JCougar wrote:I know I'm not Professor Campos, but some of these are addressed in the study I cited. #1 is essentially law exam's reliability measure. The Klein & Hart study suggests that while law school exams are rough around the edges, there is some level of reliability. It's not totally like rolling the dice. But this is inter-rater reliability on the same exams. I need to see the whole study, so I don't know what the reliability is from class to class. I think it is probably fairly decent as well. But I also think there is some level of noise in here as well. Possible signal-to-noise ratio of 60/40. Maybe even 70/30.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your argument about whether exams predict lawyering success/test skills relevant to lawyering, although those are rather different arguments than whether law school grades are subjective. But really, why are you citing to a study from 1976? That's a really long time ago.
lawsearcher wrote:I understand you will not agree with me. But I am providing an alternative voice so that 0L's don't make the faulty assumption that law school is random. You have control over your law school grades.
You put these last 2 sentences together like they're connected somehow. They're not. And law school isn't random; it's unpredictable. But you don't have control over your law school grades - because you're graded on a curve, and you don't have control over your classmates' performance. I'm glad it worked out for you, but your argument about hard work --> good grades is totally a post-hoc-propter-hoc thing. For one thing, there are tons of people out there who end up with excellent grades without doing the kind of work you describe.