "Law Faculty Blogs and Disruptive Innovation: The Data."  I've written some about this already (and here), but something that I haven't mentioned yet is the total census of legal academic bloggers.  Jay finds there are 299 of us who blog regularly (which he defines, I think, as putting up at least four posts in 2012).  I think I'd have a little more rigorous test for regularly blogging -- I'm thinking more on the order of at least a couple posts a month -- but I understand that there has to be a line somewhere and that's a reasonable one.

Focusing for a moment on Jay's census of 299.  I'm now wondering about the blogging phenomenon -- there are what, on the order of 6000 full time law professors?  This means that something like 5% of us regularly blog.  That's not a lot is it?  I mean if Walter Olson thinks we should abolish law reviews because all the good ideas are on blogs, I think we'd need to have some more people on blogs.  I continue to be interested in some of the other descriptive data around bloggers -- age, year of law school graduation, rank.  If we're thinking blogs are changing the heirarchies or discussion, I'd think we'd need more people involved in the conversation.

Where I've been . . .

I've been absent from the Lounge for a bit this summer . . . and I've missed you guys!  

Details to follow.