THE DISAPPEARANCE THAT WASN'T? "RANDOM VARIATION" IN THE NUMBER OF WOMEN SUPREME COURT CLERKS
In the world of American law, a Supreme Court clerkship is a position desired by many but attained by few. In the summer of 2006, news reports revealed that only seven out of the 37 clerks hired—a mere 19 percent—were women. This outcome represented a dramatic 50 percent drop from preceding years. Y...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Jurimetrics (Chicago, Ill.) Ill.), 2008-06, Vol.48 (4), p.457-463 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 463 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 457 |
| container_title | Jurimetrics (Chicago, Ill.) |
| container_volume | 48 |
| creator | Kaye, D.H. Gastwirth, Joseph L. |
| description | In the world of American law, a Supreme Court clerkship is a position desired by many but attained by few. In the summer of 2006, news reports revealed that only seven out of the 37 clerks hired—a mere 19 percent—were women. This outcome represented a dramatic 50 percent drop from preceding years. Yet, two Justices portrayed the change as the result of "random variation," a claim that struck many observers at the time as incredible. This essay applies standard statistical reasoning to analyze what the dip in 2006 might indicate. We show that the year's decline in women, considered as one point in a time series, was not so improbable after all. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_223206693</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A205988261</galeid><jstor_id>25767409</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A205988261</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g1543-37fa83838099480e6782e6f4fcce4a2f0d5f32306213908c4e86d136e2234bbd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptjkFPgzAYhonRxDn9CSbNPHjClLaUcjKVdY44YIHiToYgtAvLBhO2g__emnkxWd7Dl7x5nu_7LqwRclxiE0zIpTWCzPdsB3netXUzDBsIEaMuGVkfci7ANMz4cil4yuNAADnnEqx4Fj_KZzAx3TSJwDtPQy7DJJ6AMAa_UpxHLyIFyQyskkjEIMuXqYgECJI8lSBYiPQtu7WudLkd1N3fHFv5TMhgbi-S1zDgC3ttXsQ29nTJsAn0fcKgoh5Dimqiq0qREmlYuxojDClysA9ZRRSjtYOpQgiTz88aj63Jae--776OajgUm-7Yt-ZkYRAEKfWxgR5O0LrcqqJpdXfoy2rXDFXBEXR9xhB1DGWfodaqVX257VqlG1P_45_O8Ca12jXVWeH-JGyGQ9cX-77Zlf13gVyPegT6-AfyIHpF</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>223206693</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>THE DISAPPEARANCE THAT WASN'T? "RANDOM VARIATION" IN THE NUMBER OF WOMEN SUPREME COURT CLERKS</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Kaye, D.H. ; Gastwirth, Joseph L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kaye, D.H. ; Gastwirth, Joseph L.</creatorcontrib><description>In the world of American law, a Supreme Court clerkship is a position desired by many but attained by few. In the summer of 2006, news reports revealed that only seven out of the 37 clerks hired—a mere 19 percent—were women. This outcome represented a dramatic 50 percent drop from preceding years. Yet, two Justices portrayed the change as the result of "random variation," a claim that struck many observers at the time as incredible. This essay applies standard statistical reasoning to analyze what the dip in 2006 might indicate. We show that the year's decline in women, considered as one point in a time series, was not so improbable after all.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0897-1277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2154-4344</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JURIFF</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: American Bar Association</publisher><subject>Clerks of court ; Clinical trials ; Courts of law ; Legislation ; Men ; P values ; Probabilities ; Randomness ; Reasoning ; REFLECTIONS ; Sample size ; Sex discrimination against women ; Standard deviation ; Statistical significance ; Statistical tests ; Statistics ; Supreme Court decisions ; Supreme Court justices ; Women attorneys</subject><ispartof>Jurimetrics (Chicago, Ill.), 2008-06, Vol.48 (4), p.457-463</ispartof><rights>2008 American Bar Association</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2008 American Bar Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Bar Association Summer 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25767409$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/25767409$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,801,58000,58233</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kaye, D.H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gastwirth, Joseph L.</creatorcontrib><title>THE DISAPPEARANCE THAT WASN'T? "RANDOM VARIATION" IN THE NUMBER OF WOMEN SUPREME COURT CLERKS</title><title>Jurimetrics (Chicago, Ill.)</title><description>In the world of American law, a Supreme Court clerkship is a position desired by many but attained by few. In the summer of 2006, news reports revealed that only seven out of the 37 clerks hired—a mere 19 percent—were women. This outcome represented a dramatic 50 percent drop from preceding years. Yet, two Justices portrayed the change as the result of "random variation," a claim that struck many observers at the time as incredible. This essay applies standard statistical reasoning to analyze what the dip in 2006 might indicate. We show that the year's decline in women, considered as one point in a time series, was not so improbable after all.</description><subject>Clerks of court</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Courts of law</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Men</subject><subject>P values</subject><subject>Probabilities</subject><subject>Randomness</subject><subject>Reasoning</subject><subject>REFLECTIONS</subject><subject>Sample size</subject><subject>Sex discrimination against women</subject><subject>Standard deviation</subject><subject>Statistical significance</subject><subject>Statistical tests</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><subject>Supreme Court justices</subject><subject>Women attorneys</subject><issn>0897-1277</issn><issn>2154-4344</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNptjkFPgzAYhonRxDn9CSbNPHjClLaUcjKVdY44YIHiToYgtAvLBhO2g__emnkxWd7Dl7x5nu_7LqwRclxiE0zIpTWCzPdsB3netXUzDBsIEaMuGVkfci7ANMz4cil4yuNAADnnEqx4Fj_KZzAx3TSJwDtPQy7DJJ6AMAa_UpxHLyIFyQyskkjEIMuXqYgECJI8lSBYiPQtu7WudLkd1N3fHFv5TMhgbi-S1zDgC3ttXsQ29nTJsAn0fcKgoh5Dimqiq0qREmlYuxojDClysA9ZRRSjtYOpQgiTz88aj63Jae--776OajgUm-7Yt-ZkYRAEKfWxgR5O0LrcqqJpdXfoy2rXDFXBEXR9xhB1DGWfodaqVX257VqlG1P_45_O8Ca12jXVWeH-JGyGQ9cX-77Zlf13gVyPegT6-AfyIHpF</recordid><startdate>20080622</startdate><enddate>20080622</enddate><creator>Kaye, D.H.</creator><creator>Gastwirth, Joseph L.</creator><general>American Bar Association</general><scope>ILT</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080622</creationdate><title>THE DISAPPEARANCE THAT WASN'T? "RANDOM VARIATION" IN THE NUMBER OF WOMEN SUPREME COURT CLERKS</title><author>Kaye, D.H. ; Gastwirth, Joseph L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g1543-37fa83838099480e6782e6f4fcce4a2f0d5f32306213908c4e86d136e2234bbd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Clerks of court</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Courts of law</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Men</topic><topic>P values</topic><topic>Probabilities</topic><topic>Randomness</topic><topic>Reasoning</topic><topic>REFLECTIONS</topic><topic>Sample size</topic><topic>Sex discrimination against women</topic><topic>Standard deviation</topic><topic>Statistical significance</topic><topic>Statistical tests</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><topic>Supreme Court justices</topic><topic>Women attorneys</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kaye, D.H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gastwirth, Joseph L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Jurimetrics (Chicago, Ill.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kaye, D.H.</au><au>Gastwirth, Joseph L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>THE DISAPPEARANCE THAT WASN'T? "RANDOM VARIATION" IN THE NUMBER OF WOMEN SUPREME COURT CLERKS</atitle><jtitle>Jurimetrics (Chicago, Ill.)</jtitle><date>2008-06-22</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>457</spage><epage>463</epage><pages>457-463</pages><issn>0897-1277</issn><eissn>2154-4344</eissn><coden>JURIFF</coden><abstract>In the world of American law, a Supreme Court clerkship is a position desired by many but attained by few. In the summer of 2006, news reports revealed that only seven out of the 37 clerks hired—a mere 19 percent—were women. This outcome represented a dramatic 50 percent drop from preceding years. Yet, two Justices portrayed the change as the result of "random variation," a claim that struck many observers at the time as incredible. This essay applies standard statistical reasoning to analyze what the dip in 2006 might indicate. We show that the year's decline in women, considered as one point in a time series, was not so improbable after all.</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>American Bar Association</pub><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0897-1277 |
| ispartof | Jurimetrics (Chicago, Ill.), 2008-06, Vol.48 (4), p.457-463 |
| issn | 0897-1277 2154-4344 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_223206693 |
| source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Jstor Complete Legacy |
| subjects | Clerks of court Clinical trials Courts of law Legislation Men P values Probabilities Randomness Reasoning REFLECTIONS Sample size Sex discrimination against women Standard deviation Statistical significance Statistical tests Statistics Supreme Court decisions Supreme Court justices Women attorneys |
| title | THE DISAPPEARANCE THAT WASN'T? "RANDOM VARIATION" IN THE NUMBER OF WOMEN SUPREME COURT CLERKS |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T23%3A45%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=THE%20DISAPPEARANCE%20THAT%20WASN'T?%20%22RANDOM%20VARIATION%22%20IN%20THE%20NUMBER%20OF%20WOMEN%20SUPREME%20COURT%20CLERKS&rft.jtitle=Jurimetrics%20(Chicago,%20Ill.)&rft.au=Kaye,%20D.H.&rft.date=2008-06-22&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=457&rft.epage=463&rft.pages=457-463&rft.issn=0897-1277&rft.eissn=2154-4344&rft.coden=JURIFF&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA205988261%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=223206693&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A205988261&rft_jstor_id=25767409&rfr_iscdi=true |