curves? i dont get it.

[paran0id]

In the situation you described I would rather have the 3.3. And my resume would either read "GPA 3.3/4.0 (Top 10%)" or simply read "Top 10% of Class".

[RootBrewskies]

i just feel like the gpa is a poor indicator of how people do in law school since virtually every school ranks their students, and becauase of that law schools should use a higher curve in order to help their students get better jobs.  i understand that they are kind of an indicator of how well you did, but they are a poor indicator in comparison to class rank. 

put yourself in the employers shoes....would u rather have someone who had a 3.4 and was top 25% of the class, or would u rather have someone with a 3.0 who was in the top 10%.  obviously the top 10% is better but the gpa doesnt indicate that.    i think most employers would select the top 10% student regardless of the fact that he/she has a lower GPA.  so this really indicates that curves dont make sense, because the student with the lower gpa is more valueable to the employer. 

does this make sense to anyone else?

[majorporcupine]

You also have to take into account the school reputation.  Top 20% at Harvard is a world away from top 20% at Thomas Cooley, even if the Cooley grad had a higher GPA.

[marlene]

You also have to take into account the school reputation. Top 20% at Harvard is a world away from top 20% at Thomas Cooley, even if the Cooley grad had a higher GPA.

You meant, "Top 20% at Harvard is a world away from top 20% at Thomas Cooley, even if the Cooley grad had a lower GPA," didn't you?!

[tjking82]

i just feel like the gpa is a poor indicator of how people do in law school since virtually every school ranks their students, and becauase of that law schools should use a higher curve in order to help their students get better jobs.  i understand that they are kind of an indicator of how well you did, but they are a poor indicator in comparison to class rank. 

put yourself in the employers shoes....would u rather have someone who had a 3.4 and was top 25% of the class, or would u rather have someone with a 3.0 who was in the top 10%.  obviously the top 10% is better but the gpa doesnt indicate that.    i think most employers would select the top 10% student regardless of the fact that he/she has a lower GPA.  so this really indicates that curves dont make sense, because the student with the lower gpa is more valueable to the employer. 

does this make sense to anyone else?

RootBrewskies -

If I'm an employer in the situation you mentioned, I don't necessarily go with the higher class rank.  A large component of my decision will be the school where the class rank is earned from.  Top 25% is extremely impressive at Harvard, not so much so at Cooley.

Also, better schools usually have a higher mean GPA.  Thus, while class rank may be a superior way to compare students from the same schools, GPA may be a superior way to compare students from different schools.  You could argue that this is because being a Top 5% student at your favorite tier 3 school is equivalent to being at the median at Harvard.  Thus, a 3.4 may make you top 5% at some schools, but only top 50% at Harvard - yet the two 3.4s are representative of equivalent students, and so you could argue the GPA to be a better indicator than the class rank.

However, even if schools don't follow this model (better schools = higher mean GPA), GPA is good for is showing the precise difference between class ranks.  For example, the #1 student may be miles above the #2 student, and the #3 student may be just behind the #2 student.  If you just had class rank, you'd think these students were seperated by similar margins, when this may not be the case.

[tjking82]

You also have to take into account the school reputation. Top 20% at Harvard is a world away from top 20% at Thomas Cooley, even if the Cooley grad had a higher GPA.

You meant, "Top 20% at Harvard is a world away from top 20% at Thomas Cooley, even if the Cooley grad had a lower GPA," didn't you?!

No, it makes more sense the way he said it, even though we all know that the Harvard grading scale is higher than the Cooley one.

[kjbj]

tj, honey, it either makes sense the way he said it, or it doesn't. The fact is that it doesn't. Sorry!

[paran0id]

Code: [Select]

eat *&^% and die.

you could probably score a 2.7 and a 'top' 75% at harvard and do better than cooley. point made.

[getreal]

tj, honey, it either makes sense the way he said it, or it doesn't. The fact is that it doesn't. Sorry!

You also have to take into account the school reputation. Top 20% at Harvard is a world away from top 20% at Thomas Cooley, even if the Cooley grad had a higher GPA.

And, sooorry, this is simply not true! If the top 20% at Cooley transfers to Harvard he'd rank top 20% at Harvard as well. It's that simple!

[bulletproof]

does this make sense to anyone else?

It makes sense in that I see exactly what you mean, but the GPA can serve a purpose.  I think there are quite a few schools that rank only a certain percentage of students (it's the top 20% at mine) and so the GPA is helpful in that situation to give both the student and the employer an idea where they were at in the field.  But, if every single student is ranked then I'd say the GPA is either unimportant or at least much less important.