Top Law Schools

School says median is a B for first years. Top 50% starts at a 2.97. What gives? Isn't this C+ territory? Help me out.

1ferret! wrote:School says median is a B for first years. Top 50% starts at a 2.97. What gives? Isn't this C+ territory? Help me out.

Rofl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_%28e ... ted_States

lolwut.

awwwww.....so cute

Wow, shoulda paid more attention in undergrad...
Always knew that 4s were good and 3s were bad...thats about the extent of my knowledge...but now I have this nifty wikipedia chart to tell me all the fine grain distinctions of terrible academic performance...brilliant!

Fret not. I would consider a 2.97 a C+ average at a school that did not use a + or - system. It is considered a C+ at Northern Illinois University, for example. There is absolutely no mercy [strike]for[/strike] at schools that don't have Plus/Minus .33 scale, except when applying to law school. If it isn't a 3.0, it is not considered a B.

Flame please.

LateNight wrote:I would consider a 2.97 a C+ average at a school that did not use a + or - system.

I know for my scholarship purposes a "B" gpa was defined as a 3.0, anything below that was considered a C average. 2.99 would be a C. There was no plus or minus system, so it was all or nothing. Needless to say, it was nearly impossible to get an A average, since one B would ruin you forever. Also, there were no PLUS or MINUS awarded so the LSAC viewed your GPA the same way as the school, except they are more generous than my school as to what is considered a B.

yeff wrote:

LateNight wrote:I would consider a 2.97 a C+ average at a school that did not use a + or - system.

I would consider it a C+, your school would sure as hell considered it a C.

LateNight wrote:Fret not. I would consider a 2.97 a C+ average at a school that did not use a + or - system. It is considered a C+ at Northern Illinois University, for example. There is absolutely no mercy [strike]for[/strike] at schools that don't have Plus/Minus .33 scale, except when applying to law school. If it isn't a 3.0, it is not considered a B.

Flame please.

Nobody cares what system your provincial state school uses.

I'm not saying it didn't exist. But a 3.97 certainly wasn't a B average. NIU is really taking liberties with the meaning of the term "average", don't you think?

If you have 31 B grades and one C grade, you are considered to have a C average?

Leeroy Jenkins wrote: Nobody cares what system your provincial state school uses.

Except for the fact that I am explaining why the OP has a valid point. Most people don't care what the LSAC uses, except for when they have to convert their GPA. My second post stated that while the LSAC will consider the 2.97 to be a B, he is not wrong in thinking it is a C because is many cases it is. It was a valid question by the OP.

yeff wrote:I'm not saying it didn't exist. But a 3.97 certainly wasn't a B average. NIU is really taking liberties with the meaning of the term "average", don't you think?

If you have 31 B grades and one C grade, you are considered to have a C average?

Yes, many schools work this way. However, the don't really try and say a "C" average, you simply have a 2.98 (or whatever it would be).

"Have a GPA of at least a C (2.00 on a 4.00 scale) from all colleges attended (as computed by
NIU standards)* --LinkRemoved--

Since there are no minus or plus, a 1.99 really fucks you. Wouldn't you agree? I suppose you could say that it is a C- average, but then it would impose a standard that doesn't exist at the school; 2.0 or bust.

LateNight wrote:I am explaining why the OP has a valid point.

1ferret!, the OP, wrote:For whatever reason I was [strike]laboring under the impression that 4-3.5 was an A to A-, 3.49- 3.0 was a B; 2.99- 2.5 was a C; 2.49- 2.0 was a D; and below 2 you were in trouble. Never got grades that low, so never gave it much thought...The school I'm at pretty much puts you on the chopping block for averaging 1.99 and below so I just figured thats how they split...[/strike] unaware of which numbers on the 4.0 scale corresponded to each letter grade. now I know...and knowings half the battle...

Thank you for your succinct modification.
BTW, I appreciate you keeping the GI Joe reference..

This has got to be the dumbest thread I've ever seen. What the fuck is wrong with you people.

Its the dysfunctional love-child of boredom and ignorance...

The confusion is warranted. Not everyone is aware of LSAC standards, especially at schools that consider a 2.98 to be a C.

I am well aware of how a 4.0 scale works. I am even more aware that there is absolutely no standard in how schools view grades (despite the best attempts of wikipedia). A 4.33 is not even a possible score at [strike]large majority[/strike]many schools, does this mean that those schools don't know the proper grading scale? How about schools that define a C as a 2.0-2.99 GPA, there are schools that do this. Why is there variation from school to school about what an A- is? Is it a 3.6, 3.66, or in some cases a 3.5?

The reason is that there is NO STANDARD from school to school; which is why the LSAC imposes some sort of standard, if there was a standard then LSAC wouldn't need to even bother converting GPAs.

At my school right now, 2.97 be considered "B" average for classification purposes (scholarship, awards, bragging rights). At my former school it would be converted to a C (not even a C+, since that doesn't exist). Unfair? Sure, but isn't getting an A+ counted the same as an A- unfair?

Converting GPA to a letter grade depends on how your school views your GPA, and for practical purposes it doesn't matter since a GPA is a number and *rarely* is converted to a letter (except for the awarding of scholarship money).

Since the OP is likely referring to LSAC GPA then a 2.97 is a B average. At Illinois State Schools, due to their grading scale, a 2.97 would be considered to be a "high C (not an official grade, just bragging rights)" or officially just "C" average. With a 2.97, one would not be eligible for any scholarships that required a "B" average even though at some schools a 2.97 would count as a B.

To assume that there is one uniform 4.0 grading scale is simplistic. Many schools do not follow the same grading scales nor do they treat GPA's the same way. Some schools require 94% for an A (these kids really get screwed, but that is another thread). Some schools do not award .33, .3, or .5. Some schools consider a B to be anything between a 3.0-3.99999 and anything between 2.0-2.99 to be a C.


The confusion is warranted, because I was SHOCKED to find out that a 2.66 was a B- average and not a C average at my new school. However, according to my school a 2.5 GPA is a C average, but according to your wikipedia scale it is a B- average. At my old school a 2.5 would put you right smack dab in the middle of C students.

Should there be a universal system? Of course! That is why we have the LSAC to figure all this stuff out, it is foolish to assume that your GPA at your UG will be the same on the LSAC "standard" GPA scale.

oops

This thread confirms my suspicions about NIU students.

UIUC C/O 2008

Desert Fox wrote:This has got to be the dumbest thread I've ever seen. What the fuck is wrong with you people.

TITCR. What...the...fuck!? My IQ went down reading this.

LateNight wrote:The confusion is warranted. Not everyone is aware of LSAC standards, especially at schools that consider a 2.98 to be a C.

I am well aware of how a 4.0 scale works. I am even more aware that there is absolutely no standard in how schools view grades (despite the best attempts of wikipedia). A 4.33 is not even a possible score at [strike]large majority[/strike]many schools, does this mean that those schools don't know the proper grading scale? How about schools that define a C as a 2.0-2.99 GPA, there are schools that do this. Why is there variation from school to school about what an A- is? Is it a 3.6, 3.66, or in some cases a 3.5?

The reason is that there is NO STANDARD from school to school; which is why the LSAC imposes some sort of standard, if there was a standard then LSAC wouldn't need to even bother converting GPAs.

At my school right now, 2.97 be considered "B" average for classification purposes (scholarship, awards, bragging rights). At my former school it would be converted to a C (not even a C+, since that doesn't exist). Unfair? Sure, but isn't getting an A+ counted the same as an A- unfair?

Converting GPA to a letter grade depends on how your school views your GPA, and for practical purposes it doesn't matter since a GPA is a number and *rarely* is converted to a letter (except for the awarding of scholarship money).

Since the OP is likely referring to LSAC GPA then a 2.97 is a B average. At Illinois State Schools, due to their grading scale, a 2.97 would be considered to be a "high C (not an official grade, just bragging rights)" or officially just "C" average. With a 2.97, one would not be eligible for any scholarships that required a "B" average even though at some schools a 2.97 would count as a B.

To assume that there is one uniform 4.0 grading scale is simplistic. Many schools do not follow the same grading scales nor do they treat GPA's the same way. Some schools require 94% for an A (these kids really get screwed, but that is another thread). Some schools do not award .33, .3, or .5. Some schools consider a B to be anything between a 3.0-3.99999 and anything between 2.0-2.99 to be a C.


The confusion is warranted, because I was SHOCKED to find out that a 2.66 was a B- average and not a C average at my new school. However, according to my school a 2.5 GPA is a C average, but according to your wikipedia scale it is a B- average. At my old school a 2.5 would put you right smack dab in the middle of C students.

Should there be a universal system? Of course! That is why we have the LSAC to figure all this stuff out, it is foolish to assume that your GPA at your UG will be the same on the LSAC "standard" GPA scale.

why are you talking about lsac? the OP referred to the curve and grades during the first year of law school. as in the C you get in Property, not whatever LSAC thinks your undergrad gpa is. and b/c im a 0L i have not been a victim of the curve yet, but i would image if it was a B curve, then the 50% would start at a 3.0 exactly. but that would have to be a very strict curve with no leeway whatsoever.

julesm2200 wrote:
why are you talking about lsac? the OP referred to the curve and grades during the first year of law school. as in the C you get in Property, not whatever LSAC thinks your undergrad gpa is. and b/c im a 0L i have not been a victim of the curve yet, but i would image if it was a B curve, then the 50% would start at a 3.0 exactly. but that would have to be a very strict curve with no leeway whatsoever.

Rounding /thread.

Did anybody else take a look at the wiki link above and realize how easy it is to get an A+ in Canada?!