Grade Me Now
Both Volokh and Kerr discuss curves in law schools, with an emphasis on the increase in the mean/median GPA. Well it seems like most schools are hovering around a 3.2 curve with Stanford at 3.4. Hmmm, so where do we stand?
Just to explain things to 0Ls, in your first year large sections the curve is top 10% = HH, next 30% = H, and remaining 60% = P. If we assume the grading basis used to determine order of the coif (HH=5, H=3, and P=2) then simple math gives us a mean curve of 2.6 and of course a median of 2.
Another way of doing it would be to do what the main campus registrar does...convert all H grades to A and all P grades to B. That of course gives use a 3.4 mean GPA with a 3.0 still as the median. But that doesn't seem right. Keeping my ears close to the ground, the most common way I've heard our grades distilled is by counting the number of H grades. Similar to the one above, but with a slight twist. So my hunch is that our curve is not that far off the rest of the schools. It's just a matter of figuring out the right numerical value to assign to an H and to a P to get a 3.2 curve.
In other news, I'm glad to hear that the Virginia Supreme Court rejected the testimony of Dr. Stan Samenow (in a redux of the Atkins case that many of you will remember from law review write-on 05). Samenow's main argument is that every criminal makes a choice to commit crimes. Forget about poverty, education, opportunity, influence of groups, etc. It all boils down to choice. And this guy was used by the state to testify in the case of someone arguing mental retardation. Sigh.
Just to explain things to 0Ls, in your first year large sections the curve is top 10% = HH, next 30% = H, and remaining 60% = P. If we assume the grading basis used to determine order of the coif (HH=5, H=3, and P=2) then simple math gives us a mean curve of 2.6 and of course a median of 2.
Another way of doing it would be to do what the main campus registrar does...convert all H grades to A and all P grades to B. That of course gives use a 3.4 mean GPA with a 3.0 still as the median. But that doesn't seem right. Keeping my ears close to the ground, the most common way I've heard our grades distilled is by counting the number of H grades. Similar to the one above, but with a slight twist. So my hunch is that our curve is not that far off the rest of the schools. It's just a matter of figuring out the right numerical value to assign to an H and to a P to get a 3.2 curve.
In other news, I'm glad to hear that the Virginia Supreme Court rejected the testimony of Dr. Stan Samenow (in a redux of the Atkins case that many of you will remember from law review write-on 05). Samenow's main argument is that every criminal makes a choice to commit crimes. Forget about poverty, education, opportunity, influence of groups, etc. It all boils down to choice. And this guy was used by the state to testify in the case of someone arguing mental retardation. Sigh.
Labels: 0L/1L Advice, Grades And Other Neurotic Bullshit, The Red Menace, The Resident Evil
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 11:50 PM
18 Comments:
Haney Lopez says that we should change the HH to an A+, the H to an A and the P to an A-. That system would make out curve slightly more inflated that Stanford's but it makes sense to me. At least the top portion of the P range represents far better than what they call B work at other top schools.
Wouldn't that still produce the same ranking of students at our school?
And while a top range P might be far better than most other school's Bs, doesn't it follow that the bottom-most P has really gotten away with work that at other schools nets a C?
And, to follow the thought through to the bloody end, that would mean that our school would offer grades of A and F.
Sorry, maybe he has a good reason, but I don't see anything redeeming, and a lot that sounds pretty comical, about that proposal...
What's comical about HaLo's proposal? That it doesn't fine people who are late to evidence class? And is someone posting from work?
what's the billing code for posting on blogs?
"Non-billable." Also used for coffee breaks, bathroom, and lunch.
As for what's comical? That it would do nothing, because the rankings would still be in the same order, the numbers would be higher. It would be like what would happen if we could write three extra zeroes on all our one dollar bills. Would anyone be richer? No. And seriously - a school that gives out As and Fs? You want to be known as that school?
A more comprehensive fix would be to go to the A+, A, A- system with a B replacing the sub-P. You don't have to have Cs at all, just as Columbia doesn't have Ds (or call the sub-P a C with no Bs, it doesn't matter).
We could also get rid of the optional class rank system and instead do what Columbia does. They have no class rank or GPA but for each year you're in the top 3%, you are a James Kent Scholar and for each year in the top 33%, you are a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. Getting rid of the optional class rank would allow you to list "my school does not rank" for clerkships on OSCAR. That cuts you into every search that a judge makes based on class rank. So a judge's search for "top 10%" would return every student who said she was in the top 10% and every student at Columbia, Yale and Boalt. And the students who really are at the top will still get the benefit of being recognized as an Earl Warren Scholar or a James N. Traynor Scholar.
By the way, Haney Lopez's proposal is informed by Stanford psychology professor Claude Steele's work on "stereotype threat." He adapts the idea in theorizing that once a student gets nailed with a bunch of Ps in his first semester, he thinks he has done poorly (which often is not really the case) and then enters every subsequent test believing he just does poorly on law school exams, which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Steele's research provides empirical evidence that this effect has some explanatory power for minority underperformance on high-stakes tests.* Anecdotally, it also seems that getting a bunch of Ps 1L year causes some people to stop trying because the prospect of trying one's best and continuing to get bad grades (Ps) is more painful than getting bad grades when one hasn't really tried to do better. The swich to As instead of Hs and Ps is of course based on the assumption that an A- has less negative emotional impact than a P, which I think is true.
Also, a switch to a Stanfordesque high-mean grading system has added benefit for students applying to employers who rarely see Boalt transcripts. If you apply to a New Hampshire job with only grades of A- with a few As, I think you're in much better shape than if you have a ton of Ps with a few Hs. Employers will rarely take the time to figure out the grading system unless they regularly hire Boalties.
So, here's the proposal:
1. The only grades would be A+ (top 10%), A (next 30%) and A- (bottom 60%) with a B or C serving the sub-P role. There could also be an F to replace the NC.
2. There would be no class rank at all, not even an optional one.
3. Top 3% students for each year would be Earl Warren Scholars and top 33% students would be James N. Traynor (or maybe Herma Hill Kay) Scholars.
Here are the benefits:
1. Reduced risk of "stereotype threat" harming student performance arbitrarily.
2. Boalt students don't get cut out of any OSCAR searches by judges.
3. Possibility of making the law school a less competitive and more supportive environment.
4. Top students are still recognized.
While some redhot gunners with a high class rank may not like this system, I suspect most 0Ls behind a veil of ignorance as to how well they will do would support it. People who do not like the overly-competitive nature of law school should also like this system because it could lessen competitiveness. Finally, those who want to see students do their best work in classes should be interested in reducing the stereotype threat and discouragement the current system creates.
*See Claude Steele, PBS Interview, available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/steele.html.
Boalt is not competitive anyway. Law school should be somewhat competitive. There are some of us who genuinly shouldn't be passing classes, but are earning P's as it is. We are being prepared for a profession where people's lives, and futures are in our hands everyday. We aren't exactly doctors, but if you blow something and lose GM 300 million dollars that equals thousands of layoffs and effects even more.
And if you aren't doing big firm work you are no less dealing with critical situations. Immigration, crim law, family law. All of these issues are probably the most important thing ever in your clients life.
When we face the facts, there needs to be Fs and there needs to be Ds and there needs to be Cs, because some of us shouldn't make it. I'm not saying what camp I fall into.
"There are some of us who genuinly shouldn't be passing classes, but are earning P's as it is"
well-said, douchebag
> "Anecdotally, it also seems that getting a bunch of Ps 1L year causes some people to stop trying because the prospect of trying one's best and continuing to get bad grades (Ps) is more painful than getting bad grades when one hasn't really tried to do better."
With this kind of attitude, I think worse than a P is deserved. Whatever you do, don't give up. Fight to the end. Even if all you get are Ps, you'll still get more out of school and you're a better person for not quitting.
Having worked a bit in the "real" legal world, I am not sure if you really learn much that is of use in law school, no matter how hard you study or how many Hs you get. So perhaps the people who are resigned to all Ps (like The Dude from The Big Rakowski) have it right.
On a more serious note, it is tough for people at every law school for people who have gotten straight As their entire lives to get Ps or other "bad" grades after they do their best (which is often pretty good or else a pretty good guess at what the professor might have been looking for). Discouragement may not be excusable but it is understandable and worth addressing. I support the current trend toward grade inflation. I think it's time Boalt got with the program and started catching up (or exceeding) our peer schools. Also, I'm sure we all know people who went to Yale over other schools in large part because of their perception that there is no grade pressure there.
By the way, it's Roger J. (not James N.) Traynor.
Excuse me in advance, but this is a serious question. Would people really feel better if we called a P an A-? Even if they *knew* that an A- was the worst grade? I think they'd still feel disappointed in their grade, even if it sounds like an A.
I really don't know on this one, the stereotype threat argument is interesting and I'm willing to believe in it. But I'm not sure if this is a fix. All I can speak of is my experience - I hated getting B-s and Cs in undergrad, but it made every later A taste that much better.
I hope we all realize that this is purely academic. If it takes our registrar two months to get our grades out (when it takes every other school, what, two weeks?) I don't see changes forthcoming for the Class of '07, or '17 for that matter.
Something also needs to be done about small sections during the first semester. Since these are classes where you are supposed to really get to know a professor who could in theory help you out later, it doesn't make sense to have over half of the class required to get a P.
There are two possible solutions--
1. Don't have the curve apply at all. This way, everyone who does good work can get an H.
2. Grade them pass-fail. This way, at least no one gets the stigma of getting a P. Either way, we would need to equalize them so that they are all 5 units.
The reason there needs to be a change is that it really sucks that we have profs. spend so much time getting to know students during their first semester and then having to give half of them Ps. Since the small sections professors are so ideally positioned to write students recommendation letters or serve as references after this experience, it is a real drag that many students can't take advantage because they fell below the P cutoff, even when they may have done good work that just wasn't good enough by a few points and the prof. would be happy to write them a good letter, except they would have to say "Tommy was a great student but I still gave him a P."
The Registrar has nothing to do with setting policies. She just implements them. If the faculty decides they want to change the grading system, they can do it very quickly.
Another idea:
Allow faculty members to go above their H quota if they provide a written justification. This measure would protect against students taking unnecessary whacks from the P-stick. The requirement of a written justification would still protect against grade inflation for grade inflation's sake. I think there's a similiar requirement of a written justification for giving a sub-P.
The current Boalt grading system also let's the top 10 students know their numerical rank. That might be worth keeping because it probably helps students generate some "wow" factor that is helpful for getting Supreme Court clerkships.
Actually, if you're in the top 3% then you're in the top ten overall. So, the Earl Warren Scholar idea would cover it. Unless, that is, there is some added value to being #1 or #3 over being #8 or #10. Regardless, it seems clear the only reason to be concerned about being ranked that highly would be the most competitive clerkships, especially SCOTUS clerkships. Any thoughts from the SCOTUS hopefuls?
Tom, how could you not buy the psychology bit? don't tell me you don't feel bad when you get a P.
I have about 30% or each grade. I have about a 3.3 on the order of the coif curve. That might seem good but I still have a perception that I am a terrible fuck up for having 7 Ps (I'm a 3L). Really, I actually feel quite ashamed of my grades in interviews and such. I can't help it. And, it seems to me that employers think Ps are bad grades.
I would much rather be on a A+/A/A- scale or a A+/A/B scale. I would feel a lot better about my performance and I don't think I would feel as embarrased about a A- or even a B, in an interview as I do about P (which to me feels like a C). I think that is how many of us over-achievers feel.
Post a Comment
<< Home