Danteshek wrote:Alternative grading systems (and no ranking policies) are deliberate attempts to make schools less competitive. Less competition generally means people work less hard and accomplish less academically. In other words, top law schools are becoming less academic and more like business schools. This is a clear moral hazard. The argument that such policies make for a more collegial environment is a poor excuse for a degradation in academic standards.
I'm still confused about the purpose of creating a standardized curve. Is it for employers? Why are we tryng to make things easier for employers? So it's more fair
? So students at better school without curves (or with strange curve) are judged more harshly in relation to students at lower schools with strict curves?
Or is standardization necessary so those lazy students at HYSCB don't continue to "accomplish less academically." Also, why does "accomplishing less academically" (which has not been shown to be a problem at HYSCB, I should remind you) constitute an "academic integrity issue"? Academic integrity would only come into play if students at these schools begin receiving the same grades for less work/performance (or better grades for the same level of work/performance). Why? Beacuse it's misleading for a school to say a student has earned a B+ when this used to signify a certain level of performance relative to that student's peers and now it signifies a different level of performance relative to that student's peers. However, it is not misleading, dishonest or in any way destroying the "integrity" of academic signifiers to say that a majority of students "passed" a class.