Debate, Empirical Courts Scholarship, and Professor Frank Cross

NEW YORK, N.Y. — Chad Henson and Paul Dorasil present the latest installment of “Debate by the Numbers.”

As many of you know, the immediate goal of the Debate by the Numbers project is to develop a model to predict the decision-making of judges in debate rounds. This work was inspired by a line of scholarship in law that seeks to predict judicial decision-making in appellate court cases, including the Supreme Court docket. One of the authors of this column conducts research in this field. Arguably the most prominent legal scholar in this area, Frank Cross, is also a former debater.

Frank B. Cross is the Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law, with a dual appointment in the Law School and the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas. He and his partner won the NDT in 1976, and he worked as a research assistant to Prof. Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School. He was kind enough to answer a few questions about his work and debate experience, relayed below.

Henson: How would you characterize your work, and what role does the use of empirical methods play in that work?

Cross: I vary across many areas, but my main focus is the study of how judicial decisions are made. Are they based on the law? If so, what legal materials are important? Are they based on the ideological preferences of the judges? Or maybe some other factor, like the influence of the political branches? The only way one can reliably get at such factual questions is through empirical methods. So I took it on myself to try to understand them and use them. This is a tricky field for empirical study, but a great deal of work has been done by political scientists, and I am trying to refine their evaluation of legal factors.

Henson: What was your involvement with debate, and how did that involvement shape your career?

Cross: I was very involved in debate, more so than anything else. In high school, in college, and even afterwards as a coach. It’s hard to know what shapes a person, but I would say that debate was probably the most significant influence on my life. I think it had value in training in rigorous thinking, challenging assumptions, and the importance of research. All of which are crucial to my career. And competitiveness probably was a factor too.

Henson: What advice do you have for current debaters interested in pursuing a career in law or academia?

Cross: I don’t know that there is any advice specific to debaters. Debate is an excellent training ground for law and at least many parts of academia. The analytical process and research (hard work) emphasis will serve you well. I guess I would say be sure to keep your mind open. When I was in law school, I was sure I wanted to practice and not be a professor. Then, I changed my mind. I never had any training in statistics or empirical methods until, as a professor, I decided I wanted to pursue this course. Be flexible and adapt to new experiences and information, just as you would adapt to changing arguments in the course of a debate.

Professor Cross’s research is available on SSRN. Please consider taking some time to download and take a look at some of his articles.

Popularity: 1% [?]

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 10th, 2010 at 11:04 pm and is filed under Debate by the Numbers. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.