The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby bigben » Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:15 pm

D. H2Oman wrote:
gdane5 wrote:I hate the rankings and here is why:

They are based off of what you did in the past. UG GPA and LSAT. The rankings should include things like Law school GPA



I'm gonna go ahead and stop right there.

Exactly what I did LOL

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 1663
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby ggocat » Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:25 pm

MURPH wrote:The most interesting paragraph was:
One simple strategy involves exploiting the flexibility afforded by USN measurements. Because USN uses the median LSAT in its formula for calculating overall rank—which means it only considers the exact mid-dle score of the distribution after scores have been arranged in ascending order (that is, the score at the 50th percentile)—schools can select whom-ever they want below their median without affecting the measure used by USN. So if schools admit the top half of a class with an eye toward pro-tecting or raising their LSAT median, they can use any criteria they want in admitting those below that score. Many schools are aware of this strategy but many do not take full advantage of it. This tactic could be made even more attractive to schools if USN published only the median and not the 25th and 75th percentiles for test scores and GPAs, as it does now. It is also important that USN not adopt a more restrictive measure of selectivity (such as using the 25th and 75th percentile scores in its formula) so that schools can continue to use this flexibility to diversify their student bodies if they so desire.


Schools already have everything they need to compete and to attract minority, PI-minded students or whatever thier mission entails. Fully 49% of the class can have sub 150 LSATs and sub 2.0 GPA and it won't effect the rankings.
I've mentioned this before on TLS. The 25% and 75% are meaningless for USNWR. It is only the median that counts so they should be offering scholarships to anyone who is one point above the median (or 0.1 GPA point above). That way they can constantly move up in the rankings while letting students above the 75% go elsewhere and offering opportunities to many, mnay students below the median. Either the adcoms don't understand statistics and they continue to focus on the meaningless 75% score or they actually believe that a slight difference in the numbers is a meaningful predictor of success in law school.

Schools already know this; adcoms (generally) understand that only medians matter. LSAC did/commissioned a study on this and found that emphasis on medians causes many schools to admit splitters (both high-LSAT and high-GPA splitters).

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby 09042014 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:26 pm

D. H2Oman wrote:
gdane5 wrote:I hate the rankings and here is why:

They are based off of what you did in the past. UG GPA and LSAT. The rankings should include things like Law school GPA



I'm gonna go ahead and stop right there.


I almost shat myself at this.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby 09042014 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:33 pm

gdane5 wrote:ok well you guys are just breaking my balls now.

I think Im going to come up with my own rankings and get maxim to publish them. I think Maxim has a larger circulation than USNWR.

One note, why should an UG GPA be such a huge factor in the rankings? Everyone agrees that law school is much different than UG and is much more difficult. So, why not use law school GPA's?
Nevertheless, i see the point thats being made and honestly, I completely forgot about curves. Completely forgot.


Jesus fucking christ. I can understand having an air head moment, but after being told why this is a retarded idea, you fucking double down.

Also this is why people like you attend T4's. See you on JDU, look me up when you get there.

charlesjd
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:28 am

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby charlesjd » Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:39 pm

D. H2Oman wrote:The USNEWS rankings not only meet a necessity, but also actually well done. I fully support the rankings.


Yeah 55% of the data is based on surveys which is "highly" manipulable... Well done indeed.

User avatar
jack duluoz
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:26 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby jack duluoz » Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:41 pm

WOW. gdane, do yourself a favor and just make a new name after that blunder.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby 09042014 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:44 pm

charlesjd wrote:
D. H2Oman wrote:The USNEWS rankings not only meet a necessity, but also actually well done. I fully support the rankings.


Yeah 55% of the data is based on surveys which is "highly" manipulable... Well done indeed.


And 15% is based on how much money the school can waste, and 20% is based on extremely inflated employment data.

MrMcAllister
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:52 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby MrMcAllister » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:31 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
gdane5 wrote:ok well you guys are just breaking my balls now.

I think Im going to come up with my own rankings and get maxim to publish them. I think Maxim has a larger circulation than USNWR.

One note, why should an UG GPA be such a huge factor in the rankings? Everyone agrees that law school is much different than UG and is much more difficult. So, why not use law school GPA's?
Nevertheless, i see the point thats being made and honestly, I completely forgot about curves. Completely forgot.


Jesus fucking christ. I can understand having an air head moment, but after being told why this is a retarded idea, you fucking double down.

Also this is why people like you attend T4's. See you on JDU, look me up when you get there.



Law schools could report pre-curve GPA stats.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby PDaddy » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:41 pm

ggocat wrote:
MURPH wrote:The most interesting paragraph was:
One simple strategy involves exploiting the flexibility afforded by USN measurements. Because USN uses the median LSAT in its formula for calculating overall rank—which means it only considers the exact mid-dle score of the distribution after scores have been arranged in ascending order (that is, the score at the 50th percentile)—schools can select whom-ever they want below their median without affecting the measure used by USN. So if schools admit the top half of a class with an eye toward pro-tecting or raising their LSAT median, they can use any criteria they want in admitting those below that score. Many schools are aware of this strategy but many do not take full advantage of it. This tactic could be made even more attractive to schools if USN published only the median and not the 25th and 75th percentiles for test scores and GPAs, as it does now. It is also important that USN not adopt a more restrictive measure of selectivity (such as using the 25th and 75th percentile scores in its formula) so that schools can continue to use this flexibility to diversify their student bodies if they so desire.


Schools already have everything they need to compete and to attract minority, PI-minded students or whatever thier mission entails. Fully 49% of the class can have sub 150 LSATs and sub 2.0 GPA and it won't effect the rankings.
I've mentioned this before on TLS. The 25% and 75% are meaningless for USNWR. It is only the median that counts so they should be offering scholarships to anyone who is one point above the median (or 0.1 GPA point above). That way they can constantly move up in the rankings while letting students above the 75% go elsewhere and offering opportunities to many, mnay students below the median. Either the adcoms don't understand statistics and they continue to focus on the meaningless 75% score or they actually believe that a slight difference in the numbers is a meaningful predictor of success in law school.

Schools already know this; adcoms (generally) understand that only medians matter. LSAC did/commissioned a study on this and found that emphasis on medians causes many schools to admit splitters (both high-LSAT and high-GPA splitters).


If I can ever find it, I'm going to post a "proof" that demonstrated, in easily understood terms, why it was possible for schools with 169 medians to admit high numbers of students with 150 lsat's and not lose any ground. You would think that adcoms, who usually have their JD's, would be intelligent enough to underrsatnd what amounts to really basic mathematics. But they don't. And the elite schools that claim to be most against the rankings and the overuse of the LSAT (see Berkeley, Michigan, UVA) seem to understand the concept the least. Splitters are for gaining flexibility, if manipulating numbers is the goal.
Last edited by PDaddy on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby Drake014 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:41 pm

MrMcAllister wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
gdane5 wrote:ok well you guys are just breaking my balls now.

I think Im going to come up with my own rankings and get maxim to publish them. I think Maxim has a larger circulation than USNWR.

One note, why should an UG GPA be such a huge factor in the rankings? Everyone agrees that law school is much different than UG and is much more difficult. So, why not use law school GPA's?
Nevertheless, i see the point thats being made and honestly, I completely forgot about curves. Completely forgot.


Jesus fucking christ. I can understand having an air head moment, but after being told why this is a retarded idea, you fucking double down.

Also this is why people like you attend T4's. See you on JDU, look me up when you get there.



Law schools could report pre-curve GPA stats.


You're assuming that law schools have pre-curve GPA stats.

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby Drake014 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:43 pm

T14 law schools have the most renowned professors, not those that are best at teaching. I've known many alumni at T14s who regularly skipped one or more classes because the professor was absolutely worthless at teaching but was renowned for non-teaching reasons.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby 09042014 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:45 pm

Drake014 wrote:
MrMcAllister wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
gdane5 wrote:ok well you guys are just breaking my balls now.

I think Im going to come up with my own rankings and get maxim to publish them. I think Maxim has a larger circulation than USNWR.

One note, why should an UG GPA be such a huge factor in the rankings? Everyone agrees that law school is much different than UG and is much more difficult. So, why not use law school GPA's?
Nevertheless, i see the point thats being made and honestly, I completely forgot about curves. Completely forgot.


Jesus fucking christ. I can understand having an air head moment, but after being told why this is a retarded idea, you fucking double down.

Also this is why people like you attend T4's. See you on JDU, look me up when you get there.



Law schools could report pre-curve GPA stats.


You're assuming that law schools have pre-curve GPA stats.


Grading is subjective. There is no such thing as pre-curve GPA.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby 09042014 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:46 pm

MrMcAllister wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
gdane5 wrote:ok well you guys are just breaking my balls now.

I think Im going to come up with my own rankings and get maxim to publish them. I think Maxim has a larger circulation than USNWR.

One note, why should an UG GPA be such a huge factor in the rankings? Everyone agrees that law school is much different than UG and is much more difficult. So, why not use law school GPA's?
Nevertheless, i see the point thats being made and honestly, I completely forgot about curves. Completely forgot.


Jesus fucking christ. I can understand having an air head moment, but after being told why this is a retarded idea, you fucking double down.

Also this is why people like you attend T4's. See you on JDU, look me up when you get there.



Law schools could report pre-curve GPA stats.


wtf is that even supposed to me. Explain. I bet it will be lulz.

KG_CalGuy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:18 am

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby KG_CalGuy » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:54 pm

Drake014 wrote:T14 law schools have the most renowned professors, not those that are best at teaching. I've known many alumni at T14s who regularly skipped one or more classes because the professor was absolutely worthless at teaching but was renowned for non-teaching reasons.


I'm willing to guarantee this is true at any school, regardless of rank.

For me, the only reasons the rankings are useful is because other people think they mean something and that has the ability to translate to success in employment. In other words, people think someone with a JD from HYS are inherently better than somebody from a school like University of San Diego. Thus, coming from HYS gives you an edge due to "prestige bias." I know for a fact that a student who is ranked #1 in her class at University of San Francisco is not going to have a job this year because of the economic climate--I seriously doubt that'd be true coming out of HYS.

The same thing is true in undergrad rankings. The (vice) dean of admissions essentially told me that I had to work harder to be admitted to NYU coming from Cal Poly (part of CA's CSU system) instead of UCLA.

The rankings have created a prestige culture which we, as law future students, are practically forced into perpetuating because we know it works out to our benefit (more or less).

erniesto
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:56 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby erniesto » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:55 pm

bigben wrote:
PDaddy wrote:The so-called T14 should all boycott the rankings and lobby the ABA to cease providing all data to USNWR and other ranking systems until a better system can be devised. And...no...I am not going to a "T2 school" or a "TTT".


If you don't like USNWR then make your own rankings. If they are better then people will use them instead.


LOL @ failure to understand market dynamics.

Give me a bigger advertising budget over the next decade. I'll make a ratings based in part on the average toilet paper ply in law school bathrooms that will be more widely circulated than USNews.

Will that make it better?

MrMcAllister
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:52 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby MrMcAllister » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:01 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
MrMcAllister wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
gdane5 wrote:ok well you guys are just breaking my balls now.

I think Im going to come up with my own rankings and get maxim to publish them. I think Maxim has a larger circulation than USNWR.

One note, why should an UG GPA be such a huge factor in the rankings? Everyone agrees that law school is much different than UG and is much more difficult. So, why not use law school GPA's?
Nevertheless, i see the point thats being made and honestly, I completely forgot about curves. Completely forgot.


Jesus fucking christ. I can understand having an air head moment, but after being told why this is a retarded idea, you fucking double down.

Also this is why people like you attend T4's. See you on JDU, look me up when you get there.



Law schools could report pre-curve GPA stats.


wtf is that even supposed to me. Explain. I bet it will be lulz.


First of all, I'm not assuming that there are pre-curve GPAs. I said law schools could report pre-curve GPAs. I did not say that they DO exist - I merely acknowlege the possibility that they COULD exist. (this is directed to the person who posted earlier - not necessarily the person I am quoting)

In order to craft a curve, teachers must first grade assignments. They can be given raw scores first - then changed to fit the typical curve of the class/school. Essentially, two GPAs would emerge: a raw GPA and a curved GPA. This is typical of high schools with "college prep" programs that weigh classes differently - at least where I went to high school. In order to make a curve, which essentially is just a comparison of scores, the teacher must have an idea of what they are curving, such as raw score data.

erniesto
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:56 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby erniesto » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:06 pm

MrMcAllister wrote:
First of all, I'm not assuming that there are pre-curve GPAs. I said law schools could report pre-curve GPAs. I did not say that they DO exist - I merely acknowlege the possibility that they COULD exist. (this is directed to the person who posted earlier - not necessarily the person I am quoting)

In order to craft a curve, teachers must first grade assignments. They can be given raw scores first - then changed to fit the typical curve of the class/school. Essentially, two GPAs would emerge: a raw GPA and a curved GPA. This is typical of high schools with "college prep" programs that weigh classes differently - at least where I went to high school. In order to make a curve, which essentially is just a comparison of scores, the teacher must have an idea of what they are curving, such as raw score data.


So we just change the entire law grading establishment to make better USNews rankings.

¿LOL Que?

User avatar
hotdog123
Posts: 400
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:15 am

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby hotdog123 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:07 pm

MrMcAllister wrote:
First of all, I'm not assuming that there are pre-curve GPAs. I said law schools could report pre-curve GPAs. I did not say that they DO exist - I merely acknowlege the possibility that they COULD exist. (this is directed to the person who posted earlier - not necessarily the person I am quoting)

In order to craft a curve, teachers must first grade assignments. They can be given raw scores first - then changed to fit the typical curve of the class/school. Essentially, two GPAs would emerge: a raw GPA and a curved GPA. This is typical of high schools with "college prep" programs that weigh classes differently - at least where I went to high school. In order to make a curve, which essentially is just a comparison of scores, the teacher must have an idea of what they are curving, such as raw score data.


Even if they had pre-curve GPA stats.

1) Grading style changes from professor to professor, it would be a terrible thing to use as a universal measurement
2) Think grade inflation is bad now? Holy living fuck that would blow the roof off of academic integrity.

User avatar
MURPH
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:20 am

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby MURPH » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:16 pm

PDaddy wrote:
ggocat wrote:
MURPH wrote:The most interesting paragraph was:
One simple strategy involves exploiting the flexibility afforded by USN measurements. Because USN uses the median LSAT in its formula for calculating overall rank—which means it only considers the exact mid-dle score of the distribution after scores have been arranged in ascending order (that is, the score at the 50th percentile)—schools can select whom-ever they want below their median without affecting the measure used by USN. So if schools admit the top half of a class with an eye toward pro-tecting or raising their LSAT median, they can use any criteria they want in admitting those below that score. Many schools are aware of this strategy but many do not take full advantage of it. This tactic could be made even more attractive to schools if USN published only the median and not the 25th and 75th percentiles for test scores and GPAs, as it does now. It is also important that USN not adopt a more restrictive measure of selectivity (such as using the 25th and 75th percentile scores in its formula) so that schools can continue to use this flexibility to diversify their student bodies if they so desire.


Schools already have everything they need to compete and to attract minority, PI-minded students or whatever thier mission entails. Fully 49% of the class can have sub 150 LSATs[strike]and[/strike] and /or sub 2.0 GPA and it won't effect the rankings.
I've mentioned this before on TLS. The 25% and 75% are meaningless for USNWR. It is only the median that counts so they should be offering scholarships to anyone who is one point above the median (or 0.1 GPA point above). That way they can constantly move up in the rankings while letting students above the 75% go elsewhere and offering opportunities to many, mnay students below the median. Either the adcoms don't understand statistics and they continue to focus on the meaningless 75% score or they actually believe that a slight difference in the numbers is a meaningful predictor of success in law school.

Schools already know this; adcoms (generally) understand that only medians matter. LSAC did/commissioned a study on this and found that emphasis on medians causes many schools to admit splitters (both high-LSAT and high-GPA splitters).


If I can ever find it, I'm going to post a "proof" that demonstrated, in easily understood terms, why it was possible for schools with 169 medians to admit high numbers of students with 150 lsat's and not lose any ground. You would think that adcoms, who usually have their JD's, would be intelligent enough to underrsatnd what amounts to really basic mathematics. But they don't. And the elite schools that claim to be most against the rankings and the overuse of the LSAT (see Berkeley, Michigan, UVA) seem to understand the concept the least. Splitters are for gaining flexibility, if manipulating numbers is the goal.


I made corrections that Desert Fox pointed out. While they could theoretically admit people below both medians, it makes much more sense to take advantage of splitters. Either way, the point is that law schools have plenty of room to manipulate the admissions process in such a way that they can admit any minority or other group that they please. If they want to give admissions boosts to African Americans, military applicants, foreign applicants, applicants with a PI focus, home state applicants or whatever, it is easy to do. The conventional wisdom that a splitter is above the 75% in one category and below the 25% in the other is (or should be) wrong. A splitter should be 1 LSAT point above the schools target median or 0.01 GPA point above the target GPA median and at or below the median in the other. But anywhere below the median is just as good if the goals is only to manipulate the data for USNWR.

Chasing better 75% and 25% numbers is counter productive to this goal. An adcom should offer scholarships to applicants with the slightest edge over the target medians. Those with significantly higher scores can be YP'ed with impunity. Let other schools fight over them. They could also pick from lower scored applicants to add diversity (or whatever goal they set). The lower the scores of these applicants the less likely they would be to compete with their peers, thus they would increase their yield and feel less pressure to offer financial aid. Looked at this way the schools that had a 75% closest to the median and a 25% farthest from the median would be doing it right.
If adcoms just want the best students in any particular year this strategy sucks. They'd end up with a class full of dummies and mediocre students. But if an adcom wants to steadily move up the ranks this strategy seems like the best way to do it over the course of a decade or so.

User avatar
Panther7
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby Panther7 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:00 pm

PDaddy wrote:
The so-called T14 should all boycott the rankings and lobby the ABA to cease providing all data to USNWR and other ranking systems until a better system can be devised. And...no...I am not going to a "T2 school" or a "TTT".


You want to ABA to stop publicly releasing the data that we use to determine which law school is best for us in the hopes that you possibly kill rankings?


Yes, brilliant, let's cut our arms off so they can't handcuff us for a speeding ticket. You're a fucking genius.

User avatar
hotdog123
Posts: 400
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:15 am

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby hotdog123 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:07 pm

Panther7 wrote:
PDaddy wrote:
The so-called T14 should all boycott the rankings and lobby the ABA to cease providing all data to USNWR and other ranking systems until a better system can be devised. And...no...I am not going to a "T2 school" or a "TTT".


You want to ABA to stop publicly releasing the data that we use to determine which law school is best for us in the hopes that you possibly kill rankings?


Yes, brilliant, let's cut our arms off so they can't handcuff us for a speeding ticket. You're a fucking genius.


We didn't want a giant badger on the picketline anyway. :shock:

MrMcAllister
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:52 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby MrMcAllister » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:08 pm

DonnyMost wrote:
MrMcAllister wrote:
First of all, I'm not assuming that there are pre-curve GPAs. I said law schools could report pre-curve GPAs. I did not say that they DO exist - I merely acknowlege the possibility that they COULD exist. (this is directed to the person who posted earlier - not necessarily the person I am quoting)

In order to craft a curve, teachers must first grade assignments. They can be given raw scores first - then changed to fit the typical curve of the class/school. Essentially, two GPAs would emerge: a raw GPA and a curved GPA. This is typical of high schools with "college prep" programs that weigh classes differently - at least where I went to high school. In order to make a curve, which essentially is just a comparison of scores, the teacher must have an idea of what they are curving, such as raw score data.


Even if they had pre-curve GPA stats.

1) Grading style changes from professor to professor, it would be a terrible thing to use as a universal measurement
2) Think grade inflation is bad now? Holy living fuck that would blow the roof off of academic integrity.


Grading style doesn't change between undergrad professors? That's where this part of the discussion stems from - the efficacy of undergrad GPAs vs. the efficacy of law school GPAs.

They do have pre-curve stats, they just probably aren't compiled. For the curve to be established, the instructor must have an idea of the actual performance of each individual on their assignment in order to curve it. Grades won't necessarily be any more inflated, that inflation will just be revealed for what it actually is.

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby Drake014 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:12 pm

DonnyMost wrote:
MrMcAllister wrote:
First of all, I'm not assuming that there are pre-curve GPAs. I said law schools could report pre-curve GPAs. I did not say that they DO exist - I merely acknowlege the possibility that they COULD exist. (this is directed to the person who posted earlier - not necessarily the person I am quoting)

In order to craft a curve, teachers must first grade assignments. They can be given raw scores first - then changed to fit the typical curve of the class/school. Essentially, two GPAs would emerge: a raw GPA and a curved GPA. This is typical of high schools with "college prep" programs that weigh classes differently - at least where I went to high school. In order to make a curve, which essentially is just a comparison of scores, the teacher must have an idea of what they are curving, such as raw score data.


Even if they had pre-curve GPA stats.

1) Grading style changes from professor to professor, it would be a terrible thing to use as a universal measurement
2) Think grade inflation is bad now? Holy living fuck that would blow the roof off of academic integrity.


All we have to do is establish a standardized national testing system for law schools. We'll call it "No Law School Student Left Behind"

MrMcAllister
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:52 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby MrMcAllister » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:14 pm

erniesto wrote:
MrMcAllister wrote:
First of all, I'm not assuming that there are pre-curve GPAs. I said law schools could report pre-curve GPAs. I did not say that they DO exist - I merely acknowlege the possibility that they COULD exist. (this is directed to the person who posted earlier - not necessarily the person I am quoting)

In order to craft a curve, teachers must first grade assignments. They can be given raw scores first - then changed to fit the typical curve of the class/school. Essentially, two GPAs would emerge: a raw GPA and a curved GPA. This is typical of high schools with "college prep" programs that weigh classes differently - at least where I went to high school. In order to make a curve, which essentially is just a comparison of scores, the teacher must have an idea of what they are curving, such as raw score data.


So we just change the entire law grading establishment to make better USNews rankings.

¿LOL Que?


That depends on what you mean by "better." The revelation of pre-curve raw performance data won't necessarily make top-tier schools look "better" via a higher ranking. The revelation of that data doesn't even necessarily have to change the grading system. It would be a revelation of the processes of current grading systems - the process of raw grades being transferred to curved grades. It's more of an issue of process transparency than process transformation.

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: The most cogent anti-rankings article ever!

Postby Drake014 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:17 pm

MrMcAllister wrote:
erniesto wrote:
MrMcAllister wrote:
First of all, I'm not assuming that there are pre-curve GPAs. I said law schools could report pre-curve GPAs. I did not say that they DO exist - I merely acknowlege the possibility that they COULD exist. (this is directed to the person who posted earlier - not necessarily the person I am quoting)

In order to craft a curve, teachers must first grade assignments. They can be given raw scores first - then changed to fit the typical curve of the class/school. Essentially, two GPAs would emerge: a raw GPA and a curved GPA. This is typical of high schools with "college prep" programs that weigh classes differently - at least where I went to high school. In order to make a curve, which essentially is just a comparison of scores, the teacher must have an idea of what they are curving, such as raw score data.


So we just change the entire law grading establishment to make better USNews rankings.

¿LOL Que?


That depends on what you mean by "better." The revelation of pre-curve raw performance data won't necessarily make top-tier schools look "better" via a higher ranking. The revelation of that data doesn't even necessarily have to change the grading system. It would be a revelation of the processes of current grading systems - the process of raw grades being transferred to curved grades. It's more of an issue of process transparency than process transformation.


Its more an issue of fiction rather than fact. There isn't any universal grading system. It changes from professor to professor and from school to school. There'd be no way to establish a pre-curve grading system without implementing a national standardized law school test for every subject (many subjects don't exist at every school). It would be horrendous to design, virtually impossible to implement, and detested and opposed by virtually every professor.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”