Working Papers

Ideological Concordance Between Students and Professors
Current Draft: December 2024 (with Adam Bonica, Kyle Rozema, & Maya Sen)

The largely liberal composition of American university faculties is frequently lamented in academic discourse and public debate, largely out of concern that professors "brainwash" younger generations with left-leaning principles. However, these complaints often fail to acknowledge that university students are also overwhelmingly liberal. It is thus possible that university professors are more liberal than the American public but more conservative than their students. In this article, we develop a measure of student-professor ideological concordance based on the share of faculty members who are more liberal than the students at a given school. We then use data on the ideology of students and professors in American law schools over more than a twenty-year period to estimate the degree of ideological concordance in the legal academy. We find that although professors have become more liberal over time, they have also become more conservative than their students.

Occupational Licensing and Labor Market Mobility: Evidence from The Legal Profession
Current Draft: August 2024 (with Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema, & Sarath Sanga)

We study how state occupational licensing requirements shape labor mobility across U.S. legal markets. Drawing on newly collected data, we link variation in state bar exam waiver policies to lawyers’ license acquisitions, professional disciplinary records, and educational histories. We find that bar exam waivers increase the number of experienced lawyers obtaining a new license by 38 percent, but that the additional lawyers are subject to more professional discipline and tend to have graduated from less selective law schools. Our results suggest that state-level occupational licensing regimes can create a trade-off between the supply and quality of professionals in an industry.

Identifying Constitutional Law
Current Draft: December 2021 (with Mila Versteeg)

Empirical research in comparative constitutional law has largely relied on coding countries’ “large-C” constitution—that is, the text of the written constitution—and not their “small-c” constitution—that is, the larger set of interpretations, conventions, and laws that can also be part of constitutional law. The potential biases associated with approach to coding constitutional law has been repeatedly raised as a criticism of this line of research. That said, incorporating small-c constitutional sources into empirical comparative constitutional law research first requires developing an approach to systematically identifying small-c constitutional law across countries. We outline three possible kinds of approaches for doing so: (1) Entrenchment Approaches, which emphasize entrenchment as the defining feature of constitutions and constitutional law; (2) External Approaches, which emphasize core constitutional functions, such as structuring and limiting government and rights; and (3) Internal Approaches, which emphasize local understandings of the constitution and constitutional law. While these approaches yield only minor differences when identifying Large-C constitutions, they produce substantial differences when identifying small-c constitutional sources. We argue that which approach is most suitable depends on the objectives of the comparative research project.