Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: curves? i dont get it.  (Read 17367 times)

arcanismajor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #60 on: March 27, 2006, 10:24:40 PM »
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.

Any sugestions for reform, fedhex?! (not sarcastic)

oblada

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #61 on: May 03, 2006, 12:06:12 PM »
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.

Students do whatever it takes to get into a top school for after that point they're done: I mean, it's not that they will actually learn anything valuable for that matter ... Recently, a law firm partner was horrified to find that a graduate it hired from a leading law school, an individual who had apparently not taken any course in bankruptcy or even business organization had to go to the library and take out a book on securities. On the other hand, the drinking rituals taking place in top law schools have been described in detail by many authors by now. That is what most students in top law schools do, after all, they simply get drunk. But they do bond and network. At Stanford learning is not an explicit goal. Grade inflation is pervasive in top law schools, thus almost no one fails out of these programs, which means the credential does not serve as a screen or an enforcement of minimum competency standards. In today's prestigious law schools, students have to demonstrate competence to get in, but not to get out. Every student who wants to (and who avoids financial and emotional distress) will graduate. In fact, these schools have developed elaborate grading systems to ensure that even the least competent and least interested get credit.

veravolli

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #62 on: May 08, 2006, 10:11:06 PM »
Awesome thread, tagging it.

wardwilliams

  • Guest
Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #63 on: May 08, 2006, 10:27:33 PM »
tag

8

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #64 on: May 10, 2006, 06:57:29 PM »
I can understand the "need" for grading on a curve on the part of law schools ... I mean, it makes sense for the law school financially. Not to mention that law schools are expected by employers to rate the meat and impose a kind of slightly paranoid mindset that is very receptive to structural authority/hierarchy. But even the law schools themselves can not pretend the current system of grading represent a "fair" way of measuring the student's knowledge of their courses' content against a neutral baseline. 

The curve encourages laziness in both professors and students. I hope that law professors, if faced with a brilliant class that "got" more of the material relative to other years or relative to an absolute scale would feel a deep and abiding sense of shame at handing out the exact same percentage of grades year after year. Unfortunately, I think none of them, even the self-styled radicals, will do anything about it. 
Only sick music makes money today.

goldenchain

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #65 on: May 17, 2006, 11:10:18 PM »
Looks like you like a lot cutting people down to size, 8!

manny portuguese

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Grading On Curve
« Reply #66 on: July 05, 2006, 05:56:02 AM »


"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?

frolick

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Grading On Curve
« Reply #67 on: July 08, 2006, 08:15:38 PM »

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?!


LOL ;)

NotReally

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #68 on: July 09, 2006, 03:39:39 PM »

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?!



The reason this is not possible is that curves at top schools don't require anyone to fail.  At UVa for example it is recommended to professors that they give out 2 C's in a class of 100 while they are supposed to also give out 2 A+'s, but a teacher doesn't have to give out C's or A+'s as they only have to come out with an average 3.3ish for each class.  I have not been in a class where a student got an F or even a D for that matter.  Usually there are less than 50 grades in the school of over 1000 students who get a c+ or below.  So if you are at a top law school and everyone does really well, then you have the assurance of the average for the class not being below a certain point and the professor could have the option of giving everyone a B+ or whatever.  If you are a harvard genius, you don't go to schools that have mandatory failing grades. 

The reason some schools have mandatory failing grades or kick the bottom 10 percent of their classes out each semester is to raise bar passage rates.  This is not a problem at top schools. 

enola

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #69 on: July 10, 2006, 04:27:16 AM »

The reason this is not possible is that curves at top schools don't require anyone to fail.  At UVa for example it is recommended to professors that they give out 2 C's in a class of 100 while they are supposed to also give out 2 A+'s, but a teacher doesn't have to give out C's or A+'s as they only have to come out with an average 3.3ish for each class.  I have not been in a class where a student got an F or even a D for that matter.  Usually there are less than 50 grades in the school of over 1000 students who get a c+ or below.  So if you are at a top law school and everyone does really well, then you have the assurance of the average for the class not being below a certain point and the professor could have the option of giving everyone a B+ or whatever.

The reason some schools have mandatory failing grades or kick the bottom 10 percent of their classes out each semester is to raise bar passage rates.  This is not a problem at top schools.
 

That's not the point, what's important is that curves ae in place at top law schools too, and the post you quoted was discussing the curve "logic" in general .. the essence of the post was, and still is, that curves are stupid.

Quote
If you are a harvard genius, you don't go to schools that have mandatory failing grades. 

Of curse you don't, but that was not the point .. the poster on top on you introduced a hypo that you are doing everything possible not to respond to .. how could you give a logical response, even if you tried to, after all?!

love, sphinx