Top Law Schools

This is my theory that I have come to develop after 1.5 years of law school...With the exception of real schools (HYS etc), every other school uses the A and A- to signal to employers to hire this student, she is worth the job. B+ and B really mean this student sucks. It is almost like A/A- is pass and B+/B is a fail in a p/f system. Schools outside of the T14 ARE just diploma mills. They do not stand to profit if they actually fail you or give you cards too low that you decide to drop out. So giving you a B makes you think it is worth staying in, but it is really just so you stay enrolled and pay another semester of tuition and debt.

For your information and comments, I do not attend a fourth tier or whatever...I am at a school in the 20s. But it is still a diploma mill in my opinion.

What do you all think?

r973 wrote:This is my theory that I have come to develop after 1.5 years of law school...With the exception of real schools (HYS etc), every other school uses the A and A- to signal to employers to hire this student, she is worth the job. B+ and B really mean this student sucks. It is almost like A/A- is pass and B+/B is a fail in a p/f system. Schools outside of the T14 ARE just diploma mills. They do not stand to profit if they actually fail you or give you cards too low that you decide to drop out. So giving you a B makes you think it is worth staying in, but it is really just so you stay enrolled and pay another semester of tuition and debt.

For your information and comments, I do not attend a fourth tier or whatever...I am at a school in the 20s. But it is still a diploma mill in my opinion.

What do you all think?

Law schools will remain profitable no matter what because you'll graduate making $160k, just look at the employment stats.

r973 wrote:This is my theory that I have come to develop after 1.5 years of law school...With the exception of real schools (HYS etc), every other school uses the A and A- to signal to employers to hire this student, she is worth the job. B+ and B really mean this student sucks. It is almost like A/A- is pass and B+/B is a fail in a p/f system. Schools outside of the T14 ARE just diploma mills. They do not stand to profit if they actually fail you or give you cards too low that you decide to drop out. So giving you a B makes you think it is worth staying in, but it is really just so you stay enrolled and pay another semester of tuition and debt.

For your information and comments, I do not attend a fourth tier or whatever...I am at a school in the 20s. But it is still a diploma mill in my opinion.

What do you all think?

But shouldn't a school want as many of their students as possible to find employment? It's a selling point, first of all, which improves rankings and enrollment. It also increases the chances of eventual donations. So, by your coding system, shouldn't the median be, say, an A- at most schools, instead of a lower score?

r973 wrote:This is my theory that I have come to develop after 1.5 years of law school...With the exception of real schools (HYS etc), every other school uses the A and A- to signal to employers to hire this student, she is worth the job. B+ and B really mean this student sucks. It is almost like A/A- is pass and B+/B is a fail in a p/f system. Schools outside of the T14 ARE just diploma mills. They do not stand to profit if they actually fail you or give you cards too low that you decide to drop out. So giving you a B makes you think it is worth staying in, but it is really just so you stay enrolled and pay another semester of tuition and debt.

For your information and comments, I do not attend a fourth tier or whatever...I am at a school in the 20s. But it is still a diploma mill in my opinion.

What do you all think?

I agree in a lot of ways.

But the A/A- B/B- scale varies depending on what school.

At my school, a B is actually a relatively good grade.

C/C-/D/F are bad grades.

caoyun wrote:

r973 wrote:This is my theory that I have come to develop after 1.5 years of law school...With the exception of real schools (HYS etc), every other school uses the A and A- to signal to employers to hire this student, she is worth the job. B+ and B really mean this student sucks. It is almost like A/A- is pass and B+/B is a fail in a p/f system. Schools outside of the T14 ARE just diploma mills. They do not stand to profit if they actually fail you or give you cards too low that you decide to drop out. So giving you a B makes you think it is worth staying in, but it is really just so you stay enrolled and pay another semester of tuition and debt.

For your information and comments, I do not attend a fourth tier or whatever...I am at a school in the 20s. But it is still a diploma mill in my opinion.

What do you all think?

But shouldn't a school want as many of their students as possible to find employment? It's a selling point, first of all, which improves rankings and enrollment. It also increases the chances of eventual donations. So, by your coding system, shouldn't the median be, say, an A- at most schools, instead of a lower score?

schools could always lie about employment statistics or, if they were truly crazy, they could create an entirely new ranking system that takes into account the number of chairs in their library

Aberzombie1892 wrote:

r973 wrote:This is my theory that I have come to develop after 1.5 years of law school...With the exception of real schools (HYS etc), every other school uses the A and A- to signal to employers to hire this student, she is worth the job. B+ and B really mean this student sucks. It is almost like A/A- is pass and B+/B is a fail in a p/f system. Schools outside of the T14 ARE just diploma mills. They do not stand to profit if they actually fail you or give you cards too low that you decide to drop out. So giving you a B makes you think it is worth staying in, but it is really just so you stay enrolled and pay another semester of tuition and debt.

For your information and comments, I do not attend a fourth tier or whatever...I am at a school in the 20s. But it is still a diploma mill in my opinion.

What do you all think?

I agree in a lot of ways.

But the A/A- B/B- scale varies depending on what school.

At my school, a B is actually a relatively good grade.

C/C-/D/F are bad grades.

At my school a B is an A. We have a horrible curve and only 4 people out of a section of 80 get As.

rbgrocio wrote:

Aberzombie1892 wrote:

r973 wrote:This is my theory that I have come to develop after 1.5 years of law school...With the exception of real schools (HYS etc), every other school uses the A and A- to signal to employers to hire this student, she is worth the job. B+ and B really mean this student sucks. It is almost like A/A- is pass and B+/B is a fail in a p/f system. Schools outside of the T14 ARE just diploma mills. They do not stand to profit if they actually fail you or give you cards too low that you decide to drop out. So giving you a B makes you think it is worth staying in, but it is really just so you stay enrolled and pay another semester of tuition and debt.

For your information and comments, I do not attend a fourth tier or whatever...I am at a school in the 20s. But it is still a diploma mill in my opinion.

What do you all think?

I agree in a lot of ways.

But the A/A- B/B- scale varies depending on what school.

At my school, a B is actually a relatively good grade.

C/C-/D/F are bad grades.

At my school a B is an A. We have a horrible curve and only 4 people out of a section of 80 get As.

Damn...I thought mine was bad.

But still for a T1 school to have a 35% chance, in any given course, that you will make below a B- is insane to me (especially when schools like Ohio State give out 2x as many A's as we do and that school also has only 10% mandated for below a B).

rbgrocio wrote:

Aberzombie1892 wrote:

r973 wrote:This is my theory that I have come to develop after 1.5 years of law school...With the exception of real schools (HYS etc), every other school uses the A and A- to signal to employers to hire this student, she is worth the job. B+ and B really mean this student sucks. It is almost like A/A- is pass and B+/B is a fail in a p/f system. Schools outside of the T14 ARE just diploma mills. They do not stand to profit if they actually fail you or give you cards too low that you decide to drop out. So giving you a B makes you think it is worth staying in, but it is really just so you stay enrolled and pay another semester of tuition and debt.

For your information and comments, I do not attend a fourth tier or whatever...I am at a school in the 20s. But it is still a diploma mill in my opinion.

What do you all think?

I agree in a lot of ways.

But the A/A- B/B- scale varies depending on what school.

At my school, a B is actually a relatively good grade.

C/C-/D/F are bad grades.

At my school a B is an A. We have a horrible curve and only 4 people out of a section of 80 get As.

When you say "As" do you mean A's and A-'s combined?

Unemployed wrote:

rbgrocio wrote:

Aberzombie1892 wrote:

r973 wrote:This is my theory that I have come to develop after 1.5 years of law school...With the exception of real schools (HYS etc), every other school uses the A and A- to signal to employers to hire this student, she is worth the job. B+ and B really mean this student sucks. It is almost like A/A- is pass and B+/B is a fail in a p/f system. Schools outside of the T14 ARE just diploma mills. They do not stand to profit if they actually fail you or give you cards too low that you decide to drop out. So giving you a B makes you think it is worth staying in, but it is really just so you stay enrolled and pay another semester of tuition and debt.

For your information and comments, I do not attend a fourth tier or whatever...I am at a school in the 20s. But it is still a diploma mill in my opinion.

What do you all think?

I agree in a lot of ways.

But the A/A- B/B- scale varies depending on what school.

At my school, a B is actually a relatively good grade.

C/C-/D/F are bad grades.

At my school a B is an A. We have a horrible curve and only 4 people out of a section of 80 get As.

When you say "As" do you mean A's and A-'s combined?

No. 4 "real" As. I think for Con law there were 4 As and 3 A-. I still think that sucks.... We curve to a 2.6

rbgrocio wrote: No. 4 "real" As. I think for Con law there were 4 As and 3 A-. I still think that sucks.... We curve to a 2.6

I feel for you. 5% As is icky, and I complain about our limit of 10% As. I honestly have no idea why schools handicap students with artificially low curves, though high rank should mitigate the damages.

OperaSoprano wrote:

rbgrocio wrote: No. 4 "real" As. I think for Con law there were 4 As and 3 A-. I still think that sucks.... We curve to a 2.6

I feel for you. 5% As is icky, and I complain about our limit of 10% As. I honestly have no idea why schools handicap students with artificially low curves, though high rank should mitigate the damages.

Because at shitty schools (read: T3s) about 2-5% of students will stand to find jobs in a good economy. By using a really harsh curves where half or more of the class gets Cs it really separates the students (e.g. you look at a 2.33 v. 3.8 and it looks like a huge difference, whereas a 3.33 v. 3.8 looks pretty close when, in fact, both might be equivalent in class rank).

XxSpyKEx wrote:

OperaSoprano wrote:

rbgrocio wrote: No. 4 "real" As. I think for Con law there were 4 As and 3 A-. I still think that sucks.... We curve to a 2.6

I feel for you. 5% As is icky, and I complain about our limit of 10% As. I honestly have no idea why schools handicap students with artificially low curves, though high rank should mitigate the damages.

Because at shitty schools (read: T3s) about 2-5% of students will stand to find jobs in a good economy. By using a really harsh curves where half or more of the class gets Cs it really separates the students (e.g. you look at a 2.33 v. 3.8 and it looks like a huge difference, whereas a 3.33 v. 3.8 looks pretty close when, in fact, both might be equivalent in class rank).

I'm hoping for single digits when I get ranked... but I'll be happy with top 10 percent. I just need to do good so I can make law review and get a good job.... My school is even worse than a T3. Sucks! I know...

Grades function as a signal, but certainly are not intended to do so. The academic world is in a bubble separated from the market and these people do whatever the fuck they please.

The grade inflation + the ultra-steep curve thing compromises this system. If you are giving 20 people A-'s and 20 people B+s when the two grades are often the same thing, you are making a huge mistake by saying that the former crowd are top 15% and the latter students are median (typical top-20ish grading). I've read a lot about the steep curves at lots of schools on TLS and it's highly illogical that they rank students like this. Unsurprisingly these schools are usually headed by constitutional law professors who have never picked up a book on economics.

Of course A-s and As signal that you should be hired. A high GPA indicates you have a strong combination of intelligence and hard work, and firms hire in part based on that. This is no secret at all; in fact, often on TLS people warn folks not to go to lower-ranked schools because only the top 10% or 25% or wherever for that school is going to have a good shot at finding work when they graduate.

OMG it's a secret, employers like using grades to differentiate between applicants! Quick, tell everyone!

r973 wrote:This is my theory that I have come to develop after 1.5 years of law school...With the exception of real schools (HYS etc), every other school uses the A and A- to signal to employers to hire this student, she is worth the job. B+ and B really mean this student sucks. It is almost like A/A- is pass and B+/B is a fail in a p/f system. Schools outside of the T14 ARE just diploma mills. They do not stand to profit if they actually fail you or give you cards too low that you decide to drop out. So giving you a B makes you think it is worth staying in, but it is really just so you stay enrolled and pay another semester of tuition and debt.

For your information and comments, I do not attend a fourth tier or whatever...I am at a school in the 20s. But it is still a diploma mill in my opinion.

What do you all think?

I think you didn't do as well as you wished you had, and regret it.

NotMyRealName09 wrote:

r973 wrote:This is my theory that I have come to develop after 1.5 years of law school...With the exception of real schools (HYS etc), every other school uses the A and A- to signal to employers to hire this student, she is worth the job. B+ and B really mean this student sucks. It is almost like A/A- is pass and B+/B is a fail in a p/f system. Schools outside of the T14 ARE just diploma mills. They do not stand to profit if they actually fail you or give you cards too low that you decide to drop out. So giving you a B makes you think it is worth staying in, but it is really just so you stay enrolled and pay another semester of tuition and debt.

For your information and comments, I do not attend a fourth tier or whatever...I am at a school in the 20s. But it is still a diploma mill in my opinion.

What do you all think?

I think you didn't do as well as you wished you had, and regret it.

Agreed. The original post is an epic fail. What proud law student would talk this way? And OP assumes that schools would not profit if they gave out more A's. After all, wouldn't alums donate more money to schools that appear to be producing more employable graduates? Arent schools with higher employment numbers more justified in charging higher tuition? Don't the more successful colleges and universities get more research grants? And isn't "success" measured in large part by employment rates?

Schools have every incentive to give out as many A's as possible within the framework that they must appear mostly objective and their classrooms must appear hyper-competitive. If not for those last two dynamics, schools would give out mostly A's or not have grades. For now, only Yale, Stanford and Berkeley (and some day Chicago, Columbia and Harvard) can get away with gradeless systems. But grades only have the meanings each school gives to them, as was aptly stated above. B+ at one school can mean the same thing as an A- at another. this means that one cannot make the deductions OP is making.

PDaddy wrote:

NotMyRealName09 wrote:

r973 wrote:This is my theory that I have come to develop after 1.5 years of law school...With the exception of real schools (HYS etc), every other school uses the A and A- to signal to employers to hire this student, she is worth the job. B+ and B really mean this student sucks. It is almost like A/A- is pass and B+/B is a fail in a p/f system. Schools outside of the T14 ARE just diploma mills. They do not stand to profit if they actually fail you or give you cards too low that you decide to drop out. So giving you a B makes you think it is worth staying in, but it is really just so you stay enrolled and pay another semester of tuition and debt.

For your information and comments, I do not attend a fourth tier or whatever...I am at a school in the 20s. But it is still a diploma mill in my opinion.

What do you all think?

I think you didn't do as well as you wished you had, and regret it.

Agreed. The original post is an epic fail. What proud law student would talk this way? And OP assumes that schools would not profit if they gave out more A's. After all, wouldn't alums donate more money to schools that appear to be producing more employable graduates? Arent schools with higher employment numbers more justified in charging higher tuition? Don't the more successful colleges and universities get more research grants? And isn't "success" measured in large part by employment rates?

Schools have every incentive to give out as many A's as possible within the framework that they must appear mostly objective and their classrooms must appear hyper-competitive. If not for those last two dynamics, schools would give out mostly A's or not have grades. For now, only Yale, Stanford and Berkeley (and some day Chicago, Columbia and Harvard) can get away with gradeless systems. But grades only have the meanings each school gives to them, as was aptly stated above. B+ at one school can mean the same thing as an A- at another. this means that one cannot make the deductions OP is making.

Subtle Berkeley trolling. lol... Based on what I've heard of about Berkeley OCI this past year, they can't get away with a gradeless system.

Schools tailor their grading systems in an effort to get as many people hired as possible. Lower ranked schools are very worried about getting even the top students hired, so they institute a harsh curve that makes it easier to pick out the very best students. HYS, on the other hand, want to let US appellate court judges know who to hire while slapping a generic HYS-grad label on everyone else.

Snooker wrote:Grades function as a signal, but certainly are not intended to do so. The academic world is in a bubble separated from the market and these people do whatever the fuck they please.

The grade inflation + the ultra-steep curve thing compromises this system. If you are giving 20 people A-'s and 20 people B+s when the two grades are often the same thing, you are making a huge mistake by saying that the former crowd are top 15% and the latter students are median (typical top-20ish grading). I've read a lot about the steep curves at lots of schools on TLS and it's highly illogical that they rank students like this. Unsurprisingly these schools are usually headed by constitutional law professors who have never picked up a book on economics.

I don't understand what the hell you're talking about most of the time.