well well Forum

[koalacity]

Many top 20s grade INFLATE, and many state schools are absurdly difficult...

This must be why, in the Boalt internal study of how hard it is to get A's at various undergraduate institutions, the hardest 17 are all highly-ranked private schools, and the first "state school" (i.e. a state-funded school that is not highly ranked [i.e. UC Berkeley, UVA, etc. wouldn't count]) is #53:

tl;dr - yes, it is easier to get higher grades at certain schools, and those schools tend to be lower-ranked "state schools." Granted, private schools are represented in that category as well, but none of them are top 20.

HOWEVER...how would you explain your transfer to law schools?

And how the hell can already you know with any certainty that you want to go to law school? If you transfer but end up deciding law school isn't for you (or can't manage to get a good LSAT score), then you've graduated from Penn State instead of Vassar or w/e and are in a worse place for jobs.

I'd be interested to see the methodology that B used for that ranking. I know one of the top LACs that somehow ranked as quite difficult in Boalt's analysis is notorious for severe grade inflation-the administration of the school even admits as much.

Also, this is 100% anecdotal, but I went to a large public university, and while I didn't have to work especially hard for some As, there were some classes (especially within my PoliSci major, believe it or not) in which I barely pulled off an A even with a ton of hard work. There were multiple classes in my major in which (out of 100-200+ people) only 1 or 2 people got As.

I also agree that you'd need to have a plausible explanation for your transfer-otherwise it's going to look like that you couldn't attain a higher GPA at a better school and transferred to one perceived as easier just to pad your GPA, which is true, but doesn't reflect well on you. There would need to be other, legitimate reasons to transfer-i.e. lower cost of attendance, closer to family, etc.

Plus, previous posters have made a very good point about job placement from a top LAC vs. mediocre state school. Even if you are 100% certain about LS, what if you decide to take a few years off (which will help your chances at admission, among many other reasons to do so)? You will lose the alumni network, prestige, and (generally) more helpful career office by transferring to an "easier" school, and will almost certainly have a tougher time finding a job.

[Tiago Splitter]

I don't know whether lower ranked schools are easier. I think it's safe to say it won't always be the case. I'd also like the see how Berkeley came up with that, and I'd like the hear the conversation where the Swarthmore kid says he's at the toughest school to get A's at.

"We're an 89 dude. You can't compare."
"wut's 89 mean?"

The one thing I do know is that transferring will not be hard to explain to law school admissions committees. Money, geography, any number of reasons can be made up for why you had to transfer back to the state school. But I agree that the current school probably can get you places the state school can't if you decide not to go to law school, so I'd probably be against transferring.

[iamgeorgebush]

I'd be interested to see the methodology that B used for that ranking. I know one of the top LACs that somehow ranked as quite difficult in Boalt's analysis is notorious for severe grade inflation-the administration of the school even admits as much.

I have no info about their methodology, but which school are you referring to? Substantial grade inflation has been ubiquitous over the past century. That's at all schools, even ones near the top of Boalt's list like Williams, Duke, and Chicago. Average GPAs have risen across the board...by a lot. Any school that does not admit this is full of shit.

[wiz]

Who cares if top schools have a higher degree of grade inflation than lower-ranked schools? It isn't always the case that a lower-ranked school is easier than a higher-ranked school, but saying one school has a median GPA of a 3.4 while another has a median GPA of 2.8 doesn't mean anything. You're comparing entering class profiles of, say, 2250 SAT/3.9 GPA with 1500/3.0.

A lot of Ivies have median GPAs around 3.4. That doesn't tell you anything about the difficulty or ease of getting As at those schools. When the caliber of student is so high and a lot of students are clustered around a B+, getting close to a 4.0 can be absurdly hard.

Maybe it's easier to get a B at a top school, but saying that it's easier to get an A and citing "grade inflation" is dumb.


Also, OP, as I said before, transfer only if you're positive you want to go to law school. Your transferring won't be a big deal for admissions committees. At all. Students transfer all the time, and there are so many good reasons you can use, starting with $$$.

[midwest17]

"state school" (i.e. a state-funded school that is not highly ranked [i.e. UC Berkeley, UVA, etc. wouldn't count])

This is a silly definition of "state school."

[midnight_circus]

I find the prospect of switching schools for the chance of getting a higher gpa personally horrifying, but that is somewhat beside the point.

If OP isn't willing to work, I have no idea why he is applying to law school in the first place. He's complaining about smart people and high expectations! If intelligent students and a nasty curve are not OP's cup of tea, I firmly recommend he do pretty much anything else instead of going to law school, which is notorious for having those exact "problems."

My advice: push hard and apply with a 3.7, or as high as you can get it. Better that than writing an addendum saying you transferred because you couldn't hack it and bailed after two years.

For full disclosure, I chose to go to a very highly ranked institution instead of my well-regarded state u and I came out of it a splitter. Zero regrets.

ETA: And OP, PLEASE don't spend the next 2-3 summers in summer school in a transparent attempt to pad your gpa. If you must do this, only do 1 class and get some work experience. Intern. Something. Make sure law is what you actually want to do with your life before you give up some of your best ug w/e time to taking useless poli sci courses just to have more A's on your transcript. And even if you do manage to overcome your aversion to intelligence/expectations/effort and graduate from law school, having w/e will look much better to an employer than having a slightly higher UG gpa.

[wiz]

I find the prospect of switching schools for the chance of getting a higher gpa personally horrifying, but that is somewhat beside the point.

If OP isn't willing to work, I have no idea why he is applying to law school in the first place. He's complaining about smart people and high expectations! If intelligent students and a nasty curve are not OP's cup of tea, I firmly recommend he do pretty much anything else instead of going to law school, which is notorious for having those exact "problems."

My advice: push hard and apply with a 3.7, or as high as you can get it. Better that than writing an addendum saying you transferred because you couldn't hack it and bailed after two years.

Why horrifying? Law school is a numbers game. Had I known what I know now, I would've played the game better.

Going to an easier school, if OP can find one, will have zero impact on his/her ability to perform in law school.

I'm pretty sure OP wouldn't write an addendum saying, "Oh hai, admissions committee. I transferred down because I didn't feel like working hard. But now I have a 3.9 cumulative, so plz accept. Kthxbai."

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[DrStudMuffin]

I find the prospect of switching schools for the chance of getting a higher gpa personally horrifying, but that is somewhat beside the point.

If OP isn't willing to work, I have no idea why he is applying to law school in the first place. He's complaining about smart people and high expectations! If intelligent students and a nasty curve are not OP's cup of tea, I firmly recommend he do pretty much anything else instead of going to law school, which is notorious for having those exact "problems."

My advice: push hard and apply with a 3.7, or as high as you can get it. Better that than writing an addendum saying you transferred because you couldn't hack it and bailed after two years.

For full disclosure, I chose to go to a very highly ranked institution instead of my well-regarded state u and I came out of it a splitter. Zero regrets.

ETA: And OP, PLEASE don't spend the next 2-3 summers in summer school in a transparent attempt to pad your gpa. If you must do this, only do 1 class and get some work experience. Intern. Something. Make sure law is what you actually want to do with your life before you give up some of your best ug w/e time to taking useless poli sci courses just to have more A's on your transcript. And even if you do manage to overcome your aversion to intelligence/expectations/effort and graduate from law school, having w/e will look much better to an employer than having a slightly higher UG gpa.

So you went to a top UG, presumably worked hard, and are still a splitter? Doesn't your experience just legitimize OP's concern? (also note OP never said they didn't work hard)

There are a lot of benefits to attending a top UG, and I still wouldn't recommend transferring, but if we're looking at things from the law school admissions perspective, it makes sense to go to a UG where getting a high GPA is doable.

I do agree with you re: not just doing summer school and getting some actual work experience, but I also think it's pretty reasonable to intern somewhere and take 2 easy CC classes simultaneously.

[DrStudMuffin]

"state school" (i.e. a state-funded school that is not highly ranked [i.e. UC Berkeley, UVA, etc. wouldn't count])

This is a silly definition of "state school."

110% agree. A state school is a public and state funded school, end of story. University of CALIFORNIA at Berkeley and University of VIRGINIA= state schools. That's as stupid an argument as those "public ivy" ones some people say at William and Mary and UNC. Also, USNWR is hardly the infallible ranking system you think it is. Just because your school is ranked by these arbitrary numbers, does not mean it has grade deflation.

I think OP is a deluded, immature child who has decided it's too hard, so he wants to go somewhere where his GPA can get higher without any work. It horrifies me how many people on this board prefer shortcuts rather than take responsibilities for their actions and put forth genuine effort. I also do not buy Boalt's stupid little ranking. I know a ton of people at Duke who comment on the severe grade inflation in some majors. I also have had a couple professors who have literally never given an A.

OP, if you are intimidated by "smarter" fellow students, then I think the only thing to do is to go to Cooley. Any other law school is going to have these "smart" students, and you'll get your feelings hurt when you don't graduate at the top of the class.

Aren't you the dude who made the thread asking if your softs could overcome your 3.79 at HYS? Lol.

[midnight_circus]

Why horrifying? Law school is a numbers game. Had I known what I know now, I would've played the game better.

So you went to a top UG, presumably worked hard, and are still a splitter? Doesn't your experience just legitimize OP's concern?

I deliberately did not frame my ug experience as "heading to law school, how can I maximize my chances for that?"--which I will say right here is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable way to do things--but rather as "I'm in college now, how can I maximize this?" For example, I took grad seminars in history starting as an sophomore. In most of them, I got Bs, but I learned way more in them than in most of the undergrad classes. I valued the learning for its own sake. (I'd have to--what other reason could there be to major in something as generally un-employable as history? ) To top it off, an extremely well-respected prof agreed to be my thesis advisor because I was willing to be the only undergrad in his class as a sophomore, despite the very real threat of not getting an A. I was also surrounded by absolutely brilliant people. Wouldn't have given that up for anything.

I strive to challenge myself (which requires a willingness to work hard) and I prefer learning interesting material and being around intelligent people to getting perfect grades. Could I do without the anxiety of being a splitter? Hell yes. Would I play it differently? No, probably not. The experience I had at my UG is more valuable to me than the employment % differences between YHS and NYU, Michigan, Northwestern, or Duke, which, even if I were not URM, myLSN says would most likely admit me. OP and I don't seem to see eye-to-eye on this one.

Going to an easier school, if OP can find one, will have zero impact on his/her ability to perform in law school.

I do agree that the quality of his ug won't affect his ability to succeed in law school. I would disagree if you claimed that his seeming disposition toward a lack of personal responsibility and unwillingness to challenge himself won't affect his ability to succeed in law school.

(also note OP never said they didn't work hard)

This is true and fair. OP may work hard. But wanting to run away from "smart students" and "high expectations" so he can be somewhere easier, where he doesn't have to work as hard, is not exactly a characteristic I'd encourage in future lawyers/law school students. I think we're all going into this with our eyes open--this shit is going to be hard. OP needs to get over not being the smartest in his class, because he won't be. He isn't even guaranteed that if he goes to a TTTT with dreadful employment outcomes. I stand by my belief that if OP can't find a way to motivate himself to work harder and achieve some degree of success, he should consider a different post-grad environment than law school. Or he should get a 99th percentile LSAT and go to Northwestern, who (according to TLS) apparently took everyone, even sub-3.0s, with a 170+ last cycle and quit complaining about high expectations.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Isn't that Boalt study from around 2000? Or have they updated it?

[RoaringMice]

You can't guarantee that if you transfer, that 1) the new school would be easier for you, or that 2) your GPA would actually go up. What might be better would be to stay where you are and use the experience you've gained there, your knowledge of that school's system, to boost your GPA. For example, choose your major, and your professors, wisely. Pick a major you can do very, very well in - and that may not be poli sci. And do research on your profs before you sign up for their classes.

And note that the flagship public unis in each state often have a lot of highly intelligent students, so just because Penn State isn't ranked as well as, say... Vassar, that doesn't mean it'll be easier to get good grades there. As the best public school in PA, you will find that a lot of really smart students picked that school because it makes financial sense for them to do so, and you'll be up against those students. In addition, especially in schools where the classes tend to be large, it can be hard to get good grades, because you may only be given 1-2 assessments per course per term - for example, your entire grade for the class may be based on one midterm and one final, period. If the assessment methods in the classes you take don't play to your strengths, or if something happens and you don't do well on the only exam you're given that entire term... This type of grading is, in my observation, more commonly occurring at the big state schools.

So be cautious in your assumption that by transferring to ASU or similar, you'll do better, simply because ASU is lower ranked than your current school. You may do better there. But you might not. If you do decide to transfer in order to try to boost your GPA, pick your next school wisely. Do your research. Assume nothing. Pick a school which suits you - and that may not be the Rutgers/Penn State/Arizona States of the world.

[afitouri]

Actually, prestigious schools are some of the most notorious for grade inflation in their liberal arts programs.

The key to success in any school, prestigious or not, is making sure to choose professors that grade people highly and taking as many classes with them as possible. No way around it.

[Straw_Mandible]

This is true and fair. OP may work hard. But wanting to run away from "smart students" and "high expectations" so he can be somewhere easier, where he doesn't have to work as hard, is not exactly a characteristic I'd encourage in future lawyers/law school students. I think we're all going into this with our eyes open--this shit is going to be hard. OP needs to get over not being the smartest in his class, because he won't be. He isn't even guaranteed that if he goes to a TTTT with dreadful employment outcomes. I stand by my belief that if OP can't find a way to motivate himself to work harder and achieve some degree of success, he should consider a different post-grad environment than law school. Or he should get a 99th percentile LSAT and go to Northwestern, who (according to TLS) apparently took everyone, even sub-3.0s, with a 170+ last cycle and quit complaining about high expectations.

Yes, but at HYS, OP would not need to be the best student in his class in order to have outstanding employment options. At a lower ranked school, this is not always the case. It's arguably a better move, then, to sacrifice high competition for high grades in UG in order to be in the position to get into the best law school possible, rather than to embrace a middling GPA at a competitive UG for the sake of some sort of unquantifiable level of personal growth.

[iamgeorgebush]

Who cares if top schools have a higher degree of grade inflation than lower-ranked schools? It isn't always the case that a lower-ranked school is easier than a higher-ranked school, but saying one school has a median GPA of a 3.4 while another has a median GPA of 2.8 doesn't mean anything. You're comparing entering class profiles of, say, 2250 SAT/3.9 GPA with 1500/3.0.

A lot of Ivies have median GPAs around 3.4. That doesn't tell you anything about the difficulty or ease of getting As at those schools. When the caliber of student is so high and a lot of students are clustered around a B+, getting close to a 4.0 can be absurdly hard.

Maybe it's easier to get a B at a top school, but saying that it's easier to get an A and citing "grade inflation" is dumb.


Also, OP, as I said before, transfer only if you're positive you want to go to law school. Your transferring won't be a big deal for admissions committees. At all. Students transfer all the time, and there are so many good reasons you can use, starting with $$$.

If this is response to my posts, I don't think you are understanding my point. My point is that grade inflation (meaning the rise in grades over time, like inflation of the value of a currency) has been happening across the board, not just at any particular tier of schools. The implication of this is that koalacity's claim that one particular LAC has grade inflation is irrelevant, because grade inflation is a fact for all schools, from Penn State to Harvard.

"state school" (i.e. a state-funded school that is not highly ranked [i.e. UC Berkeley, UVA, etc. wouldn't count])

This is a silly definition of "state school."

Maybe so, but OP was pondering transferring to a state school of the type that fits my definition. He wasn't talking about transferring to UC Berkeley, UVA, etc.

Isn't that Boalt study from around 2000? Or have they updated it?

Yeah it is from sometime around 2000. It's probably out of date to some degree, but I imagine the overarching trends remain true.

[iamgeorgebush]

Actually, prestigious schools are some of the most notorious for grade inflation in their liberal arts programs.

Notoriety aside, what evidence is there for this actually being true?

BTW, regarding the methodology of the Boalt study, if I recall correctly they considered a) median uGPA among applicants to Boalt compared to median LSAT, and b) how well the students fared in their 1L years at Boalt. Someone would have to check on that though.

[wiz]

Who cares if top schools have a higher degree of grade inflation than lower-ranked schools? It isn't always the case that a lower-ranked school is easier than a higher-ranked school, but saying one school has a median GPA of a 3.4 while another has a median GPA of 2.8 doesn't mean anything. You're comparing entering class profiles of, say, 2250 SAT/3.9 GPA with 1500/3.0.

A lot of Ivies have median GPAs around 3.4. That doesn't tell you anything about the difficulty or ease of getting As at those schools. When the caliber of student is so high and a lot of students are clustered around a B+, getting close to a 4.0 can be absurdly hard.

Maybe it's easier to get a B at a top school, but saying that it's easier to get an A and citing "grade inflation" is dumb.


Also, OP, as I said before, transfer only if you're positive you want to go to law school. Your transferring won't be a big deal for admissions committees. At all. Students transfer all the time, and there are so many good reasons you can use, starting with $$$.

If this is response to my posts, I don't think you are understanding my point. My point is that grade inflation (meaning the rise in grades over time, like inflation of the value of a currency) has been happening across the board, not just at any particular tier of schools. The implication of this is that koalacity's claim that one particular LAC has grade inflation is irrelevant, because grade inflation is a fact for all schools, from Penn State to Harvard.

That wasn't a response to your post. I'm pretty sure we're on the same side (or similar sides).

It was directed at posts like these:

Actually, prestigious schools are some of the most notorious for grade inflation in their liberal arts programs.

[wiz]

Why horrifying? Law school is a numbers game. Had I known what I know now, I would've played the game better.

So you went to a top UG, presumably worked hard, and are still a splitter? Doesn't your experience just legitimize OP's concern?

I deliberately did not frame my ug experience as "heading to law school, how can I maximize my chances for that?"--which I will say right here is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable way to do things--but rather as "I'm in college now, how can I maximize this?" For example, I took grad seminars in history starting as an sophomore. In most of them, I got Bs, but I learned way more in them than in most of the undergrad classes. I valued the learning for its own sake. (I'd have to--what other reason could there be to major in something as generally un-employable as history? ) To top it off, an extremely well-respected prof agreed to be my thesis advisor because I was willing to be the only undergrad in his class as a sophomore, despite the very real threat of not getting an A. I was also surrounded by absolutely brilliant people. Wouldn't have given that up for anything.

I strive to challenge myself (which requires a willingness to work hard) and I prefer learning interesting material and being around intelligent people to getting perfect grades. Could I do without the anxiety of being a splitter? Hell yes. Would I play it differently? No, probably not. The experience I had at my UG is more valuable to me than the employment % differences between YHS and NYU, Michigan, Northwestern, or Duke, which, even if I were not URM, myLSN says would most likely admit me. OP and I don't seem to see eye-to-eye on this one.

.

[IgosduIkana]

For full disclosure, I chose to go to a very highly ranked institution instead of my well-regarded state u and I came out of it a splitter. Zero regrets.

Good for you. You did this for yourself, no one is going to give you a prize for challenging yourself.


Somebody played the numbers game at an easier school, got better numbers than you for lesser effort, and got into a better law school than you. The same thing will happen to me. No glory or honor in that.

[midnight_circus]

Are you bored of hearing about me yet, or should we continue circlejerking?

Oh please. I originally stated that I found it personally horrifying but that my thoughts on that matter were beside the point. I answered his query in non-personal terms. But you asked, so I answered--with my (previously admitted to be irrelevant) personal experience/thoughts on the value of education beyond gaming your gpa to get in to law school. No reason to be grumpy about my "special snowflake"-ness. Taking advanced classes and having an enriching intellectual experience isn't in any way unusual. OP has that routes open to him. Then he can be special too.

I'm happy you value the seminars you took and the thesis you wrote, and that's great. But judging by your profile, you're already likely in at all of HYS with $$$ for the rest of the T14 despite being a splitter, so it looks like everything worked out well for you.

Encouraging the OP to follow a similar path as you in undergrad, when that path will presumably lead to different results, seems disingenuous.

Yeah, my profile is unique. Thanks for pointing that out since, for all that you implied I'm a masturbatory special snowflake, I didn't. I do hope you are correct about my upcoming cycle, but I was in no way being disingenuous. Did I say that OP could be less concerned about his gpa if he were a high-scoring urm? No. (And for the record, I don't believe that at all.) I said that he could have a worthwhile academic experience at his current difficult ug, keep or hopefully improve his gpa and, with a great lsat score, go to several of the t14s. I was being entirely sincere when I said I would rather have had my ug experience and Duke law than have gone to my state u, deliberately attempted to maximize my gpa by taking easy classes, and Harvard law. I'd have to hustle harder for a job, but I wouldn't exactly be consigning myself to a coin's-toss chance of gainful employment. For me, that would be worth it. Maybe for you/OP it isn't, and that's fine.

Regardless, my initial argument still stands. An aversion to intelligent peers, high expectations, and competitive curves does not bode well. OP should get over it and figure out how to do well in spite of those obstacles, because they will not go away in law school.

[hcrimson2014]

Hi! I am a sophomore studying in a top 20 LAC right now.
I got 3.4ish gpa in my first year, which is pretty disappointing. I think I got this grade because everyone is smart here and professors expectations are demanding too.
I am thinking about transferring to a lower-tier state school in my third year such as Arizona U, Penn State.. I also plan to go to summer schools. I am hoping to pad my gpa in this way. If this is not enough, I am willing to study in college for another year(graduate in 5 years) and in the meantime go to another summer school.
Does this sounds like a plan? should I transfer to another easier university?
advice plz!!!

You will be unpleasantly surprised if you think transferring to a less prestigious school is going to increase your GPA. I don't know what school you go to and how the grade inflation/deflation is there, if any, but you gotta look in the mirror and realize that somebody is getting a higher GPA, so it is possible for you to get better grades. Grades are going to matter (for the most part) when you go to law school and are competing for jobs. You think you won't be around smart students and demanding professors?

Sorry if this comes off a little strong, but I am huge proponent of just accepting personal responsibility for things and hate when people blame things they can control on others. Also, the notion that attending some Top 20 whatever school means that you would get way better grades at a "lower-tier state school" is ridiculous.

To echo the above poster, CAL, supposedly the most prestigious UC campus, had a GPA median at 3.20, whereas the GPA median for UCSD was something like 3.01 while Harvard college, the YLS of undergrad education, actually boasted a gpa median close to 3.5. Many less prestigious institutions actually implement harder curves than the more renowned ones. So you need to do the necessary research, transferring from Harvard to Duke probably won't make an impact on your grades.

[midwest17]

"state school" (i.e. a state-funded school that is not highly ranked [i.e. UC Berkeley, UVA, etc. wouldn't count])

This is a silly definition of "state school."

Maybe so, but OP was pondering transferring to a state school of the type that fits my definition. He wasn't talking about transferring to UC Berkeley, UVA, etc.

Doesn't change the fact that this is not what "state school" means, or that using "state school" in this way makes you look unnecessarily elitist.

This should be particularly obvious on this board, given that many of the top law schools are state schools and most of the really really bad schools are private.

[wiz]

Are you bored of hearing about me yet, or should we continue circlejerking?

Oh please. I originally stated that I found it personally horrifying but that my thoughts on that matter were beside the point. I answered his query in non-personal terms. But you asked, so I answered--with my (previously admitted to be irrelevant) personal experience/thoughts on the value of education beyond gaming your gpa to get in to law school. No reason to be grumpy about my "special snowflake"-ness. Taking advanced classes and having an enriching intellectual experience isn't in any way unusual. OP has that routes open to him. Then he can be special too.

I'm happy you value the seminars you took and the thesis you wrote, and that's great. But judging by your profile, you're already likely in at all of HYS with $$$ for the rest of the T14 despite being a splitter, so it looks like everything worked out well for you.

Encouraging the OP to follow a similar path as you in undergrad, when that path will presumably lead to different results, seems disingenuous.

I was being entirely sincere when I said I would rather have had my ug experience and Duke law than have gone to my state u, deliberately attempted to maximize my gpa by taking easy classes, and Harvard law. I'd have to hustle harder for a job, but I wouldn't exactly be consigning myself to a coin's-toss chance of gainful employment. For me, that would be worth it. Maybe for you/OP it isn't, and that's fine.

Regardless, my initial argument still stands. An aversion to intelligent peers, high expectations, and competitive curves does not bode well. OP should get over it and figure out how to do well in spite of those obstacles, because they will not go away in law school.

You're a 0L and presumably unaware of the significant number of students who strike out at T14s, so it's expected that you would say you'd be okay with Duke over Harvard, particularly when you're already a lock at Harvard.

I don't think OP is necessarily averse to surrounding himself or herself with intelligent people. S/he's thinking about getting into the best law school possible. While those obstacles won't go away in law school, attending a crappier law school, where OP will be exposed to those same obstacles but with a lower margin for error, will make finding a job even harder.

[midnight_circus]

True enough, I am a 0L. Accusing me of ignorance is vastly different than accusing me of being disingenuous, and a criticism I am more than happy to accept.

ETA:I just looked it up to make sure I wasn't too far off-base and (although they were simply meant as examples and we really do not need to continue arguing about this) according to LST score reports, Harvard's employment score is 87.1% and Duke's is only 85.3%. As an ignorant 0L, I stand by my statement that my ug was worth that 2%.