IAFG wrote:right, which is one theory i have heard about why NU grades - it gives people with nothing else impressive on their resume something to pitch. i don't know why it would be true that people who do well generally would do bad in LRW and the inverse, but i have heard upperclassmen say it.
I can totally see why that would happen, and why upperclassmen are saying that it does. LRW is really a different skill set than doing well on a law school exam. You could end up being good at doing well on a 4 hour law exam but not be particularly skilled at LRW.
As far as the "flip side" argument, you don't want to bet your employability on "flip side" chances.
I understand that, but I guess my point is, if you're below the median (or maybe even at it, depending on the school), what else do you have to lose? At least, insofar as one is gunning for BigLaw? Unless it really fucks over the below median people beyond what their relatively poor grades would anyway (I assume if one is destined for a TTT legal job or unemployment, doing poorly in LRW is not going to cement that even further... but I come from a position of ignorance). And since prior to law school and actually getting your grades, you don't know where you'll fall, graded LRW is just as much of a crapshoot as LS grades generally. You can only bet something you already have (and as a 0L, BigLaw is far from certain). I can definitely see why someone with a good to great GPA would be concerned, however.
The skill set point doesn't seem to go far enough. It would explain why LRW grades would be random, or have no correlation to normal LS grades, but if it's really an inverse scenario...