Waiting for 1L grades...so much worse than waiting for LSATs Forum

[XxSpyKEx]

Why does Yale do this?

The better question is probably 'why do all other schools turn 1L into a hilarious, curved, thunderdome style deathmatch'?

It makes sense to me - firms need a way to differentiate between the student body. Grades are a quick and dirty way to do this.

I would love hearing others' input on this, but my general sense is that Yale doesn't grade because they don't have to. but the question of why they don't have to is the truly interesting one: the most obvious ones are prestigious name and relative scarcity of graduates. but the more interesting notion is that it's because the stuff we actually learn in law school isn't that useful for and doesn't really correlate to doing well in firm work. Grades, however, would probably correlate because employers simply use how well you can do in, e.g., torts and Ks to establish how clever you are. They probably just assume that since YLS's class is so small and reputedly so selective, the people going there have already been subjected to a rigorous enough 'screening process' to determine how clever the person they're considering is. This is how a lot of other professions work--e.g. finance and investment banking: it's not really about what you know coming out, it's about showing employers that you pick up information and can use it quickly so that you can be productive with what they want to ask of you.

The problem is grades don't allow firms to determine how smart one person is in comparison to others because grades don't exactly correlate with intelligence (it correlates with how well you do on one a relatively subjective exam). The two things I could think of that firms probably get out of grades (or at least think they get out of them):

1) Large firms want to know that you will work hard, essentially be their slave, and get things done and done well at all costs (i.e. you will work when they need you to as oppose to going to see your kid's teeball game). I think this is the big one, although, it is not a perfect correlation because working hard doesn't necessarily mean better grades.

2) That you are able to cater to a client. A lot of doing well on a law school exam has to do with catering to what your specific prof wants and their subjective preferences. So by doing well on a law school exam it shows that you able to tailor your work to the wants and needs of someone else, such as a client.

[heyguys]

I should have clarified: I didn't mean to say that grades=aptitude or intelligence; instead, grades are merely the best proxy the employers have to gauge hard work and intelligence. I think your second point is on mark. I suppose that with that in mind, maybe the employers don't protest the lack of organized structure at YLS (whether mistakenly or not) because they figure that the admissions process serves as an adequate proxy for those qualities, or at least close enough that they'll hire a graduate.

I guess the larger issue (and one of my larger disappointments) is that most of the work we do in law school isn't really tied to career stuff. I guess I came in thinking that all the courses I took would be somehow related to the work of a lawyer, but really it seems like just another set of hurdles through which employers gauge how intelligent/capable/dedicated a particular person is for the work that they do at their firm.

[heyguys]

I thought I would hazard one more question about which I've been curious. This is a fantastic thread, and if my asking this is too tangential, then a mod can feel free to delete it, or someone can just say 'man, that's just not related to what's going on here,' and that will be fine:

What do you guys think you would have done if your first semester classes were Credit/Fail? How do you think you would have approached the subject matter differently? I guess another way of asking this would be to ask what your ideal method of learning in your first semester law classes would have been without exams to think about: would it have been more focused on conceptualizing the subject vis-a-vis the minutiae that would separate your exam answer from the crowd?

[Cole S. Law]

I would love hearing others' input on this, but my general sense is that Yale doesn't grade because they don't have to. but the question of why they don't have to is the truly interesting one: the most obvious ones are prestigious name and relative scarcity of graduates. but the more interesting notion is that it's because the stuff we actually learn in law school isn't that useful for and doesn't really correlate to doing well in firm work. Grades, however, would probably correlate because employers simply use how well you can do in, e.g., torts and Ks to establish how clever you are. They probably just assume that since YLS's class is so small and reputedly so selective, the people going there have already been subjected to a rigorous enough 'screening process' to determine how clever the person they're considering is. This is how a lot of other professions work--e.g. finance and investment banking: it's not really about what you know coming out, it's about showing employers that you pick up information and can use it quickly so that you can be productive with what they want to ask of you.

I would say Yale doesn't grade because doing so would be exceptionally difficult. Nearly everyone's exam answers will be brilliant so applying a curve would be nearly impossible (or arbitrary) and giving out 95% A's makes a joke out of "grading".

[heyguys]

I would say Yale doesn't grade because doing so would be exceptionally difficult. Nearly everyone's exam answers will be brilliant so applying a curve would be nearly impossible (or arbitrary) and giving out 95% A's makes a joke out of "grading".

Meh, first, I don't think you're right about the quality of answers , but I think the larger point is that I think you could make that case about any number of law schools (HSCCN come to mind), but most of them grade on a curve and employers care a whole lot about where on that curve you end up (except at Harvard and Stanford, which have less of a stratified system, not to mention a far less consequential one for those who aren't gunning for SCOTUS or Calabresi/Kozinski/etc).

[badfish]

No grades yet. Classes start tomorrow. I should really start my admin homework.

meh.

[KidA23]

I would love hearing others' input on this, but my general sense is that Yale doesn't grade because they don't have to. but the question of why they don't have to is the truly interesting one: the most obvious ones are prestigious name and relative scarcity of graduates. but the more interesting notion is that it's because the stuff we actually learn in law school isn't that useful for and doesn't really correlate to doing well in firm work. Grades, however, would probably correlate because employers simply use how well you can do in, e.g., torts and Ks to establish how clever you are. They probably just assume that since YLS's class is so small and reputedly so selective, the people going there have already been subjected to a rigorous enough 'screening process' to determine how clever the person they're considering is. This is how a lot of other professions work--e.g. finance and investment banking: it's not really about what you know coming out, it's about showing employers that you pick up information and can use it quickly so that you can be productive with what they want to ask of you.

I would say Yale doesn't grade because doing so would be exceptionally difficult. Nearly everyone's exam answers will be brilliant so applying a curve would be nearly impossible (or arbitrary) and giving out 95% A's makes a joke out of "grading".

Oh come on.

[heyguys]

Oh come on.

Agreed +1000

[Snooker]

The problem is grades don't allow firms to determine how smart one person is in comparison to others because grades don't exactly correlate with intelligence (it correlates with how well you do on one a relatively subjective exam). The two things I could think of that firms probably get out of grades (or at least think they get out of them):

1) Large firms want to know that you will work hard, essentially be their slave, and get things done and done well at all costs (i.e. you will work when they need you to as oppose to going to see your kid's teeball game). I think this is the big one, although, it is not a perfect correlation because working hard doesn't necessarily mean better grades.

2) That you are able to cater to a client. A lot of doing well on a law school exam has to do with catering to what your specific prof wants and their subjective preferences. So by doing well on a law school exam it shows that you able to tailor your work to the wants and needs of someone else, such as a client.

There's lots of justifications out there, but the empirical evidence pretty much shows there's very little relationship between grades and a person's success within a given field. The law school grading system is the most maligned part of the whole system. But all law firms have to work with is grades, and we know that grading performance starts to fluctuate as certain people get onto law review and do extracurricular activities. It's not as if the law schools will say to the firms, "hey look, Spy is an awesome lawyer out there in the field. I see great promise here, you should hire him (/her)". Yeah, 200k down the hole and they can't even tell a firm which students are the good lawyers.

[Snooker]

Oh come on.

Agreed +1000

+10,000. People should read Mallard's post in the Harvard thread. Just because you see the name "Harvard" or "Yale" doesn't necessarily mean everyone there is a super genius.

[CE2JD]

Why does Yale do this?

The better question is probably 'why do all other schools turn 1L into a hilarious, curved, thunderdome style deathmatch'?

for the lulz

[Esc]

godeffingdamn still no grades. The waiting is seriously fucking up my enjoyment of doing nothing over the break.

[Snooker]

Doing nothing over the break? "We Were Gunners Once, and Young".

[superserial]

godeffingdamn still no grades.

+1

+ 2. motherfuckers.

[Esc]

Doing nothing over the break? "We Were Gunners Once, and Young".

Nothing except...

[JazzOne]

Doing nothing over the break? "We Were Gunners Once, and Young".

Gunners Wuntz & Young, LLP

[Kohinoor]

I've gone from apathy to anxiety to genuine anger over it taking this long.

[rayiner]

We don't get grades for another week, quit yer bitching!

[Leeroy Jenkins]

We don't get grades for another week, quit yer bitching!

I've only gotten one grade back so far and I'm wringing my hands and don't know what to do with myself waiting for the rest to come in!

[pasteurizedmilk]

I've gone from apathy to anxiety to genuine anger over it taking this long.

werd

[superserial]

We don't get grades for another week, quit yer bitching!

I've only gotten one grade back so far and I'm wringing my hands and don't know what to do with myself waiting for the rest to come in!

you have a grade. shut your face.

[rayiner]

We don't get grades for another week, quit yer bitching!

2-4 weeks. motherfuckers.

Killself.

[dresden doll]

We don't get grades for another week, quit yer bitching!

I've only gotten one grade back so far and I'm wringing my hands and don't know what to do with myself waiting for the rest to come in!

you have a grade. shut your face.

Seriously, man.

At least our grades are supposed to come out the same day we have Wine Mess. I'll just keep repeating that to myself.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

you have a grade. shut your face.

It was in the harder class (substance wise) so I get to twist and turn thinking about how I did on the class with the harder exam and the other class with the easier test (and supposedly much harsher curve). So in the end, it doesn't really help that much...

[Renzo]

You know what's pathetic? I know for a fact that all grades will be posted on the 20th, and that nothing will be available before then. The school said so in no uncertain terms. Yet, everyday I log in to look...