Name: Season 5 Episode 3: What Makes for a Successful (Re)Application? by Admissible: A Look Inside Law School Admissions
Duration: 44 min 31 s
Description: What differentiates a good application from an admissible one? Tyler Stapleton ’27 joins Admissions Dean Natalie Blazer ’08 to discuss his journey as a reapplicant to UVA Law, sharing how he approached his essays, resume and letters of recommendation the second time around — all while staying optimistic about the process.

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Jonathan Colmer, an Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia’s Department of Economics and the Director of the Environmental Inequality Lab. His research interests are in environmental economics, development economics, and the distributional impacts of environmental policy.
 
Colmer begins by discussing a recent paper of his that examines the distributional characteristics of air pollution in the United States and how they have changed over time. Tracking exposure temporally and spatially, they concluded that while there have been air pollution reductions in the last four decades, the disparities have persisted in the same affected areas. (0:40 – 4:15)
 
Livermore and Colmer discuss the implications of this work for understanding environmental inequality. Colmer explains that the proportional reductions have implications on the allocation of resources we expend on reducing pollution. He also note that reducing total pollution levels also reduces absolute disparities of racial gaps in air pollution. (4:16 – 13:00)
 
Livermore notes that addressing harms in areas with the highest pollution concentrations would provide the cheapest reductions and the most harm reduction benefits. The two discuss different policies to cut pollution and their distributional effects. (13:02 – 18:35)
 
Colmer notes that one limitation of his prior work is that they are measuring place rather than individual exposure. The Environmental Inequality Lab, which he directs, has the goal of moving from a place-based to a person-based understanding of environmental inequality. The lab is building a data infrastructure that provides detailed information on the distribution of exposure from many different environmental hazards. Colmer explains how they use confidential data from the U.S. Census Bureau and I.R.S. to deeper understand environmental inequality and the causes of these disparities. (18:40 – 26:15)
 
Livermore and Colmer discuss the idea of ecological fallacy in Colmer’s research, observing whether or not the inferences made about individuals using place-based data still hold strong when they move to the individual level. (26:20 – 30:57)
 
Colmer discusses the questions that arise about the causes of these air pollution disparities from an economic standpoint – is it income? Is it racial discrimination or other considerations? He discusses work in progress that shows how results on disparities differ between geographic-level results and individual-level results. (31:02 – 40:55)
 
The conversation segues from discussing the descriptive to the causal relationships with pollution. Colmer discusses a core causal question they are examining: how much does environmental inequality contribute to income inequality? (40:56 – 56:35)

Livermore closes the discussion by pointing out how historically, we focus on the primary benefit of air quality improvements by the reduction of mortality risk which affects a small concentrated category of people. However, the work Colmer is doing focuses on effects that are more widely shared over a larger population, which may have important consequences for how policies that address environmental pollution are perceived. (56:36 – 1:01:18)

S1E25. Jonathan Colmer on Environmental Inequality

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental law at Berkeley and the co-director for the Berkeley Institute for Parks, People, and Diversity. Doremus has a  interdisciplinary background with a PhD in Plant Physiology from Cornell in addition to her JD. For Doremus, one of the benefits of an interdisciplinary educational experience is that it has helped her to 
better understand what questions different disciplines are able to address and what questions they may not have thought to ask. 

In our approach to answering conservation questions, we need to reevaluate what our goals are in order to decide how to achieve them. At the start of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, crucial questions, including fundamental questions concerning the nature of a species, and our risk tolerance and willingness to commit social resources to conservation, were either not understood or were seen as better addressed later. A further contemporary challenge is that the ESA was not framed to protect the proportion of species that are at risk today. 

One consequence of the Anthropocene is an increasingly number of species under protection, which means greater limits on individual and commercial activity. Doremus believes that congressional intervention will become more common as the number of ESA controversies increases (6:44-23:34). 

Due to the tendency of politics to act as a set of competing performances, Congress is not the place we should start the conversation about reconsidering our conservation approach. Rather it should begin in academia, where crucial interdisciplinary discussions can happen. Academics can generate an updated consensus of the public’s opinion on biological conservation (23:35-46:27). 

Even if conservation goals were agreed upon, there would still be many questions about how to achieve those goals. To what extent should humanity take the role of the world’s gardeners? Who gets to decide what the garden looks like? How much control should we have over species in order to achieve our conservation goals?  What are the obligations of the public to pay for the conservation that it wants? These are all complex political and scientific questions that will have to be answered in order to make legitimate progress in conserving the biological world (46:28-1:02:10).

S2E13. Holly Doremus on Conservation in the Anthropocene

What differentiates a good application from an admissible one? Tyler Stapleton ’27 joins Admissions Dean Natalie Blazer ’08 to discuss his journey as a reapplicant to UVA Law, sharing how he approached his essays, resume and letters of recommendation the second time around — all while staying optimistic about the process.

Season 5 Episode 3: What Makes for a Successful (Re)Application?

UVA Law Admissions Dean Natalie Blazer ’08 offers insights into the world of law school admissions and a behind-the-scenes look at life as a law student through interviews with students, faculty, alumni and staff.

Season 5 Episode 3: What Makes for a Successful (Re)Application?

Admissible: A Look Inside Law School Admissions

Related tracks