| | I'm sure many of you have read the recent NYT Article, In Law Schools, Grades Go Up, Just Like That. I have enjoyed reading the comments of the article, which span from adamant support of tossing out the old regime to total disdain for a generation often described as entitled. I must admit, the article gives me a sinking feeling in my stomach, especially as we approach the Fall recruiting season. I fantasize about the minimal, or complete lack of, anxiety students at schools with no grades must be experiencing as they head into the process. What is most striking to me is that quite a few schools with students who compete with Columbia students for employment have made the determination that eliminating traditional grades altogether, or altering the curve, is in the best interest of their students. Even our friendly neighbor to the south has made alterations to its curve. This begs the question, what are Columbia's justifications for not rolling with the tide?
This topic has obviously received great attention in this course, but I still think this article is an interesting read. I would love to hear any comments or reactions people might have. | | | I fail to understand what the real drama behind law school grade inflation is. It's like the nominal value of money -- there is little to be learned from it. As far as the issue of grades being used for hiring purposes goes, the trend does not, sadly, seem to be changing at all. Law schools that hope to better position their own students (against students from other schools) via grade inflation are stupid. Forget about the long run (for there we are all dead!). Even in the short run, grade inflation hurts schools more than it helps them. An employer that has any sense of perception will be quick to catch on to the inflation (especially since schools will inflate across the board to outdo each other) -- thus, little change on this end. On the other end of the spectrum, students (with higher alphabets to flaunt) will develop a greater sense of entitlement and false security. Basically, when we all have gold stars, it might even help to be the only person in the room without one.
-- MohitGourisaria - 27 Jun 2010 | |
>
> |
David, I read that article and was quite surprised. I also share the same hopes with you about law school grades becoming less relevant, but I am not optimistic. Mohit mentioned the false sense of security that students "with higher alphabets" may be tempted to develop. I completely agree; we are so often told that good grades are a golden ticket to the most elite levels of the practice. However, good grades don't prevent this from happening to you, which is only but one of many examples we've heard about. This, in my opinion, is the larger issue and the reason that legal employers will always hold the trump card. We are pumping a supply of lawyers into the market every year that far outpaces the demand. Unlike the medical profession, which provides a supply of new doctors each year that keeps pace with market demands, the legal profession refuses to do so. In the end, though, we are in a better position than many of our counterparts, which is a somewhat disturbing proposition.
I also think grades give employers a false sense of security: a (sometimes unfounded) belief that they have won the lottery in luring the most intelligent, hardest working, and capable young lawyers to their organizations. However, given the arbitrary nature of grades, and sometimes sheer luck associated with them, it is hard to see why intelligent, hard working, and capable hiring partners would rely on them in this way. As Professor Wu wrote in his post-exam memo, the difference between a good and the best exam were not that great. Given this, as David suggested, one would think that grades would be one aspect of a more holistic assessment of the student as opposed to, in many cases, the sole determinant. Until this happens, I think it is and will continue to be employers' loss.
-- JenniferGreen - 28 Jun 2010
|
|