Few Princeton Students in Law School? Forum

[Jeffro]

But hell, I earned those F's fair and square, no one handed them to me.

Unless you went to an Ivy, then those F's were forced upon you because you're entitled to borderline free A's.

Then yeah, I definitely earned them.

[r6_philly]

The reason should be that not everyone can be doing the same level of "A" work. Someone's "A" work will be not as good as someone else's "A" work. That second person should get the A, the first should get a B, for instance. Repeat as necessary in order to restore some semblance of competition to separate the wheat from the chaff even further than just "admissions being the quality control."

The point of a college education is to prepare you for a career. So if a top school has a 95% placement rate (for example), it is counter productive to grade the bottom 25% into Cs and penalizing them - employers are going to perceive them as bad students.

You can curve to a A- and still be able to distinguish rank. Like DF said, if you want to differentiate the extraordinary students for the prestigious employers, use rank, not letter grade. I think top law schools get this point.

[whymeohgodno]

There are duds, yes--not many, but enough that you see them from time to time. Many of them are kids who did fantastically in high school but have begun to manifest serious mental health issues as they enter their early 20s.

And yes, the ceiling effect of grade inflation can be unfortunate for those at the very very top. But there are still plenty of ways for people to distinguish themselves in job applications.

Maybe the top schools just aren't very hard. High school is a joke compared to top engineering and law programs. Smart and lazy earns you A's in high school. It earns you B-'s and C's in engineering school. Dunno about law school.

Still lazy?

[AreJay711]

Regardless of the grading curves, from my experience, the quality of students are undeniably better at Ivies and I honestly think that people that slacked off in H.S. (like me) should have more to prove when earning their grades in college against less overall competition.

And what, pray tell, is your extensive experience that informs your distinction between the the quality of students at Ivies and non-Ivies?

I know a few people at Penn and several from another very good private school (not Ivy but still good) and just from spending time there v.s. the people at my school they are as a whole more intelligent... or pretentious and simply trying to appear intelligent. I also went to a very good non-ivy school (which I'm sure isn't head and shoulders above ivies) before I transfered to my current school after quiting football and same deal, way smarter as a whole. This doesn't apply to like an Ivy vs. Duke, Berkeley, or UVA for example but for the majority of people in regional state schools I think it does.

At the top idk if it is as big a difference but when only 4/30 people in a international economics class know what the theory of second best says before an exam when it was in the assigned reading then I am certain I am not dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[whymeohgodno]

Regardless of the grading curves, from my experience, the quality of students are undeniably better at Ivies and I honestly think that people that slacked off in H.S. (like me) should have more to prove when earning their grades in college against less overall competition.

And what, pray tell, is your extensive experience that informs your distinction between the the quality of students at Ivies and non-Ivies?

I know a few people at Penn and several from another very good private school (not Ivy but still good) and just from spending time there v.s. the people at my school they are as a whole more intelligent... or pretentious and simply trying to appear intelligent. I also went to a very good non-ivy school (which I'm sure isn't head and shoulders above ivies) before I transfered to my current school after quiting football and same deal, way smarter as a whole. This doesn't apply to like an Ivy vs. Duke, Berkeley, or UVA for example but for the majority of people in regional state schools I think it does.

At the top idk if it is as big a difference but when only 4/30 people in a international economics class know what the theory of second best says before an exam when it was in the assigned reading then I am certain I am not dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Liberal arts probably has the biggest dropoff between ranks.

[tgir]

The reason should be that not everyone can be doing the same level of "A" work. Someone's "A" work will be not as good as someone else's "A" work. That second person should get the A, the first should get a B, for instance. Repeat as necessary in order to restore some semblance of competition to separate the wheat from the chaff even further than just "admissions being the quality control."

The point of a college education is to prepare you for a career. So if a top school has a 95% placement rate (for example), it is counter productive to grade the bottom 25% into Cs and penalizing them - employers are going to perceive them as bad students.

You can curve to a A- and still be able to distinguish rank. Like DF said, if you want to differentiate the extraordinary students for the prestigious employers, use rank, not letter grade. I think top law schools get this point.

True, but rank becomes more statistically arbitrary as the distribution of grades narrows. The reliability shrinks.

Also, as far as employers are concerned, many schools don't release rank on transcripts.

Of course, thankfully LSAC keeps its own records, but I highly doubt that top schools completely ignore GPA in favor of class rank, given that GPA is published everywhere, including USNWR.

[whymeohgodno]

The reason should be that not everyone can be doing the same level of "A" work. Someone's "A" work will be not as good as someone else's "A" work. That second person should get the A, the first should get a B, for instance. Repeat as necessary in order to restore some semblance of competition to separate the wheat from the chaff even further than just "admissions being the quality control."

The point of a college education is to prepare you for a career. So if a top school has a 95% placement rate (for example), it is counter productive to grade the bottom 25% into Cs and penalizing them - employers are going to perceive them as bad students.

You can curve to a A- and still be able to distinguish rank. Like DF said, if you want to differentiate the extraordinary students for the prestigious employers, use rank, not letter grade. I think top law schools get this point.

True, but rank becomes more statistically arbitrary as the distribution of grades narrows. The reliability shrinks.

Also, as far as employers are concerned, many schools don't release rank on transcripts.

Of course, thankfully LSAC keeps its own records, but I highly doubt that top schools completely ignore GPA in favor of class rank, given that GPA is published everywhere, including USNWR.

Those devils.

[r6_philly]

Those devils.

Well it's a fun debate ... all I know is, the vast majority of jobs in this world are so mindless, you can forget everything you learned in college save for reading/writing and still do ok at them. So 5, 10, 15, 20 years into your career, the only thing from UG that matters is who you met, and how big/powerful/rich is your alumni network. Can't beat an Ivy or any of the top public in this regard.

How long do we need grades for in professional career? 3 years? 5 years? The only time it really matters is when you are fresh out of college. But if you go to a top UG, you are almost guaranteed a really great job at a job. So why do you need a GPA? Why do your top school need to give you Cs instead of Bs?

They should just get ride of grades and move into a academic point system. As long as you don't earn negative points you will graduate. Earn pluses to get honors. There.

[mths]

few law students in Princeton*

[09042014]

There are duds, yes--not many, but enough that you see them from time to time. Many of them are kids who did fantastically in high school but have begun to manifest serious mental health issues as they enter their early 20s.

And yes, the ceiling effect of grade inflation can be unfortunate for those at the very very top. But there are still plenty of ways for people to distinguish themselves in job applications.

Maybe the top schools just aren't very hard. High school is a joke compared to top engineering and law programs. Smart and lazy earns you A's in high school. It earns you B-'s and C's in engineering school. Dunno about law school.

Still lazy?

On TLS 36 hours before my final.

I did all the reading, have outlines, went to 85% of the classes, but I'd say I'm probably below median in work ethic.

The material in law school is easy as hell. Writing a better test than everyone else is the hard part. My completely unsupported theory is that there is minimal work required to know the material. But near everyone at law school does that much. The skills part is the hard one. We'll see.

[r6_philly]

On TLS 36 before my final.

I did all the reading, have outlines, went to 85% of the classes, but I'd say I'm probably below median in work ethic.

The material in law school is easy as hell. Writing a better test than everyone else is the hard part. My completely unsupported theory is that there is minimal work required to know the material. But near everyone at law school does that much. The skills part is the hard one. We'll see.

Let me know how you do. I am really curious after everyone trying to warn me that it's hard to do well on law school. You included.

Good luck!

[whymeohgodno]

There are duds, yes--not many, but enough that you see them from time to time. Many of them are kids who did fantastically in high school but have begun to manifest serious mental health issues as they enter their early 20s.

And yes, the ceiling effect of grade inflation can be unfortunate for those at the very very top. But there are still plenty of ways for people to distinguish themselves in job applications.

Maybe the top schools just aren't very hard. High school is a joke compared to top engineering and law programs. Smart and lazy earns you A's in high school. It earns you B-'s and C's in engineering school. Dunno about law school.

Still lazy?

On TLS 36 hours before my final.

I did all the reading, have outlines, went to 85% of the classes, but I'd say I'm probably below median in work ethic.

The material in law school is easy as hell. Writing a better test than everyone else is the hard part. My completely unsupported theory is that there is minimal work required to know the material. But near everyone at law school does that much. The skills part is the hard one. We'll see.

Who cares. Aren't you aiming for IP? Graduate at median and $$$??

[09042014]

Who cares. Aren't you aiming for IP? Graduate at median and $$$??

There are firms that care about engineering credentials. And there are firms that care about law school credentials. My engineering one's are fairly bad, 2.8, but from a good school in an in demand major.

Good engineering bad law = job

good law bad engineering = job

bad engineering and bad law =?

I don't really want to find out what happens then.

[whymeohgodno]

Who cares. Aren't you aiming for IP? Graduate at median and $$$??

There are firms that care about engineering credentials. And there are firms that care about law school credentials. My engineering one's are fairly bad, 2.8, but from a good school in an in demand major.

Good engineering bad law = job

good law bad engineering = job

bad engineering and bad law =?

I don't really want to find out what happens then.

Do they really care that much? There is some 2L on TLS who goes to GW. He said he had a 2.9 undergrad GPA and was only at median for law school but already has a biglaw job lined up.

[09042014]

Who cares. Aren't you aiming for IP? Graduate at median and $$$??

There are firms that care about engineering credentials. And there are firms that care about law school credentials. My engineering one's are fairly bad, 2.8, but from a good school in an in demand major.

Good engineering bad law = job

good law bad engineering = job

bad engineering and bad law =?

I don't really want to find out what happens then.

Do they really care that much? There is some 2L on TLS who goes to GW. He said he had a 2.9 undergrad GPA and was only at median for law school but already has a biglaw job lined up.

It's a firm by firm thing. I know of at least one firm who probably wouldn't hire me if I 4.0'd 1L. Some won't even check my transcript. But the later usually care more about grades.

If I get median I'm probably fine. But I aimed for median and hit bottom third in undergrad. And really, law school is only hard work from about two weeks before finals until the end of finals. It's not worth it to totally slack.

Furthermore everyone here is pretty damn smart. Difference between median and bottom 20% probably isn't huge.

[JG Hall]

Acing high school is a lot easier than college work.

Then why don't more people do it and go to better schools?

I went to a big research (ostensibly middling though probably perceived a bit better) university and I've got to say, in the 1000 level classes, people were idiots. Most of my friends from freshmen year were posterchildren for a mediocre mind. (Note: I didn't get into HYP; hell, I didn't apply to HYP. My debt-averseness was insane. I'm wasn't paying sticker for fucking Cornell, and I took the money and ran.) Example: I'm not good a biology. The way I took tests in AP bio was something akin to eenie-meenie. I didn't even open the book past the second week of school. And then I set the curve in a 100+ person intro bio class in college. I'm sorry, this is not indicative of my science abilities, but of the idiocy of my classmates.

Now I'm not saying that there aren't dumbasses at ivies. 50% of the class is athletes, legacies, and some URMs (blahAAblahdebateblahwompwomp). But that other 50%... well, if the people I've met in law school (and beyond) are any indication (and there's a chance that they're not, since I guess CLS attracts a certain breed), then they're way smarter than the people in my UG.

(Although there is something to be said for people who do well out of big schools. Chances are, they didn't go there because they did poorly in high school, at least SAT-wise. They probably took the money too.)

[im_blue]

Acing high school is a lot easier than college work.

I went to a big research (ostensibly middling though probably perceived a bit better) university and I've got to say, in the 1000 level classes, people were idiots. Most of my friends from freshmen year were posterchildren for a mediocre mind. (Note: I didn't get into HYP; hell, I didn't apply to HYP. My debt-averseness was insane. I'm wasn't paying sticker for fucking Cornell, and I took the money and ran.) Example: I'm not good a biology. The way I took tests in AP bio was something akin to eenie-meenie. I didn't even open the book past the second week of school. And then I set the curve in a 100+ person intro bio class in college. I'm sorry, this is not indicative of my science abilities, but of the idiocy of my classmates.

Why did you have to go that far down for UG money? Lots of decent UGs like USC and UT give half or full rides for National Merit Finalists.

[Wade LeBosh]

Then why don't more people do it and go to better schools?

Because you're 14 years old.

few law students in Princeton*

+1

[notanumber]

Regardless of the grading curves, from my experience, the quality of students are undeniably better at Ivies and I honestly think that people that slacked off in H.S. (like me) should have more to prove when earning their grades in college against less overall competition.

And what, pray tell, is your extensive experience that informs your distinction between the the quality of students at Ivies and non-Ivies?

I've taught courses at both an Ivy-caliber school and a commuter school. Almost all of the students at the "good" school would be near the top of the class at the commuter school if I were grading the students using the same standard. There are people at the commuter school who could certainly hold their own at the good school (and some would even dominate) and there is the occasional flake or functional illiterate at the good school, but overall the students at the good school perform at a far higher standard. I don't curve my classes and the grades I give out at the "good" school are always much higher, despite usually teaching more sophisticated and complex material and giving tougher assignments.

[sperry]

I will throw out this small sample size, anecdotal evidence:


From my section, HYPS grads were way overrepresented on law review. In fact, I'm pretty sure that every HYPS grad in my section except one made law review, and that person was definitely one of the smartest in the section, just a little out there. I can't think of anyone on law review from my section who went to a school outside of the T25.

[whymeohgodno]

I will throw out this small sample size, anecdotal evidence:


From my section, HYPS grads were way overrepresented on law review. In fact, I'm pretty sure that every HYPS grad in my section except one made law review, and that person was definitely one of the smartest in the section, just a little out there. I can't think of anyone on law review from my section who went to a school outside of the T25.

What school do you go to?

[whymeohgodno]

Pro Tip #1: "Average" kids don't get into top schools in the first place.

LOLlegacyadmits

They obviously aren't "average" if they have legacy

[sperry]

I will throw out this small sample size, anecdotal evidence:


From my section, HYPS grads were way overrepresented on law review. In fact, I'm pretty sure that every HYPS grad in my section except one made law review, and that person was definitely one of the smartest in the section, just a little out there. I can't think of anyone on law review from my section who went to a school outside of the T25.

What school do you go to?

T14

[Unemployed]

Now I'm not saying that there aren't dumbasses at ivies. 50% of the class is athletes, legacies, and some URMs (blahAAblahdebateblahwompwomp). But that other 50%... well, if the people I've met in law school (and beyond) are any indication (and there's a chance that they're not, since I guess CLS attracts a certain breed), then they're way smarter than the people in my UG.

Don't forget that those people were, for the most part, slackers at their respective UG's. CLS is a haven for those who coasted through an Ivy, graduated somewhere in the middle, then aced the LSAT. The truly smart/diligent ones are at YLS and HLS.

[whymeohgodno]

Now I'm not saying that there aren't dumbasses at ivies. 50% of the class is athletes, legacies, and some URMs (blahAAblahdebateblahwompwomp). But that other 50%... well, if the people I've met in law school (and beyond) are any indication (and there's a chance that they're not, since I guess CLS attracts a certain breed), then they're way smarter than the people in my UG.

Don't forget that those people were, for the most part, slackers at their respective UG's. CLS is a haven for those who coasted through an Ivy, graduated somewhere in the middle, then aced the LSAT. The truly smart/diligent ones are at YLS and HLS.

Blatant anti-Stanford trolling.