I know this is a side note, but law school grades are statistically ridiculous. Granted, those who managed to consistently get A's obviously have some desirable skill, and those at the bottom of the curve all three years have some deficiency.

My class had 130 students. The curve was a 2.9, and 60% of the students fell between a 2.8 and 3.2. So if one student had B, B, B, C grades, and another had B, B, B, A grades they would only be separated by one class, but one would be in the bottom 20% and the other would be in the top 20% after the first semester. I remember one long test was out of 400 points (semi-arbitrary) Someone who got 190 got an A, and someone who got 165 got a C.

My friend and I had identical grades our first semester except I got a B+ where he got a B. Because we were both semi average, that one B+ put me 30 students ahead of him in the Rankings.

Add participation points balogna to this and it gets even dumber. At my school, 10% of your grade was in-class participation but it could be applied pre-curve.

So, for example, the final is worth 90 points and participation worth 10. Well if the entire class gets between 70 and 85, then those 10 participation points have a HUGE impact on the curve because the spread is only 15 points.

Once you get into 2L and 3L it's even more ridiculous. I remember during 2L my friend signed up for federal courts and I signed up for 1st Amendment/Media Law. Most of the law review board was in federal courts, and a bunch of slackers were in media law. Also, Federal courts only had 12 students and media law had 40. So I had a chance at one of several A's against a bunch of internet surfers, and my buddy had a chance at the 1 or 2 available A's against the biggest bunch of law geeks in the state.

He got a C, I got an A.