IOWA 2012

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
burndtscorcho
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:47 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby burndtscorcho » Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:46 pm

Opie wrote:
apeopleshistory wrote:
burndtscorcho wrote:Got my letter from Iowa today. The personal note at the bottom from Dean Collins was a nice touch... anybody else get this?


Everyone except Opie :P

Aww... You remembered. :oops:

That's just as good as a note from Dean Byrd.

Don't worry, you weren't missing out. Now if the note said something like congratulations.... full ride... intellectual curiosity.... excited to see you next fall, it would be more worth it.

User avatar
shredderrrrrr
Posts: 4673
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:36 am

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby shredderrrrrr » Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:24 pm

So I emailed a different address in the admissions office and they responded very quickly, claiming there was a mix-up in responding to my earlier email.

Despite saying that they could not alter the stipulations, they provided some useful information I thought I'd pass along. Hopefully it's ok to quote?

The Dean and I, and a number of other members of the College of Law's management team, discussed the possibility of changing the scholarship renewal stipulation. We decided that we would be unable to do so.


I remember sending you a response a couple of months ago, because I sent a copy of your message to the Dean, to see if she wanted to review the stipulation policy again.


These two comments, when taken together, tell me that there is a possibility that scholarship stipulations may be altered in the near future. Maybe having peer schools without such severe scholarship stipulations is influencing them. Nevertheless, there is hope for future students!

Also, they provided some good information in regards to scholarship retention.

Last year, just over 76% of our 1L scholarship recipients renewed their scholarships. Two years ago, a shade over 85% our 1L scholarship recipients renewed their scholarships. So, while not guaranteed, the probability of having your scholarship renewed is fairly high. The numbers show that the probability of having a scholarship renewed is 76%, and higher.

User avatar
buckythebadger
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 12:08 am

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby buckythebadger » Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:47 pm

shredderrrrrr wrote:So I emailed a different address in the admissions office and they responded very quickly, claiming there was a mix-up in responding to my earlier email.

Despite saying that they could not alter the stipulations, they provided some useful information I thought I'd pass along. Hopefully it's ok to quote?

The Dean and I, and a number of other members of the College of Law's management team, discussed the possibility of changing the scholarship renewal stipulation. We decided that we would be unable to do so.


I remember sending you a response a couple of months ago, because I sent a copy of your message to the Dean, to see if she wanted to review the stipulation policy again.


These two comments, when taken together, tell me that there is a possibility that scholarship stipulations may be altered in the near future. Maybe having peer schools without such severe scholarship stipulations is influencing them. Nevertheless, there is hope for future students!

Also, they provided some good information in regards to scholarship retention.

Last year, just over 76% of our 1L scholarship recipients renewed their scholarships. Two years ago, a shade over 85% our 1L scholarship recipients renewed their scholarships. So, while not guaranteed, the probability of having your scholarship renewed is fairly high. The numbers show that the probability of having a scholarship renewed is 76%, and higher.


And then did the dean mention how he remembered reading your file, and that you were set up for success in law school so you should be able to meet the stipulations?? I just wish they would have been open to negotiation instead of sending everyone a generic email. I was willing to take less money if they would have been willing to relax on the stipulations

User avatar
shredderrrrrr
Posts: 4673
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:36 am

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby shredderrrrrr » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:05 pm

buckythebadger wrote:
shredderrrrrr wrote:So I emailed a different address in the admissions office and they responded very quickly, claiming there was a mix-up in responding to my earlier email.

Despite saying that they could not alter the stipulations, they provided some useful information I thought I'd pass along. Hopefully it's ok to quote?

The Dean and I, and a number of other members of the College of Law's management team, discussed the possibility of changing the scholarship renewal stipulation. We decided that we would be unable to do so.


I remember sending you a response a couple of months ago, because I sent a copy of your message to the Dean, to see if she wanted to review the stipulation policy again.


These two comments, when taken together, tell me that there is a possibility that scholarship stipulations may be altered in the near future. Maybe having peer schools without such severe scholarship stipulations is influencing them. Nevertheless, there is hope for future students!

Also, they provided some good information in regards to scholarship retention.

Last year, just over 76% of our 1L scholarship recipients renewed their scholarships. Two years ago, a shade over 85% our 1L scholarship recipients renewed their scholarships. So, while not guaranteed, the probability of having your scholarship renewed is fairly high. The numbers show that the probability of having a scholarship renewed is 76%, and higher.


And then did the dean mention how he remembered reading your file, and that you were set up for success in law school so you should be able to meet the stipulations?? I just wish they would have been open to negotiation instead of sending everyone a generic email. I was willing to take less money if they would have been willing to relax on the stipulations


If you recall correctly, it has been well established ITT that I am a special flower, so my email was nothing like anyone elses. Lol in all seriousness though, yeah it was the basic generic response.

I wish they could do away with stipulations as well. I didn't think they were a big deal until I realized virtually no other schools do them. With that said, however, I understand the point of them and don't think they're extremely ridiculous. Maybe I've just been instilled with the same Iowa values that influence Iowa schools to have stipulations attached to awards? I mean it makes sense to have to prove yourself once in law school to keep being rewarded. It sucks but makes sense (to me at least).

sebastian0622
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:30 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby sebastian0622 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:05 pm

shredderrrrrr wrote:
Last year, just over 76% of our 1L scholarship recipients renewed their scholarships. Two years ago, a shade over 85% our 1L scholarship recipients renewed their scholarships. So, while not guaranteed, the probability of having your scholarship renewed is fairly high. The numbers show that the probability of having a scholarship renewed is 76%, and higher.


That's a pretty dishonest / incomplete / misleading use of statistics by Iowa Law. If 76% of 1L's lose their scholarships, what percentage of 2L's lose theirs? If that number is also 76%, then close to half (~43%) of scholarship recipients would lose their scholarships at some point in their first two years, even if not during their first year. Then there would be some who lose it after first semester of 3L year also that you'd have to add in, although they'd only have to pay for one semester. You could assume the number is lower for 2L's, but then why didn't they include that number? Obviously the most honest and useful number would be what percentage of students lose their scholarships AT ANY POINT in law school, but they didn't give you that number because they don't want you to see it. They surely KNOW that number! And really, even giving them every benefit of the doubt, one-fourth of all recipients losing their awards as soon as possible isn't anything to brag about.

shredderrrrrr wrote:I wish they could do away with stipulations as well. I didn't think they were a big deal until I realized virtually no other schools do them. With that said, however, I understand the point of them and don't think they're extremely ridiculous. Maybe I've just been instilled with the same Iowa values that influence Iowa schools to have stipulations attached to awards? I mean it makes sense to have to prove yourself once in law school to keep being rewarded. It sucks but makes sense (to me at least).


This would actually make a ton of sense if law school grades were more highly correlated with "proving yourself." In other words, if they were less arbitrary and had more do with effort and performance. I actually think stips on undergrad scholarships would be a great idea. Law school? Not so much.

User avatar
shredderrrrrr
Posts: 4673
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:36 am

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby shredderrrrrr » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:17 pm

sebastian0622 wrote:
shredderrrrrr wrote:
Last year, just over 76% of our 1L scholarship recipients renewed their scholarships. Two years ago, a shade over 85% our 1L scholarship recipients renewed their scholarships. So, while not guaranteed, the probability of having your scholarship renewed is fairly high. The numbers show that the probability of having a scholarship renewed is 76%, and higher.


That's a pretty dishonest / incomplete / misleading use of statistics by Iowa Law. If 76% of 1L's lose their scholarships, what percentage of 2L's lose theirs? If that number is also 76%, then close to half (~43%) of scholarship recipients would lose their scholarships at some point, even if not during their first year. It could even be after three semesters, as the grades are checked every semester (vs. every year), leaving that person on the hook for half of his law school career. And really, one-fourth of all recipients losing their awards as soon as possible isn't anything to brag about.


I agree that it's misleading but disagree that it's dishonest or incomplete. They are simply telling us how many people renew their scholarship after their first year. They never say that the probability of renewing your scholarship for all three years is 76%. They just say that "the probability of having a scholarship renewed is 76%." Taken only for what is stated, that seems truthful enough to me. It simply means that, if I ask, "Will I be able to renew this scholarship next year?" the response would be, "Based on prior records, you have a 76% or higher likelihood of doing so."

And I think it would be incomplete if they were claiming to show the rate of graduates having renewed their scholarships all three years, but they are only showing how likely a 1L is to renew a scholarship. With that intention, they provide sufficient evidence.

User avatar
shredderrrrrr
Posts: 4673
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:36 am

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby shredderrrrrr » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:23 pm

sebastian0622 wrote:
shredderrrrrr wrote:I wish they could do away with stipulations as well. I didn't think they were a big deal until I realized virtually no other schools do them. With that said, however, I understand the point of them and don't think they're extremely ridiculous. Maybe I've just been instilled with the same Iowa values that influence Iowa schools to have stipulations attached to awards? I mean it makes sense to have to prove yourself once in law school to keep being rewarded. It sucks but makes sense (to me at least).


This would actually make a ton of sense if law school grades were more highly correlated with "proving yourself." In other words, if they were less arbitrary and had more do with effort and performance. I actually think stips on undergrad scholarships would be a great idea. Law school? Not so much.


That makes sense. Having not attended law school yet, I can't see/understand how law school grades reflect effort and performance.

On another note though, I gotta ask: If law school grades really aren't very indicative of performance or effort and everyone in the legal field that hires graduates has experienced this ridiculous grade system (having themselves graduated law school), why do firms hire so strictly based on class rank? You would think, assuming this disconnect is true, that they would realize that grades don't indicate the best students. Do they rely so heavily on grades simply due to lack of other measures?

sebastian0622
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:30 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby sebastian0622 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:37 pm

shredderrrrrr wrote:
sebastian0622 wrote:
shredderrrrrr wrote:I wish they could do away with stipulations as well. I didn't think they were a big deal until I realized virtually no other schools do them. With that said, however, I understand the point of them and don't think they're extremely ridiculous. Maybe I've just been instilled with the same Iowa values that influence Iowa schools to have stipulations attached to awards? I mean it makes sense to have to prove yourself once in law school to keep being rewarded. It sucks but makes sense (to me at least).


This would actually make a ton of sense if law school grades were more highly correlated with "proving yourself." In other words, if they were less arbitrary and had more do with effort and performance. I actually think stips on undergrad scholarships would be a great idea. Law school? Not so much.


That makes sense. Having not attended law school yet, I can't see/understand how law school grades reflect effort and performance.

On another note though, I gotta ask: If law school grades really aren't very indicative of performance or effort and everyone in the legal field that hires graduates has experienced this ridiculous grade system (having themselves graduated law school), why do firms hire so strictly based on class rank? You would think, assuming this disconnect is true, that they would realize that grades don't indicate the best students. Do they rely so heavily on grades simply due to lack of other measures?


This is a two-part answer.

First, firms don't "hire so strictly based on class rank." The extent to which law firms hire based on grades is vastly overblown on TLS. That's not to say grades are not a factor, because they are. But recent Iowa classes have placed around 12% of their graduates into NLJ250 ("biglaw") firms. Grades matter at those places (more on that later). For the vast majority of the other 88%, grades don't matter nearly as much. I received my 1L gig despite being bottom third at the time. I received my 2L gig despite being median at the time. In addition, I know people below median with good jobs and people above median with nothing. Don't think for a minute that employers take by default the student with the best grades so long as he doesn't have a third eye. All of the normal rules of employment in any other field still apply.

Second, biglaw firms can pick between several hundred applicants for every spot they have, so why NOT pick people with great grades? You can only interview so many people within the time frame of OCI, and you have hundreds of people interested. Even if grades are only 5% of what's important in an applicant, there is no reason NOT to pick the people with high grades to interview. That isn't to say that, for any individual student, grades are highly correlated with intelligence or effort. It's just to say that, at the aggregate, there might be the tiniest of correlations sufficient to justify such a selection process (along with an absence of any countervailing reason not to).

Of course, if someone with lower grades has something else that catches their eye, they just might throw him a bone. I was a pre-select with a few firms during 2L OCI despite being median and the firms asking for top third or higher. I have a few rare things on my resume, and they worked to my advantage. Again...not strict reliance on grades. In addition, both jobs I got were through lottery interview slots. These firms didn't eliminate me based on my grades/being a lottery, and I was able to work that into an offer. In other words, once you're in front of a hiring partner, grades aren't particularly important. They only use them to screen because they have virtually NOTHING else to screen by, because the majority of law students have nearly identical resumes. It makes at least some sense from the perspective of a hiring partner, but none of this suggests that grades are more than a very weak and minimally-reliable indicator of performance.
Last edited by sebastian0622 on Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
shredderrrrrr
Posts: 4673
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:36 am

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby shredderrrrrr » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:39 pm

sebastian0622 wrote:
shredderrrrrr wrote:
sebastian0622 wrote:
shredderrrrrr wrote:I wish they could do away with stipulations as well. I didn't think they were a big deal until I realized virtually no other schools do them. With that said, however, I understand the point of them and don't think they're extremely ridiculous. Maybe I've just been instilled with the same Iowa values that influence Iowa schools to have stipulations attached to awards? I mean it makes sense to have to prove yourself once in law school to keep being rewarded. It sucks but makes sense (to me at least).


This would actually make a ton of sense if law school grades were more highly correlated with "proving yourself." In other words, if they were less arbitrary and had more do with effort and performance. I actually think stips on undergrad scholarships would be a great idea. Law school? Not so much.


That makes sense. Having not attended law school yet, I can't see/understand how law school grades reflect effort and performance.

On another note though, I gotta ask: If law school grades really aren't very indicative of performance or effort and everyone in the legal field that hires graduates has experienced this ridiculous grade system (having themselves graduated law school), why do firms hire so strictly based on class rank? You would think, assuming this disconnect is true, that they would realize that grades don't indicate the best students. Do they rely so heavily on grades simply due to lack of other measures?


This is a two-part answer.

First, firms don't "hire so strictly based on class rank." The extent to which law firms hire based on grades is vastly overblown on TLS. That's not to say grades are not a factor, because they are. But recent Iowa classes have placed around 12% of their graduates into NLJ250 ("biglaw") firms. Grades matter at those places (more on that later). For the vast majority of the other 88%, grades don't matter nearly as much. I received my 1L gig despite being bottom third at the time. I received my 2L gig despite being median at the time. In addition, I know people below median with good jobs and people above median with nothing. Don't think for a minute that employers take by default the student with the best grades so long as he doesn't have a third eye. All of the normal rules of employment in any other field still apply.

Second, biglaw firms can pick between several hundred applicants for every spot they have, so why NOT pick people with great grades? You can only interview so many people within the time frame of OCI, and you have hundreds of people interested. Even if grades are only 5% of what's important in an applicant, there is no reason NOT to pick the people with high grades to interview. That isn't to say that, for any individual student, grades are highly correlated with intelligence or effort.

Of course, if someone with lower grades has something else that catches your eye, you just might throw them a bone. I was a pre-select with a few firms during 2L OCI despite being median and the firms asking for top third or higher. I have a few rare things on my resume, and they worked to my advantage. Again...not strict reliance on grades. In addition, both jobs I got were through lottery interview slots. These firms didn't eliminate me based on my grades/being a lottery, and I was able to work that into an offer. In other words, once you're in front of a hiring partner, grades aren't particularly important. They only use them to screen because they have virtually NOTHING else to screen by, because the majority of law students have nearly identical resumes.


Woah, great information. As you can tell, I know very little about the actual hiring process. This information is helpful.

btw384
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:03 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby btw384 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:49 pm

sebastian0622 wrote:
shredderrrrrr wrote:
sebastian0622 wrote:
shredderrrrrr wrote:I wish they could do away with stipulations as well. I didn't think they were a big deal until I realized virtually no other schools do them. With that said, however, I understand the point of them and don't think they're extremely ridiculous. Maybe I've just been instilled with the same Iowa values that influence Iowa schools to have stipulations attached to awards? I mean it makes sense to have to prove yourself once in law school to keep being rewarded. It sucks but makes sense (to me at least).


This would actually make a ton of sense if law school grades were more highly correlated with "proving yourself." In other words, if they were less arbitrary and had more do with effort and performance. I actually think stips on undergrad scholarships would be a great idea. Law school? Not so much.


That makes sense. Having not attended law school yet, I can't see/understand how law school grades reflect effort and performance.

On another note though, I gotta ask: If law school grades really aren't very indicative of performance or effort and everyone in the legal field that hires graduates has experienced this ridiculous grade system (having themselves graduated law school), why do firms hire so strictly based on class rank? You would think, assuming this disconnect is true, that they would realize that grades don't indicate the best students. Do they rely so heavily on grades simply due to lack of other measures?


This is a two-part answer.

First, firms don't "hire so strictly based on class rank." The extent to which law firms hire based on grades is vastly overblown on TLS. That's not to say grades are not a factor, because they are. But recent Iowa classes have placed around 12% of their graduates into NLJ250 ("biglaw") firms. Grades matter at those places (more on that later). For the vast majority of the other 88%, grades don't matter nearly as much. I received my 1L gig despite being bottom third at the time. I received my 2L gig despite being median at the time. In addition, I know people below median with good jobs and people above median with nothing. Don't think for a minute that employers take by default the student with the best grades so long as he doesn't have a third eye. All of the normal rules of employment in any other field still apply.

Second, biglaw firms can pick between several hundred applicants for every spot they have, so why NOT pick people with great grades? You can only interview so many people within the time frame of OCI, and you have hundreds of people interested. Even if grades are only 5% of what's important in an applicant, there is no reason NOT to pick the people with high grades to interview. That isn't to say that, for any individual student, grades are highly correlated with intelligence or effort. It's just to say that, at the aggregate, there might be the tiniest of correlations sufficient to justify such a selection process (along with an absence of any countervailing reason not to).

Of course, if someone with lower grades has something else that catches their eye, they just might throw him a bone. I was a pre-select with a few firms during 2L OCI despite being median and the firms asking for top third or higher. I have a few rare things on my resume, and they worked to my advantage. Again...not strict reliance on grades. In addition, both jobs I got were through lottery interview slots. These firms didn't eliminate me based on my grades/being a lottery, and I was able to work that into an offer. In other words, once you're in front of a hiring partner, grades aren't particularly important. They only use them to screen because they have virtually NOTHING else to screen by, because the majority of law students have nearly identical resumes. It makes at least some sense from the perspective of a hiring partner, but none of this suggests that grades are more than a very weak and minimally-reliable indicator of performance.

Very helpful knowledge. Thank you.

User avatar
chrisbru
Posts: 4252
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby chrisbru » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:00 pm

shredderrrrrr wrote:That makes sense. Having not attended law school yet, I can't see/understand how law school grades reflect effort and performance.

On another note though, I gotta ask: If law school grades really aren't very indicative of performance or effort and everyone in the legal field that hires graduates has experienced this ridiculous grade system (having themselves graduated law school), why do firms hire so strictly based on class rank? You would think, assuming this disconnect is true, that they would realize that grades don't indicate the best students. Do they rely so heavily on grades simply due to lack of other measures?


FWIW - I didn't see stipulations as unfair, as I had stipulations on my undergrad scholarship. I more saw the nonstop scholarships as something that lower ranked schools had to do to compete... But I don't really remember who did and didn't have stipulations. I want to say that WUSTL was 3.0, Colorado was top 1/3, Drake was 3.0, and William Mitchell and St. Thomas were both good standing, but don't quote that.

As for grades not being indicative of performance - That's not accurate, in my opinion. Some people throw this reasoning out because they are upset that their grades are not correlated with how well they think they did. But I wonder if these people have gone in to ask about their tests.

Yes, there is some arbitrary factors or law school grading. However, it's not like professors toss a stack of test on the ground, and the order that they pick them up becomes the curve. You may not understand it completely, but top grades are awarded to the tests that are the best according to the professor's standards.

sebastian0622
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:30 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby sebastian0622 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:12 pm

chrisbru wrote:
shredderrrrrr wrote:That makes sense. Having not attended law school yet, I can't see/understand how law school grades reflect effort and performance.

On another note though, I gotta ask: If law school grades really aren't very indicative of performance or effort and everyone in the legal field that hires graduates has experienced this ridiculous grade system (having themselves graduated law school), why do firms hire so strictly based on class rank? You would think, assuming this disconnect is true, that they would realize that grades don't indicate the best students. Do they rely so heavily on grades simply due to lack of other measures?


As for grades not being indicative of performance - That's not accurate, in my opinion. Some people throw this reasoning out because they are upset that their grades are not correlated with how well they think they did.


Eh, you may not agree with me, but this speculative statement is a somewhat rude or ignorant thing to say considering it seems directed, passive-aggressively, at me. It's certainly attacking my credibility and perspective. To be clear: I've had individual grades that set the curve in a class and others that were sub-par. I've had one semester below median and two well above. It's not like I'm bitter about all my grades and get bad grades overall, thereby causing me to whine about the system. I do pretty well for myself. But when I turn in a test, I don't have any idea what grade I'm going to get, and this is something I've heard said by a lot of fellow students. In addition, a fair amount of the time I get better grades in classes where I learned less and put in less effort than other classes in which I got worse grades.

Are you saying you know within a narrow margin of error what grade you're going to get in a class right after you take the test, and your grades across classes are highly correlated with how much you learned and how much effort you put in? If that's what you claim, I won't openly question your integrity (internet not quite that serious enough bizness), but I will say you're the only law student I've ever known who would make that claim.

Anyway, this is straying a bit. If you're reading this and are really interested in the topic, you can run a search on here and read what other law students think. You'll find the vast majority find them arbitrary, unpredictable, and certainly not indicative of performance with performance being defined in any meaningful way (e.g. NOT "the professor's standards" like chrisbru says or any other vague/arbitrary standard).

User avatar
chrisbru
Posts: 4252
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby chrisbru » Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:13 pm

sebastian0622 wrote:Eh, you may not agree with me, but this speculative statement is a somewhat rude or ignorant thing to say considering it seems directed, passive-aggressively, at me. It's certainly attacking my credibility and perspective. To be clear: I've had individual grades that set the curve in a class and others that were sub-par. I've had one semester below median and two well above. It's not like I'm bitter about all my grades and get bad grades overall, thereby causing me to whine about the system. I do pretty well for myself. But when I turn in a test, I don't have any idea what grade I'm going to get, and this is something I've heard said by a lot of fellow students. In addition, a fair amount of the time I get better grades in classes where I learned less and put in less effort than other classes in which I got worse grades.

Are you saying you know within a narrow margin of error what grade you're going to get in a class right after you take the test, and your grades across classes are highly correlated with how much you learned and how much effort you put in? If that's what you claim, I won't openly question your integrity (internet not quite that serious enough bizness), but I will say you're the only law student I've ever known who would make that claim.

Anyway, this is straying a bit. If you're reading this and are really interested in the topic, you can run a search on here and read what other law students think. You'll find the vast majority find them arbitrary, unpredictable, and certainly not indicative of performance with performance being defined in any meaningful way (e.g. NOT "the professor's standards" like chrisbru says or any other vague/arbitrary standard).


You're reading into what I said. It was not an attack at you, it's what I feel like the majority of people who say "grades are totally random" are actually communicating. Sorry if you felt like that was directed at you, it wasn't.

Do I know within a narrow margin? No. But that doesn't mean grades are arbitrary, it means I don't know exactly what the professor expects. However, I do personally feel like my grades were highly correlated with my effort and grasp of the class, and several of the people I have talked to agree. Is it a science? No. But it's hardly random either.

Just because you don't KNOW what the professor's grading sheet looks like doesn't mean there wasn't a defined grading mechanism.

sebastian0622
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:30 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby sebastian0622 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:08 pm

chrisbru wrote:You're reading into what I said. It was not an attack at you, it's what I feel like the majority of people who say "grades are totally random" are actually communicating. Sorry if you felt like that was directed at you, it wasn't.

Do I know within a narrow margin? No. But that doesn't mean grades are arbitrary, it means I don't know exactly what the professor expects. However, I do personally feel like my grades were highly correlated with my effort and grasp of the class, and several of the people I have talked to agree. Is it a science? No. But it's hardly random either.

Just because you don't KNOW what the professor's grading sheet looks like doesn't mean there wasn't a defined grading mechanism.


Fair enough. My response to your last two sentences is that a "defined grading mechanism" that varies by professor isn't necessarily fair to students when these varied, cryptic, hidden, and unpredictable standards can result in students losing their scholarships. I mean, I think we agree on 90% of what we're each saying; we're just interpreting it differently. You've acknowledged that professors have their own standards, that you might not know what those standards are / "don't know what the professor's grading sheet looks like," and can't predict your grade within a narrow margin when you take a test. I agree with all of that. You say grades are "hardly random," and I agree with that to some extent. Arbitrary and unpredictable, yes, but not random. (Russian roulette is not random either; it's just arbitrary and unpredictable, plus it has a "defined mechanism" for picking a winner...errr...loser.) You feel your grades are "highly-correlated with [your] effort and grasp of the class," which is the only thing I really disagree with. I think the correlation is low (I've gotten a 3.8+ in two different classes that I skipped half the time and barely spent any time on). So we agree on almost everything. The only difference is that I don't think anyone should trust their scholarship to the set of circumstances described above, whereas you seem to think the student has enough control over these things to take that risk. I can understand the position, and we won't get each other to agree. But I think it's a good discussion to have in the open so that others can read the factors and opinions.

User avatar
chrisbru
Posts: 4252
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby chrisbru » Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:18 pm

sebastian0622 wrote:Fair enough. My response to your last two sentences is that a "defined grading mechanism" that varies by professor isn't necessarily fair to students when these varied, cryptic, hidden, and unpredictable standards can result in students losing their scholarships. I mean, I think we agree on 90% of what we're each saying; we're just interpreting it differently. You've acknowledged that professors have their own standards, that you don't generally know what those standards are / "don't know what the professor's grading sheet looks like," and can't predict your grade within a narrow margin when you take a test. I agree with all of that. You say grades are "hardly random," and I agree with that to some extent. Arbitrary and unpredictable, yes, but not random. (Russian roulette is not random either; it's just arbitrary and unpredictable, plus it has a "defined mechanism" for picking a winner...errr...loser.) You feel your grades are "highly-correlated with [your] effort and grasp of the class," which is the only thing I really disagree with. I think the correlation is low. So we agree on almost everything. The only difference is that I don't think anyone should trust their scholarship to the set of circumstances described above, whereas you seem to think the student has enough control over these things to take that risk. I can understand the position, and we won't get each other to agree. But I think it's a good discussion to have in the open so that others can read the factors and opinions.



I don't like that you, a person I don't know, is trying to tell me that my personal view of how MY grades correlate with my effort and grasp of a subject is incorrect. Aside from that, I don't disagree with you.

It's definitely not something you can pick or rely on, so it depends on your situation. For me, even with the risk of losing a scholarship after one year, Iowa made the most sense as far as financial debt vs. career possibilities go. It won't be for everyone.

It's not likely that you're going to study well, understand the material, pay attention in class, and know how to write a law school and end up in the bottom half of the class. It is possible to do all of those things and lose your scholarship though.

User avatar
burndtscorcho
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:47 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby burndtscorcho » Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:32 pm

.... In other news, I just reserved a room at the Iowa house for ASD(s) in March. FYI if you mention that your coming for ASD, they'll give you a discount. Hope to see you all there for some legendary IC bar hopping.

lawschooliscool
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby lawschooliscool » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:13 pm

Anyone get in off the prelim waitlist

sebastian0622
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:30 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby sebastian0622 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:14 pm

chrisbru wrote:I don't like that you, a person I don't know, is trying to tell me that my personal view of how MY grades correlate with my effort and grasp of a subject is incorrect. Aside from that, I don't disagree with you.


I'm not saying your take is incorrect...for you. I was disagreeing about which of our opinions is more representative of law school grading as a whole. Just to clarify.

User avatar
typ3
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:04 am

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby typ3 » Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:50 am

sebastian0622 wrote:
chrisbru wrote:I don't like that you, a person I don't know, is trying to tell me that my personal view of how MY grades correlate with my effort and grasp of a subject is incorrect. Aside from that, I don't disagree with you.


I'm not saying your take is incorrect...for you. I was disagreeing about which of our opinions is more representative of law school grading as a whole. Just to clarify.


I mean it's all about sample size too. I'm sure the more law school exams you have the more random and arbitrary it seems if law school is actually like that. I know personally from last semester's grades the exams I did the worst on I felt like I absolutely dominated. The ones I felt like I sucked on and hardly spent any studying for I did the best on. So at least for me I do feel that exams are relatively random.

I think in general too because everything is based upon 4 hours of performance anyone can have a slightly off day and lose their scholarship or wind up going from a top grade to a mediocre or sub-par one. I mean shit, look at the LSAT people retake all the time and do double digits better on the second time because something came up during the first test administration.

lawschooliscool
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby lawschooliscool » Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:20 pm

lawschooliscool wrote:Anyone get in off the prelim waitlist


+1

northerniowan
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:33 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby northerniowan » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:14 pm

lawschooliscool wrote:
lawschooliscool wrote:Anyone get in off the prelim waitlist


+1



Not yet.

User avatar
somewherewarm
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:28 am

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby somewherewarm » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:33 pm

So who is going to the Admitted Students' Day? I know I am and I'm getting pretty excited. Hopefully we'll be able to meet some of the current students who have been so helpful on this forum like typ3 and chrisbru.

checkster
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:29 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby checkster » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:35 pm

Prelim waitlist. Oh well, wasn't excited about paying sticker anyway.

Anybody send LOCI?

User avatar
Ded Precedent
Posts: 767
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby Ded Precedent » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:38 pm

somewherewarm wrote:So who is going to the Admitted Students' Day? I know I am and I'm getting pretty excited. Hopefully we'll be able to meet some of the current students who have been so helpful on this forum like typ3 and chrisbru.

I'll be there but you won't know who I am.


(read that in a really creepy way)

User avatar
somewherewarm
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:28 am

Re: IOWA 2012

Postby somewherewarm » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:55 pm

Ded Precedent wrote:
somewherewarm wrote:So who is going to the Admitted Students' Day? I know I am and I'm getting pretty excited. Hopefully we'll be able to meet some of the current students who have been so helpful on this forum like typ3 and chrisbru.

I'll be there but you won't know who I am.


(read that in a really creepy way)


Haha in my head that was a phone call and you were wearing the mask from the movie Scream.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: genjustice, Google Adsense [Bot], lawlawland16, proteinshake and 13 guests