Seriously, how are law school grades even relevant?
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:51 pm
As a 3L, I've heard my fair share of professors defend the objectiveness of their exams. These defenses range from naive/deceptive ("multiple choice exams offer the best way to ensure consistent grading!") to plausible ("extremely difficult exams generate a larger set of characteristics useful in evaluating performance"). This was cute until one professor recently conceded that his exam in no way represents daily life for attorneys within the specialty the course serves.
There's nothing particularly surprising or even noteworthy about his remark. After the first day, even a 1L would recognize that a three hour cumulative essay exam prepares law students for litigation just as much as the game Operation prepares med students for surgery. Notwithstanding the axiomatic nature of law school exams' irrelevance to practicing law, a justifiable cause for alarm exists.
Currently, I've earned 60-something credits, and will earn another 15 this semester. Assuming a 3.0 average for the 60 credits, currently I would have earned 180 quality points. Straight C's this semester in my five courses (2.0*15 credits == 30 quality points) would have the same effect on my GPA as three B's, a D, and an F. (3.0*9 credits + 1.0*3 credits + 0.0*3 credits == 30 quality points). Should either scenario occur, my GPA would fall from a solemn and dignified 3.0 to a respectable 2.8.
Imputing significance to this drop is meaningless without a context in which to define a 0.2 GPA point increase. To accomplish a 0.2 point GPA gain, this semester's grades must increase my total quality points from 180 to 3.2*75 credits == 240. That's a 60 point increase; only one combination of grades nets 60 quality points: five A's. I would need straight A's in five law school courses to increase my GPA by 0.2 points.
1L GPAs are extremely volatile because each grade's percent contribution to the cumulative GPA is significantly higher. As such, a rational 1L would gun for straight A's. However, continued education dilutes each course's percent contribution to the cumulative GPA, which justifies, ipso facto, a rational basis for 3L apathy. This presumes the non-existence of any externalities that affect the extent to which a 3L derives utility from the examination process.
Recall from above my professor's remark that his exams in no way represent what we might expect in practice. Recall also the two most important factors in assessing one's employment potential: grades and school. For 3Ls, both factors are immutable characteristics of their history.
This realization encourages me to take classes that grade students on a cumulative paper they write, rather than a cumulative exam they take. Writing such a paper provides utility sufficient to establish presence of the externalities previously mentioned; viz., I could potentially publish the paper, use it as a writing sample, or refer back to it at a later dates. Exams, on the other hand, are locked away for eternity in some lurid administrative office.
So, who else thinks this process is insane and barbaric?
There's nothing particularly surprising or even noteworthy about his remark. After the first day, even a 1L would recognize that a three hour cumulative essay exam prepares law students for litigation just as much as the game Operation prepares med students for surgery. Notwithstanding the axiomatic nature of law school exams' irrelevance to practicing law, a justifiable cause for alarm exists.
Currently, I've earned 60-something credits, and will earn another 15 this semester. Assuming a 3.0 average for the 60 credits, currently I would have earned 180 quality points. Straight C's this semester in my five courses (2.0*15 credits == 30 quality points) would have the same effect on my GPA as three B's, a D, and an F. (3.0*9 credits + 1.0*3 credits + 0.0*3 credits == 30 quality points). Should either scenario occur, my GPA would fall from a solemn and dignified 3.0 to a respectable 2.8.
Imputing significance to this drop is meaningless without a context in which to define a 0.2 GPA point increase. To accomplish a 0.2 point GPA gain, this semester's grades must increase my total quality points from 180 to 3.2*75 credits == 240. That's a 60 point increase; only one combination of grades nets 60 quality points: five A's. I would need straight A's in five law school courses to increase my GPA by 0.2 points.
1L GPAs are extremely volatile because each grade's percent contribution to the cumulative GPA is significantly higher. As such, a rational 1L would gun for straight A's. However, continued education dilutes each course's percent contribution to the cumulative GPA, which justifies, ipso facto, a rational basis for 3L apathy. This presumes the non-existence of any externalities that affect the extent to which a 3L derives utility from the examination process.
Recall from above my professor's remark that his exams in no way represent what we might expect in practice. Recall also the two most important factors in assessing one's employment potential: grades and school. For 3Ls, both factors are immutable characteristics of their history.
This realization encourages me to take classes that grade students on a cumulative paper they write, rather than a cumulative exam they take. Writing such a paper provides utility sufficient to establish presence of the externalities previously mentioned; viz., I could potentially publish the paper, use it as a writing sample, or refer back to it at a later dates. Exams, on the other hand, are locked away for eternity in some lurid administrative office.
So, who else thinks this process is insane and barbaric?
