Just enjoy the show

For nearly six years, MoneyLaw has asked us to pause in law's pleasures and count its many fears. The All-Star Break is the annual eye of the storm in the ecclesiastical calendar of the Church of Baseball. These moments provide the perfect occasion for reflection and introspection.

From the beginning, MoneyLaw has drawn its literary inspiration from Moneyball. In 2011, after at least one major false start, the big screen finally provided a home for Michael Lewis's bestselling profile of Billy Beane and his pursuit of the art of winning an unfair game.

The movie version of Moneyball is a distinct and worthy work in its own right. Among its subplots, the movie highlights the quiet heroism of Scott Hatteberg, the washed-up catcher that Billy Beane rescued, reclaimed, and repackaged as a first baseman who could run up pitch counts, draw walks, and bash long balls. Hatteberg ultimately brought more honor to the Oakland uniform than the likes of Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi, and Jose Canseco.

Perhaps the movie's most pleasant surprise was its musical Leitmotif, a catchy tune by Lenka. Those of us who admire Billy Beane know, in some cases far too personally and far too painfully, how hard it can be to win the last game of the season. For that group — for all of us who are just a little bit caught in the middle, for whom life is a maze and love is a riddle — a break in the action represents our best chance to let it go and just enjoy the show:

The Linda Hypothetical and Testing

Most readers are familiar with the Kahneman and Tversky  classic Linda hypothetical which involves this fact pattern and the follow-up question: "Linda is thirty-one years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations.”

Which alternative is more probable?
 (1) Linda is a bank teller.
 (2) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

Most people choose (2) over one although it is illogical to do so since it includes (1) and involves a joint and, thus, lower probability.

I've never been a believer in the Linda hypothetical. First, I am not sure it tells us as much about logic as it does interpretation. Having listed feminist as a possibility in choice (2), "not a feminist" may be inferred to be included in (1). If so,both are examples of joint probability. I am also not sure if many people know what "more probable" means. Suppose one reads that as "best" answer meaning the one that captures Linda in a more precise fashion. Finally, how about telling subjects this is a test on logic?  In short, is the test a valid test of reasoning?

For law professors, especially those using multiple choice machine graded exams the same questions are relevant.  There are many reasons for choosing a wrong answer and sometimes the answers reveal more about the teaching and testing than the students. On the typical essay exam or multiple choice with explanation test  the teacher can assess the quality of the question by examining why people missed it. Flaws in the questions are revealed. On a machine graded exam the process of "testing the test" needs to happen before the test is used. I wonder how many machine graders either copy the questions from another source and assume the questions are pretested or actually do test the questions by having a sample of students answer the questions and then debrief those giving the wrong answer. I am betting not many. Ironically, when the of issue machine graded testing comes up many of the defenses are also illogical.

The Guilded Age

From The Guilded Age (a.k.a. The End of the American Lawyer's Guilded Age), my contribution to the The Online Library of Law and Liberty:

In our time, the free movement of labor, capital, and information has created a global economy that moves by the gigahertz. In this economic milieu, education is worth what its purchaser can earn with it. . . . Legal education is what enables students to earn a living in life, and nothing more pretentious.

My commentary appears alongside two responses:

• Walter Olson, The Self-Sustaining Guild: American Lawyers Will Still Own the Future


• Brian Tamanaha, Legal Education at the Intersection of Two Guilds