Loyola Marymount ($$$) or UCLA (sticker) Forum

[ModestExplosion]

Uh, you do realize that people around here hate when people post hypothetical "choose a law school" threads when you don't have even an acceptance at either school, right?

That's a shame.

To everyone else, thanks for the advice. I think my decision has become a little bit clearer.

[jay115]

So they inflate grades, which means they lack integrity, which means they both such. Thank you for proving me point.

Huh? Your point was not proven. I said who cares about grade inflation, NOT that I agree with your statement. Your wrong. It's OK if you don't like either school, but for the OP you're dead wrong. They both don't "such."
Changing the subject though -- I like the way you were able to twist up your logic in such a convincing way to state a strong statement. You probably are (or will be) a good lawyer one day!

Thank you, and for the record, I originally planned on applying ED to UCLA, but the grade inflation issue is a real turn off for me. Even Harvard and USC are out for me. Not that I can get in there; maybe I can, maybe I can't, but I won't be applying. Yes, this issue means that much to me.

I hear FIU has a very rigorous curve that might appeal to you. Perhaps you can explain to the rest of us the logic behind, "So they inflate grades, which means they lack integrity." I think you need to define integrity, as it's unclear how law schools are furthering unfalse information - a grade is a grade.

Choose UCLA!

[A'nold]

Uh, you do realize that people around here hate when people post hypothetical "choose a law school" threads when you don't have even an acceptance at either school, right?

That's a shame.

To everyone else, thanks for the advice. I think my decision has become a little bit clearer.

What decision? Now I really hope you get dinged at UCLA and offered sticker at Loyola, and I don't wish bad stuff on people.

[TheTopBloke]

So they inflate grades, which means they lack integrity, which means they both such. Thank you for proving me point.

Huh? Your point was not proven. I said who cares about grade inflation, NOT that I agree with your statement. Your wrong. It's OK if you don't like either school, but for the OP you're dead wrong. They both don't "such."
Changing the subject though -- I like the way you were able to twist up your logic in such a convincing way to state a strong statement. You probably are (or will be) a good lawyer one day!

Thank you, and for the record, I originally planned on applying ED to UCLA, but the grade inflation issue is a real turn off for me. Even Harvard and USC are out for me. Not that I can get in there; maybe I can, maybe I can't, but I won't be applying. Yes, this issue means that much to me.

I hear FIU has a very rigorous curve that might appeal to you. Perhaps you can explain to the rest of us the logic behind, "So they inflate grades, which means they lack integrity." I think you need to define integrity, as it's unclear how law schools are furthering unfalse information - a grade is a grade.

Choose UCLA!

I can't believe you would actually ask me to define that.

integrity |inˈtegritē|
noun
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.

[jay115]

Thank you, and for the record, I originally planned on applying ED to UCLA, but the grade inflation issue is a real turn off for me. Even Harvard and USC are out for me. Not that I can get in there; maybe I can, maybe I can't, but I won't be applying. Yes, this issue means that much to me.

I hear FIU has a very rigorous curve that might appeal to you. Perhaps you can explain to the rest of us the logic behind, "So they inflate grades, which means they lack integrity." I think you need to define integrity, as it's unclear how law schools are furthering unfalse information - a grade is a grade.

Choose UCLA!

I can't believe you would actually ask me to define that.

integrity |inˈtegritē|
noun
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.

[TheTopBloke]

Thank you, and for the record, I originally planned on applying ED to UCLA, but the grade inflation issue is a real turn off for me. Even Harvard and USC are out for me. Not that I can get in there; maybe I can, maybe I can't, but I won't be applying. Yes, this issue means that much to me.

I hear FIU has a very rigorous curve that might appeal to you. Perhaps you can explain to the rest of us the logic behind, "So they inflate grades, which means they lack integrity." I think you need to define integrity, as it's unclear how law schools are furthering unfalse information - a grade is a grade.

Choose UCLA!

I can't believe you would actually ask me to define that.

integrity |inˈtegritē|
noun
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.

[ModestExplosion]

Uh, you do realize that people around here hate when people post hypothetical "choose a law school" threads when you don't have even an acceptance at either school, right?

That's a shame.

To everyone else, thanks for the advice. I think my decision has become a little bit clearer.

What decision? Now I really hope you get dinged at UCLA and offered sticker at Loyola, and I don't wish bad stuff on people.

Hahahaha. Fair enough. Thanks for the laugh.

[dogmatic slumber]

Curves are for pussies BTW.

This is not credited, but I LOL'd.

[TheTopBloke]

LOL, seriously, what's up with the curve? Why a curve? Aren't we supposed to be adults?

[voice of reason]

TopBloke, I would understand where you're coming from if law school grades were like undergrad grades. But law school grades work differently and serve a different purpose, which makes inflation much less pernicious than it might otherwise seem.

UG grades are what is called "criterion referenced." That is, the professor decides what you should know, measures how well you know it, and assigns a grade based on how well your knowledge stacks up against those pre-set criteria. An A means you learned most or all of what you were expected to learn, a D means you learned very little of it, etc. Here inflation can be equated with relaxing standards.

Law school grades are something else entirely. They are what is called "norm referenced." An A does not mean you've learned most of what the professor wanted you to learn, and a D doesn't mean you've learned very little. The grades mean only one thing: they tell you where the student's performance falls on the distribution of that student's class. At a given school, an A- may mean that the student falls somewhere in the top 10-20%. That is all it means. Theoretically, the student could be a terrible performer, if all the other students were terrible. Conversely, a student with a C average could be brilliant, if the rest of the class is all geniuses. It's all about ranking, not saying how much you know.

You can see that when grades are norm-referenced, the grading scale is arbitrary. You can set the mean GPA at 2.0 or 3.0 or 15, but it won't make the slightest difference for the one and only thing that those grades are for: locating the student's performance on the distribution for that class.

This is why you shouldn't give two shits about grade inflation in law schools: the grading scales are arbitrary to begin with and cannot be used to compare performance to the performance of prior classes anyway.

[jay115]

I can't believe you would actually ask me to define that.

integrity |inˈtegritē|
noun
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.

Try again.

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!

[dogmatic slumber]

--ImageRemoved--

[TheTopBloke]

jay115,

Wow that dense comment really offended. I apologize.

You actually did imply the basis for grade inflation was for students to gain employment. I agree with you, it isn't good policy.

My UG GPA isn't curved. I don't recall a single professor using a curve, although there could be a class or two in there that is curved.

voice of reason,

"The grades mean only one thing: they tell you where the student's performance falls on the distribution of that student's class."

By definition, that is the curve. But, how is the student's performance measured?

[TheTopBloke]

Shitlaw. Define shitlaw.

[Teoeo]

Seriously, I wish my problems were this easy.... UCLA

[jay115]

jay115,

Wow that dense comment really offended. I apologize.

You actually did imply the basis for grade inflation was for students to gain employment. I agree with you, it isn't good policy.

My UG GPA isn't curved. I don't recall a single professor using a curve, although there could be a class or two in there that is curved.

voice of reason,

"The grades mean only one thing: they tell you where the student's performance falls on the distribution of that student's class."

By definition, that is the curve. But, how is the student's performance measured?

Haha sorry for being bitey nor was I deeply offended; I'm just bored like everyone else on TLS.

Again, a basis for grade inflation was for students to gain employment, but not necessarily the sole basis. As we all remember from the logic games bible, necessary =/= sufficient.

To answer your other question, another way to measure a student's performance is by looking at the grade distribution. The school's individual curve really is irrelevant; a 3.8 from beloved Cooley won't be seen as more desirable than a 3.6 from Columbia.

If you truly are concerned with bad policy rather than a debate over honesty, then advocate for more schools to release grade distributions rather than strengthening grading curves.

[NoleinNY]

tudent's class."

By definition, that is the curve. But, how is the student's performance measured?
Posted: Thu Jul

An individual student is measured in relation to his/her peers.

If your professor feels you completed your exam better than everyone else in the class, you get the highest grade.

Students need to merely outperform each other, not necessarily master the material fully (just like when you and a buddy are chased by a lion, you don't need to be the fastest man alive to survive; you merely need to be faster than your buddy).

How the professor determines what constitutes a better exam response is up to him or her. Generally they check: Were the issues identified correctly, how many issues did the student spot, how many / what kind of rules did he or she identify, were ambiguities accounted for, etc. Occasionally you have multiple choice sections on exams, but most seem to be essay based.