curves? i dont get it.

[oro]

And what would happen in case all the 100 Harvard/Cooley-level students decide to simply write down "That's how stupid grading on a curve is." -- whom would you give As and whom the Cs?!

[baabaablacksheep]

"Even if the Cooley grad has a higher GPA" - Given each school's different grading scale, it is possible that two people have different GPAs for the same class rank at different schools.  If the Cooley grad has the higher GPA and the same class rank as the Harvard guy, you might think the Cooley Grad was better than the Harvard grad.  Of course, you'd be an idiot, but you might think it.

paran0id, don't you understand that it is impossible that the Cooley grad has the higher GPA and the same class rank as the Harvard guy?! It's the other way around!


             Harvard    Cooley
top 50%      3.40       3.00
top 25%      3.70       3.30

What if 100% of a particular class does really well, and deserves As? (Suppose for the purpose of this experiment you bring together 100 Harvard geniuses) What if 100% did badly, and deserves Fs? (You bring 100 dumbest Cooley students). At least 20% of the first will get non-passing grades and at least 20% of the second group will get As. And what would happen in case all the 100 Harvard/Cooley-level students decide to simply write down "That's how stupid grading on a curve is." -- whom would you give As and whom the Cs?!

Why not grade objectively rather than comparatively?

I love the "let's come up with ridiculous hypos that will never happen to try to discredit a good idea" strategy.

[align]

curves a good idea?! Gimme a @ # ! * i n g break!

[tuned]

Stigma, according to Erving Goffman, is an attribute that makes the possessor different from, and less desirable than, others "in the category of persons available for one to be." Goffman distinguishes between two experiences of stigma by its possessor: the "discredited" and the "discreditable." In the case of the discredited, the stigmatized individual assumes his differentness is known about already or is evident on the spot. Examples of the discredited include the physically disabled or disfigured, as well as members of certain visible minorities in contexts of racial discrimination. In the case of discreditable stigma, the stigmatized individual assumes the source of stigma to be neither known about by those present nor immediately perceivable by them. Having a criminal record or being gay are examples of discreditable stigma, in that there is something about oneself that is not immediately apparent but could diminish oneself in the eyes of others if exposed.

Among the two most difficult and potentially traumatizing experiences for low students are the receipt of first-year grades and the announcement of the results of the Law Review competition. The former is confidential and remains that way unless individual students choose to share their grades with others. The latter is not formally announced but becomes common knowledge almost immediately upon the return of the 2L class in the fall. Each of these events is experienced and how they might combine to deliver a more painful and destructive blow than either could alone. After the grades come out, many people experience a profound loss of self-esteem and confidence, as well as a significant shift in their self-perception -- but no one talks about it. For these people, the information about their grades becomes a discreditable stigma, one that they do their best to hide. This process takes its toll. Those possessing a discreditable stigma must learn to manage their information. They must decide whom to tell and when, with the aim of "passing" among those who are, or are perceived by the stigmatized to be, "normal." All the time, they cope alone and in silence with the knowledge that their identity has been "spoiled."
This experience is painful and stressful, but at least it can be borne in secret.

The institutional structure does not, however, allow students to continue to suffer privately. Instead, the results of the Law Review competition spread like wildfire as soon as classes reconvene in the fall. Those students who "made it" experience a palpable change in status, a result of the significance attached to law review membership in the legal community. Those students who do not make it, although not obviously penalized or treated with overt disrespect, must now reckon with the fact that they are not among those classmates to receive the positive reinforcement from professors and classmates that accompanies Law Review membership -- and in public, no less. Not only is this failure experienced publicly as a stigma of the discredited, but for many students it follows several months of silently carrying the knowledge of a discreditable stigma and fearing its exposure. The determination of Law Review membership takes on such significance precisely because of this timing -- the publicizing of who made it is experienced as the "outing" of the feelings of inadequacy that those with an unremarkable exam performance had kept quiet for so long.

[U2]

Quite interesting!

[klinex]

U2, you mean it's interesting the post of "tuned" or this thread in general?

[modena99]

Curves affect the following things: class rank, interviews, attrition, maintaining (or acquring) scholarships, and sometimes participation in law school activities.

I agree that a person with a 2.5 at a lower ranked school may not on average be up to par with a Ivy league student. However, what is not up to par? I believe Ivy League students in general have better mathematical/spatial relationship skills, which is a major factor in their history of high standardized tests scores. You could consider this as abstract logical reasoning skills. I think that's their primary advantage, which it seems isn't a huge aspect of law practice.

However, I would be remiss to say that those logical skills aren't important. Although, even if this is true, we are still presuming all these Ivy caliber students have the ability to apply this ability in a real-world context instead of a school setting. I think that's where things fall apart. Also, we're presuming that learning by doing will never close the gap in proficiency, which we know by anecdote is not true.   

I'm presuming that Ivy League students may have the ability to do more quantitative and math intensive law work but that's their primary advantage. That is a small slice of law practice and law school. 

You cannot compare low ranked law schools to high ranked law schools because of attrition. Although, I think the person making the Cooley and Harvard comparison was on to something. It's easier for a person at an Ivy caliber school to not put forth much effort as a Cooley type student and still pass. However, it's unfair to presume those Ivy League students aren't studying as hard. Also, the higher ranked schools have extremely high bar passage rates, so the challenge on the competence of these students at face value is moot. Although, I can understand the outrage at these top-ranked schools blatant grade inflation, while lower ranked schools stand steady with low curves as employer's expectations rise. 

I believe the PAR ranking by Cooley reveals the flaws of these numerous grading policies. The relative performance of some higher ranked schools is equivalent to lower ranked schools but their grading policies are sometimes wildly different.

[egolaw]

             Harvard    Cooley
top 50%      3.40       3.00
top 25%      3.70       3.30

[...] because Harvard has a higher grading scale than Cooley our transferee would get better grades than he got at Cooley, so his GPA will be 3.7, instead of the 3.4 Cooley gave him [...]

So T4 students are twice discriminated against with regard to the GPA, the first time when they are graded by the T4s and then again when they are screened by employers that look down on T4s?

[pixelaw]

And what would happen in case all the 100 Harvard/Cooley-level students decide to simply write down "That's how stupid grading on a curve is." -- whom would you give As and whom the Cs?!

manny, you hit the nail right on the @ # ! * i n g head!

[triad]

             Harvard    Cooley
top 50%      3.40       3.00
top 25%      3.70       3.30

[...] because Harvard has a higher grading scale than Cooley our transferee would get better grades than he got at Cooley, so his GPA will be 3.7, instead of the 3.4 Cooley gave him [...]

So T4 students are twice discriminated against with regard to the GPA, the first time when they are graded by the T4s and then again when they are screened by employers that look down on T4s?

Don't you understand that employers would not look down on T4s, were the latter not to grade atrociously, much different than T1s?! The two go together.