Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:56:07 +0000
By Karen Sloan
Research by two social scientists suggests that the U.S. News & World Report law school rankings aren’t helping legal educators build a more diverse student body.
Deans and admissions officers told the researchers that the pressure to maintain or improve their U.S. News rankings can mean fewer slots for diverse students, who tend to score lower on the LSAT and have lower grade point averages. “Selectivity” — LSAT scores, undergraduate grades and schools’ degree of exclusivity in accepting applicants — accounts for one quarter of each school’s ranking.
U.S. News does maintain a law school “diversity index,” but those data are not a factor in the overall rankings.
“A lot of people we interviewed expressed concern over the impact of rankings on diversity,” said Wendy Espeland, an assistant professor of sociology at Northwestern University. “The overarching tension between catering to the rankings and doing what you think is best for your school is intense.”
Espeland and Michael Sauder, an assistant sociology professor at the University of Iowa, have been studying the rankings’ influence on graduate programs since 2003. They co-authored a recent paper that chronicled the many ways in which the U.S. News rankings influence law school management. Sauder and Espeland considered diversity as part of their larger research and published their findings in “Rankings and Diversity” in the Fall 2009 edition of the Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice.
The research, based on interviews with more than 200 law school administrators, was funded in part through a grant from the Law School Admissions Council.
Bob Morse, director of data research for U.S. News, said that diversity is a complicated issue that cannot easily be incorporated into its rankings formula.
“To say that U.S. News is inhibiting law schools from taking minority students is a misunderstanding of the mathematics behind the rankings,” he said.
. . . Click here to read the complete article .
Tags: Diversity, Law School, Law Student, LSAT, Students, U.S. News
Short URL: http://tinyurl.com/yevawy4
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today announced numerous investments for Iowa in the Fiscal Year 2010 Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations bill. Funding has been approved for the Rock Island Arsenal, the Midwest Regional Counterdrug Training Center, Rockwell Collins and a variety of other Iowa businesses, colleges and communities. The bill still must pass the Senate before it is signed into law by the President. Harkin is a senior member of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
“This bill supports innovative projects that strengthen our nation’s defenses and boost Iowa’s economy,” said Harkin. “The work our local businesses and universities do provides our military with cutting edge equipment, technology and information. It gives our service men and women, our military families and the defense community the funding and tools necessary to keep America safe and secure and it provides national assistance to those Americans who are having a tough time in this economic downturn.”
In addition to funding for Iowa’s defense related projects, the bill contains an extension of COBRA and unemployment benefits for those looking for work, nutrition assistance for low income families and an extension of highway and small business loan assistance through the end of February, 2010.
Details of the funding are as follows:
ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL:
This assistance to the Arsenal lowers their operating costs, which are used to determine what they must charge for competitive work within the military. In turn, this boosts their ability to acquire business, which creates jobs in the Quad Cities.
Arsenal Support Program Initiative (ASPI) for Rock Island Arsenal: $7,600,000. ASPI encourages commercial use of underutilized facilities aboard Rock Island Arsenal, contributing to the increased use of the base’s skill set and encouraging commercial firms to utilize and lease arsenal facilities to reduce product and ownership costs.
Natural Gas Firetube Boiler Demonstration, Rock Island Arsenal: $800,000. The Rock Island Arsenal project will demonstrate new firetube boiler (Super Boiler) technology with 15 percent higher efficiency, 90 percent lower emissions, water savings and multi-fuel capability at the Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, IL facilities.
Rock Island Arsenal Roof Replacement: $5,800,000. Building 299 is a 775,000 square foot warehouse located on Rock Island Arsenal that was originally constructed in 1942.
MIDWEST COUNTERDRUG TRAINING CENTER (MCTC):
$6,000,000 - Since beginning operations in January 2003, MCTC, located in Johnston, has trained over 65,000 students, mainly state and local law enforcement officers, from all 50 states and territories in handling drug trafficking and substance abuse.
IOWA UNIVERSITIES
Iowa State University’s Aircraft Evaluation Readiness Initiative (AERI): $2,400,000. The program brings the University’s nondestructive evaluation and inspection expertise to bear on U.S. Air Force (USAF) problems, and several laboratory initiatives now are ready for transition to field testing and deployment.
Advanced, Live, Virtual and Constructive Training Systems, Iowa State University: $2,800,000. The Virtual Reality Applications Center (VRAC) at Iowa State University has begun to develop advanced software prototypes for LVC training that dramatically enhance the ability of a training officers to quickly create powerful training experiences. These systems, once refined for use in the field, will decrease the time required to train warfighters, save taxpayers’ money, and reduce fatalities.
Epidemiologic Health Survey, University of Iowa: $720,000. Funding will continue a project to study health effects of munitions industry work. This study is the largest cohort epidemiologic study of cancer and mortality in the munitions industry.
Multi-Utility Materials for Army Future Combat Systems, Iowa State University: $7,200,000. This initiative is designed to enable Iowa State University, in partnership with Florida A&M University and the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, to support the U.S. Army in developing and evaluating weapons and protective armor materials, with emphasis on survivability.
New Vaccines to Fight Respiratory Disease and Central Nervous Disorders, Iowa State University: $4,800,000. The collaborative initiative between ISU and the University of Nebraska Medical Center in novel vaccines to fight respiratory and central nervous system diseases focuses on developing single dose vaccines that can provide protective immunity against airborne bacterial pathogens.
Next Generation Manufacturing Technologies Initiative (NGMTI), University of Iowa: $1,600,000. NGMTI is a collaborative effort between the University of Iowa and Rockwell Collins, focused on the development of a combined, three-dimensional (3D) electromechanical design visualization system, along with decision aids to assess lifecycle costs and manufacturability, which offers significant benefits to the design process.
SOAR (Student Online Achievement Resources), University of Northern Iowa: $6,000,000. SOAR is designed to help military families who often relocate to different states and school districts by providing online assessment and instructional programs to help schools, students and parents identify academic strengths and weaknesses, and to provide added internet-based instruction, as well as interactive components to help military dependent students address targeted skills.
Spray Technique Analysis and Research for Defense (STAR4D), University of Northern Iowa: $2,200,000. STAR4D trains military painters in the proper and efficient application of Chemical Agent Resistant Coating (CARC) and other corrosion-preventative materials.
Trauma Response Simulation Training, Des Moines University: $1,200,000. This funding would support the creation of a training program between the Iowa Simulation Center for Patient Safety and Clinical Skills at Des Moines University and the Iowa National Guard. This partnership will fill a need for a centrally located and local training facility for all levels of professional citizen soldiers. The facility is set up to integrate the training of medical soldiers on mass casualty, trauma, and routine emergency care.
IOWA COMPANIES
Air National Guard’s F-16C Improved Communications Suite (ARC 210), Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids: $1,600,000. The Air National Guard’s (ANG) F-16C fighter aircraft communications suite is currently being upgraded with an ARC-210 radio that provides an improved, Secure Line-of-Sight (SLOS) and a Beyond Line-of-Sight (BLOS) satellite communications capability. This additional funding will be used for a second ARC-210, which is required in order to conduct simultaneous SLOS and BLOS communications.
E-6B Strategic Communications Upgrade (VLF-TX), Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids: $2,400,000. The Navy’s E-6B is a manned airborne communications relay platform designed to provide a survivable, reliable, endurable airborne Command and Control Communications link between the President, Secretary of Defense and U.S. strategic (ballistic missile submarine) forces.
Low Cost Military Global Position System (GPS) Receiver, Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids: $3,200,000. The Department of Defense has established the need for low cost, domestically produced military grade Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers. This additional funding will assist in the development of that capability.
Galfenol Energy Harvesting, ETREMA Products, Inc., Ames: $2,800,000. The U.S. Navy has a goal of reducing crew sizes, moving toward all-electric designs and increasing survivability of its vessels. A key strategy is the use of remote sensors to monitor areas and functions of a ship normally covered directly by personnel. The objective of the project is to develop this technology.
HyperAcute Vaccine Development, BioProtection Systems Corporation, Ames: $3,600,000. BioProtection Systems Corporation continues its work to advance HyperAcute Technology that 1) enhances current vaccines, making them more effective and practical for use, 2) generates vaccines for known threats, where a vaccine does not exist and 3) develops vaccine platforms for unknown agents.
Integrated Manifold and Tube Ceramic Oxygen Generator, Carleton Life Support Systems, Davenport: $4,800,000. This program is designed to satisfy a U.S. Navy need for a follow-on oxygen system, which will provide less of an impact on the aircraft engine, reduce the maintenance workload and increase aircrew mission time.
Navy AIT Logistics Modernization, Intermec Technologies Corporation, Cedar Rapids: $3,200,000. The Navy AIT Logistics Modernization Initiative meets an urgent requirement to modernize the naval supply and logistics structure with up-to-date automatic identification technology (AIT) and radio frequency identification (RFID) applications to achieve real-time tracking of inventories and business operations.
Portable Rapid Bacterial Warfare Detection Unit, Advanced Analytical Technologies, Inc., Ames: $4,000,000. Funds will help development of a rapid biohazard identification system that represents a vast improvement over current bacterial and viral identification systems.
Self Powered, Lightweight Flexible Display Unit on a Plastic Substrate, PowerFilm, Inc., Ames: $3,040,000. This project would provide the Army with an American made working prototype of a self powered, lightweight, flexible display to help improve soldier situational awareness and battlefield survivability.
Shared Vision, Mechdyne, Corp., Marshalltown: $2,400,000. Shared Vision provides soldiers in the field with the ability to improve their mission planning capabilities, allowing them to be more accurate in a shorter period of time compared to current methods. The improvements to Shared Vision will significantly increase the ease of integration onto the tactical network in theater while providing additional capabilities for mission planning/briefing, situational awareness and after action reviews.
Wireless Medical Monitoring System (WiMed) Athena GTX, Des Moines: $2,400,000. The Wireless Medical Monitoring System (WiMed) stays with a patient throughout triage and care. WiMed works wirelessly with standard blood pressure cuffs or a simple highly mobile forehead stick-on sensor and integrates many inputs, including: pulse oximetry, blood pressure, temperature, skin humidity and electrocardiogram.
Ultra Light Utility Vehicles for the National Guard, Polaris Defense, Spirit Lake: $4,480,000. This project provides funding for Ultra Light Utility Vehicles (ULUVs) for the National Guard. The National Guard recognizes that ULUVs are an affordable and flexible alternative to larger vehicles at less than $20,000 unit cost.
ADDITIONAL NATIONAL ASSISTANCE:
Unemployment Insurance: Extends expanded unemployment benefits, including increased payouts and longer duration of benefits, through February 28, 2010.
Help with Health Insurance for Unemployed Workers (COBRA): Extends from nine to 15 months the 65% COBRA health insurance subsidy for individuals who have lost their jobs. The job lost eligibility date is extended in the provision to February 28, 2010. Approximately seven million people benefited from the premium subsidy provided in the Recovery Act.
Nutrition Assistance: Includes language ensuring the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will have sufficient funding to meet the growing demand for nutrition assistance from modest-income families and provides $400 million in additional funding for state administrative expenses to speed up processing of applications. SNAP participation increased 18% in the last year to over 37 million people.
Small Business Loans: Allows the Small Business Administration (SBA) to continue two temporary enhancements to its loan guarantee program through February 28, 2010 to make loans more attractive to borrowers and lenders and to free up capital, with one raising the percentage of loan amounts that the SBA can guarantee to 90% and the other allowing SBA to waive or reduce loan fees. Small businesses represent a major engine for the U.S. economy, but many small business owners have had a difficult time securing needed loans in these tight economic times. The extension is fully offset .
Surface Transportation Authorization Extension: Extends the authorization for the highway, transit, highway safety and motor carrier safety programs of the Department of Transportation until February 28, 2010.
Click here for official OVC release!
March 6, 2010 at 1:57 pm | Reply
Great number-crunching, David. Odd how sometimes a figure that seems like it should be basic public knowledge is unavailable anywhere.
I would say that in terms of government spending, vastly greater amounts are wasted on contractors and grants to certain companies than on salaried employees. There are businesses and projects even here in Madison that receive flabbergasting sums of federal funding to decorate their lake-view offices with the most expensive wallpaper available, etc.
March 6, 2010 at 2:14 pm | Reply
“Great number-crunching, David.”
I don’t think that I deserve that much credit, it’s just algebra hehe, but thanks.
“Odd how sometimes a figure that seems like it should be basic public knowledge is unavailable anywhere.”
Yeah, no kidding. This is a bit of a side tangent:
I wish that the CBO had detailed revenue and outlay projection models that the general public could play around with on their website. What I mean is: anybody should be able to go on the CBO website and design their own 10 year horizon budget plan with their preferred tax burden structure, spending cuts, spending increases, etc. That would be so awesome and would help add some more realism and facts into fiscal arguments and debate among the general public.
“I would say that in terms of government spending, vastly greater amounts are wasted on contractors and grants to certain companies than on salaried employees. There are businesses and projects even here in Madison that receive flabbergasting sums of federal funding to decorate their lake-view offices with the most expensive wallpaper available, etc.”
I don’t think there is that much savings to be had with federal civilian employee compensation either, but everything has to be on the table when it comes to deficit reduction. I also agree with your contractor remark.
March 6, 2010 at 4:55 pm | Reply
I’d wager the state/local proxy number you use for federal government non-salaried and non-wage compensation would actually be higher for federal employees.
March 6, 2010 at 7:04 pm | Reply
“I’d wager the state/local proxy number you use for federal government non-salaried and non-wage compensation would actually be higher for federal employees.”
You think that these benefits are higher than 34.1% of total compensation? I wish I could find an actual federal number. I assumed that this was a decent proxy because many state and local governments also have very generous pensions and health insurance benefits for their employees. We know this from the enormous unfunded obligations of Illinois and California current and former state employee benefits – and these aren’t not the only examples.
March 6, 2010 at 11:56 pm | Reply
This post has nothing to do with whether federal government civilian employees in general make too much or too little, that is a separate topic.
I’m highly entertained by this statement. Even if this blog post is purely a positive exercise, it clearly has normative implications.
I think your benefit increase estimates are fairly accurate. Looking at health care (largest benefit), health care costs have been going up 7-9% each year. Federal employees have generous plans so the costs should be at least the average.
I disagree with the methodology used to calculate benefits, I believe that federal employees would have a lower proportion of their compensation going toward benefits than state/local employees. Here’s why… I don’t have the benefit breakdown but let’s assume the largest share is health care. Health care benefits should stay fairly static for an employee whether they are making $30,000 or $100,000. Since federal employees (on average) make a substantial higher wage than state/local, benefits should be a great proportion of the state/local employee’s paycheck.
Here’s the math:
State/Local Worker
Salary: $26.24/hour * the average work year (260 days) = $54,579.20
According to the math, local/state employees make only 73.3% of federal employees in 2008. The math above assumes employees are paid for holidays and vacation (which I believe is standard in government). The math also assumes a 40 hour work week, 8 hours a day (standard as well).
Benefits: $13.60/hour * 260 days = $28,288
Total Compensation = $82,867 (benefits = 34.1% of compensation)
Federal Worker
Assume benefits are static. Clearly they won’t be because pension benefits will be higher to higher paid employees. Health care benefits may be slightly higher as well but most likely not substantially.
Salary: $74,403
Benefits: $28,288
Total Compensation: $102,691 (benefits = 27.5%)
I can predict with high certainty that benefits packages will be a lower % of compensation for federal workers. However, it is possible that the federal government gives higher pension benefits or some type of other benefit than state/local governments nullifying my argument.
One more unrelated point, in terms of federal budgeting, I agree that the cost cutting and benefit trimming would not matter greatly. However, in terms of state/local budgeting, this is a different story.
March 7, 2010 at 12:07 am | Reply
“I’m highly entertained by this statement. Even if this blog post is purely a positive exercise, it clearly has normative implications.”
lol true
“I think your benefit increase estimates are fairly accurate. Looking at health care (largest benefit), health care costs have been going up 7-9% each year. Federal employees have generous plans so the costs should be at least the average.”
While true, this does not necessarily mean that federal benefits have increased at this rate since pension obligations grow at a different rate than health insurance benefits.
“I disagree with the methodology used to calculate benefits, I believe that federal employees would have a lower proportion of their compensation going toward benefits than state/local employees. Here’s why… I don’t have the benefit breakdown but let’s assume the largest share is health care. Health care benefits should stay fairly static for an employee whether they are making $30,000 or $100,000. Since federal employees (on average) make a substantial higher wage than state/local, benefits should be a great proportion of the state/local employee’s paycheck.”
That is a fair point. This means that the overall total compensation cost would be lower. You’re saying the opposite of Brad essentially lol.
“Here’s the math:
State/Local Worker
Salary: $26.24/hour * the average work year (260 days) = $54,579.20
According to the math, local/state employees make only 73.3% of federal employees in 2008. The math above assumes employees are paid for holidays and vacation (which I believe is standard in government). The math also assumes a 40 hour work week, 8 hours a day (standard as well).
Benefits: $13.60/hour * 260 days = $28,288
Total Compensation = $82,867 (benefits = 34.1% of compensation)”
I agree with those calculations.
“Federal Worker
Assume benefits are static. Clearly they won’t be because pension benefits will be higher to higher paid employees. Health care benefits may be slightly higher as well but most likely not substantially.
Salary: $74,403
Benefits: $28,288
Total Compensation: $102,691 (benefits = 27.5%)”
If your assumption is correct: federal employee benefits will be absolutely – not relatively – comparable to state and local employee benefits and pensions are static…then this math makes perfect sense.
“I can predict with high certainty that benefits packages will be a lower % of compensation for federal workers. However, it is possible that the federal government gives higher pension benefits or some type of other benefit than state/local governments nullifying my argument.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case, but I don’t know for sure. You can see, however, that your points here (except for the health care inflation one) suggest that my upper bound claim was correct.
“One more unrelated point, in terms of federal budgeting, I agree that the cost cutting and benefit trimming would not matter greatly. However, in terms of state/local budgeting, this is a different story.”
State and local pensions are a far more significant burden on state budgets than with the federal government. That is for sure. The same can even be said for wages and salaries.
March 7, 2010 at 1:09 am | Reply
You’re saying the opposite of Brad essentially
Indeed. Curious to hear what his assumptions and thinking are.
David, do you have any data on pension benefits state/local versus national?
March 7, 2010 at 1:28 am | Reply
I don’t have shat on national and not much on local. For state I have tons.
The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College is a fantastic resource for state pension data:
http://crr.bc.edu/frequently_requested_data/state_and_local_pension_data_4.html