Below average softs Forum

[cron1834]

I actually find it mind blowing that they allow A+s to count as a 4.33 towards your LSAC gpa. It gives a patently unfair advantage

I think for med school A = A+ = 4.0. LSAC's way is a tad ridiculous, and exploiting it is a bit underhanded, but is that really different from choosing an easy major or easy professors/classes? We're going into law, a cutthroat world of bell curves and shrinking employment. If you can game the system to get an advantage you'd be stupid not to. And idk if you can call it unfair since you had the same opportunity to go to an A+ school, right?

It's very clearly an unfair policy. It makes apples-to-apples comparisons impossible. As stupid as the policy is, grade inflation and the existence of the A+ in the first place is worse.

[jkhalfa]

It's very clearly an unfair policy. It makes apples-to-apples comparisons impossible. As stupid as the policy is, grade inflation and the existence of the A+ in the first place is worse.

Grade deflation is like nuclear disarmament: we all agree inflation is bad, but who's going to be the first to deflate and put their students/business at risk?

[cron1834]

It's very clearly an unfair policy. It makes apples-to-apples comparisons impossible. As stupid as the policy is, grade inflation and the existence of the A+ in the first place is worse.

Grade deflation is like nuclear disarmament: we all agree inflation is bad, but who's going to be the first to deflate and put their students/business at risk?

The abolition of the A+ would be a good place to start

[jkhalfa]

I guess the jelly schools only give A's

[cron1834]

I don't know what you're saying here. If you're actually contending that this is a good status-quo, then there isn't much that can be said to you.

[jkhalfa]

It's good for me, that's all I care about. Some schools put people at a disadvantage, but that's life, you know? This is the system we live in... you can either rant about how unfair it is or exploit it to accomplish your goals.

[haus]

Maybe LSAC will start to recognize grades such as double plus good as worth even more points...

[ScottRiqui]

It's very clearly an unfair policy. It makes apples-to-apples comparisons impossible. As stupid as the policy is, grade inflation and the existence of the A+ in the first place is worse.

Grade deflation is like nuclear disarmament: we all agree inflation is bad, but who's going to be the first to deflate and put their students/business at risk?

I don't think we can address grade inflation any time soon, but would it kill LSAC to scale the GPAs depending on what the maximum possible GPA is that you could earn from the school? Just divide the student's GPA by the max, and multiply by 4.0. So if a student has a 4.0 average from a school where 4.0 is the max, they get a 4.0. But if a student has a 4.0 from a school where 4.3 is the max, it gets scaled to a 3.7.

Of course, two problems with this right off the bat - it's only fair if the max possible grade is the same for all of the student's classes during his undergrad career, and it's only fair if an "A+" isn't any harder to get in a class that offers it compared to the difficulty of getting an "A" in a class where "A" is the maximum grade.

[Tiago Splitter]

It's very clearly an unfair policy. It makes apples-to-apples comparisons impossible. As stupid as the policy is, grade inflation and the existence of the A+ in the first place is worse.

Grade deflation is like nuclear disarmament: we all agree inflation is bad, but who's going to be the first to deflate and put their students/business at risk?

I don't think we can address grade inflation any time soon, but would it kill LSAC to scale the GPAs depending on what the maximum possible GPA is that you could earn from the school? Just divide the student's GPA by the max, and multiply by 4.0. So if a student has a 4.0 average from a school where 4.0 is the max, they get a 4.0. But if a student has a 4.0 from a school where 4.3 is the max, it gets scaled to a 3.7.

Of course, two problems with this right off the bat - it's only fair if the max possible grade is the same for all of the student's classes during his undergrad career, and it's only fair if an "A+" isn't any harder to get in a class that offers it compared to the difficulty of getting an "A" in a class where "A" is the maximum grade.

Yeah this would screw most people at schools that give out the A+.

[jkhalfa]

would it kill LSAC to scale the GPAs depending on what the maximum possible GPA is that you could earn from the school?

That still wouldn't be fair because the prevalence of A+'s varies with department and professor.

First, not all profs give A+'s. The university grading scale is just a guideline for them, so if they don't believe in A+'s then you can't get them, even if that's part of the school's grade system.

Second, A+'s are most common in the humanities. Grade inflation there gives many mediocre students A's, so there needs to be some higher distinction for the truly exceptional students. On the other hand, it's almost impossible to get A+'s in some other departments because those A's actually do mean something. (This is based on my experience at my university, ymmv.) So, if you applied a scheme like yours to schools without accounting for major, it would bring down the liberal arts majors a bit, but at the cost of absolutely destroying the gpas of the engineering and hard science majors who never really had a chance to get that 4.33.

The only really good solution would be to adjust each applicant's gpa by school rigor, major difficulty, the individual classes and professors they had, etc., and we all know that isn't going to happen. Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

[ScottRiqui]

would it kill LSAC to scale the GPAs depending on what the maximum possible GPA is that you could earn from the school?

That still wouldn't be fair because the prevalence of A+'s varies with department and professor.

First, not all profs give A+'s. The university grading scale is just a guideline for them, so if they don't believe in A+'s then you can't get them, even if that's part of the school's grade system.

Second, A+'s are most common in the humanities. Grade inflation there gives many mediocre students A's, so there needs to be some higher distinction for the truly exceptional students. On the other hand, it's almost impossible to get A+'s in some other departments because those A's actually do mean something. (This is based on my experience at my university, ymmv.) So, if you applied a scheme like yours to schools without accounting for major, it would bring down the liberal arts majors a bit, but at the cost of absolutely destroying the gpas of the engineering and hard science majors who never really had a chance to get that 4.33.

The only really good solution would be to adjust each applicant's gpa by school rigor, major difficulty, the individual classes and professors they had, etc., and we all know that isn't going to happen. Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

Hey, I don't have a dog in this fight - my uGPA was so low it wouldn't have mattered what the grading scale was. I agree with your points, which is why I addressed them in my post. I agree that we're probably not going to see any wholesale changes in how undergrad GPAs are calculated by LSAC.

[jkhalfa]

Sorry if that seemed too combative.

[El Principe]

Meant to input earlier, but I'm currently applying this cycle, and I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that softs are a very important factor, especially for T14.

I got WLed @ Georgetown and NW, even though several other applicants with lower #s got through. Though you can never be sure, I can only imagine lack of significant softs hurt me in this process. It may not hurt you if your numbers are within the middle 50, but when you're on the borderline or have that splitter status, it can't hurt to have some good WE, leadership, and/or community service.