curves? i dont get it.

[tjking82]

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

Actually it makes sense.  I'm sorry you didn't get it.

"Top 20% at Harvard is worlds better than Top 20% at Cooley." - This should be an undisputed fact.  The best and brightest minds, when applying to law school, apply to Harvard and not to Cooley.  This means that someone who succeeds at Harvard - which, given the law school curve, means that they have bested their peers - has achieved a greater accomplishment than he who succeeds at Cooley.

"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.

If it still doesn't make sense, I think you were just not meant to get it.

[tjking82]

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!

I find it funny that this is coming from a person named "Get Real"

Your statement is false for three reasons:

1)  When people transfer to a new school, their first year grades are typically marked as non-graded passes.  Thus, the transfer is starting out from scratch and has no class rank at his new school.

2)  Even if he did get to keep his grades, Harvard has a higher grading scale than Cooley, so the 3.4 that earned him his Top 10% or whatever, would only be on the median at Harvard.

3)  Most importantly, as I stated in my last post, succeeding at Harvard is miles away from succeeding at Cooley.  Harvard sends people to the Supreme Court.  Cooley sends people to the Eastern District of Michigan.  Besting your peers at Harvard means you could best your peers anywhere.  Besting your peers at Cooley means you've bested your peers at Cooley.

[paran0id]

If it still doesn't make sense, I think you were just not meant to get it.

I think we're talking to a cooley-quality kid here.

If the top 20% at Cooley transfers to Harvard he'd rank top 20% at Harvard as well. It's that simple!

If one of the tallest 20% of midgets transferred to the globetrotters he'd rank among the tallest 20% of globetrotters.


dumbass

[RootBrewskies]

i think everyone is pushing it a little far with the cooley vs. harvard comparison.  obviously the two schools are worlds apart, and while the top students at cooley may be there for certain reasons we dont know, its an unrealistic comparison with perhaps 1 or two students who may be exceptional at cooley. 

obviously students at the top 20 or so schools have an advantage and can pull off a lower gpa and class rank and still be seen as being a top student simply from the schools reputation.  beyond this mark though, most schools go from being national to be regional schools, and it may be a stretch to say that the top 20 schools are national.  but after this students begin to be compared against one another with factors other than their school, mostly class rank, gpa, and random soft factors. 

so while the harvard vs. cooley argument is a little far fetched, much more often you would see employers looking at resumes from people from Pitt vs. Duquesne, or Temple vs. Villanova vs. Widener, or Syracuse vs. Pace, or something like this. 

odds are the person doing the hirering will be fairly impartial unless he/she went to one of the schools.  he/she will be impartial cause odds are there are people in the firm who went to one of the regional schools (look at the list of law firm partners and associates, its filled with people from regional schools).  anyway, this would mean that students would once again be judged against each other and without a doubt GPA would be evaluated and depending on the curve, one schools grad's would have a distinct advantage. 

i think that there really is no need for curves because class rank is sufficient and GPA's have too many holes in them.  obviously in the cooley vs. harvard example odds are a person graduating last in harvards class has a better shot than someone in a top percentile at cooley but that comparison is just too far fetched to consider.  but a comparison on someone from regional schools that are essentially equal in class rank but have different GPA's gives the schools grads with the softer curver an advantage when getting jobs. 

[tjking82]

i think everyone is pushing it a little far with the cooley vs. harvard comparison.  obviously the two schools are worlds apart, and while the top students at cooley may be there for certain reasons we dont know, its an unrealistic comparison with perhaps 1 or two students who may be exceptional at cooley. 

obviously students at the top 20 or so schools have an advantage and can pull off a lower gpa and class rank and still be seen as being a top student simply from the schools reputation.  beyond this mark though, most schools go from being national to be regional schools, and it may be a stretch to say that the top 20 schools are national.  but after this students begin to be compared against one another with factors other than their school, mostly class rank, gpa, and random soft factors. 

so while the harvard vs. cooley argument is a little far fetched, much more often you would see employers looking at resumes from people from Pitt vs. Duquesne, or Temple vs. Villanova vs. Widener, or Syracuse vs. Pace, or something like this. 

odds are the person doing the hirering will be fairly impartial unless he/she went to one of the schools.  he/she will be impartial cause odds are there are people in the firm who went to one of the regional schools (look at the list of law firm partners and associates, its filled with people from regional schools).  anyway, this would mean that students would once again be judged against each other and without a doubt GPA would be evaluated and depending on the curve, one schools grad's would have a distinct advantage. 

i think that there really is no need for curves because class rank is sufficient and GPA's have too many holes in them.  obviously in the cooley vs. harvard example odds are a person graduating last in harvards class has a better shot than someone in a top percentile at cooley but that comparison is just too far fetched to consider.  but a comparison on someone from regional schools that are essentially equal in class rank but have different GPA's gives the schools grads with the softer curver an advantage when getting jobs. 

I hear your argument, but more than abolishing GPA entirely, you seem to be arguing for a mandatory GPA median range for all ABA law schools.  If every school had a 3.0 as their median, then you wouldn't have the soft curve school v. hard curve school issue.  Despite the fact that you'd have to make sure every class hit the median range, and that it would eliminate some component of each law school's autonomy, this might be a workable plan.  You still don't want to abolish GPA, because...how are you to judge the #1 student from each school?  Obviously they're the best at their school, but how far above the median are they?  Only GPA gives that answer.

BTW, did you really mean to say "I think that there is really no need for curves?"  You mean you object to the forced curve grading system of law schools?

[LostMyMonkeys]

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

Actually it makes sense.  I'm sorry you didn't get it.

"Top 20% at Harvard is worlds better than Top 20% at Cooley." - This should be an undisputed fact.  The best and brightest minds, when applying to law school, apply to Harvard and not to Cooley.  This means that someone who succeeds at Harvard - which, given the law school curve, means that they have bested their peers - has achieved a greater accomplishment than he who succeeds at Cooley.

"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.

If it still doesn't make sense, I think you were just not meant to get it.

Made perfect sense to me the first time you wrote it. I guess they say.. if you have to explain it.....

[RootBrewskies]

i understand the arguement that GPA helps to show the difference between the top students.  like number stands out more if he/she is at 4.0 and number 2 is at 3.8 or 3.7 or something like that.  but in reality the employer wont know that, unless by chance #1 and #2 apply to the same firm, in which case the firm will probably not favor either one of them based simply on ranking but rather on their interview. 

i'm not saying that every ABA school should have a set curve, like 3.0, although that might help the situation.  what i think is that it would a better way to grade students if they were graded like this.

Overall 40/120 rank

Torts   25/120 rank (here they could give an equivalent grade, such as saying "Approximately B+" however this would bear no significance other than an idicator of where u stand)

Contracts  60/120 (approximately C)

something like this.  just give a ranking for where u stand for each class.  it would provide an indicator of where u stand on each subject just like standards grades do, but it would eliminate the need for GPA and there for clear up all the curve differientiations.  granted this wouldnt show how far ahead of 2 you are if your number 1 but either do A,B,and C's.  GPA gives an indication of that, but u never see other peoples grades first of all, and it shouldnt really matter, since u should just try your best regardless of where your ranked or what your GPA is.  If 40th precentile is the best you can do, does it matter what the person at the 30th percentile is?  if your doing everything you can odds are unless they give up you wont be able to catch them. 

i just think that GPA's are too arbitrary depending on the school you attend.  class rank is a better indicator because GPA's can help and hurt students that are completely equal based simply on the school they went to and the curve used at that institution.

[RootBrewskies]

oh and personally i think that if you recieved a ranking in a specific class or overall of 120/120 or 115/120 or something like that, it would be more of a wake up call to, "you better start rethinking what you want as a future career, or whether this school is the right place for you" than a GPA of 2.0 or 1.7 or something would be.


overall i think my reasoning and logic is airtight.  im perfect, as usual.  you may argue but you shall lose. 

[tjking82]

BTW, did you really mean to say "I think that there is really no need for curves?"  You mean you object to the forced curve grading system of law schools?

Ahem. 

[usnewz]

"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