Search the Lounge


« SEALS Conference: Prospective Law Teachers Workshop | Main | Hemo the Magnificent »

April 24, 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Al Brophy

Congratulations, Kim. This looks terrific.

Enrique Guerra-Pujol

Thanks for the links!

Kim Krawiec

Thanks Al!

Sent from my iPhone

Joe Miller

Kim, is there any chance that Prof Roth's work on matching markets could be used to analyze and come up with suggested improvements for the law review manuscript submission process?

Kim Krawiec

Thanks for reading Enrique!

Kim Krawiec

Possibly Joe. I would look at some of the material on matching in the pubic school systems of New York and Boston, and the medical residency matching program. Each of those, if I recall, employ means to credibly signal a limited number of strong preferences, which might be something useful to the law reviews in culling the numerous submissions they receive. It might encourage authors to think hard about which journals they realistically have a shot at with each submission. I'm not sure, though -- haven't through it that much. Al's book, Who Gets What And Why, has short, user-friendly chapters on each of those matching systems.

Joe Miller

I've read Al's book (last summer). I wonder whether the law professors' preferences are differentiated enough . . .
It's a tough problem.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad