TheTopBloke wrote: jay115 wrote:
TheTopBloke wrote:I can't believe you would actually ask me to define that.
1 the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness : he is known to be a man of integrity.
Apparently a grade is not a grade. In Loyola's case, even if you graduated a couple of years back, you just picked up an extra .333 on the gpa.
Could you do me a favor? could you go to my undergrad and get them to raise my grades by .333. That would help a lot, because a couple of these B's would turn to A's.
Assuming law schools can do it legitimately without losing any integrity, then why not undergrads too? Should I sue my undergrad for not inflating my grades?
You cannot seriously be this dense. It's wrong and you know it's wrong.
I hope you're not an aspiring lawyer, because your argumentative skills are less than desirable. Your response is crappy on so many levels.
I asked you why grade "inflation" = loss of integrity, and you responded that integrity is defined as loss of morals. In your own words, "it's wrong and you know it's wrong." So your argument in a nutshell is that grade inflation = loss of integrity because it's wrong. Some might call that a circular argument
There are perfectly reasonable groundings for raising the grade curves. Some schools, like UCLA & GW, increase grade curves towards the law school median curve (--LinkRemoved--). Thus, if they hadn't raised their curves, then employers might have believed that UCLA/GW law grads are weaker than their peers. Your argument does not explain why UCLA (or any school) must necessarily maintain a curve lower than the average law school curves in order to maintain integrity. Thus, some might say your argument's second logical flaw is overbreadth
. Your UG might not have any reasonable grounds to retroactively "inflate" your grades, but it doesn't follow that no reasonable grounds for increasing grading curves exist necessarily.
So yes, perhaps I am "this dense." Sorry OP for sidelining your original topic.
Oh I see, so everyone else is doing it, so that makes it ok for every other one to do it.
You conveniently left out the honesty part, and went to the ad hominem. Nice touch. Curves are for pussies BTW. Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to find a law school without one. Perhaps that implies all law students are pussies. Unfortunately you don't have to dig deep in the TLS forums to see a pack of unemployed whinging bitches. Apparently this grade inflation doesn't help at all.
Your undergrad argument is quite entertaining. Your logic for accepting grade inflation in law school is that it helps you get employed. Why does that logic not follow with undergrad? Grade inflation at my undergrad would no doubt help me with my application to law school, and therefore help me in the end with employment. A --> B --> C
I might just skip law school altogether.
A. I never implied that the basis for justifying increasing grades was solely
for employment, but rather to balance out an individual school's grade curve with the average law school curve. Perhaps "so everyone else is doing it, so that makes it ok for every other one to do it" isn't good policy, but you haven't quite explained why it's immoral/unreasonable.
B. Your undergrad logic indeed doesn't follow at all. Perhaps your undergrad should
weaken your GPA curve. Why not? You keep forwarding pragmatic justifications for a normatively moral argument.
Your entire argument is premised on the idea of honesty - that law schools are being dishonest when they weaken their grading curves. Yet, you never explained how exactly it's dishonest. Perhaps a lesson in linguistics; in order for something (an assertion, etc.) to be dishonest/incorrect, an alternate correct denotation must exist. In other words, in order for your assertion, weakening GPA curves is dishonest, to be correct, there must be a normatively correct GPA curve. Now what would that be?
Lol, schools (or rather teachers) are dishonest about grades when it comes to administrative errors or bias. Your "disgust" with weakening law school curves isn't so much about dishonesty, I think, but rather about your discomfort with grading vagueness and substance. If you're declining to attend a law school that has moved to weaken it's grading system (i.e. making grades less meaningful to employers), good luck finding one within the top 25. Or perhaps you should skip law school altogether.
And in regards to your ad hominem claim, consider the possibility that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks - coming from one who was labeled "dense." If weak curves are for pussies, then us pussies get jobs. And the rest of you manly men can spend your legal careers in shitlaw. Have fun!