curves? i dont get it.

[paran0id]

WTF was that all about? Someone with a temp screen name makes a single post with the sole intention of starting a flame?

I do love, however, how the AA people make arguements that imply things they're against. "Blacks typically score 10 points lower than whites on the LSAT, even if their GPAs were identical." "There is a disproportionately high number of minorities in the bottom half of law school classes." Me thinks there may be a connection.

So assume the LSAT is biased, and therefore minorities need a boost to their score via AA. But apparently law school is biased too. I guess they need a GPA boost. Maybe half a point for anyone who was admitted under AA.

Finally, this didn't start off as an AA thread. It started off as a "why do we have curves", turned into a "a king at cooley is no king at harvard" rant, and got hijacked by a AA nut. Let's go back to picking on Cooley. It's more fun.

[majorporcupine]

Should there be affirmative action for Cooley grads, considering that life seems biased against them? 

[bulletproof]

I can eat cereal just as fast as my brother, but he eats hot dogs faster than me.  Can I jump around and yell "d**mn it, hot dogs are biased against me!"  No.

I enjoyed this, please consider a career as a law text hypo writer.

[effy]

this thread has become pointless because of the gross over exageration that is going on.  first of all, the difference between #1 and #2 is not going to be so spread apart that it is going to matter that greatly. obvioulsy #1 looks better on a resume than #2 but most law firms arent going to hire someone based simply on rank alone. if #1 and #2 show up for the same job its probably going to come down to the interview, not their GPA. 

obviously #1 at harvard counts for more than #1 at cooley or most other schools, simply due to the reputation of the school. 

the arguement that i am giving is that with the way that law school works and how selective it has become in recent years, most schools are going to find themselves with a group of students that will before equally, and some that will excell and some that will fall behind.  this is why a curve shouldnt be neccessary.  it should happen naturally.  students can still be ranked against one another, but why should it be neccessary for someone to receive a C or D if they are performing at a B level?  simply because of the curve?  that doesnt make sense. 

grade students and give them the grade they deserve, the class ranking will show where students stand in their class, GPA doesnt show that anyway.  GPA should be used to show at what level your performing, class rank should be to show how you are performing in comparison to everyone else.  why there are curves simply doesnt make sense. 

it only functions to hurt the job prospects of students at schools with difficult curves, and that is a school purposely putting its students at a disadvantage.

At Cooley students use the same books T1 schools use and learn the exact same material out of them. However, Cooley grades atrociously. To earn a B or a C for that matter at Cooley is a well accomplished thing. Cooley grades based on the knowledge of a practicing attorney. A Cooley grad with a 2.50 GPA could blow a tier one grad with a 3.50 out the door knowledge-wise.

[a...a]

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,32561.0.html

[bulletproof]

At Cooley students use the same books T1 schools use and learn the exact same material out of them. However, Cooley grades atrociously. To earn a B or a C for that matter at Cooley is a well accomplished thing. Cooley grades based on the knowledge of a practicing attorney. A Cooley grad with a 2.50 GPA could blow a tier one grad with a 3.50 out the door knowledge-wise.

Is this a serious statement?  I am not about school bashing, T1-2-3-4, whatever... if you are driven enough and try hard you'll get something out of it and perhaps become a brilliant lawyer someday, no matter where you went to school.  But to say a 2.5 gpa at Cooley is better than a 3.5 at T1 school??  If you said a 3.5 = 3.5 I wouldn't have thought much about it.  Earning a B or C is a well accomplished thing?  So then shall we assume most people are getting Ds and Fs there?  I looked into the Cooley stats on noticed that the median GPA entering was 3.01 and the median LSAT was 147, yes the last two digits are 4 and 7.  The bar passage rate for first timers?  55%.  You've got about a half-half chance of making it thru after graduation.  The tuition is about $23K, much more than many state schools with higher rankings and stats.  So I can assume there are a great many people that go to Cooley, and pay more $$, because it was the only school they could get into.  Not because of it's rep in the law community.  School pride is great, but there are limits.  It is unfortunate that people choose to spend time picking on Cooley or other schools for that matter, but lets not take that to mean that we will start trying to convince the world that Cooley is really way better than all the other schools.  Same text books and same subjects does not equal same dean, same professors, same student body.

[fedhex]

People should understand that it is not education in law but selectivity that is rewarded once you get in the work environment. It has been noted by some authors that the fact that graduates from the most competitive, elite schools achieved the greatest earnings is scarcely surprising as these people were selected by their schools on the basis of their much higher than average credentials. This interpretation, that what matters are the personal attributes of the attendees and not what they learn while in attendance, is consistent with the fact that the course of study and the textbooks used are similar across schools of different degrees of selectivity, so it's hard to argue that there are important differences in the knowledge being provided in the different schools.

That said, it is now clear that having a JD from an elite school means most of the time nothing as far as the individual's mastery of the law and lawyering skills. As the thread above suggests, law students at top schools engage in useless theoretical discussions and know jack about the black letter law while developing no adequate lawyering skills. What happens in top law schools is that most students simply get drunk. But they do bond and network.

[pledguilty]

People don't go to law school only for the money. Some go for the education, the connections and the "confirmation from society." Many parents, e.g., are huge believers in advanced degrees, and they push their children to do 'em.

[allwrit]

People don't go to law school only for the money. Some go for the education, the connections and the "confirmation from society." Many parents, e.g., are huge believers in advanced degrees, and they push their children to do 'em.

LOL!

[ginntonic]

People don't go to law school only for the money. Some go for the education, the connections and the "confirmation from society." Many parents, e.g., are huge believers in advanced degrees, and they push their children to do 'em.

If u go to an American law school for a reason other than money you are stupid.