So the first tasty bits of economists starting to become more apparent in the Harvard case appears on page 50.
It gets spicy QUICK.
LINK TO PAGE 50
So the case is an argument about the appropriate econometric specification.
Or if you're a fan of the lingo in the profession, it's an argument about the preferred specification.
Why do different sides have different preferred specifications?
Well that's on account of greater philosophical concerns regarding econometrics and identification. Suffice it to say that, in practice, results can change wildly depending on the controls used in a specification. Which controls are "good" and which controls are "bad" is clearly a point of contention in this particular case. And in just about any empirical research, at the frontier there is an argument about the appropriate specification to use.
I need to read the case more thoroughly and read the expert witness report by David Card before I comment on the preferred specifications, but it seems to be as to whether or not to condition on personal rating and status in particular advantaged groups like athletes, legacies, children of faculty, etc.
This blog is a therapeutic outlet for me to write about life on the tenure track in economics.