Few Princeton Students in Law School? Forum

[r6_philly]

I don't like the explanation by the other poster, but I agree with the assessment that grade inflation is good for top schools. Maybe I am too old now, but I don't feel your performance in UG is all that important in most jobs (I don't know about being a lawyer). Many people in most jobs are barely competent in what they are doing, having made the investment into a top school should net you a great return - as long as you can perform about par/average. So there is no reason for harsh curve for top schools, your degree is doing the talking, and you can def. outperform the median at your job even if you are below median at a top school.

Sorry, I went back to UG because I lacked a piece of paper, not the skills/knowledge to do my job, so my view of UG is somewhat biased. But there is no practical reason to give harsh grades to students at top schools, it doesn't do anyone good.

[whymeohgodno]

I don't like the explanation by the other poster, but I agree with the assessment that grade inflation is good for top schools. Maybe I am too old now, but I don't feel your performance in UG is all that important in most jobs (I don't know about being a lawyer). Many people in most jobs are barely competent in what they are doing, having made the investment into a top school should net you a great return - as long as you can perform about par/average. So there is no reason for harsh curve for top schools, your degree is doing the talking, and you can def. outperform the median at your job even if you are below median at a top school.

Sorry, I went back to UG because I lacked a piece of paper, not the skills/knowledge to do my job, so my view of UG is somewhat biased. But there is no practical reason to give harsh grades to students at top schools, it doesn't do anyone good.

So being in top schools entitles you to perform just "average" and earn high grades while people at non-top schools should have to work and earn their grades?

[r6_philly]

So being in top schools entitles you to perform just "average" and earn high grades while people at non-top schools should have to work and earn their grades?

If that's a part of the benefit of the top school. Yes. If one doesn't like it, apply and get into the top school and reap the benefits.

[r6_philly]

By the way, UG aside, why do you think YLS doesn't have grades? That's the ultimate grade inflation, and why is it ok? (same reason)

[whymeohgodno]

So being in top schools entitles you to perform just "average" and earn high grades while people at non-top schools should have to work and earn their grades?

If that's a part of the benefit of the top school. Yes. If one doesn't like it, apply and get into the top school and reap the benefits.

Is that the benefit is what I'm asking. You seemed to say it was in your belief.

[r6_philly]

So being in top schools entitles you to perform just "average" and earn high grades while people at non-top schools should have to work and earn their grades?

If that's a part of the benefit of the top school. Yes. If one doesn't like it, apply and get into the top school and reap the benefits.

Is that the benefit is what I'm asking. You seemed to say it was in your belief.

Sorry, misunderstood. Yes it's a benefit. Ivies are very inflated. To quote, "admission is the quality control, and employers know it".

There is no reason for top schools to give out low grades. It lowers the perceived quality of the student body/school, does a disservice to the students, and does the school/capital campaign a disservice.

Of course on the other extreme end is the grade inflation of the for-profit schools like University of Phoenix... they raise the perceived quality of their student so they could turn more profit by attracting new students.

[whymeohgodno]

So being in top schools entitles you to perform just "average" and earn high grades while people at non-top schools should have to work and earn their grades?

If that's a part of the benefit of the top school. Yes. If one doesn't like it, apply and get into the top school and reap the benefits.

Is that the benefit is what I'm asking. You seemed to say it was in your belief.

Sorry, misunderstood. Yes it's a benefit. Ivies are very inflated. To quote, "admission is the quality control, and employers know it".

There is no reason for top schools to give out low grades. It lowers the perceived quality of the student body/school, does a disservice to the students, and does the school/capital campaign a disservice.

Of course on the other extreme end is the grade inflation of the for-profit schools like University of Phoenix... they raise the perceived quality of their student so they could turn more profit by attracting new students.

This is all on the assumption that the admitted students will perform up to par as their highschool record indicates. I'm pretty sure many people are guilty of not doing that.

Anyways if it's just "a piece of paper" you were looking for when you went back to undergrad, you will get it as long as you graduate.

[BrownBears09]

So being in top schools entitles you to perform just "average" and earn high grades while people at non-top schools should have to work and earn their grades?

If that's a part of the benefit of the top school. Yes. If one doesn't like it, apply and get into the top school and reap the benefits.

Is that the benefit is what I'm asking. You seemed to say it was in your belief.

Pro Tip #1: "Average" kids don't get into top schools in the first place.

Pro Tip #2: Grading systems (i.e. floors) vary from school to school.

I'd explain further, but then I'd just be doing your homework.

[BrownBears09]

To quote, "admission is the quality control, and employers know it".

+1

[tgir]

I'm sure we've all heard these points before, but here goes anyway:

Isn't the problem with completely relativistic grading that people outside the institutions will not take the grades in the appropriate context? The law school application process--a numbers game as most people see it--is a perfect example of this. You could say that it would be fairer for all schools to cap A's at, let's say, 20%. But then should someone comparing *across* schools treat all GPA's more or less the same, neglecting the difference in competitiveness at each school? There are certainly hard-working students at all schools, even down to the least prestigious, but don't you think it's likely that being "average" at a school like Princeton actually indicates quite a high level of achievement?

I guess what I'm trying to say is: In contexts where people view all GPA's as essentially equal (like law school application), shouldn't schools aim for a more absolute definition of an A, as opposed to an entirely relativistic definition? I mean...at some point, if 40% of students in a class are doing "A work" (as the outside world would rate it), then shouldn't all 40% be getting A's?

I don't think anyone is claiming that people shouldn't earn their grades. I think the problem is that accurately depicting someone's academic merit in alphabetic form is a difficult balance for schools. It is definitely true, however, as some earlier posters have stated, that schools have other, less-than-noble incentives for adjusting their curves, but this is true of all schools, not just prestigious ones.

[r6_philly]

This is all on the assumption that the admitted students will perform up to par as their highschool record indicates. I'm pretty sure many people are guilty of not doing that.

Anyways if it's just "a piece of paper" you were looking for when you went back to undergrad, you will get it as long as you graduate.

That's what I am saying, performance doesn't matter for someone with enough raw intelligence to get into a top school. They can work at 10% capacity slacking off and do a decent job at a job. So why bother grading them in college other than making sure they finish their work and get exposed to the material.

Grading at lesser schools are used as quality control to weed out the people who are not qualified in the field even if they tried really hard.

Case in point: look at attrition/retention rates of colleges. Retention rate at Penn is 98%, graduation rate is 94%. Check out any large state. Check out Cooley.

I did get that piece of paper. I got 3 job offers within 2 weeks of putting that BS (hahaha) on my resume. I couldn't get a call back before I updated. Same skills and experiences. People assume I am capable at whatever since I am at an ivy. I couldn't believe it but everyone keeps asking about school at interviews.

[09042014]

To quote, "admission is the quality control, and employers know it".

+1

Acing high school is a lot easier than college work.

The whole idea of GPA being an objective measure is retarded. Schools should give a class rank and then let employers make comparisons how they want.

[r6_philly]

To quote, "admission is the quality control, and employers know it".

+1

Acing high school is a lot easier than college work.

The whole idea of GPA being an objective measure is retarded. Schools should give a class rank and then let employers make comparisons how they want.

If you are not looking for top notch companies, an Ivy or T20 UG name is going to do more for you than good grades. Perhaps as a result of grade inflation lol

I just find it way worthwhile to go to a top school. There should be more grade inflation at high ranked law schools.

[AreJay711]

Regardless of the grading curves, from my experience, the quality of students are undeniably better at Ivies and I honestly think that people that slacked off in H.S. (like me) should have more to prove when earning their grades in college against less overall competition.

[whymeohgodno]

This is all on the assumption that the admitted students will perform up to par as their highschool record indicates. I'm pretty sure many people are guilty of not doing that.

Anyways if it's just "a piece of paper" you were looking for when you went back to undergrad, you will get it as long as you graduate.

That's what I am saying, performance doesn't matter for someone with enough raw intelligence to get into a top school. They can work at 10% capacity slacking off and do a decent job at a job. So why bother grading them in college other than making sure they finish their work and get exposed to the material.

Grading at lesser schools are used as quality control to weed out the people who are not qualified in the field even if they tried really hard.

Case in point: look at attrition/retention rates of colleges. Retention rate at Penn is 98%, graduation rate is 94%. Check out any large state. Check out Cooley.

I did get that piece of paper. I got 3 job offers within 2 weeks of putting that BS (hahaha) on my resume. I couldn't get a call back before I updated. Same skills and experiences. People assume I am capable at whatever since I am at an ivy. I couldn't believe it but everyone keeps asking about school at interviews.

This is horribly wrong. I think everyone agrees as an aggregate whole top schools are certainly much more intelligent. However to assume that people at top schools can get off with 10% capacity is just ridiculous. You realize that most people who worked hard to get into these top schools would probably just do just as bad as many people at state schools if they worked at 10% capacity in highschool?

Also I guess work ethic isn't something that can be taught or diligently trained in your view? I guess these people at top schools should slack off for 4 years then suddenly join a competitive workforce and magically gain a strong work ethic?

If anything encouraging and developing a strong work ethic is something an undergraduate program should foster - not discourage.

[sundance95]

Regardless of the grading curves, from my experience, the quality of students are undeniably better at Ivies and I honestly think that people that slacked off in H.S. (like me) should have more to prove when earning their grades in college against less overall competition.

And what, pray tell, is your extensive experience that informs your distinction between the the quality of students at Ivies and non-Ivies?

[r6_philly]

This is horribly wrong. I think everyone agrees as an aggregate whole top schools are certainly much more intelligent. However to assume that people at top schools can get off with 10% capacity is just ridiculous. You realize that most people who worked hard to get into these top schools would probably just do just as bad as many people at state schools if they worked at 10% capacity in highschool?

I am talking about at work, not in school. School prepares you for work.

Also I guess work ethic isn't something that can be taught or diligently trained in your view? I guess these people at top schools should slack off for 4 years then suddenly join a competitive workforce and magically gain a strong work ethic?

If anything encouraging and developing a strong work ethic is something an undergraduate program should foster - not discourage.

You don't need strong work ethic at work. Get a job for 10 years and we will talk again. Trust me, I can do my weekly work before end of day Monday.

[09042014]

To quote, "admission is the quality control, and employers know it".

+1

Acing high school is a lot easier than college work.
The whole idea of GPA being an objective measure is retarded. Schools should give a class rank and then let employers make comparisons how they want.

If you are not looking for top notch companies, an Ivy or T20 UG name is going to do more for you than good grades. Perhaps as a result of grade inflation lol

I just find it way worthwhile to go to a top school. There should be more grade inflation at high ranked law schools.

I'm not saying it's not a great thing to have. There's a reason I didn't take money at a lower ranked school.

Just top university admissions aren't clairvoyant. The top schools have tons of duds. Also a huge portion of the brilliant. I'd say that 50th percentile at Harvard is pretty damn good. But what shouldn't happen is giving 50% of the students A's. It makes it hard for the best of the best to distinguish themselves.

I was probably competitive at the very top schools (probably not HYP, but definitely the other Ivy's), almost the very top of my high school class, and I'm very good at standardized tests. But I wouldn't have made a very good student. I was too lazy.

[tgir]

This is all on the assumption that the admitted students will perform up to par as their highschool record indicates. I'm pretty sure many people are guilty of not doing that.

Anyways if it's just "a piece of paper" you were looking for when you went back to undergrad, you will get it as long as you graduate.

That's what I am saying, performance doesn't matter for someone with enough raw intelligence to get into a top school. They can work at 10% capacity slacking off and do a decent job at a job. So why bother grading them in college other than making sure they finish their work and get exposed to the material.

Grading at lesser schools are used as quality control to weed out the people who are not qualified in the field even if they tried really hard.

Case in point: look at attrition/retention rates of colleges. Retention rate at Penn is 98%, graduation rate is 94%. Check out any large state. Check out Cooley.

I did get that piece of paper. I got 3 job offers within 2 weeks of putting that BS (hahaha) on my resume. I couldn't get a call back before I updated. Same skills and experiences. People assume I am capable at whatever since I am at an ivy. I couldn't believe it but everyone keeps asking about school at interviews.

I think that you're right with regard to someone coming out of a prestigious undergrad and aiming for an average job; the name alone on his/her resume is enough to dazzle many employers.

But for any sort of prestigious jobs straight out of undergrad, as well as most graduate programs, how well you performed in prestigious undergrads is a big deal.

As a factual matter, getting into an Ivy definitely doesn't entitle people to sit on their asses for 4 years and then come out golden.

[r6_philly]

I'm not saying it's not a great thing to have.

Just top university admissions aren't clairvoyant. The top schools have tons of duds. Also a huge portion of the brilliant. I'd say that 50th percentile at Harvard is pretty damn good. But what shouldn't happen is giving 50% of the students A's. It makes it hard for the best of the best to distinguish themselves.

I was probably competitive at the very top schools (probably not HYP, but definitely the other Ivy's), almost the very top of my high school class, and I'm very good at standardized tests. But I wouldn't have made a very good student. I was too lazy.

Yes you are right, but my comments are about post-grad. You can totally be lazy but intelligent and do above average at work. Sort of making UG grades pointless if you are good enough to be selected into a top school. Work is nowhere as demanding as school.

[Jeffro]

There is no reason for top schools to give out low grades.

The reason should be that not everyone can be doing the same level of "A" work. Someone's "A" work will be not as good as someone else's "A" work. That second person should get the A, the first should get a B, for instance. Repeat as necessary in order to restore some semblance of competition to separate the wheat from the chaff even further than just "admissions being the quality control."

I just find it way worthwhile to go to a top school. There should be more grade inflation at high ranked law schools.

Yes, you're absolutely right on the first part. I won't deny this is all a numbers game so it's fairly irrelevant to say, but the point is that schools should recognize that a high inflated GPA is comparable to a lower one that isn't...but that's obviously not going to happen anytime soon.

Regardless of the grading curves, from my experience, the quality of students are undeniably better at Ivies and I honestly think that people that slacked off in H.S. (like me) should have more to prove when earning their grades in college against less overall competition.

+1. That doesn't make it ok to just give them a ride because they did good in high school, though.

Nice, thanks Jeffro, that is exactly what I meant.

You're welcome. I feel like this is going to become a prestige war and my shitty GPA will just make me a malcontent raging at the "system" and whatnot. But hell, I earned those F's fair and square, no one handed them to me.

[tgir]

+1

Acing high school is a lot easier than college work.
The whole idea of GPA being an objective measure is retarded. Schools should give a class rank and then let employers make comparisons how they want.

If you are not looking for top notch companies, an Ivy or T20 UG name is going to do more for you than good grades. Perhaps as a result of grade inflation lol

I just find it way worthwhile to go to a top school. There should be more grade inflation at high ranked law schools.

I'm not saying it's not a great thing to have. There's a reason I didn't take money at a lower ranked school.

Just top university admissions aren't clairvoyant. The top schools have tons of duds. Also a huge portion of the brilliant. I'd say that 50th percentile at Harvard is pretty damn good. But what shouldn't happen is giving 50% of the students A's. It makes it hard for the best of the best to distinguish themselves.

I was probably competitive at the very top schools (probably not HYP, but definitely the other Ivy's), almost the very top of my high school class, and I'm very good at standardized tests. But I wouldn't have made a very good student. I was too lazy.

There are duds, yes--not many, but enough that you see them from time to time. Many of them are kids who did fantastically in high school but have begun to manifest serious mental health issues as they enter their early 20s.

And yes, the ceiling effect of grade inflation can be unfortunate for those at the very very top. But there are still plenty of ways for people to distinguish themselves in job applications.

[whymeohgodno]

But hell, I earned those F's fair and square, no one handed them to me.

Unless you went to an Ivy, then those F's were forced upon you because you're entitled to borderline free A's.

[r6_philly]

I think that you're right with regard to someone coming out of a prestigious undergrad and aiming for an average job; the name alone on his/her resume is enough to dazzle many employers.

But for any sort of prestigious jobs straight out of undergrad, as well as most graduate programs, how well you performed in prestigious undergrads is a big deal.

There are only so many seats at Goldman. You may not be top 10% of your class at an Ivy no matter how hard you try.

As a factual matter, getting into an Ivy definitely doesn't entitle people to sit on their asses for 4 years and then come out golden.

Not simply for the fact that they went to an Ivy, but the combination of factors makes that the rule not the exception. If you get into an Ivy and manage not to get kicked out (be the 6% that don't graduate), you are going to make out above average in the career market (I would call that golden).

Now, I have awesome work ethic, I have a 4.0 save for 15 year-old Bs. I am just calling it as I see it.

[09042014]

There are duds, yes--not many, but enough that you see them from time to time. Many of them are kids who did fantastically in high school but have begun to manifest serious mental health issues as they enter their early 20s.

And yes, the ceiling effect of grade inflation can be unfortunate for those at the very very top. But there are still plenty of ways for people to distinguish themselves in job applications.

Maybe the top schools just aren't very hard. High school is a joke compared to top engineering and law programs. Smart and lazy earns you A's in high school. It earns you B-'s and C's in engineering school. Dunno about law school.