What constitutes "good grades"?

[thorc954]

After reading this thread, I figured out why at least one person wasnt top 30% at that school...

Yeah, and you had to resort to personal attacks instead of attacking my argument.  I am still an Attorney-At-Law while you're still slaving away in law school.  Good luck to you in the real world:  you'll need it.

Sorry for the personal attack, I will keep personal attacks out of it (although you seemed to be pretty hypocritical in your reply). 

Regardless, your argument makes no sense.  If the same curve is used in the part time program as the full time program, like you said it was, the same amount of A's are given out in the part time as the full time.  Therefore, part time students are at absolutely no disadvantage in the class rankings compared to full time students.  You have exactly the same shot at getting the same grades.  It makes absolutely no sense to suggest that if the same curve is used and you are competing with only part time students that you are some how disadvantaged in the process.

Im still slaving away in law school?  I dont think so.  I already have a job lined up with a firm that pays 160K plus full market bonuses (not skadden bonuses but still good enough).  I have ten credits left to graduate, and I go to a school that fully embraces grade inflation.  At an absolute minimum, I will graduate top 15% of my class and be welcomed with open arms to the firm.

[unlvcrjchick]

I didn't make an assumption that "everyone in the part-time class has lesser abilities."  I made an assumption that it would be easier to get top grades in the part-time section than in the full-time section.

And maybe real-world accomplishments and experiences speak more to a person's ability than LSAT/GPA.  Whether you are right is irrelevant to my statement.  LSAT/GPA are by far the most important factors in admissions, and part-time programs have lower requirements for LSAT and GPA.  Students at Georgetown Part-time are all quite accomplished, I'm sure.  That does not change the fact that the scores for the part-time section are lower than the full-time section.  Most part-timers can get into a better school than they would otherwise because of the lower admissions requirements for part-time programs.

And honestly, do you really feel that you would have that six-figure job if UNLV did rank, and your rank was oh, say, "Top 40%" from a low-tier 2? 

Do I honestly feel that?  The answer to that would have been yes before the recent recession.  I know at least 5 people who are making such salaries and they graduated from UNLV, low-tier 2 notwithstanding.  Yes, LSAT/GPA are the most important factors in admissions; I'm not arguing otherwise.  However, you then said that the part-time students are "lesser competition."  That implies that you think part-timers lack the intellectual capabilities as the full-timers.  That may have not been your intention, but one could easily infer that.  Oh and since you acknowledge that law-school grades are typically lower for part-timers, then why do you still deem it fair that the part-timers are lumped with the full-timers?  After all, you did say that you'd be pissed if you were lumped with the part-timers.  Just curious.

[unlvcrjchick]

After reading this thread, I figured out why at least one person wasnt top 30% at that school...

Yeah, and you had to resort to personal attacks instead of attacking my argument.  I am still an Attorney-At-Law while you're still slaving away in law school.  Good luck to you in the real world:  you'll need it.

Sorry for the personal attack, I will keep personal attacks out of it (although you seemed to be pretty hypocritical in your reply). 

Regardless, your argument makes no sense.  If the same curve is used in the part time program as the full time program, like you said it was, the same amount of A's are given out in the part time as the full time.  Therefore, part time students are at absolutely no disadvantage in the class rankings compared to full time students.  You have exactly the same shot at getting the same grades.  It makes absolutely no sense to suggest that if the same curve is used and you are competing with only part time students that you are some how disadvantaged in the process.

Im still slaving away in law school?  I dont think so.  I already have a job lined up with a firm that pays 160K plus full market bonuses (not skadden bonuses but still good enough).  I have ten credits left to graduate, and I go to a school that fully embraces grade inflation.  At an absolute minimum, I will graduate top 15% of my class and be welcomed with open arms to the firm.

Apology accepted, and I didn't feel I personally attacked you:  I just said "good luck, you'll need it."  And that is true, especially in light of this crappy economy.  If you felt I did, I apologize.  Congratulations to you on your obtaining such a prestigious job:  I mean that.  I agree with your premise that the system seems fair because it's the same curve among the full-timers and the part-timers.  However, I'm going by the end result, namely that so many of the part-timers who were ranked were shut out of the ranking when lumped with the full-timers.  Plus, I look to the fact that many schools that have part-time programs keep the part-timers separate from the full-timers.  To me, this is an acknowledgement by those schools that the separate system is the most fair one in light of the arguments I've already given (I don't want to rehash them).  But really, at the end of the day, there is no point to argue it anymore, for UNLV won't change its system .

[soundsgood]

I feel like I'm arguing with a brick wall.  I will try to respond clearly so you can not misconstrue my statements this time.

1.  5 people that make 100,000 from UNLV.  I'm sure this is true.  Were these people in the median of the class?  My general point (so don't argue at the periphery) is that ranking is counterproductive after a certain point.  My school tells us not to put class rank on our resume if outside the top 30%.  You claimed that your job prospects suffered because you were not assigned a ranking.  I think, more likely, it is the fact that in this economy top 40% is not quite good enough from a tier 2.

2.  My initial reference to GPA/LSAT scores had to do with the cost/benefit analysis one should undertake before going part-time.  You complained of all the disadvantages in an earlier post.  I pointed out that there were good things about being a part-timer, like lower admissions standards (and thus a higher-ranked school).

3.  I did say part-timers were lesser competition.  Maybe a false assumption.  But I NEVER said that grades were lower for part-time students.  In fact, I've consistently said that the curve should ensure that grades are the SAME for part-time students.  I simply said that it would be easier to obtain good grades against lesser competition.  

4.  To summarize (and satisfy your curiosity):  Grades should not be lower for part-time students because they are on the same 3.0 curve as full-time students (This is why it is fair for you to be "lumped in" with full-timers).  I think it would be harder to get good grades in the full-time section (This is why I would be mad that someone that got the same good grades, but in an easier section, would have the same class rank as me).  These are different concepts, and are in no way contradictory.

[dashrashi]

Apology accepted, and I didn't feel I personally attacked you:  I just said "good luck, you'll need it."  And that is true, especially in light of this crappy economy.  If you felt I did, I apologize.  Congratulations to you on your obtaining such a prestigious job:  I mean that.  I agree with your premise that the system seems fair because it's the same curve among the full-timers and the part-timers.  However, I'm going by the end result, namely that so many of the part-timers who were ranked were shut out of the ranking when lumped with the full-timers.  Plus, I look to the fact that many schools that have part-time programs keep the part-timers separate from the full-timers.  To me, this is an acknowledgement by those schools that the separate system is the most fair one in light of the arguments I've already given (I don't want to rehash them).  But really, at the end of the day, there is no point to argue it anymore, for UNLV won't change its system .

Can you explain the mechanism that makes the bolded possible? Do you not see how those things don't seem to go together?

If 15% of part-timers get As or A-s (made up numbers, whatevs) as against their part-time peers in their classes, and 15% of FULL-TIMERS get As or A-s as against their FULL-TIME peers in THEIR classes, how is it possible, when those are combined together, for the former to get "shut out"? What's the mechanism that makes that possible? Are there classes where they DO compete together, and the part-timers do worse? Do the full-timers get an opportunity to take more uncurved classes and therefore do better in those, bringing up their total GPAs? You haven't explained how it's possible yet.

There are lots of mechanisms (I just IDd two), but so far you've got a premise (part-timers and full-timers compete only against their peers in these classes, and in those respective classes, the top 5% get a certain grade, the next 10% get a certain grade, the next, etc. etc., which is the same for both groups); an effect that doesn't follow from the premise (part-timers nevertheless inexplicably get "shut out" of the top 30%); and a conclusion that follows from an effect that's not explained (that it's unfair). What's going on in the black box between the premise (equal curves for separate classes) and the effect you see (the "shutting out")? Until you explain how both can be true, you're not going to get people to agree with your conclusion (unfair). (And hell, I'm open to agreeing with it. I just don't see how/why the effect is possible.)

[unlvcrjchick]

I feel like I'm arguing with a brick wall.  I will try to respond clearly so you can not misconstrue my statements this time.

1.  5 people that make 100,000 from UNLV.  I'm sure this is true.  Were these people in the median of the class?  My general point (so don't argue at the periphery) is that ranking is counterproductive after a certain point.  My school tells us not to put class rank on our resume if outside the top 30%.  You claimed that your job prospects suffered because you were not assigned a ranking.  I think, more likely, it is the fact that in this economy top 40% is not quite good enough from a tier 2.

2.  My initial reference to GPA/LSAT scores had to do with the cost/benefit analysis one should undertake before going part-time.  You complained of all the disadvantages in an earlier post.  I pointed out that there were good things about being a part-timer, like lower admissions standards (and thus a higher-ranked school).

3.  I did say part-timers were lesser competition.  Maybe a false assumption.  But I NEVER said that grades were lower for part-time students.  In fact, I've consistently said that the curve should ensure that grades are the SAME for part-time students.  I simply said that it would be easier to obtain good grades against lesser competition.  

4.  To summarize (and satisfy your curiosity):  Grades should not be lower for part-time students because they are on the same 3.0 curve as full-time students (This is why it is fair for you to be "lumped in" with full-timers).  I think it would be harder to get good grades in the full-time section (This is why I would be mad that someone that got the same good grades, but in an easier section, would have the same class rank as me).  These are different concepts, and are in no way contradictory.

Did you ever stop to think that I "misconstrued" your statements - which I don't think I did - because they weren't clearly written the first time?  Regarding putting your rank on your resume, many employers ask you for your "class standing," even if you're outside of the coveted top third.  If employers were only interested in the top third, then they would simply say "only top third need apply" or "top third preferred."  On more than a few occasions, a legal employer asked me to disclose my standing even though I was unable to do so:  I had to have the Registrar's office send a letter to such employers, explaining to them their ranking policy of not assigning ranks to those outside of the top third.

Again, I agree with your premise that the grades should be the same among the classes because it's the same curve.  And in response to dashrashi, yes, there are more curve-less classes available to the day students (Law Review, Society of Advocates, writing courses, externships, this one legal research class I took, which wasn't curved, etc.).  It's a fact that there exist more class offerings for the day students.  I am quite sure I mentioned this earlier, but it was awhile ago, so it was probably lost in the shuffle.  This could be an important factor that could account for the discrepancy, and like you acknowledged, dashrashi, there could be others.  However, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all of the variables that could account for the ranking differences. 

Plus, if it truly is harder to obtain good grades in the day section - and that is highly debatable - then you're acknowledging that it's actually unfair to be ranked with the "easier" night section.  After all, if it were a fair system, you shouldn't be pissed.

[UnbelievablyTired]

After consulting with my contracts professor (who also teaches part-time), I have a possible explanation.  He said the part timers performed much worse than full timers on the finals (at least, there are fewer A's given out), and as a whole were lumped much closer to the 3.0 curve.  This explains why moving into the larger pool could negatively affect a part timer's ranking.

[UnbelievablyTired]

I also think your "peers" argument is rather funny.  I have friends in the part time section that are taking civ pro from the same professor I am.  We study together.  We go to the same school.  We are taking the same professor.  We aren't peers? 

On a side note, if I get arrested for burglary and go to trial, will the people I've never met, likely would never meet, nor have anything in common with, yet are called a "jury of my peers", not my peers?

Hmm.

[unlvcrjchick]

I also think your "peers" argument is rather funny.  I have friends in the part time section that are taking civ pro from the same professor I am.  We study together.  We go to the same school.  We are taking the same professor.  We aren't peers? 

On a side note, if I get arrested for burglary and go to trial, will the people I've never met, likely would never meet, nor have anything in common with, yet are called a "jury of my peers", not my peers?

Hmm.

You have to deal with generalizations when classifying peer groups, and I already explained the differences between the part-time and full-time students.  Sure, the differences don't apply to every single student, but overall numerous differences between the two classes exist.  The fact that you happen to take a class with a study partner who also happens to have the same professor doesn't mean a thing.  This is especially true because, at the end of the day, you're not competing against that student for your A, B, whatever - at least, you won't be competing with him/her until the very end.

As for your "jury of your peers," crim-pro argument, the "peers" part of a jury is actually referring to the jury pool from which jurors are pulled and not the jury itself.  This is why only the jury pool need reflect an accurate representation of your community (thus making it more likely that you'll have true peers, those who share similarities to your background, in the jury) and not the actual jury.  Besides, simply referring to them as a "jury of your peers" doesn't make those people your "peers."  It's just how the courts refer to the jury, on a colloquial basis.

At the end of the day, though, you just proved to me that the system IS unfair, if what your contracts professor said is true.  Especially since your professor appeared to have discretion to give out less A's to the part-timers because he thought that their performance didn't match up to the full-timers.  Hmm, indeed.

However, I must take my leave of this discussion.  It's taking up too much of my time and my intention with my first post wasn't to engage in a lengthy debate.

[dashrashi]

I also think your "peers" argument is rather funny.  I have friends in the part time section that are taking civ pro from the same professor I am.  We study together.  We go to the same school.  We are taking the same professor.  We aren't peers? 

On a side note, if I get arrested for burglary and go to trial, will the people I've never met, likely would never meet, nor have anything in common with, yet are called a "jury of my peers", not my peers?

Hmm.

I like that you integrated civ pro into your hypo....the very subject you are studying.

For posterity.

For the record, I don't see anything civ about the pro described here.