Law Schools’ Applications Fall as Costs Rise and Jobs Are Cut

Law school applications are headed for a 30-year low, reflecting increased concern over soaring tuition, crushing student debt and diminishing prospects of lucrative employment upon graduation.

As of this month, there were 30,000 applicants to law schools for the fall, a 20 percent decrease from the same time last year and a 38 percent decline from 2010, according to the Law School Admission Council. Of some 200 law schools nationwide, only 4 have seen increases in applications this year. In 2004 there were 100,000 applicants to law schools; this year there are likely to be 54,000.

Such startling numbers have plunged law school administrations into soul-searching debate about the future of legal education and the profession over all.

“We are going through a revolution in law with a time bomb on our admissions books,” said William D. Henderson, a professor of law at Indiana University, who has written extensively on the issue. “Thirty years ago if you were looking to get on the escalator to upward mobility, you went to business or law school. Today, the law school escalator is broken.”

Responding to the new environment, schools are planning cutbacks and accepting students they would not have admitted before.

A few schools, like the Vermont Law School, have started layoffs and buyouts of professors. Others, like at the University of Illinois, have offered across-the-board tuition discounts to keep up enrollments. Brian Leiter of the University of Chicago Law School, who runs a blog on the topic, said he expected as many as 10 schools to close over the coming decade, and half to three-quarters of all schools to reduce class size, faculty and staff.

After the normal dropout of some applicants, the number of those matriculating in the fall will be about 38,000, the lowest since 1977, when there were two dozen fewer law schools, according to Brian Z. Tamanaha of Washington University Law School, the author of “Failing Law Schools.”

The drop in applications is widely viewed as directly linked to perceptions of the declining job market. Many of the reasons that law jobs are disappearing are similar to those for disruptions in other knowledge-based professions, namely the growth of the Internet. Research is faster and easier, requiring fewer lawyers, and is being outsourced to less expensive locales, including West Virginia and overseas.

In addition, legal forms are now available online and require training well below a lawyer’s to fill them out.

In recent years there has also been publicity about the debt load and declining job prospects for law graduates, especially of schools that do not generally provide employees to elite firms in major cities. Last spring, the American Bar Association released a study showing that within nine months of graduation in 2011, only 55 percent of those who finished law school found full-time jobs that required passage of the bar exam.

“Students are doing the math,” said Michelle J. Anderson, dean of the City University of New York School of Law. “Most law schools are too expensive, the debt coming out is too high and the prospect of attaining a six-figure-income job is limited.”

Mr. Tamanaha of Washington University said the rise in tuition and debt was central to the decrease in applications. In 2001, he said, the average tuition for private law school was $23,000; in 2012 it was $40,500 (for public law schools the figures were $8,500 and $23,600). He said that 90 percent of law students finance their education by taking on debt. And among private law school graduates, the average debt in 2001 was $70,000; in 2011 it was $125,000.

“We have been sharply increasing tuition during a low-inflation period,” he said of law schools collectively, noting that a year at a New York City law school can run to more than $80,000 including lodging and food. “And we have been maximizing our revenue. There is no other way to describe it. We will continue to need lawyers, but we need to bring the price down.”

Some argue that the drop is an indictment of the legal training itself — a failure to keep up with the profession’s needs.

“We have a significant mismatch between demand and supply,” said Gillian K. Hadfield, professor of law and economics at the University of Southern California. “It’s not a problem of producing too many lawyers. Actually, we have an exploding demand for both ordinary folk lawyers and big corporate ones.”

She said that, given the structure of the legal profession, it was hard to make a living dealing with matters like mortgage and divorce, and that big corporations were dissatisfied with what they see as the overly academic training at elite law schools.

The drop in law school applications is unlike what is happening in almost any other graduate or professional training, except perhaps to veterinarians. Medical school applications have been rising steadily for the past decade.

Debra W. Stewart, president of the Council of Graduate Schools, said applicants to master of business degrees were steady — a 0.8 percent increase among Americans in 2011 after a decade of substantial growth. But growth in foreign student applications — 13 percent over the same period — made up the difference, something from which law schools cannot benefit, since foreigners have less interest in American legal training.

In the legal academy, there has been discussion about how to make training less costly and more relevant, with special emphasis on the last year of law school. A number of schools, including elite ones like Stanford, have increased their attention to clinics, where students get hands-on training. Northeastern Law School in Boston, which has long emphasized in-the-field training, has had one of the smallest decreases in its applicant pool this year, according to Jeremy R. Paul, the new dean.

There is also discussion about permitting students to take the bar after only two years rather than three, a decision that would have to be made by the highest officials of a state court system. In New York, the proposal is under active consideration largely because of a desire to reduce student debt.

Some, including Professor Hadfield of the University of Southern California, have called for one- or two-year training programs to create nonlawyer specialists for many tasks currently done by lawyers. Whether or not such changes occur, for now the decline is creating what many see as a cultural shift.

“In the ’80s and ’90s, a liberal arts graduate who didn’t know what to do went to law school,” Professor Henderson of Indiana said. “Now you get $120,000 in debt and a default plan of last resort whose value is just too speculative. Students are voting with their feet. There are going to be massive layoffs in law schools this fall. We won’t have the bodies we need to meet the payroll.”

Read More..

Phys Ed: Helmets for Ski and Snowboard Safety

Phys Ed

Gretchen Reynolds on the science of fitness.

Recently, researchers from the department of sport science at the University of Innsbruck in Austria stood on the slopes at a local ski resort and trained a radar gun on a group of about 500 skiers and snowboarders, each of whom had completed a lengthy personality questionnaire about whether he or she tended to be cautious or a risk taker.

The researchers had asked their volunteers to wear their normal ski gear and schuss or ride down the slopes at their preferred speed. Although they hadn’t informed the volunteers, their primary aim was to determine whether wearing a helmet increased people’s willingness to take risks, in which case helmets could actually decrease safety on the slopes.

What they found was reassuring.

To many of us who hit the slopes with, in my case, literal regularity — I’m an ungainly novice snowboarder — the value of wearing a helmet can seem self-evident. They protect your head from severe injury. During the Big Air finals at the Winter X Games in Aspen, Colo., this past weekend, for instance, 23-year-old Icelandic snowboarder Halldor Helgason over-rotated on a triple back flip, landed head-first on the snow, and was briefly knocked unconscious. But like the other competitors he was wearing a helmet, and didn’t fracture his skull.

Indeed, studies have concluded that helmets reduce the risk of a serious head injury by as much as 60 percent. But a surprising number of safety experts and snowsport enthusiasts remain unconvinced that helmets reduce overall injury risk.

Why? A telling 2009 survey of ski patrollers from across the country found that 77 percent did not wear helmets because they worried that the headgear could reduce their peripheral vision, hearing and response times, making them slower and clumsier. In addition, many worried that if they wore helmets, less-adept skiers and snowboarders might do likewise, feel invulnerable and engage in riskier behavior on the slopes.

In the past several years, a number of researchers have attempted to resolve these concerns, for or against helmets. And in almost all instances, helmets have proved their value.

In the Innsbruck speed experiment, the researchers found that people whom the questionnaires showed to be risk takers skied and rode faster than those who were by nature cautious. No surprise.

But wearing a helmet did not increase people’s speed, as would be expected if the headgear encouraged risk taking. Cautious people were slower than risk-takers, whether they wore helmets or not; and risk-takers were fast, whether their heads were helmeted or bare.

Interestingly, the skiers and riders who were the most likely, in general, to don a helmet were the most expert, the men and women with the most talent and hours on the slopes. Experience seemed to have taught them the value of a helmet.

Off of the slopes, other new studies have brought skiers and snowboarders into the lab to test their reaction times and vision with and without helmets. Peripheral vision and response times are a serious safety concern in a sport where skiers and riders rapidly converge from multiple directions.

But when researchers asked snowboarders and skiers to wear caps, helmets, goggles or various combinations of each for a 2011 study and then had them sit before a computer screen and press a button when certain images popped up, they found that volunteers’ peripheral vision and reaction times were virtually unchanged when they wore a helmet, compared with wearing a hat. Goggles slightly reduced peripheral vision and increased response times. But helmets had no significant effect.

Even when researchers added music, testing snowboarders and skiers wearing Bluetooth-audio equipped helmets, response times did not increase significantly from when they wore wool caps.

So why do up to 40 percent of skiers and snowboarders still avoid helmets?

“The biggest reason, I think, is that many people never expect to fall,” says Dr. Adil H. Haider, a trauma surgeon and associate professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and co-author of a major new review of studies related to winter helmet use. “That attitude is especially common in people, like me, who are comfortable on blue runs but maybe not on blacks, and even more so in beginners.”

But a study published last spring detailing snowboarding injuries over the course of 18 seasons at a Vermont ski resort found that the riders at greatest risk of hurting themselves were female beginners. I sympathize.

The takeaway from the growing body of science about ski helmets is in fact unequivocal, Dr. Haider said. “Helmets are safe. They don’t seem to increase risk taking. And they protect against serious, even fatal head injuries.”

The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, of which Dr. Haider is a member, has issued a recommendation that “all recreational skiers and snowboarders should wear safety helmets,” making them the first medical group to go on record advocating universal helmet use.

Perhaps even more persuasive, Dr. Haider has given helmets to all of his family members and colleagues who ski or ride. “As a trauma surgeon, I know how difficult it is to fix a brain,” he said. “So everyone I care about wears a helmet.”

Read More..

Phys Ed: Helmets for Ski and Snowboard Safety

Phys Ed

Gretchen Reynolds on the science of fitness.

Recently, researchers from the department of sport science at the University of Innsbruck in Austria stood on the slopes at a local ski resort and trained a radar gun on a group of about 500 skiers and snowboarders, each of whom had completed a lengthy personality questionnaire about whether he or she tended to be cautious or a risk taker.

The researchers had asked their volunteers to wear their normal ski gear and schuss or ride down the slopes at their preferred speed. Although they hadn’t informed the volunteers, their primary aim was to determine whether wearing a helmet increased people’s willingness to take risks, in which case helmets could actually decrease safety on the slopes.

What they found was reassuring.

To many of us who hit the slopes with, in my case, literal regularity — I’m an ungainly novice snowboarder — the value of wearing a helmet can seem self-evident. They protect your head from severe injury. During the Big Air finals at the Winter X Games in Aspen, Colo., this past weekend, for instance, 23-year-old Icelandic snowboarder Halldor Helgason over-rotated on a triple back flip, landed head-first on the snow, and was briefly knocked unconscious. But like the other competitors he was wearing a helmet, and didn’t fracture his skull.

Indeed, studies have concluded that helmets reduce the risk of a serious head injury by as much as 60 percent. But a surprising number of safety experts and snowsport enthusiasts remain unconvinced that helmets reduce overall injury risk.

Why? A telling 2009 survey of ski patrollers from across the country found that 77 percent did not wear helmets because they worried that the headgear could reduce their peripheral vision, hearing and response times, making them slower and clumsier. In addition, many worried that if they wore helmets, less-adept skiers and snowboarders might do likewise, feel invulnerable and engage in riskier behavior on the slopes.

In the past several years, a number of researchers have attempted to resolve these concerns, for or against helmets. And in almost all instances, helmets have proved their value.

In the Innsbruck speed experiment, the researchers found that people whom the questionnaires showed to be risk takers skied and rode faster than those who were by nature cautious. No surprise.

But wearing a helmet did not increase people’s speed, as would be expected if the headgear encouraged risk taking. Cautious people were slower than risk-takers, whether they wore helmets or not; and risk-takers were fast, whether their heads were helmeted or bare.

Interestingly, the skiers and riders who were the most likely, in general, to don a helmet were the most expert, the men and women with the most talent and hours on the slopes. Experience seemed to have taught them the value of a helmet.

Off of the slopes, other new studies have brought skiers and snowboarders into the lab to test their reaction times and vision with and without helmets. Peripheral vision and response times are a serious safety concern in a sport where skiers and riders rapidly converge from multiple directions.

But when researchers asked snowboarders and skiers to wear caps, helmets, goggles or various combinations of each for a 2011 study and then had them sit before a computer screen and press a button when certain images popped up, they found that volunteers’ peripheral vision and reaction times were virtually unchanged when they wore a helmet, compared with wearing a hat. Goggles slightly reduced peripheral vision and increased response times. But helmets had no significant effect.

Even when researchers added music, testing snowboarders and skiers wearing Bluetooth-audio equipped helmets, response times did not increase significantly from when they wore wool caps.

So why do up to 40 percent of skiers and snowboarders still avoid helmets?

“The biggest reason, I think, is that many people never expect to fall,” says Dr. Adil H. Haider, a trauma surgeon and associate professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and co-author of a major new review of studies related to winter helmet use. “That attitude is especially common in people, like me, who are comfortable on blue runs but maybe not on blacks, and even more so in beginners.”

But a study published last spring detailing snowboarding injuries over the course of 18 seasons at a Vermont ski resort found that the riders at greatest risk of hurting themselves were female beginners. I sympathize.

The takeaway from the growing body of science about ski helmets is in fact unequivocal, Dr. Haider said. “Helmets are safe. They don’t seem to increase risk taking. And they protect against serious, even fatal head injuries.”

The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, of which Dr. Haider is a member, has issued a recommendation that “all recreational skiers and snowboarders should wear safety helmets,” making them the first medical group to go on record advocating universal helmet use.

Perhaps even more persuasive, Dr. Haider has given helmets to all of his family members and colleagues who ski or ride. “As a trauma surgeon, I know how difficult it is to fix a brain,” he said. “So everyone I care about wears a helmet.”

Read More..

Streaming Shakes Up Music Industry’s Model for Royalties

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Zoe Keating published on her blog the details of what she made in royalties from the Web streaming of her music. It wasn’t a lot.

Like plenty of music fans, Sam Broe jumped at the chance to join Spotify two summers ago, and he hasn’t looked back.

Spotify, which began streaming music in Sweden in 2008, lets users choose from millions of songs over the Internet free or by subscription, and is increasingly seen as representing the future of music consumption. Mr. Broe, a 26-year-old from Brooklyn, said that having all that music at his fingertips helped him trim his monthly music budget from $30 to the $10 fee he pays for Spotify’s premium service.

“The only time I download anything on iTunes is in the rare case that I can’t find it on Spotify,” he said.

A decade after Apple revolutionized the music world with its iTunes store, the music industry is undergoing another, even more radical, digital transformation as listeners begin to move from CDs and downloads to streaming services like Spotify, Pandora and YouTube.

As purveyors of legally licensed music, they have been largely welcomed by an industry still buffeted by piracy. But as the companies behind these digital services swell into multibillion-dollar enterprises, the relative trickle of money that has made its way to artists is causing anxiety at every level of the business.

Late last year, Zoe Keating, an independent musician from Northern California, provided an unusually detailed case in point. In voluminous spreadsheets posted to her Tumblr blog, she revealed the royalties she gets from various services, down to the ten-thousandth of a cent.

Even for an under-the-radar artist like Ms. Keating, who describes her style as “avant cello,” the numbers painted a stark picture of what it is like to be a working musician these days. After her songs had been played more than 1.5 million times on Pandora over six months, she earned $1,652.74. On Spotify, 131,000 plays last year netted just $547.71, or an average of 0.42 cent a play.

“In certain types of music, like classical or jazz, we are condemning them to poverty if this is going to be the only way people consume music,” Ms. Keating said.

The way streaming services pay royalties represents a major shift in the economic gears that have been underlying the industry for decades.

From 78 r.p.m. records to the age of iTunes, artists’ record royalties have been counted as a percentage of a sale price. On a 99-cent download, a typical artist may earn 7 to 10 cents after deductions for the retailer, the record company and the songwriter, music executives say. One industry joke calls the flow of these royalties a “river of nickels.”

In the new economics of streaming music, however, the river of nickels looks more like a torrent of micropennies.

Spotify, Pandora and others like them pay fractions of a cent to record companies and publishers each time a song is played, some portion of which goes to performers and songwriters as royalties. Unlike the royalties from a sale, these payments accrue every time a listener clicks on a song, year after year.

The question dogging the music industry is whether these micropayments can add up to anything substantial.

“No artist will be able to survive to be professionals except those who have a significant live business, and that’s very few,” said Hartwig Masuch, chief executive of BMG Rights Management.

Spotify has 20 million users in 17 countries, with five million of them paying $5 to $10 a month to eliminate the ads seen by freeloaders.

In a recent interview, Sean Parker, a board member, said he believed Spotify would eventually attract enough subscribers to help return the music industry to its former glory — that is, to the days before Mr. Parker’s first major enterprise, Napster, came along.

“I believe that Spotify is the company that will make it succeed,” said Mr. Parker, who is also a former president of Facebook. “It’s the right model if you want to build the pot of money back up to where it was in the late ’90s, when the industry was at its peak. This is the only model that’s going to get you there.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 31, 2013

An article on Tuesday about the royalties paid by streaming music companies like Spotify gave an incorrect estimate of the potential earnings of a song on Spotify’s paid tier. Spotify generally pays 0.5 to 0.7 cent a stream for the paid tier, which results in $5,000 to $7,000 per million plays, not $5,000 to $8,000. The article also described the $7 billion American recording industry incorrectly. That figure was its annual revenue in 2011 — not its “bottom line,” which refers to net profit, not sales.

Read More..

World Briefing | Asia: Factory Owners Arrested in Bangladesh

The Bangladeshi police have arrested two owners of a factory that caught fire last week, resulting in the deaths of seven workers, in the latest blaze to strike the country’s garment export industry. Late Tuesday night, the police arrested Sharif Ahmed, chairman of Smart Export Garments, and his colleague, M. D. Zakir Ahmed. The Smart Export factory was manufacturing clothing for several European clothing brands.

Read More..

DealBook: MF Global's Bankruptcy Closes In on Happy Conclusion

When Mahesh Desai checked his MF Global account 15 months ago, his $580,000 nest egg was gone.

Like thousands of investors and farmers who had their savings with MF Global, Mr. Desai lost his money in the brokerage firm’s chaotic final days. Regulators discovered that $1.6 billion was trapped in a web of improper wire transfers, a stunning breach that sent federal investigators scrambling to build a case.

On Thursday, a bankruptcy court will review a proposal that would return 93 percent of the missing money to customers like Mr. Desai. And the trustee who has submitted the proposal, James W. Giddens, has quietly identified a way that, if sent to the judge and approved, could plug the remaining shortfall for customers in the United States, according to people involved in the case.

The broad push to make MF Global customers nearly whole, a goal now surprisingly within reach, is a remarkable turnaround from the firm’s 2011 bankruptcy filing when such a recovery seemed impossible.

“I’m surprised that, magically, the money has shown up,” said Mr. Desai, a software account executive who, like most customers in the United States, has only 80 percent of his money. “I feel very relieved.”

Customers are not the only ones exhaling. The hearing on Thursday presents a turning point for several major players in the MF Global case, including the firm’s trustees, creditors and former executives.

For one, Mr. Giddens late last year made peace with an overseas administrator tending to the firm’s British unit and Louis J. Freeh, the MF Global trustee recovering money for creditors. The pact ended a bitter fight over access to limited resources.

And Jon S. Corzine, the former New Jersey governor who headed MF Global when it collapsed, can now claim some small degree of vindication. The European bonds at the center of a $6.3 billion bet by Mr. Corzine fully paid out when they matured in recent months.

The large position in European sovereign debt in 2011 unnerved MF Global’s investors and ratings agencies. Yet it is now clear that the bonds, which were sold to George Soros and other investors, were not by themselves to blame for felling MF Global. The firm also struggled after a one-time charge depressed its earnings.

Mr. Corzine, a former chief of Goldman Sachs, has started to regain his footing. He spent the summer on Long Island, traveled to France around the holidays and visited Central America for a humanitarian project involving children, setting up what he hopes will become a broader charitable effort. Mr. Corzine, 66, also spends time with his grandchildren and has office space in Midtown Manhattan, where he writes and trades with his own money.

In the most telling indication that Mr. Corzine is taking steps to put MF Global behind him, he was close to cooperating with Richard Ben Cramer, an author and a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, on a biography. Mr. Corzine’s lawyers were in the final stages of negotiating with Mr. Cramer this month when the author died from complications of lung cancer.

Despite Mr. Corzine’s progress, he still must shake a nagging federal investigation. While investigators have long doubted their ability to file criminal charges against him, suspecting that chaos and lax controls were at play, rather than outright fraud, they continue stitching together evidence on the firm’s demise.

Federal authorities interviewed the former chief over two days in September, according to people close to the case, a sign that the government saw him more as a witness than a suspect. When prosecutors have damning evidence, they often file charges rather than offer a voluntary interview.

But Mr. Corzine, unsurprisingly, has yet to receive assurances that he is in the clear. And investigators continue to examine one of his statements from the September session, the people close to the case said. The statement involved Mr. Corzine’s recollection about a phone call he had with JPMorgan Chase, which received a suspicious $175 million transfer from MF Global on its last day of business. A spokesman for Mr. Corzine declined to comment on the case.

JPMorgan sought written promises that the money did not belong to customers, but never received such assurances. An e-mail reviewed by The New York Times shows that Edith O’Brien, an MF Global employee who oversaw the transfer, told Mr. Corzine that the money belonged to the firm, not clients.

Ms. O’Brien declined to cooperate with the investigation without receiving immunity from criminal prosecution. But the government is hesitating to grant her request, according to the people close to the case, fearing that doing so would set a bad example for future investigations.

Other MF Global employees, including several who stayed to help unwind the firm, are moving on. Henri Steenkamp, MF Global’s chief financial officer, recently departed. And Bradley Abelow, the firm’s chief operating officer, who worked for Mr. Corzine at Goldman and the New Jersey governor’s mansion, left late last year. Weeks earlier, he bought a $1 million condominium in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, according to property records.

With Mr. Abelow gone, Laurie Ferber, the firm’s general counsel, remains the highest-ranking executive on Mr. Freeh’s payroll.

For Mr. Freeh, the most significant breakthrough came in late December when he joined a deal with Mr. Giddens and the British administrator.

Under the terms of the broad settlement, the administrator will pay an estimated $500 million to $600 million to Mr. Giddens, ending a dispute over customer money trapped overseas. The deal also prompted Mr. Freeh to drop more than $2 billion in claims against Mr. Giddens, who hailed the pact as a “critical milestone.”

“This is the eighth-largest bankruptcy in history and we’ve been able to sprint ahead on some occasions, but this is a marathon,” Mr. Giddens’s spokesman, Kent Jarrell, said in a statement.

The deal, if approved by the bankruptcy judge on Thursday, will enable Mr. Giddens to return up to 93 percent of the money of MF Global’s United States customers. If a series of settlements with JPMorgan and other firms fall into place, people involved in the case said, Mr. Giddens could ultimately return 100 percent of the missing money.

To plug the gap, he must also pursue a small pot of money sitting in MF Global’s general estate, a move that would require court approval. Even if he takes that path, foreign clients will still face significant shortfalls.

For some creditors, the race to recover their millions has moved too slowly. Some have grumbled about the roughly $42 million in fees for Mr. Freeh and other lawyers, focusing on parking bills and first-class air travel.

A group of hedge funds and other companies that held MF Global bonds at the time of the bankruptcy recently introduced a plan to liquidate the firm’s remains and accelerate the payout process. The group, led by Silver Point Capital, said it expected customers to recover 100 percent of their money.

But not every customer will cash in. Some, in desperation, sold their claims last year at 89 or 91 percent to hedge funds and banks. Mr. Desai held out. “My hope has always been 100 percent,” he said.

Mr. Desai credits the turnaround to Mr. Giddens and James L. Koutoulas, a Chicago hedge fund manager who became a voice for thousands of customers whose money disappeared.

While Mr. Koutoulas continues to fight, it has come with collateral damage. After he appeared on CNBC in 2011 to criticize JPMorgan Chase over its role in the bankruptcy, the bank closed his account and froze his credit card. The bank declined to comment.

Read More..

Super Bowl: At Media Day, Spotlight on Head Injuries Grows

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

Coach Jim Harbaugh arranged his 49ers for a Super Bowl photo at the Super Dome.

NEW ORLEANS — It has become a staple of Super Bowl week, as much a part of the pregame to the N.F.L.’s biggest event as the annual media day: a discussion of how football is being affected by head injuries and the mounting evidence that long-term brain damage can be linked to injuries sustained on the field.

Years ago, players rarely spoke about the issue and league officials dismissed suggestions that on-field injuries could lead to life-altering health problems. Now, however, the league is facing lawsuits from thousands of former players, rules are being instituted in an attempt to diminish injuries on the field and even President Obama has said that the way football is played will have to change. This week, Bernard Pollard, a hard-hitting safety for the Baltimore Ravens, created a stir by saying that the N.F.L. would not exist in 30 years because of the rules changes designed with safety in mind, but that he also believed there would be a death on the field at some point.

At media day Tuesday, players reacted to the comments made by Pollard and Obama, with some agreeing with Pollard that recent rules changes would change the sport to such an extent that it would be less entertaining and lead to a loss of popularity. Pollard stood by his comments. He added, however, that while he was comfortable with the physical risk he was taking by playing football, he was not sure he would want future generations, including his 4-year-old son, to follow his example.

“My whole stance right now is that I don’t want him to play football,” Pollard said. “Football has been good to me. It has been my outlet. God has blessed me with a tremendous talent to be able to play this game. But we want our kids to have things better than us.”

He said he did not want his son to go through the aches and pains caused by the physicality of the game.

“You keep playing football, you’re going to have your injuries, no one is exempt from that,” he said. “You’re going to have concussions. You’re going to have broken bones. That’s going to happen. But I think for the most part, we know what we signed up for.”

The sentiment was echoed by Baltimore quarterback Joe Flacco. “I play the game and I understand that I’m going to get hit,” Flacco said. “Just because they fine the guys is not going to stop them from hitting me. I find it tough to fine people who are doing their job.”

In a recent interview with The New Republic, Obama expressed concern about on-field injuries, though he added that N.F.L. players were grown men who are “well-compensated for the violence they do to their bodies.”

The president added: “I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence. In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won’t have to examine our consciences quite as much.”

While many current players seem focused on rules changes and how they will affect the nature of the game, more than 4,000 former N.F.L. players have filed a lawsuit against the league, contending that it knew hits to the head could lead to long-term brain damage but did not share that information with players. The judge in the case said Tuesday that she would hear oral arguments April 9 regarding the league’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The family of Junior Seau, a former star linebacker who shot and killed himself last year, has also sued the N.F.L., claiming it failed to inform players about the risks of brain injury.

Pollard’s counterparts on the San Francisco 49ers, safeties Dashon Goldson and Donte Whitner, considered one of the hardest-hitting tandems in the N.F.L., thought the key was not removing big hits, but making sure the hits that are delivered are legal.

“You can be vicious and you can hit people hard, but do it the right way,” Whitner said. “For the most part, you know what you can and cannot do. Do you want to go out there and do the right things or do you want to make that big hit to gain a big name? That’s what it comes down to.”

Ravens guard Marshal Yanda said he thought the topic was so personal for Pollard because of the unique nature of being a hard-hitting defensive back, one of the positions most affected by the league’s attempts to increase player safety.

“I think Bernard is frustrated because he plays a tough position where it’s a bang-bang play and he’s getting fined,” Yanda said. “That’s a tough deal as far as him playing football his whole life knowing how to play one way and then all of a sudden you have to change.”

One of the few people to disagree entirely with Pollard’s view that skewing the rules to protect offensive players would harm the league was Warren Sapp, a retired defensive tackle who at one point went by the Twitter handle @QBKilla. He said a desire for points would always result in defenses being limited.

“They like points,” Sapp said. “I like it too. You’re going to have to make some key stops here and there but it’s an offensive game, no doubt about it.”

Read More..

Super Bowl: At Media Day, Spotlight on Head Injuries Grows

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

Coach Jim Harbaugh arranged his 49ers for a Super Bowl photo at the Super Dome.

NEW ORLEANS — It has become a staple of Super Bowl week, as much a part of the pregame to the N.F.L.’s biggest event as the annual media day: a discussion of how football is being affected by head injuries and the mounting evidence that long-term brain damage can be linked to injuries sustained on the field.

Years ago, players rarely spoke about the issue and league officials dismissed suggestions that on-field injuries could lead to life-altering health problems. Now, however, the league is facing lawsuits from thousands of former players, rules are being instituted in an attempt to diminish injuries on the field and even President Obama has said that the way football is played will have to change. This week, Bernard Pollard, a hard-hitting safety for the Baltimore Ravens, created a stir by saying that the N.F.L. would not exist in 30 years because of the rules changes designed with safety in mind, but that he also believed there would be a death on the field at some point.

At media day Tuesday, players reacted to the comments made by Pollard and Obama, with some agreeing with Pollard that recent rules changes would change the sport to such an extent that it would be less entertaining and lead to a loss of popularity. Pollard stood by his comments. He added, however, that while he was comfortable with the physical risk he was taking by playing football, he was not sure he would want future generations, including his 4-year-old son, to follow his example.

“My whole stance right now is that I don’t want him to play football,” Pollard said. “Football has been good to me. It has been my outlet. God has blessed me with a tremendous talent to be able to play this game. But we want our kids to have things better than us.”

He said he did not want his son to go through the aches and pains caused by the physicality of the game.

“You keep playing football, you’re going to have your injuries, no one is exempt from that,” he said. “You’re going to have concussions. You’re going to have broken bones. That’s going to happen. But I think for the most part, we know what we signed up for.”

The sentiment was echoed by Baltimore quarterback Joe Flacco. “I play the game and I understand that I’m going to get hit,” Flacco said. “Just because they fine the guys is not going to stop them from hitting me. I find it tough to fine people who are doing their job.”

In a recent interview with The New Republic, Obama expressed concern about on-field injuries, though he added that N.F.L. players were grown men who are “well-compensated for the violence they do to their bodies.”

The president added: “I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence. In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won’t have to examine our consciences quite as much.”

While many current players seem focused on rules changes and how they will affect the nature of the game, more than 4,000 former N.F.L. players have filed a lawsuit against the league, contending that it knew hits to the head could lead to long-term brain damage but did not share that information with players. The judge in the case said Tuesday that she would hear oral arguments April 9 regarding the league’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The family of Junior Seau, a former star linebacker who shot and killed himself last year, has also sued the N.F.L., claiming it failed to inform players about the risks of brain injury.

Pollard’s counterparts on the San Francisco 49ers, safeties Dashon Goldson and Donte Whitner, considered one of the hardest-hitting tandems in the N.F.L., thought the key was not removing big hits, but making sure the hits that are delivered are legal.

“You can be vicious and you can hit people hard, but do it the right way,” Whitner said. “For the most part, you know what you can and cannot do. Do you want to go out there and do the right things or do you want to make that big hit to gain a big name? That’s what it comes down to.”

Ravens guard Marshal Yanda said he thought the topic was so personal for Pollard because of the unique nature of being a hard-hitting defensive back, one of the positions most affected by the league’s attempts to increase player safety.

“I think Bernard is frustrated because he plays a tough position where it’s a bang-bang play and he’s getting fined,” Yanda said. “That’s a tough deal as far as him playing football his whole life knowing how to play one way and then all of a sudden you have to change.”

One of the few people to disagree entirely with Pollard’s view that skewing the rules to protect offensive players would harm the league was Warren Sapp, a retired defensive tackle who at one point went by the Twitter handle @QBKilla. He said a desire for points would always result in defenses being limited.

“They like points,” Sapp said. “I like it too. You’re going to have to make some key stops here and there but it’s an offensive game, no doubt about it.”

Read More..

Google Maps’ New Target: Secretive North Korea

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea may be the world’s most shrouded country, but on Tuesday Google Maps lifted the veil just a little, uploading a map of the police state complete with street names in the capital.

The new map, built with the help of what Google called “a community of citizen cartographers,” provides people with a peek at places they previously may only have read about, probably in articles about the North’s nuclear program or its devastating food shortages. The map of Pyongyang, the capital, shows all sorts of landmarks — the tower that celebrates the country’s self-reliance doctrine of Juche and Kim Il-sung Square, where military parades are held — as well as hotels, schools and hospitals.

Users can zoom in and post comments and photos; the map also includes what the site suggests are four gulags, marked as gray splotches. The map is still empty in most areas of the country, but is much more detailed than the one that was on the site until Tuesday, which was mostly blank.

In a sign of just how hermetic the country is, Google said North Korea was the last country in the world to get a relatively detailed map.

While North Korea experts point out that other more sophisticated maps exist and that Google Earth provides a satellite image that includes major cities and sites, some suggest that the easily accessible Google Maps will probably draw more casual viewers.

Even Curtis Melvin, who has created what many consider the most definitive public online map (on a Johns Hopkins University site), said Google Maps had “provided the umph to get more eyes focused on the issue. North Korea is a serious policy, humanitarian and security challenge, and the more information we have, the better.”

The posting of the map — and Google’s call for still more mapping information on the North from users — focused new attention on the North at a time when the country is locked in a tense standoff with the United States and its allies over tightened sanctions and has threatened a third nuclear test.

Google’s initiative also came three weeks after its executive chairman, Eric E. Schmidt, visited Pyongyang in a highly publicized yet controversial trip organized by Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico. Mr. Schmidt said he urged North Korean officials he met in Pyongyang to let more North Koreans use the Internet.

Google said Tuesday that the posting of the map project was unrelated to Mr. Schmidt’s visit, which the company says was a personal trip.

On Tuesday, Mr. Schmidt said by e-mail that the new North Korea map “sheds a bit more light on what is happening in this remote country.”

There was no immediate North Korean reaction to Google’s announcement.

Citing privacy concerns, Google would not say how many contributors there were or who they were, but experts expect future postings to include those from the thousands who have fled North Korea in recent years.

The “citizen cartographers” were able to contribute using Map Maker, a crowdsourcing tool in the style of Wikipedia that allows users to edit or add to Google Maps. The company said the North Korea contributions had been coming in for several years, but Google held back the changes until it had time to vet the information as best it could, given how closed the North is.

Google Maps is unlikely to provide new information to policy makers who already have satellite maps from years of surveillance, nor will it get much of a following in the North itself, where the secretive leaders allow Internet access to only a small portion of the elite, who are closely watched.

But the crowdsourcing project provides a tool for users anywhere to help identify at least some features that the government in Pyongyang does not want the world to know. (The government cherishes secrecy to such an extent that its propagandists liked to boast: “When our enemies try to peek into our republic, they only see a fog.”)

Already, critics of the North’s authoritarian government and the backward economic policies that keep its people starving were posting sardonic comments by clicking on the “review” link often reserved for rating mapped businesses, restaurants and tourist sites.

One reviewer wrote, regarding bronze statues in Pyongyang of Mr. Kim, the country’s founder, and his son: “Wow, the Korean people must really have loved it under Kim Il Sung, to think they raised this gigantic statue voluntarily on their spare time while they was gloriously lacking food and metal for basic agricultural equipment.”

Choe Sang-hun reported from Seoul, and Claire Cain Miller from San Francisco. Shreeya Sinha contributed reporting from New York.

Read More..

Lens Blog: Lynsey Addario's Photographs of Women in Combat

Lynsey Addario, a  photographer for The New York Times, has extensively covered the war in Afghanistan, often focusing on female soldiers. She spoke with James Estrin about the Pentagon’s recent lifting of the ban on women in combat. The conversation, which took place via Skype from her home in London has been edited.

---

When I heard about the lifting of the ban on women in combat, I thought about your coverage of female soldiers for The Times, and also about the interview we did about women covering conflict after you were freed from captivity in Libya. What was your reaction to the announcement?

Profile

Lynsey Addario

Lynsey Addario, who freelances for The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine and others, has previously appeared on Lens Blog.

It is a huge step historically, of course, but it’s actually just stating publicly what has been happening little by little over the past decade. Women have been fighting this war more and more, whether we acknowledge it or not.

They’re at bases all across Afghanistan, and they’re playing different roles – from black ops pilots to doing triage in forward-operating medical centers. They’re engaging women in villages of Helmand that are covered with landmines. They are getting shot at. They are dying, and they are getting injured.

Everyone can fight about whether women should be on the front lines, but the fact is that they are out there. So, at some point, you have to acknowledge it and compensate them for it or at least give them the dignity of saying “O.K., you’re out there, and thank you for it.” Instead of saying, “No, they’re not allowed,” but really, they are.

You’ve often focused on female soldiers.

Mostly in 2009 and 2010. Most of the work I shot on assignment for The New York Times when I was doing a series with Elisabeth Bumiller. And then when I was doing the big National Geographic story on women in Afghanistan, I did a few embeds focusing on female soldiers who would meet Afghan women. That work is so dear to me, and I loved shooting it.

Who are these women joining the military and wanting to be in combat?

They’re women who don’t feel inhibited by their sex, by their gender. I mean, they’re women who don’t feel limited by the fact that they were born women. They believe in fighting for their country. They want to be doing something to help fight the wars that we’ve been fighting for over a decade. And they want to be out there.

They’re no different than any of us. They have a goal, and they want to accomplish it. And they don’t want to be told they can’t do it because they’re women.

A lot of them are extremely ambitious, very dedicated. They work out all the time, very intelligent.

What made you want to do this story to pursue it so deeply?

One of the biggest challenges as a photographer is to take a subject that’s been covered for decades and to try to bring something new to it. I’ve been going on these embeds for years, and it’s very hard to make a compelling picture or something new that the reader hasn’t seen before.

When I started seeing women on the front line, I was intrigued.  It felt so strange to me, and I immediately got pulled in. I also had access to them because I was often put in the same tent or made to sleep in the room with all the women. I was always sort of pushed off with the women because on military bases, there’s a real separation. You know, you have to have separate sleeping quarters for women.

What is that you learned as you pursued this story?

I think the longer these wars go on, and the more women are inserted in these nontraditional roles in the military, the more we have to accept the fact that there are actually women on the front lines.

I myself am a woman, and I’ve been embedding for years with the military. And granted, I’m not carrying thousands of rounds of ammunition and the packs that they carry. But I do go on the same patrols that the men go on and I am able to keep up.

There are great differences between men and women in terms of strength and what we can carry and what we can keep up with, but I don’t think it’s necessary for men and women to be equal. I think that women can play a role on the front line without having to hold up the same amount of weight as men.

You said that you don’t have to look at men and women as being equal for women to contribute on the front line. What exactly did you mean?

Well, I think one of the arguments a lot of people have is that women can’t hold their own the way men can. For example, if you have a fellow soldier who’s been shot, can you carry his body alone back to a safe place? And one of the arguments is that a woman couldn’t do that. So therefore, she shouldn’t be out there.

I don’t know how you work around that. I’m not really sure what the answer is. The fact is that women are not as strong as a lot of men. There are some women who are, but I think, over all, it’s going to be a challenge to find women who can keep up with the physical endurance tests that men can. That said, I’m not sure how important that is anymore because the war is changing. The war we fight now is not the same war that was fought 40 years ago.

This is a war on terror, this is a war where the front lines are nebulous.

When we talked about your being on the front lines shortly after you were freed from Libya, you pointed to specific things you thought a woman could bring to the table. A woman may not have the same access to men, but they’re going to have much stronger access to women. And different perspectives. Is there a similar situation for female soldiers on the front line?

This gets back into the discussion about what is the front line. The female engagement teams were created to engage with Afghan women — 50 percent of the population — that we didn’t have access to before. That’s part of the whole counterinsurgency project. So, if you’re trying to win over a population and you don’t have access to 50 percent of the people, it’s going to be very hard.

You can’t do that with men because, traditionally in Afghanistan, men cannot go into a house and sit down with Afghan women. The female engagement teams went in, and they were able to sit down, drink tea and talk to Afghan women.

How much was accomplished is obviously up for discussion. Some people say not that much was accomplished and that they just went and drank tea. Some people say, “Well, they were able to gain trust of families that didn’t before believe that Americans were good people.”

If your doctrine is counterinsurgency, if you’re trying to win over the population, it’s probably worth the effort to go out and try to engage in a country that’s very segregated by the sexes.

I’m older than you, and I remember when there weren’t many women in the military. And there were heated discussions about how women can’t be in the military, how women can’t be captured, how it would harm the other soldiers and it would hurt morale.

Well, I remember when Elizabeth Rubin and I went to the Korengal Valley to embed with the 173rd Airborne. This was for The New York Times Magazine. And Elizabeth wanted to do a story about why, with all the firepower that we had, we weren’t winning the war? And how come there was so much collateral damage? And so basically, we lived on the side of a mountain for two months of the Korengal Outpost.

But when we first asked the press guys with the military to go to that base, they said, “It is not a place fit for women. You cannot go.” And Elizabeth and I said that’s exactly where we want to go. Now we really want to go.

And so finally, we fought so much that they sent us to the Korengal, and we were the only two women there for months. This was before the female engagement teams, and that particular outpost saw heavy fighting all the time. I mean, we were basically shot at or mortared almost on a daily basis.

We kept up with all the patrols. We went on six, seven hour a day patrols. We carried our own stuff. We were out there getting shot at as well. Now, were we carrying guns and ammunition? No. So it’s a very different thing. But we were able to keep up and we were able to live out there.

I think when you start challenging the norms and when you start pushing the boundaries a little, you realize that the boundaries can really be pushed.

Is there anything that you can think of that is a realistic boundary between male and female soldiers?

Yes. I mean, there are times where you need someone who can carry the soldier if he gets shot. Or you need someone who physically can carry a certain amount of rounds of ammunition. I’m not a commander in the military, so there’s a lot I don’t understand.

There are situations where women aren’t really fit to be in certain roles. Special Forces, for example. Do I think women can be in Special Forces? I’m not sure. The demand on the body and spending extended periods of time in the middle of nowhere, I don’t know if that’s O.K. for women.

But I do think there is space for women on the front lines, but it is always going to be defined by what exactly is that front line. Because it’s not Vietnam, we’re in a very different war.  It’s different from 30 years ago, or 20 years ago.

Is the situation of a female foreign correspondent or photojournalist on the front lines similar to that of female soldiers?

It’s different, because the military has layers and layers and layers of command. And so they take decisions as a group.

You know, when you’re dealing with the military, those are decisions that are made at a very high level and passed down. Me, I’m in charge of my own destiny. So I can decide, to a certain extent, how much I want to be in the middle of combat.

One time, we were shot at as I was walking around with one of the female engagement teams. Just because legally, they weren’t allowed to be on the front lines, they were still being shot at on the front lines.

---

Follow @lynseyaddario, @JamesEstrin and @nytimesphoto on Twitter. Lens is also on Facebook.

Read More..