Secrecy for Secrecy's Sake
Ah, it's finally that time of year again. Dean O has written to at least the 3Ls asking if you'd like to know your class rank. And with this comes Boalt's own Cheney-like admonition:
The loser in all of this? The law firms that are not familiar with Boalt students, either because they are small or in a different part of the country. Why deny them access to information we must concede the larger law firms have? Why deny them information that every law faculty and judge can get?
I'd love to hear a coherent defense in the comments for this policy. I can't think of one that makes any sense. Instead, it seems like ornery secrecy for secrecy's sake alone. And for the same reason I don't like it in presidential administrations, I don't like it in academic administrations either.
Please remember that you may not disclose this information for any other purpose (except applying for a law teaching job) -- to do so would be a violation of the Honor Code.Of course, here's the rule:
3.06 Disclosure of Class Rank Information for Limited PurposesWhat's never explained is why this secrecy is necessary. What good does it confer? Does it prevent law firm empoyers from screening on rank? I suppose that's the theory, but does anyone believe that works? One need only sit through the first two minutes of an interview with Irell (tip to 1Ls: they care about your grades) to know that the interviewer is determining your class rank. While no employer can know someone's rank for sure, seeing ten to twenty transcripts should let them figure things out pretty quick. By now, if they actually cared, the years and years of applications from Boalt students should allow them to have a comprehensive understanding of Boalt student grades. And if they don't care... well, what's the point?
Information about students' class standing shall be made available solely for the purpose of aiding students applying for judicial clerkships and academic positions.
. . .
(D) Other Uses Impermissible. The Dean, Dean of Students, faculty, and students shall not disclose information about class standing provided by the Registrar under this section for any professional purpose other than obtaining a judicial clerkship or academic position. A student who reveals this information for any other professional purpose is in violation of the Honor Code.
The loser in all of this? The law firms that are not familiar with Boalt students, either because they are small or in a different part of the country. Why deny them access to information we must concede the larger law firms have? Why deny them information that every law faculty and judge can get?
I'd love to hear a coherent defense in the comments for this policy. I can't think of one that makes any sense. Instead, it seems like ornery secrecy for secrecy's sake alone. And for the same reason I don't like it in presidential administrations, I don't like it in academic administrations either.
Labels: DO, Kevin Smith, Rankings And Associated Bullshit, The Resident Evil
posted by Tom Fletcher at 12:02 PM
33 Comments:
Unrelated: Walter Dellinger, incisive and insightful, in a Slate discussion of the end of the term: http://www.slate.com/id/2168856/entry/2169144/
I feel bad for Dahlia Lithwick. It's not really a dialogue of equals. The best she can is serve as a sounding board for what the average follower of the court is thinking, then set up a Dellinger critique. I suppose the setter or point guard is an important job, but it's never as glamorous as the spike or the dunk.
While no employer can know someone's rank for sure, seeing ten to twenty transcripts should let them figure things out pretty quick.
But not as quickly as if a glaring percentile were listed on one's resume. Additionally, by being forced to examine the transcript rather than being able to rely on a simple percentile, employers see the exact classes that students took and grades they got in them. Given that certain classes are less substantive and have easier curves than others, it's possible to get a high class rank by doing well in these classes but get Ps in more difficult and substantive classes.
I would hazard a guess that it is for the same reason that we have our unique hippy grading system: by minimizing distinctions between students, people will have less incentive to be miserably over-competitive. Which makes Boalt a nicer place to be, and law school ever so slightly less hellish.
So, do I think the secrecy is a bit excessive? Sure. But is it just pointless secret-whoring? Nah. Its just being consistant with our present grading philosophy.
It would make a good exam question: under what conditions can the State of California issue prior restraints that forbid its citizens from speaking truthfully for lawful purposes?
I don't think there's a case Berkeley could make 2:42, at least under BarBri law.
This is a content, not conduct restriction. The best they could hope for is that this would be considered "commercial speech" (job-seeking) and therefore can be barred if it is narrowly tailored to directly advance a substantial interest. Good luck on the "substantial interest" or "directly advance" parts (what interest? and how does it advance it when it is so easily circumvented in practuce?).
This isn't in the BarBri book, but I wonder if consent plays a role. The book suggests prior restraints are ok as a contractual matter, i.e., if we agree that you can enjoin me before I speak, that is fine. That's the only way I could imagine success on Boalt's part. It seems like there could be that type of case out there.
I'd love to hear from people who actually took Con Law: !stAm. In the meantime, is there a brave rising 3L who wants to reinterview and also wants to be a declaratory plaintiff? I'd put some money in your litigation fund.
FYI Boalt and UCLA are the only two of the top ~16 schools that disclose ranks for clerkship applications. Be happy for having at least the small access to the information that you do. (Admittedly, some other schools have special awards that further segment the class, top 25%, top 3%, etc. that Boalt lacks.)
Essentially, ranks help the top 10%, already identified by Order of the Coif, and punish virtually everyone else. The whole point of Boalt's grades are that you can set yourself apart at the top, but it's very difficult to determine who is at the bottom. I think, given the occassionally arbitrary nature of grades and their dependence on factors such as course selection, that this is a good thing.
It also has the effect of hurting top Boalt students trying to obtain competitive non-clerkship positions, such as with the DOJ Honors Program. (Although what Boaltie would want to work for the current DOJ -- and what DOJ hack would hire a Boaltie -- are admittedly tough questions). No one sitting in any Washington office has any friggin' clue what a HH is, but they could understand easily enough if you are Top 10% or Top 20%.
Of course, this may just be an issue for rising 3Ls. I don't see how Boalt can even pretend to have -- let alone enforce -- a prohibition on grads telling anyone anything they want. That is, not if they want to keep asking for money.
This is dumb. The people whom this would help in the firm job search are the ones at or near the top of their class. These people don't have trouble getting offers in the first place. The ones it disadvantages are the people who would have to disclose, "Yeah, I'm in the bottom 30%." Right now, those people have the protection of saying, "Actually, its Boalt policy not to disclose that." The benefit to the top students doesn't seem worth it given the detriment to the students on the bottom (I subscribe to the point of view that the P/H cut-off, for example, can be arbitrary). At any rate, I'm saying this as one of those "top" students. I don't care that I can't "reveal" my oh-so-good ranking.
Question: The Honor Code says, "The Honor Code governs the conduct of students during examinations and in all other academic and pre-professional activities at Boalt Hall."
For those of us who have graduated, this seems to indicate that we are no longer bound by the Boalt Honor Code since we're not taking examinations, and are no longer involved in academic and pre-professional activities at Boalt Hall.
Am I missing something?
Audrey :)
This is what happens when a scientist opines on a non-scientific issue--the linearity of your argument, Tom, is mind-boggling (economists are even worse). This school's goal has historically been to force employers to make decisions about hiring (future) graduates based on factors beyond grades. As 1:53 points out, our grading system and the no discussing rankings rule go hand in hand.
The only losers are not firms who don't know our grading system. They're not losers at all. If they are "prestigious" enough to give a rat's ass about ranking, then they have seen enough Boalt transcripts to make an informed decision. If they are an obscure East Coast firm that doesn't get many Boalt resumes, then let's face it, they're probably not prestigious enough to ONLY interview top X%. They are more than welcome to do that with BC or New York Law School.
But who are the winners in all this? Again, as another commenter pointed out, this greatly reduces the hyper-competitive nature inherent in law school based on curved grading. Imagine if in addition to curved grades you super-imposed a ranking. Why stop there, why don't we also use grades for law review (like other top schools that "don't have rankings.") Why not put the highest ranking student's picture up in the library? I mean we could do all sorts of things to fuel competitive behavior. But the faculty of this school feels that they don't want to create reasons for competition any more than is absolutely necessary. Will anyone suffer during OCIP because they have 3 AmJurs but the resume doesn't say "Top 10%?" No, of course not.
So let's summarize, we don't get hurt by the non-disclosure, but it creates collegiality by limiting its use. Hmmm, frankly this is more important than not being able to talk during exams (also a prior restraint). It's so important that it weighed heavily in my decision to attend Boalt. The real problem is the hyper-inquisitive nature of law students.
Well Armen, on this you and I disagree, because I think our grading system is stupid because it is inaccurate and distorts performance (inaccurate because it merges those better than half with the worst) and distorting (because the existence of a P and impossibility of failing makes it entirely possible to blow off entire classes).
But you bring out another point which seems very curious to me. Why, again, are we against competition? We're very pro-competition in all other things. Why would we not want students competing to learn more?
I think this aspect of the discussion goes to show that people come to Boalt for different reasons. I didn't come because of the grading system or atmosphere - I came because a) it was the best school I got into and b) it has top-notch programs in the areas that interested me. But not for the god-awful P-H-HH grading system.
I'm still not convinced why the school thinks its good to make it hard for private firms, non-profits, and the non-judiciary government guess about their hiring decisions, while conceding that such information is useful to judges _and other law professors_. It's hilarious to me that the law professors themselves consider class rank to be an enormously valuable metric, but that they won't let anyone else use it in their hiring decisions because ____?
There's a little stream-of-consciousness to this response, but I hope it's linear enough to follow.
Well let's start with the last point first. The entire legal academy is a bit of a joke. This is the only profession where the professors are just as well educated as the students. One could argue that PhD students also eventually go on to earn the same degree as their professors, but of course that ignores the entire dissertation/research requirements that go along with a PhD. Whereas a JD does not even impart enough knowledge to permit us to pass a test on a basic level of competence. (To quote a certain co-blogger, "Imagine if after medical school a med student couldn't even pass a basic test on healing people without taking a 2 month test prep program. What would people think of medical education?") To that end, I can see a need to distinguish the very top from others with respect to academic hiring. More basically, legal teaching and a firm job ain't the same thing.
Furthermore, whereas Boalt has a great deal of influence and say over firms (access to our OCIP, events at the law school, etc.), we do not carry the same leverage in legal academic hiring. Same goes for clerkships. The CDO can't simply tell Kozinski or UC Davis to go F himself/itself if he/it asks for ranking information before even looking at your application. That's the reality of the world, not some mysterious inconsistency conjured up by the office of the dean of students. We can tell legal employers that go through OCI to not ask for rankings and not to discriminate as a precondition for participating in the program. We can't do the same for Regent School of Law (although if you REALLY want that DOJ Honors Program, that's my hot tip of the day for you). If judges and law schools insist on rankings as a way of judging candidates Boalt is powerless.
So why limit competition then? Why not just make everything rankings based? Why not really have social Darwinism? Why not turn up the stench of stress in the library reading rooms to unprecedented levels rivaling the courtyard after 3 inches of rain? Why not rank exams like some law schools? (A = top 96-93%) You'd definitely know where you stand with little room for deviation. Why not rank by paragraph? That'd create conversation for weeks. "That prick Fletcher nailed the fair use issue, but he's dumb as a mule when it comes to blah blah blah [something IP that I don't know about.] Hell why not publish rankings on the doors? Frankly the pages of the Boalt Hall Transcript magazine are a bit empty and flowery these days. I say we make it live up to its name and publish the rankings to alumni. You know how they have the donor lists to shame every one else into donating? We could do the same with student grades:
Earl Warren Scholars (HH)
The usual suspects.
iBoalt Scholars (H-HH)
A few more students, but still small enough to retain cult status.
Microsoft Vista OS Scholars (H)
Even More students. More mainstream, but rough around the edges.
MoFos (P-H)
Almost everyone
Rose Bird/Lance Ito Scholars
The editors of various journals (kidding).
The more I think about creating competition where there is absolutely no need to create one, the more I like the idea. It certainly would have made me skip more bar reviews, poker nights, and JJ's online video clips. Now THAT would have made my law school experience memorable. Thank you Tom. Now I won't sleep at night knowing just what I've missed.
I find your proposed awards very amusing Armen. And I agree, the reason the school discloses the ranks to judges and schools is because they have to, while the school has power over the employers.
But I think my basic point is getting away unaddressed. At least two groups of people consider rankings to be valuable indicia of quality: judges and law schools. Why prevent other employers from getting that information? If they don't find it useful, they won't use it - no harm. But if they do find it useful, we are arbitrarily denying it to them now and forcing them to make less-informed decisions. Why should we do this?
You suggest that if employers had better access to ranks and grades, students would have to work harder. The only plausible justification I can think of is that by creating an opaque system for measuring merit, the school enables people to spend more time on extra-curricular activities.
I'm not sure if that's good or bad. But I do feel like the party imposing arbitrary secrets bears the burden of proof, not the other way around. And to this day, I've not yet heard a good rationale for our grading system or our secret rankings.
Look throwing around buzz words like "burden" or "proactive" (Simpsons reference, don't bother arguing that you never said proactive) doesn't change a damn thing. I could just as easily argue that those arguing for the competitive jerk position bear the burden. Hell it shouldn't even be a burden, it should be strict liability. You're only argument in favor is that it makes things easier for firms. Are those really our only concerns? Making things easier for firms? I mean you might have an argument if we were some shady law school worried about getting 10% of its graduates firm jobs, but we're not.
Rankings don't add much more info to transcripts for law firm hiring purposes. The negative that comes with the increased competition that is created with the knowledge that we are not only compared to each other in each individual course, but as an entire class is very serious. It might be smug to argue from the Earl Warren podium that we should throw ticker-tape parades across the courtyard for the elite, but the bottom line is that for the overall student body, this will not only not help them, but it will effectively create a depressing, if not utterly miserable law school experience. So much for the idea of talking up your clinic experience. You're not even in the top 50%. Oh, you made law review? But you're not in the top 30%. Why should we talk to you?
So, Mr. Fletcher, for argument's sake, let's say the burden has shifted to you. What exactly will potential employers gain from a rankings that they don't already gain from a transcript? Do we need to stamp MoFo on someone's resume for employers to realize his status? Is it proper for a firm (let's say Orell) to reject a candidate because they're one H short of their preferred ranking cutoff?
Like I said, if a firm already does that, then they are well-versed in the process of deciphering Boalt grades. To the extent our policies make it harder for firms to do that, then all the better. I'll take collegial atmosphere with as FEW reasons for competition as possible over making it easier for firms to send a form FU letter any day.
Frankly, I think it's about time to do away with the mandatory curve and fully adopt the Yale model. Profs can hand out whatever damn grades they want. Scary huh? Getting a P that you actually earned, as opposed to sucking more than others in the class.
Well, I think we're at loggerheads.
It is interesting talking through the ideas though. As you might imagine, I would vociferously object to a no-curve environment - our transcripts wouldn't be worth the paper they're on.
One thought: "Getting a P that you actually earned, as opposed to sucking more than others in the class." I'm not sure what you mean. But if you're suggesting that right there are Ps that people don't earn, they just "suck[ed] more than the others" in the class, then I think this is exactly the problem. I may have misinterpreted though.
Going way back up to Audrey's comment though, I think you've found a loophole. I also noticed that you're only barred from releasing ranks from the Registrar's office. If a third party (say, a firm or the CDO) were to compile a database of grades, anonymize them, and then release a distribution of GPAs, that also would be fine.
Anyway, I feel like I've said what I wanted to say to vent my frustration on tihs topic. Thank you for all the ideas.
OK, so no secrecy for the sake of secrecy and make things easier for firms. Did I miss any other benefits of rankings? Oh yes, satisfying the curiosity of inherently competitive law students. I'll grant some bonus points for that little benefit.
If the draw backs aren't patently obvious from my comments, then I too don't have much to say. But let's say you're a law school administrator. What do you weigh more?
As for my remark, it was tongue in cheek. With a forced curve, it's really easy to justify the grade by saying, "Oh it was full of gunners." See, e.g., my remarks after Fed Courts. Whereas if a professor gave grades based on his own belief of what constitutes an HH/H/P performance, then well, you don't have much of an excuse.
Of course I disagree with you about the value of our transcript. Again, you place far too much emphasis on the value of comparison with peers. Law schools are certainly capable of distinguishing students whose undergraduate grades are not based on forced curves. To use your own argument against you, why can't firms do what law schools are doing? What are we worried about? Grade inflation at Skadden?
So, what's considered great grades? How many P's out of the 6 first year big courses? Zero out of 6? 1 out of 6? Even better?
2:57,
Where did you get the information that Boalt and UCLA are the only two "top 16ish" law schools that allow disclosure of class rank to judges? If we could see some documentation, that would be a pretty compelling argument that we don't even have to toe the line for judges.
The part that cracks me up is that Dean O's emails always say something along the lines of use for "any other purpose (except applying for a law teaching job)" violates the Honor Code. When in fact, as Tom's quote demonstrates, the prohibition is on use for any other "professional purpose." I think this small distinction matters, especially when I've heard students shushing others who disclosed their class rank to each other. How is disclosure to close personal friends "professional use"?
While I admit that it's pretty funny to think generally about using one's class rank for social purposes or political purposes, it is not entirely out of the question. For example...
as a person who has made no secret of the fact that I will pursue an academic position in the near future, my own position in class bears heavily (both directly and indirectly through clerkships) on my immediate career path. For this reason, I have found the opportunity, while commiserating with close friends and family about my prospects, to disclose my class rank to them. Whether I make a particular cut-off upon graduation affects my life in the near future. So I admit to having disclosed said "ranking" in this circustance (come and get me Dean O!). Have I used it for "professional purposes"? You mean I can't discuss such things with my spouse, best friend, mom? According to Dean O's email, it's a violation. Whatever.
Boalt permits students to speak about their class rank when seeking jobs -- but only when seeking jobs that heighten the school's prestige. Otherwise, it's forbidden.
I don't know, I think there are plenty of prestigious jobs out that that we can't disclose class rank for -- DOJ, ACLU, etc.
Also, considering Boalt does next to nothing to help students apply for and obtain judicial clerkships (yet tons of help for applying to law firms), I doubt that their desire to see Boalt students placed in clerkships motivates the policy.
2:57 here - I know because I'm currently clerking and back in September when we were interviewing, we tried using OSCAR's filter to only look at the top x% of the class, and it only worked to cut out Boalt, UCLA, Golden Gate, Southwestern, etc. students. Everyone in the entire class at Yale, Harvard, Penn, Virginia, Columbia, etc., etc., etc. showed up (rank was listed as "School does not rank") and you were forced to consider each person individually, pulling up their file, looking over their resume, etc., to try to figure out whether they should receive an interview.
My point is essentially that ranking students only hurts them by excluding those outside of the top 5-10%, and does very little to help those in that bracket because they already standout. If someone has no Ps, you know they did well and you don't need an exact percentile to tell you precisely how well.
Boys. Boys! You can't take this negative energy into the tourn--I mean the bar.
I agree the generally relaxed-for-law-school atmosphere of Boalt is one of the best draws of the school. And Armen seems to have at least a plausible argument that rankings would ratchet up the tension level. It'd at least make it through the 9C before getting summarily tossed in a Scalia opinion. (Is the lack of rankings really the main reason Boalt is copacetic?)
But I have to confess a little sympathy for those well-ranked students trying to land competitive non-clerkship, non-academic jobs. Wouldn't an easy compromise be to expand slightly the list of positions to which you can disclose your rank (DOJ, ACLU, Skadden), while preserving the omerta for firms? Or let students in the Top 10% freely disclose their rank for whatever they want? Those slightly crazy over-achievers are going to be wound up tighter than a transfer anyway, so it's hard to see how either policy change would alter the dynamic the rest of Boalt enjoys.
Tom, I see your point about "more information is good information," but I think you're eliding the difference between what judges are looking for (and would use rankings for) and firms. I don't understand the process terribly well, but aren't judges pretty much looking for the Top 10% of students (and faculties looking for the Top 10 period)? If so, rankings might really help distinguish and compare a Boalt student to a Stanford or Harvard student, especially given our opaque grading. It seems to mean something to those people if you're #3 in your class versus #9. But on the other hand, whether you're Top 30% v. Top 50% seem a rather arbitrary distinction, one based on a stray grade here or there that you did or didn't get in a seminar that was or was not easy. Yet disclosing those ranks would only allow MoFo and others to slice through the Boalt class to save time. Whereas adding at least a little opacity to the process forces them to invest more in recruiting, and it allows Boalties to lean more on non-grade factors in securing positions (such as social skills -- which we surely want to encourage as our gift to the legal profession. QED.)
Anyway, on the other hand, I would like to see an award named after me. Oh wait, you meant the other Earl Warren. That makes more sense.
(Although, as I noted here once before, the new Warren bio says he was in the middle of the pack at Boalt, and actually got chided by the Dean for not participating more in class. Maybe we should inaugurate the "Earl Warren" award for that solid-P student who, by reason of charisma, stunning attractiveness, or having the last name of Bush seems most likely to surpass the Coif people in his or her career. It could be the Earl Warren Proved Other Shit Matters In The End Award. Now what lucky slacker wouldn't want that on the resume?)
Tom, do you really think that the honor code violates the First Amendment? What about a rule that you can't talk about exams until everyone has taken them? Isn't that similarly a "prior restraint"? It seems to me that schools get a lot of latitude for setting policies that are important in promoting educational values. I can't imagine that any court would find it violates the 1st Amendment, and a quick search didn't bring up any cases where a school honor code was held to violate the 1st A unless it said something like "the students at this school honor god" or something.
EW, you meant to say "WE slightly crazy overachievers," not "those slightly crazy overachievers," right?
10:43, I don't know First Amendment law. I only know BarBri summary of 1Am law. But to restrct speech, a rule needs to be narrowly tailored to advance a valid purpose. I would suggest that there is no valid purpose here ("reduction of competition" being a bad thing, not a good thing) or that it does not advance the purpose (because of the various holes in the rule, ability for large employers to intuit the rank).
On the other hand, don't talk about tests until finals are over is narrow, advancing, and for a good reason.
From a legal standpoint, I wonder how consent affects these things. Can a professor prevent you from ever talking about their (recycled) exam? Do you consent to take the exam and basically agree to a non-disclosure agreement? Or does the school impose a burden on your speech? just musing, it keeps me awake while I study.
EW, it's bad to make processes more opaque without a good reaosn. It's bad to force busy lawyers to waste days when a more efficient process exists. I'd also quibble that the difference between "top 1/3" and "top half" would be due to a "stray grade." Perhaps first year, based on only six or seven grades, yes. But we've been talking about when you graduate, when people have taken twenty or more classes. We could try to simulate things with a spreadsheet, but I imagine we're well past a "stray grade."
Anyway, back to studying. I remain unconvinced of the value of this rule. I originally got worked about it because there are many law firms that do not interview extensively at Boalt. Those that do, to the extent they care about rank, can engineer rankings out of their data on file. Small employers, like a boutique you may choose to apply to, cannot do this. However, as we've seen from judges, schools, and some large firms, rank is useful information. Useful information our system intentiionally denies to small employers. For, in my opinion, no articulable reason.
Anyway, surely something more substantive can be discussed. Like tomorrow's much-anticipated and dreaded ruling from the Supreme Court in... Leegin.
Mr. Fletcher, no offense, but hit the sample con law essays and work on your model answers if you still can't see a substantial interest.
I do love this though: "'reduction of competition' being a bad thing, not a good thing."
Remember what I said about scientists (and economists) having a linear train of thought in social issues? Yeah, that applies. No Mr. Fletcher, the absence of competition is NOT a bad thing. It's perhaps the greatest thing.
Mr. Adzhemyan, I hereby adorn you with a "participant" ribbon, a youth soccer trophy and a certificate of recognition.
This has nothing to do with linearity. I just like competition. I think it's healthy. But out of curiosity, are there any other situations beside schooling where you think competition is bad?
I'm not even going to bother engaging that intellectually. Instead, I will quote extensively from The Simpsons, "Lisa on Ice" 2F05.
Teacher: Tell you what, Simpson: I won't fail you if you join one of those peewee teams outside the school.
Lisa: You mean those leagues where parents push their kids into vicious competition to compensate for their own failed dreams of glory?
Teacher: Look, I don't need this. I inhaled my favorite whistle this morning!
***
Homer: OK, little buddy: hop in!
[Bart steps forward]
Ah ah! I mean my little girl buddy.
Lisa: That's very nice, Dad, but it's wrong for you to reward violent competitive behavior. However, I will sit up front with you if it's a fatherly gesture of love.
Homer: OK, hon.
[she gets in]
Sucker! Competitive violence, that's why you're here!
***
Marge: Stop it, stop it, stop it!
[flicks light on and off]
Bart: Mom, that is really annoying.
Lisa: Bart started it.
Bart: Uh uh, Lisa started it.
Marge: I don't care who started it. I don't ever want to see you two fighting like that ever again. We love you both; you're not in competition with each other. Repeat, you are not in competition with each other.
Homer: Hey! Apu just called. This Friday, Lisa's team is playing Bart's team. You're in DIRECT competition. And don't go easy on each other just because you're brother and sister. I want to see you both fighting for your parents' love!
[flicks light on and off]
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!...
Objection, answer is non-responsive.
But those are some pretty funny quotes.
Armen - assuming competition is so very evil, what support is there for the assumption that no class ranks makes Boalt somehow less competitive?
The people with top grades who want their friends/peers to know about their top grades will do that regardless of whether ranks are known. It's simply a consequence of saying "I got all HH's last semester" instead of "I'm in the top 10%"
The students who don't think it's hip to talk grades won't talk grades regardless of whether ranks are known.
The firms who really care about grades will use them regardless of whether ranks are known. It's simply a consequence of looking at the number of H's vs. looking at a %.
The firms who don't really care about grades (for Boalties at least) will continue to not care regardless of whether ranks are known.
So, assuming that the opaque system harms some entities and some people(small firms, ACLU, DOJ and the Boalties who are shooting for those positions), and provides no discernible benefit in the way of alleviating competition amongst students or firms, why is that we be celebrating it so?
Well to quote from Under Siege 2: Dark Territory, "Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups." Generally when firms look the candidates they interview, there are no hard and fast delineations. There are those who do pretty well and have maybe a P or two sneaking in. A partner who apparently reads this blog explained to me that it's basically the top 20% or so you can tell from the grades. And then it gets jumbly.
The problem with permitting rankings is that it will eliminate the jumbling. Presently when a firm says Top X% only, we ignore that. We don't have rankings. Period. They have to interview you. If my hypothetical Orell wants to sit there and count the Hs, they're more than welcome to do so, but it prevents the entire class from being marked up like a football field. With rankings for firms, then of course they'd be able to effectively prescreen. "Oh, you're only in the top 30%? Well I'm gonna go downstairs to Henry's and get a beer. You can practice for your next interview while I'm gone." Hell, I'm willing to bet with the exception of 10 (and that's being generous) firms nationally, most really don't want hard and fast cutoffs. They love our students because we don't follow cookie cutter paths of attending an East Coast Ivy or small lib arts college followed by a stint as a paralegal at Daddy's white shoe firm. We're not forced to apologize for being ranked in the bottom 50% because we did clinics instead of coasting through a seminar with 3 students.
Those are just the professional benefits. Socially, you're seriously telling me that if rankings were released after 1L year nothing would be different? That has to be a borderline retarded statement if I ever heard one. Have you noticed the panic attacks when grades are a day late? Hell, Fletcher is aching to post his ranking right now.
I mean it would be a great mission statement for Boalt. We don't give you real grades, you can't flunk out, but we sort you like cattle. Good competition. Happy competition.
Anyway, I'm done fighting against the inherent competitive jerks who wander the halls of Boalt. I liked this place much better when I was a clueless 1L. At the time, I said this:
Here's the greater myth that even she falls victim to...you need to know who's in the top 10%! Why have a top 10% at all? More accurately, why should the school sanction a gradation (see title for not so subtle humor) of its students? Let firms calculate all they want. Bottom line is the school's policies DICTATE that you're all equal as graduates of ______ School of Law (to a certain degree).
Is there enough of a gradation for firms to make meaningful decisions about whom to hire? Yes. Is there enough gradation for clerkships/teaching positions? Yes. Is there an arbitrary line between the P crowd and the H crowd? No not really. The line blurs...instead what we have is a continuum. I mentioned the 40/60 distinction earlier...but that's per class. There are countless (actually quite countable) combinations of P, H, and HH. But given the 40/60 line it's almost inevitable that everyone will have some P's and some H's (including HH). This is true with all grading systems, but again the difference is that there is no ranking and there is no number that spits out to put you in a category. Firms, judges, hiring committees can look and weigh each grade however they want, but us Boalties look at each other and in a naive sense, see ourselves.
And I end with that. If anyone else cares to explain to Fletcher et al why it may not be such a good thing to voraciously crave knowledge regarding your academic standing among your peers, then please do.
No such ache sir.
But one day, if I were to apply to a law firm or gov't agency, I would like to be able to say what the rank was to them, especially if it's a small firm/agency that doesn't see a lot of Boalt grads and can't make heads or tails of our bizarre system.
Post a Comment
<< Home