Spurious correlation #2,651 · View random
A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is US kids in public school and the second variable is Number of Lawyers in the United States. The chart goes from 1990 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is US kids in public school and the second variable is Number of Lawyers in the United States. The chart goes from 1990 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

As the kids learned more about the law in school, they couldn't help but become "briefcase-ically" interested in pursuing a legal career. It's as if they were all getting a crash course in lawyering up, leading to a verdict of more lawyers in the US!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ A photo-realistic image ] Generate an image of a bustling playground scene at a US public school. Show a group of kids huddled in conversation, with their backpacks bursting with snacks and Pokémon cards. In the background, depict a line of sharply dressed lawyers holding briefcases, anxiously waiting to represent the kids as they argue their cases in a vibrant schoolyard courtroom. The image should capture the energetic atmosphere of the playground and the juxtaposition between the playful children and the professional-looking lawyers. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.

This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: US kids in public school and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Cute cartoon Celtic art A photo-realistic image Realistic Cute 2D animation
ChatGPT: A photo-realistic image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both US kids in public school and Number of Lawyers in the United States, in the following situation: As more kids learned about the concept of "finders keepers, losers weepers" on the playground, they decided they needed legal representation to navigate the increasingly cutthroat world of trading snacks and Pokémon cards. This led to a surge in demand for lawyers, as the tiny litigators duked it out in the schoolyard courtroom.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: On a bustling playground, a group of US kids in public school can be seen huddled in conversation, their backpacks bursting with snacks and Pokémon cards. In the background, a line of sharply dressed lawyers, holding briefcases, waits anxiously to represent the tiny litigators as they argue their cases in the vibrant schoolyard courtroom.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A photo-realistic image ] and depicting this scene: On a bustling playground, a group of US kids in public school can be seen huddled in conversation, their backpacks bursting with snacks and Pokémon cards. In the background, a line of sharply dressed lawyers, holding briefcases, waits anxiously to represent the tiny litigators as they argue their cases in the vibrant schoolyard courtroom. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ A photo-realistic image ] Generate an image of a bustling playground scene at a US public school. Show a group of kids huddled in conversation, with their backpacks bursting with snacks and Pokémon cards. In the background, depict a line of sharply dressed lawyers holding briefcases, anxiously waiting to represent the kids as they argue their cases in a vibrant schoolyard courtroom. The image should capture the energetic atmosphere of the playground and the juxtaposition between the playful children and the professional-looking lawyers.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
^{Show prompt for explanation} Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in US kids in public school caused Number of Lawyers in the United States to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

The Legal Levy: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship Between Number of Lawyers in the United States and US Public School Kids

The Journal of Legal & Educational Statistics

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!

^{Show prompt used to generate this paper} Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US kids in public school and Number of Lawyers in the United States. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"The Legal Levy: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship Between Number of Lawyers in the United States and US Public School Kids"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study presents an analysis of the intriguing correlation between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools in the country. Leveraging data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the American Bar Association, we embarked on an exploratory journey to unveil the underlying dynamics of this curiously whimsical relationship.

In scrutinizing the data spanning the years from 1990 to 2022, our research team stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9456291, indicating a remarkably strong positive relationship between the two variables. It may seem that as the number of lawyers in the United States increases, so does the population of kids in public schools. As the old adage goes, "Why did the lawyer wear a necktie? To keep his neck in suspense!"

Moreover, our analysis revealed a p-value of less than 0.01, suggesting that the observed correlation is statistically significant. This raises an eyebrow and prompts further investigation into the potential mechanisms that might underpin this unexpected connection. The data seem to suggest that as the legal profession flourishes, so does the offspring of the populace. One might even say that the legal system is "raising the bar" for future generations!

In conclusion, our findings add an intriguing layer to the ongoing discourse on the interplay between the legal landscape and the school-age population in the United States. As we delve deeper into this enigmatic association, it is essential to consider the myriad factors at play which might explain this correlation and its wider implications. After all, when it comes to the fusion of law and little ones, there's always room for more "appeal"ing insights!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools has long been a subject of curiosity and speculation. It is remarkable how the legal profession, with its intricate webs of rules and regulations, could have any conceivable impact on the enrollment of youngsters in educational institutions. The question of how these seemingly unrelated domains could intertwine has perplexed many, much like the age-old conundrum, "Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!"
When examining societal phenomena, it is crucial to bring to light any unexpected associations and inquire into the mechanisms that might underpin them. In this vein, our study aims to shed light on the enigmatic correlation between the legal field and the realm of education. As we embark on this scholarly escapade, it is imperative to maintain a sense of humor, for after all, as the saying goes, "I'm reading a book on anti-gravity. It's impossible to put down!"
While the abstract of this paper provided a tantalizing glimpse into our findings, the following sections will delve into the intricacies of our analysis, drawing from a rich tapestry of data and rigorous statistical methods. Our objective? To unravel the mystery behind this unlikely link and provide a witty examination of its implications. Join us on this academic adventure, where the laughs are plenty and the insights are just as "punny"!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Many esteemed scholars have contributed to the exploration of the relationship between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools. Smith et al. (2015) conducted a thorough analysis of nationwide census data, revealing a surprising positive association between the two variables. Doe and Jones (2018) further corroborated these findings through a comprehensive review of state-level educational and legal statistics. As the data unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that there is more to this correlation than meets the eye.

Turning to the realm of literature, "The Rule of Law" by Tom Bingham offers a comprehensive examination of legal norms and their societal impact, shedding light on the intricate workings of the legal profession. In a similar vein, "Education and Society" by Michael W. Apple delves into the interplay between education systems and broader social structures, offering a thought-provoking perspective on the dynamics at play. Furthermore, the fiction novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee intricately weaves together themes of law and childhood, delving into the complexities of morality and justice. Likewise, John Grisham's legal thriller "The Pelican Brief" offers a suspenseful narrative that intertwines legal intrigue and high-stakes discoveries.

In the realm of popular culture and internet memes, the "Lawyer Dog" meme has captured the imagination of many, depicting a canine companion dressed in professional attire with humorous and pun-filled captions. The meme playfully underscores the ubiquity of legal themes in modern discourse, encouraging a lighthearted view of the legal profession. Similarly, the "First Day on the Internet Kid" meme presents a relatable and entertaining portrayal of youthful curiosity and discovery, paralleling the experiences of children navigating the educational landscape.

As the literature converges and the data unravel, it becomes evident that the connection between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools is a peculiar and somewhat whimsical phenomenon, deserving of further investigation. It is clear that this association, much like a good dad joke, brings unexpected amusement and leaves one pondering the delightful absurdities of life. After all, in the words of the wise, "What do you call a lawyer who doesn't chase ambulances? Retired!"

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US kids in public school and Number of Lawyers in the United States. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from National Center for Education Statistics and ABA . You used data from 1990 to 2022

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"The Legal Levy: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship Between Number of Lawyers in the United States and US Public School Kids"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study presents an analysis of the intriguing correlation between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools in the country. Leveraging data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the American Bar Association, we embarked on an exploratory journey to unveil the underlying dynamics of this curiously whimsical relationship.

In scrutinizing the data spanning the years from 1990 to 2022, our research team stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9456291, indicating a remarkably strong positive relationship between the two variables. It may seem that as the number of lawyers in the United States increases, so does the population of kids in public schools. As the old adage goes, "Why did the lawyer wear a necktie? To keep his neck in suspense!"

Moreover, our analysis revealed a p-value of less than 0.01, suggesting that the observed correlation is statistically significant. This raises an eyebrow and prompts further investigation into the potential mechanisms that might underpin this unexpected connection. The data seem to suggest that as the legal profession flourishes, so does the offspring of the populace. One might even say that the legal system is "raising the bar" for future generations!

In conclusion, our findings add an intriguing layer to the ongoing discourse on the interplay between the legal landscape and the school-age population in the United States. As we delve deeper into this enigmatic association, it is essential to consider the myriad factors at play which might explain this correlation and its wider implications. After all, when it comes to the fusion of law and little ones, there's always room for more "appeal"ing insights!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools has long been a subject of curiosity and speculation. It is remarkable how the legal profession, with its intricate webs of rules and regulations, could have any conceivable impact on the enrollment of youngsters in educational institutions. The question of how these seemingly unrelated domains could intertwine has perplexed many, much like the age-old conundrum, "Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!"
When examining societal phenomena, it is crucial to bring to light any unexpected associations and inquire into the mechanisms that might underpin them. In this vein, our study aims to shed light on the enigmatic correlation between the legal field and the realm of education. As we embark on this scholarly escapade, it is imperative to maintain a sense of humor, for after all, as the saying goes, "I'm reading a book on anti-gravity. It's impossible to put down!"
While the abstract of this paper provided a tantalizing glimpse into our findings, the following sections will delve into the intricacies of our analysis, drawing from a rich tapestry of data and rigorous statistical methods. Our objective? To unravel the mystery behind this unlikely link and provide a witty examination of its implications. Join us on this academic adventure, where the laughs are plenty and the insights are just as "punny"!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the enigmatic correlation between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools, a range of convoluted and seemingly unrelated research methods were employed. Our team got their comfy slippers on and delved into the data, because as any good researcher knows, the key to success is a solid pair of slippers!

First, a comprehensive review of the National Center for Education Statistics and American Bar Association databases was conducted. This involved sifting through mounds of digital paperwork, akin to a legal professional navigating through a mountain of case files. We were waist-deep in spreadsheets and graphs, but we kept our spirits high and our dad jokes higher!

The data extraction process entailed the retrieval of information spanning the years 1990 to 2022. This period was chosen to encapsulate the historical landscape of both the legal and educational realms, rather like a time capsule of legal lingo and algebraic algorithms. As the data unfolded before us, it became clear that the correlation between lawyers and school kids was no laughing matter... well, except for our dad jokes, of course!

Furthermore, rigorous statistical analyses were applied to the data, including but not limited to correlation coefficients, regression analyses, and hypothesis testing. The statistical methods were as intense as a legal battle in the courtroom, but we emerged victorious with our findings in hand. We couldn't resist the urge to exclaim, "Why don't lawyers go to the beach? Cats keep trying to bury them!"

It is important to note that while drawing associations from observational data, causality cannot be inferred. As any good investigator knows, correlation does not imply causation - a stern reminder that even the most captivating correlations should be taken with a grain of salt, much like a bowl of legal soup!

In addition, various sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure the robustness of the observed relationship between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children in public schools. This involved tweaking data points and parameters, much like a legal professional fine-tuning their argument in front of a jury. We had our fair share of "objections" from the data, but we presented a compelling case nonetheless!

In conclusion, the methodology applied in this study aimed to marry the seemingly disparate worlds of law and education, much like a courtroom wedding between legal jargon and academic textbooks. The data were meticulously scrutinized, the statistical tests were meticulously applied, and the humor was meticulously inserted, because after all, what's research without a touch of wit and whimsy?

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US kids in public school and Number of Lawyers in the United States. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
"The Legal Levy: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship Between Number of Lawyers in the United States and US Public School Kids"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study presents an analysis of the intriguing correlation between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools in the country. Leveraging data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the American Bar Association, we embarked on an exploratory journey to unveil the underlying dynamics of this curiously whimsical relationship.

In scrutinizing the data spanning the years from 1990 to 2022, our research team stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9456291, indicating a remarkably strong positive relationship between the two variables. It may seem that as the number of lawyers in the United States increases, so does the population of kids in public schools. As the old adage goes, "Why did the lawyer wear a necktie? To keep his neck in suspense!"

Moreover, our analysis revealed a p-value of less than 0.01, suggesting that the observed correlation is statistically significant. This raises an eyebrow and prompts further investigation into the potential mechanisms that might underpin this unexpected connection. The data seem to suggest that as the legal profession flourishes, so does the offspring of the populace. One might even say that the legal system is "raising the bar" for future generations!

In conclusion, our findings add an intriguing layer to the ongoing discourse on the interplay between the legal landscape and the school-age population in the United States. As we delve deeper into this enigmatic association, it is essential to consider the myriad factors at play which might explain this correlation and its wider implications. After all, when it comes to the fusion of law and little ones, there's always room for more "appeal"ing insights!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Many esteemed scholars have contributed to the exploration of the relationship between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools. Smith et al. (2015) conducted a thorough analysis of nationwide census data, revealing a surprising positive association between the two variables. Doe and Jones (2018) further corroborated these findings through a comprehensive review of state-level educational and legal statistics. As the data unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that there is more to this correlation than meets the eye.
Turning to the realm of literature, "The Rule of Law" by Tom Bingham offers a comprehensive examination of legal norms and their societal impact, shedding light on the intricate workings of the legal profession. In a similar vein, "Education and Society" by Michael W. Apple delves into the interplay between education systems and broader social structures, offering a thought-provoking perspective on the dynamics at play. Furthermore, the fiction novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee intricately weaves together themes of law and childhood, delving into the complexities of morality and justice. Likewise, John Grisham's legal thriller "The Pelican Brief" offers a suspenseful narrative that intertwines legal intrigue and high-stakes discoveries.
In the realm of popular culture and internet memes, the "Lawyer Dog" meme has captured the imagination of many, depicting a canine companion dressed in professional attire with humorous and pun-filled captions. The meme playfully underscores the ubiquity of legal themes in modern discourse, encouraging a lighthearted view of the legal profession. Similarly, the "First Day on the Internet Kid" meme presents a relatable and entertaining portrayal of youthful curiosity and discovery, paralleling the experiences of children navigating the educational landscape.
As the literature converges and the data unravel, it becomes evident that the connection between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools is a peculiar and somewhat whimsical phenomenon, deserving of further investigation. It is clear that this association, much like a good dad joke, brings unexpected amusement and leaves one pondering the delightful absurdities of life. After all, in the words of the wise, "What do you call a lawyer who doesn't chase ambulances? Retired!"

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data from 1990 to 2022 revealed a remarkably strong positive correlation between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9456291 and an r-squared of 0.8942144, it appears that as the number of lawyers increases, there is a corresponding increase in the number of kids in public schools. One might even say that the legal profession is "making a case" for more school-age kids!
The scatterplot in Fig. 1 visually depicts the robust relationship between the two variables, leaving little room for doubt about the strength of the correlation. As the saying goes, "Why did the math book look sad? Because it had too many problems!"
Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 indicates that the observed correlation is statistically significant, adding weight to the intriguing nature of this phenomenon. Delving into the potential explanations for this connection may unveil unexpected insights into the dynamics of societal trends. It seems that as the legal world thrives, so does the enrollment of children in public schools. It's almost as if the legal system is saying, "Order in the court...and in the classroom!"
This study contributes to the literature by shedding light on this quirky association and encourages further exploration into the underlying mechanisms that may drive it. As we continue to unravel the mystery of the legal levy, we are reminded that in the world of academia, as in life, there's always room for a good old dad joke - after all, "What did the judge say to the dentist? Do you swear to pull the tooth, the whole tooth, and nothing but the tooth?"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this study offer compelling support for the previous research examining the relationship between the number of lawyers in the United States and the enrollment of children in public schools. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9456291, our results echo the conclusions drawn by Smith et al. (2015) and Doe and Jones (2018), affirming the existence of a strong positive association between these seemingly disparate phenomena. It appears that the legal profession's ascent is indeed intertwined with the surge in the number of youngsters populating the public school system.

The statistically significant p-value further cements the validity of this correlation, emphasizing the veracity and robustness of the observed relationship. As we delve deeper into the potential drivers of this connection, it becomes increasingly evident that the legal world and the realm of education are more entwined than meets the eye. It's as if the legal field is extending a metaphorical "class action" on school enrollment – a phenomenon as surprising as a well-executed dad joke, leaving one simultaneously amused and introspective about the peculiarities of societal dynamics.

The convergence of our findings with those of previous scholars underscores the importance of further research into the nuanced mechanisms at play. After all, understanding this connection may offer valuable insights into social and economic trends that extend beyond the realms of law and education. In a manner reminiscent of the meme "Lawyer Dog," this relationship between the legal profession and school-age children leaves us marveling at the interplay of seemingly disparate elements, much like a well-crafted pun that reveals unexpected layers of meaning.

As we unravel the complexities underlying this improbable correlation, it is essential to acknowledge the potential implications for policy and societal planning. Our study presents an entry point into a domain that is as enigmatic and intriguing as a riddle pondered by the "First Day on the Internet Kid," inviting further exploration and discourse. The whimsical nature of this association evokes the spirit of a good old dad joke – the kind that prompts both laughter and contemplation, leaving one marveling at the unexpected ways in which our world is intricately interconnected.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US kids in public school and Number of Lawyers in the United States. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"The Legal Levy: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship Between Number of Lawyers in the United States and US Public School Kids"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study presents an analysis of the intriguing correlation between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools in the country. Leveraging data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the American Bar Association, we embarked on an exploratory journey to unveil the underlying dynamics of this curiously whimsical relationship.

In scrutinizing the data spanning the years from 1990 to 2022, our research team stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9456291, indicating a remarkably strong positive relationship between the two variables. It may seem that as the number of lawyers in the United States increases, so does the population of kids in public schools. As the old adage goes, "Why did the lawyer wear a necktie? To keep his neck in suspense!"

Moreover, our analysis revealed a p-value of less than 0.01, suggesting that the observed correlation is statistically significant. This raises an eyebrow and prompts further investigation into the potential mechanisms that might underpin this unexpected connection. The data seem to suggest that as the legal profession flourishes, so does the offspring of the populace. One might even say that the legal system is "raising the bar" for future generations!

In conclusion, our findings add an intriguing layer to the ongoing discourse on the interplay between the legal landscape and the school-age population in the United States. As we delve deeper into this enigmatic association, it is essential to consider the myriad factors at play which might explain this correlation and its wider implications. After all, when it comes to the fusion of law and little ones, there's always room for more "appeal"ing insights!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The relationship between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools has long been a subject of curiosity and speculation. It is remarkable how the legal profession, with its intricate webs of rules and regulations, could have any conceivable impact on the enrollment of youngsters in educational institutions. The question of how these seemingly unrelated domains could intertwine has perplexed many, much like the age-old conundrum, "Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!"
When examining societal phenomena, it is crucial to bring to light any unexpected associations and inquire into the mechanisms that might underpin them. In this vein, our study aims to shed light on the enigmatic correlation between the legal field and the realm of education. As we embark on this scholarly escapade, it is imperative to maintain a sense of humor, for after all, as the saying goes, "I'm reading a book on anti-gravity. It's impossible to put down!"
While the abstract of this paper provided a tantalizing glimpse into our findings, the following sections will delve into the intricacies of our analysis, drawing from a rich tapestry of data and rigorous statistical methods. Our objective? To unravel the mystery behind this unlikely link and provide a witty examination of its implications. Join us on this academic adventure, where the laughs are plenty and the insights are just as "punny"!

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data from 1990 to 2022 revealed a remarkably strong positive correlation between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9456291 and an r-squared of 0.8942144, it appears that as the number of lawyers increases, there is a corresponding increase in the number of kids in public schools. One might even say that the legal profession is "making a case" for more school-age kids!
The scatterplot in Fig. 1 visually depicts the robust relationship between the two variables, leaving little room for doubt about the strength of the correlation. As the saying goes, "Why did the math book look sad? Because it had too many problems!"
Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 indicates that the observed correlation is statistically significant, adding weight to the intriguing nature of this phenomenon. Delving into the potential explanations for this connection may unveil unexpected insights into the dynamics of societal trends. It seems that as the legal world thrives, so does the enrollment of children in public schools. It's almost as if the legal system is saying, "Order in the court...and in the classroom!"
This study contributes to the literature by shedding light on this quirky association and encourages further exploration into the underlying mechanisms that may drive it. As we continue to unravel the mystery of the legal levy, we are reminded that in the world of academia, as in life, there's always room for a good old dad joke - after all, "What did the judge say to the dentist? Do you swear to pull the tooth, the whole tooth, and nothing but the tooth?"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, the findings of this study highlight a remarkably strong positive correlation between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools. It seems that as the legal profession flourishes, so does the offspring of the populace. One might say that the legal system is "raising the bar" for future generations - pun intended! This unexpected link, much like a good lawyer joke, begs further investigation into the underlying mechanisms driving this association.

Our analysis has not only unveiled a statistically significant correlation but also raises thought-provoking questions about the intricate interplay between seemingly unrelated societal domains. It's as if the legal landscape is whispering, "Order in the court...and in the classroom!" This reinforces the need to approach such phenomena with a keen sense of curiosity and humor - after all, even statistics can use a good dad joke now and then.

By shedding light on this quirky association, this study makes a compelling case for further exploration into the underlying factors at play. However, in the immortal words of a classic dad joke, "Why don't skeletons fight each other? They don't have the guts!"

With that, we assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited The Legal Levy: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship Between Number of Lawyers in the United States and US Public School Kids. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Legal & Educational Statistics

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited The Legal Levy: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship Between Number of Lawyers in the United States and US Public School Kids. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Association for Socio-Legal Analysis and Educational Demographics

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled The Legal Levy: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship Between Number of Lawyers in the United States and US Public School Kids with an abstract of This study presents an analysis of the intriguing correlation between the number of lawyers in the United States and the population of children attending public schools in the country. Leveraging data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the American Bar Association, we embarked on an exploratory journey to unveil the underlying dynamics of this curiously whimsical relationship.
In scrutinizing the data spanning the years from 1990 to 2022, our research team stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9456291, indicating a remarkably strong positive relationship between the two variables. It may seem that as the number of lawyers in the United States increases, so does the population of kids in public schools. As the old adage goes, "Why did the lawyer wear a necktie? To keep his neck in suspense!"
Moreover, our analysis revealed a p-value of less than 0.01, suggesting that the observed correlation is statistically significant. This raises an eyebrow and prompts further investigation into the potential mechanisms that might underpin this unexpected connection. The data seem to suggest that as the legal profession flourishes, so does the offspring of the populace. One might even say that the legal system is "raising the bar" for future generations!
In conclusion, our findings add an intriguing layer to the ongoing discourse on the interplay between the legal landscape and the school-age population in the United States. As we delve deeper into this enigmatic association, it is essential to consider the myriad factors at play which might explain this correlation and its wider implications. After all, when it comes to the fusion of law and little ones, there's always room for more "appeal"ing insights!

ChatGPT:

lawyers in the United States, public school kids population, correlation between lawyers and school kids, lawyers and education statistics, relationship between lawyers and public schools, American Bar Association data, National Center for Education statistics, correlation coefficient analysis, statistical significance of lawyers and public school kids relationship, legal profession and school-age population, mechanisms underlying lawyers and school kids connection

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.

Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error

Data details

US kids in public school
Detailed data title: Enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
See what else correlates with US kids in public school

Number of Lawyers in the United States
Detailed data title: The Count of ABA Lawyers in the United States
Source: ABA
See what else correlates with Number of Lawyers in the United States

Correlation r = 0.9456291 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.

r² = 0.8942144 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 89.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Number of Lawyers in the United States) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., US kids in public school) over the 33 years from 1990 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.1E-16.^Show 0.0000000000000001132666336243
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme.^Note More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.95 in 1.1E-14% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 8,828,725,353,637,260 random variables^Note You don't actually need 8 quadrillion variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 32 degrees of freedom, ^Note Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 32 because we have two variables measured over a period of 33 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.89, 0.97 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!

All values for the years included above: ^Note If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.

	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
US kids in public school (Students)	41216700	42046900	42823300	43464900	44111500	44840500	45611000	46126900	46538600	46857100	47203500	47671900	48183100	48540200	48795500	49113300	49315800	49290600	49265600	49361000	49484200	49521700	49771100	50044500	50312600	50438000	50615200	50685600	50694100	50796400	49374800	49433100	49262300
Number of Lawyers in the United States (Lawyers)	755694	777119	799760	846036	865614	896140	953260	953260	985921	1000440	1022460	1048900	1049750	1058660	1084500	1104770	1116970	1143360	1162120	1180390	1203100	1225450	1245200	1268010	1281430	1300700	1312870	1335960	1342380	1352080	1328740	1327910	1327010

Why this works

Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
Lack of causal connection: There is probably^Note Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple^Note Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.

Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. ^{Show the steps to do this.} Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."

# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([41216700,42046900,42823300,43464900,44111500,44840500,45611000,46126900,46538600,46857100,47203500,47671900,48183100,48540200,48795500,49113300,49315800,49290600,49265600,49361000,49484200,49521700,49771100,50044500,50312600,50438000,50615200,50685600,50694100,50796400,49374800,49433100,49262300,])
array_2 = np.array([755694,777119,799760,846036,865614,896140,953260,953260,985921,1000440,1022460,1048900,1049750,1058660,1084500,1104770,1116970,1143360,1162120,1180390,1203100,1225450,1245200,1268010,1281430,1300700,1312870,1335960,1342380,1352080,1328740,1327910,1327010,])
array_1_name = "US kids in public school"
array_2_name = "Number of Lawyers in the United States"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)

Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. ^Note Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:

High resolution line chart ^Note The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.

If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.

Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape.
High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
Alternative high resolution line chart
Scatterplot
Portable line chart (png)
Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
Line chart for only US kids in public school
Line chart for only Number of Lawyers in the United States
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: The Legal Levy: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship Between Number of Lawyers in the United States and US Public School Kids

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Cheers to you for rating this correlation!

Correlation ID: 2651 · Black Variable ID: 1296 · Red Variable ID: 542


Problem variable:
Issue:
Additional details: Optional
Confirm you are a human: