Why, god, did I go to a public institution for undergrad?! Forum

[dr123]

m

[Sandro]

I want to articulate this argument:

One of the reasons people do badly in first year of college is because some students take longer to adapt, to "get into a groove". So it takes freshman year to adapt and start to perform to potential after that. That seems to fit most of the argument for upward trend. Well guess what happens in law school? 1. Your career outlook is largely dependent on first semester/year grades 2. the only comparable part of each school's curriculum is the 1L classes because they are very similar everywhere.

So if you want to talk about potentials, well people who get a 4.0 throughout college is more likely to do well in 1L year than people who struggled when they got into college at first. No I don't have research data, but that is built on the common reasons that people give for bad freshman year grades.

So why should law school discount your first year grades? It is another big transition for most people coming out of UG, like HS to college.

Thats ridiculous. You can't compare the maturation/growth/problems of 17/18 year old kids on their own for the first time to 24/25/26 year old ADULTS. Wow.

[r6_philly]

I want to articulate this argument:

One of the reasons people do badly in first year of college is because some students take longer to adapt, to "get into a groove". So it takes freshman year to adapt and start to perform to potential after that. That seems to fit most of the argument for upward trend. Well guess what happens in law school? 1. Your career outlook is largely dependent on first semester/year grades 2. the only comparable part of each school's curriculum is the 1L classes because they are very similar everywhere.

So if you want to talk about potentials, well people who get a 4.0 throughout college is more likely to do well in 1L year than people who struggled when they got into college at first. No I don't have research data, but that is built on the common reasons that people give for bad freshman year grades.

So why should law school discount your first year grades? It is another big transition for most people coming out of UG, like HS to college.

Yeah, but the transition you outlined for HS to UG isn't always the case. Sometimes (I would argue most times) it's not a transition of figuring out how to study differently/better from HS to UG, but figuring out how to take life seriously and not be a 19 yr old free spirit. That's not the same transition that has to happen all over again from UG to LS.

It isn't, but someone who was 18-19 and was able to manage everything nicely is a lower risk than someone who wasn't able to. You have to admit that. Now that they are 4-6 years older, they must be very matured and composed.

Also, people who get 4.0s in the same environment while some of their peers floundered may prepare a better overall application. It may just be a personality/character type of thing - I interfaced with a lot of college grads along my professional career, and my experience has been someone who didn't have a hard time adjusting to college and who did well throughout are usually better workers earlier in their career. They generally have better work ethics right off the bat.

[r6_philly]

Thats ridiculous. You can't compare the maturation/growth/problems of 17/18 year old kids on their own for the first time to 24/25/26 year old ADULTS. Wow.

You RC fail. I am comparing the maturation of some 17/18 YOs with other 17/18 YOs. They are on different curves.

And, I am 33, and I have close to a 4.0 in college (So I didn't mess around and get Cs and Ds) - I can look back and say I was just immature when I was 24 as I was 18. I only got wise when I got closer to 30. And mind you I had great grades.

[r6_philly]

And just to be clear: whether I am right or wrong is not of consequence (it's just my humble opinion, except when I have my say in hiring decisions) because apparently that first year in college matters to the decision makers in this and many other processes ... However ridiculous it must be. So they are all being ridiculous right?

[Sandro]

It isn't, but someone who was 18-19 and was able to manage everything nicely is a lower risk than someone who wasn't able to. You have to admit that. Now that they are 4-6 years older, they must be very matured and composed.

You have to admit that? No... you don't.

[r6_philly]

It isn't, but someone who was 18-19 and was able to manage everything nicely is a lower risk than someone who wasn't able to. You have to admit that. Now that they are 4-6 years older, they must be very matured and composed.

You have to admit that? No... you don't.

Ok, you don't.

[09042014]

And just to be clear: whether I am right or wrong is not of consequence (it's just my humble opinion, except when I have my say in hiring decisions) because apparently that first year in college matters to the decision makers in this and many other processes ... However ridiculous it must be. So they are all being ridiculous right?

Law school admissions are ridiculous and arbitrary. Many grad programs only count the last 60 hours. I think Canada's law schools do that too. Even for med school applications, if your UG allows grade replacement, they allow it.

Law school admissions are lazy and mostly aimed at gaming USNews rankings. It's pretty fucking silly.

[Sandro]

And just to be clear: whether I am right or wrong is not of consequence (it's just my humble opinion, except when I have my say in hiring decisions) because apparently that first year in college matters to the decision makers in this and many other processes ... However ridiculous it must be. So they are all being ridiculous right?

I think you hit the nail on the head. It is kind of ridiculous to have such a wishy washy, unreliable indicator of LS success to be used so heavily in admissions. I would take a 3.3 170 over a 4.0 163 all day, all else equal and if the 170 had an upward trend.

[NorCalBruin]

DOWNWARD TREND PRIDE! I went 4.0, 4.1, 4.1, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 3.7, 3.2, 2.6 --3.8 for the win!

[09042014]

DOWNWARD TREND PRIDE! I went 4.0, 4.1, 4.1, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 3.7, 3.2, 2.6 --3.8 for the win!

Potentially fucking yourself out of a better school / scholly $$$ FTL.

[Sandro]

DOWNWARD TREND PRIDE! I went 4.0, 4.1, 4.1, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 3.7, 3.2, 2.6 --3.8 for the win!

See! Anecdotal evidence that you actually were a bad student and a good start means nothing!!!

[r6_philly]

And just to be clear: whether I am right or wrong is not of consequence (it's just my humble opinion, except when I have my say in hiring decisions) because apparently that first year in college matters to the decision makers in this and many other processes ... However ridiculous it must be. So they are all being ridiculous right?

I think you hit the nail on the head. It is kind of ridiculous to have such a wishy washy, unreliable indicator of LS success to be used so heavily in admissions. I would take a 3.3 170 over a 4.0 163 all day, all else equal and if the 170 had an upward trend.

It's funny - by the time you work your way to a position of power, you may change your tune. They didn't come up with this arbitrarily BTW. They use actuaries and they do studies. It's nice and hip to challenge the status quo, but it isn't always wrong.

[09042014]

And just to be clear: whether I am right or wrong is not of consequence (it's just my humble opinion, except when I have my say in hiring decisions) because apparently that first year in college matters to the decision makers in this and many other processes ... However ridiculous it must be. So they are all being ridiculous right?

I think you hit the nail on the head. It is kind of ridiculous to have such a wishy washy, unreliable indicator of LS success to be used so heavily in admissions. I would take a 3.3 170 over a 4.0 163 all day, all else equal and if the 170 had an upward trend.

It's funny - by the time you work your way to a position of power, you may change your tune. They didn't come up with this arbitrarily BTW. They use actuaries and they do studies. It's nice and hip to challenge the status quo, but it isn't always wrong.

I don't buy that at all.

[r6_philly]

Law school admissions are ridiculous and arbitrary. Many grad programs only count the last 60 hours. I think Canada's law schools do that too. Even for med school applications, if your UG allows grade replacement, they allow it.

Law school admissions are lazy and mostly aimed at gaming USNews rankings. It's pretty fucking silly.

Other grad program are more specialized, so last 60 credits (usually upper level major electives) are more relevant. I don't think the GPA component serve the same purpose in law admissions. Gen ed actually have it's purpose, much more than major work, because there is no pre-law requirement.

I don't necessarily like law admissions, but I can't think of of a better alternative. And I had 2 cycles to take in all the arguments.

Still, there needs to be a way to tell a student with 4 years worth of A's from a student from a 3 years worth of A's.

Sort of like how LS want you to disclose expunged records. Yes it's all behind you and you are mature and responsible, but you still have a record and require more scrutiny than someone who don't.

[Sandro]

And just to be clear: whether I am right or wrong is not of consequence (it's just my humble opinion, except when I have my say in hiring decisions) because apparently that first year in college matters to the decision makers in this and many other processes ... However ridiculous it must be. So they are all being ridiculous right?

I think you hit the nail on the head. It is kind of ridiculous to have such a wishy washy, unreliable indicator of LS success to be used so heavily in admissions. I would take a 3.3 170 over a 4.0 163 all day, all else equal and if the 170 had an upward trend.

It's funny - by the time you work your way to a position of power, you may change your tune. They didn't come up with this arbitrarily BTW. They use actuaries and they do studies. It's nice and hip to challenge the status quo, but it isn't always wrong.

I'm pretty sure GPA has the lowest correlation out of any admissions factor. At least the LSAT is standardized to a high degree. Considering most GPAs are within the 3.0-4.0 range, a ~.3+ boost for average private schools is HUGE and shows how weak GPA is past a certain point. A 3.5 student cannot be compared to a 3.7 student unless they went to the same school and took the same classes. The LSAT is the ultimate measuring stick so far, with GPA trailing behind.

[r6_philly]

I don't buy that at all.

I do. I have not worked with law schools, but I have worked in other higher education processes, and data crunching was a big component (I was the vendor). I was a finalist for a contract from ETS (lost out to someone else) data modeling, as I understood/was told, it is used in most areas in higher ed.

[09042014]

Law school admissions are ridiculous and arbitrary. Many grad programs only count the last 60 hours. I think Canada's law schools do that too. Even for med school applications, if your UG allows grade replacement, they allow it.

Law school admissions are lazy and mostly aimed at gaming USNews rankings. It's pretty fucking silly.

Other grad program are more specialized, so last 60 credits (usually upper level major electives) are more relevant. I don't think the GPA component serve the same purpose in law admissions. Gen ed actually have it's purpose, much more than major work, because there is no pre-law requirement.

I don't necessarily like law admissions, but I can't think of of a better alternative. And I had 2 cycles to take in all the arguments.

Still, there needs to be a way to tell a student with 4 years worth of A's from a student from a 3 years worth of A's.

Sort of like how LS want you to disclose expunged records. Yes it's all behind you and you are mature and responsible, but you still have a record and require more scrutiny than someone who don't.

I just think law schools are lazy when they compare GPA's without any comparison of difficulty or school's grade distributions. A 3.7 MIT EECS = 3.7 Poduck Liberal Arts college that requires a Dean to give a student a C.

Grades should be looked at subjectively. A person who gets 4 years of straight A's would be looked at more favorably than someone with 3 years if the adcoms wanted to. This would also allow adcoms to look at transcripts in total. Someone who took BS classes for four years shouldn't benefit from it.

Grades aren't objective. LSAC should stop pretending they are.

[r6_philly]

I'm pretty sure GPA has the lowest correlation out of any admissions factor. At least the LSAT is standardized to a high degree. Considering most GPAs are within the 3.0-4.0 range, a ~.3+ boost for average private schools is HUGE and shows how weak GPA is past a certain point. A 3.5 student cannot be compared to a 3.7 student unless they went to the same school and took the same classes. The LSAT is the ultimate measuring stick so far, with GPA trailing behind.

That's why LSAT is weighed more than GPA, and everything else are softs.

[Sandro]

Add that ~.3 private school/public discrepancy and then throw in difficulty from school to school/class to class, and THEN throw in the school's grading policies, and THEN throw in the school registar's policies ..... I don't see how any reasonable person can sit here and say that Student A>Student B because his GPA is +.1 because GPA is a reliable indicator for LS success as a guide.

[r6_philly]

I just think law schools are lazy when they compare GPA's without any comparison of difficulty or school's grade distributions. A 3.7 MIT EECS = 3.7 Poduck Liberal Arts college that requires a Dean to give a student a C.

Grades should be looked at subjectively. A person who gets 4 years of straight A's would be looked at more favorably than someone with 3 years if the adcoms wanted to. This would also allow adcoms to look at transcripts in total. Someone who took BS classes for four years shouldn't benefit from it.

Grades aren't objective. LSAC should stop pretending they are.

But I think many schools are holistic with GPAs. The problem isn't the usage of GPA, the problem is US News using the GPA for rankings. If GPA is not in the rankings, GPA would be used as what it should be used as - a strong soft. But US News dictate the use of GPA ...

So the problem isn't law schools, it is the US News methodology, and the people who buy into the rankings. But since employers AND applicants buy into rankings, don't blame the school for trying to please it.

If we treat US News rankings like how we treat Princeton Review rankings, this will be a non-issue.

[oshberg28]

Law school admissions are ridiculous and arbitrary. Many grad programs only count the last 60 hours. I think Canada's law schools do that too. Even for med school applications, if your UG allows grade replacement, they allow it.

Law school admissions are lazy and mostly aimed at gaming USNews rankings. It's pretty fucking silly.

Other grad program are more specialized, so last 60 credits (usually upper level major electives) are more relevant. I don't think the GPA component serve the same purpose in law admissions. Gen ed actually have it's purpose, much more than major work, because there is no pre-law requirement.

I don't necessarily like law admissions, but I can't think of of a better alternative. And I had 2 cycles to take in all the arguments.

Still, there needs to be a way to tell a student with 4 years worth of A's from a student from a 3 years worth of A's.

Sort of like how LS want you to disclose expunged records. Yes it's all behind you and you are mature and responsible, but you still have a record and require more scrutiny than someone who don't.

I just think law schools are lazy when they compare GPA's without any comparison of difficulty or school's grade distributions. A 3.7 MIT EECS = 3.7 Poduck Liberal Arts college that requires a Dean to give a student a C.

Grades should be looked at subjectively. A person who gets 4 years of straight A's would be looked at more favorably than someone with 3 years if the adcoms wanted to. This would also allow adcoms to look at transcripts in total. Someone who took BS classes for four years shouldn't benefit from it.

Grades aren't objective. LSAC should stop pretending they are.

Agree completely. I wrote a column in my college newspaper regarding this same topic, except for college admissions (factoring in the strength/difficulty of a high school when comparing GPA's of applicants).

[09042014]

I just think law schools are lazy when they compare GPA's without any comparison of difficulty or school's grade distributions. A 3.7 MIT EECS = 3.7 Poduck Liberal Arts college that requires a Dean to give a student a C.

Grades should be looked at subjectively. A person who gets 4 years of straight A's would be looked at more favorably than someone with 3 years if the adcoms wanted to. This would also allow adcoms to look at transcripts in total. Someone who took BS classes for four years shouldn't benefit from it.

Grades aren't objective. LSAC should stop pretending they are.

But I think many schools are holistic with GPAs. The problem isn't the usage of GPA, the problem is US News using the GPA for rankings. If GPA is not in the rankings, GPA would be used as what it should be used as - a strong soft. But US News dictate the use of GPA ...

So the problem isn't law schools, it is the US News methodology, and the people who buy into the rankings. But since employers AND applicants buy into rankings, don't blame the school for trying to please it.

If we treat US News rankings like how we treat Princeton Review rankings, this will be a non-issue.

I agree. But the first step would be to stop having LSAC collect GPA data and normalize it. If you create a psuedo objective measure of course USNews is going to use it.

I think top schools should band together and boycott USNews. It's a joke.

[r6_philly]

Add that ~.3 private school/public discrepancy and then throw in difficulty from school to school/class to class, and THEN throw in the school's grading policies, and THEN throw in the school registar's policies ..... I don't see how any reasonable person can sit here and say that Student A>Student B because his GPA is +.1 because GPA is a reliable indicator for LS success as a guide.

You are presuming that's how schools look at GPAs. I think school look at them in ranges instead of comparing head to head.

[r6_philly]

I agree. But the first step would be to stop having LSAC collect GPA data and normalize it. If you create a psuedo objective measure of course USNews is going to use it.

I think top schools should band together and boycott USNews. It's a joke.

Schools will each LSAC alive if they did that... because now you are creating grading qualities and hierarchies with the normalization process - we are now impeding on UG rankings that's a bigger can of worms