| | |
|
InLawSchoolsGradesGoUpJustLikeThat 20 - 06 Jul 2010 - Main.SamWells
|
| | 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. | | | What intrigued me so much about the article is the frank analysis of the way in which one's background plays a significant role in his/her achievements. It is easy to look at a set of grades and say "X is smarter than Y and will be a better student because X has a 3.7 and Y has a 3.3." Many employers and judges do this. But doing this ignores the many factors that affect one's grades. They are used as a measurement of merit and intelligence, but they don't accurately reflect this. Hopefully the French experiment will work and people will analyze candidates, whether for spots in top schools, for jobs, for clerkships or for anything else, in a more holistic fashion. It may be easier to use GPA cutoffs, but it leads to a lot of missed opportunities on both sides.
-- DavidGoldin - 02 Jul 2010 | |
>
> | I wonder if previous Columbia classes decided to maintain a strict grading system out of a misplaced sense of self interest.
One current student at Harvard that I spoke with said that academic pressure there has lessened dramatically since the grading system changed. However, the Columbia Spectator article said that any policy change at Columbia would apply only to future classes, and not current students. If students at the time believed that a strict grading system would provide employers with a valuable hiring metric (quantification, more detailed differentiation, or the maintenance of prestige), then the misaligned interests of the decision makers probably vitiated the whole process. Looking at the comments after the first NY Times article mentioned above, it's clear that many of those who suffered in law school want current students to suffer as well.
I strongly favor a reduction in the complexity of the grading system. If increases to mean grades are meaningless because bases can be compared, then the change doesn't matter, and no harm is done. But I think that changes to the composition of a scale can be meaningful. This can mean either a ladder with fewer rungs, or a top rung wide enough for more people to stand on it. Moreover, a reduction in competitive pressure like what happened at Harvard (if my info is good) would free students to explore individual academic and career interests instead of kowtowing to final exams all semester. This would, in turn, attract brighter, more socially active, and more effective students. This strategy seems to have worked for Yale in years past, and it might work for Columbia now.
-- SamWells - 06 Jul 2010 | | | |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |