Unemployed wrote:swc65 wrote:Does anybody have any ideas what the curve is here at Columbia? I just found out last week that they do not even assign GPAs which is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I mean I know law students are not typically great at math, but I am sure we can all do weighted averages.

Anyway, I just do not even know what a bad/good grade or GPA is.

3.9 = top 1%

3.85 = top 2%

3.8 = top 3% (Kent)

3.75 = top 4%

3.7 = top 6%

3.65 = top 8%

3.6 = top 11%

3.55 = top 15%

3.5 = top 20%

3.45 = top 25%

3.41 = top 30% (Stone)

3.35 = top 37%

3.3 = top 45%

3.26 = Median

3.2 = top 58%

3.15 = top 66%

3.1 = top 72%

3.05 = top 77%

3.0 = top 82%

Apparently based on the # of kent scholars, # of stone scholars, and assuming normal distribution.

That is only a very rough estimate, this is the REAL curve (posted on page #2 of this thread as well):

https://wwws-db.law.columbia.edu/lawnet ... dation.pdf

Professors have total discretion to operate within this curve, hence why the # of Stone and Kent scholars can vary from year to year and how Stone especially might vary from the top 29% to the top 35%+, it's not like CLS steps in and tells a professor that we have too many Stone scholars and that they should award minimal A's/A-'s to compensate. Kent scholars aren't even entirely based on GPA (a 3.69 can still get a Kent award).

There are just too many variables to get a reliable curve out of the scholar #'s, it's an interesting estimate but not very useful since our curve is essentially the curving preferences of 7 different professors + our own grade consistency = which is why CLS doesn't officially rank or set a 'hard' curve for the overall class. The scholar #'s are interesting to see how a 5-10% 'A' curve breaks down to only 2-3% of the class staying "consistent" enough to meet the Kent qualifications.