Top Law Schools

.

Because if their curve was really flat then none of their grads would get hired?

With the wide distribution in grades, it at least allows some of the class to rise to the top to be considered by some real firms.

Well, schools that admit almost everyone tend to be much stricter about curves and booting people out after the first year if they don't get good enough grades. I mean, I can't imagine anyone flunking out of Harvard, but people flunk out of Cooley all the time. So maybe it's that you're working with a student population where you need to have a broader curve to distinguish between the reasonably decent and the truly bad.

.

.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

ajax adonis wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Well, schools that admit almost everyone tend to be much stricter about curves and booting people out after the first year if they don't get good enough grades. I mean, I can't imagine anyone flunking out of Harvard, but people flunk out of Cooley all the time. So maybe it's that you're working with a student population where you need to have a broader curve to distinguish between the reasonably decent and the truly bad.

Then just don't admit the kid with the 140 and 2.2. I don't understand why you even admit them in the first place?

$40,000 a year in tuition?

http://www.cooley.edu/finaid/tuition_incoming.html

edit: scooped

They have to be able to get rid of the kids drooling on themselves because they'll hurt their bar passage rate.

I go to a TTT and we grade on a 3.0 curve, but a professor told me they give out so many C's because there is such a gap between those that go to the school because of financial aid and scholarship and those that go to the school because that's the top place they can get in. Those that go there for the scholarship score so much higher than those that got the low LSAT and low GPA and don't go to class, so in order to make a 3.0 curve it's actually nothing but A's and C's and hardly anyone gets a B.

He said its good for those in the A range because the curve is that much better to bring up the low people to still make the curve a 3.0.

.

ajax adonis wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

ajax adonis wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Well, schools that admit almost everyone tend to be much stricter about curves and booting people out after the first year if they don't get good enough grades. I mean, I can't imagine anyone flunking out of Harvard, but people flunk out of Cooley all the time. So maybe it's that you're working with a student population where you need to have a broader curve to distinguish between the reasonably decent and the truly bad.

Then just don't admit the kid with the 140 and 2.2. I don't understand why you even admit them in the first place?

$40,000 a year in tuition?

http://www.cooley.edu/finaid/tuition_incoming.html

edit: scooped

Yeah, I guess I should've known it all comes down to exploiting people for money.

I couldn't agree more, the more and more I see how this school operates it becomes even more clear

Ded Precedent wrote:They have to be able to get rid of the kids drooling on themselves because they'll hurt their bar passage rate.

This was always my understanding. It's a convenient way to dump people. And instead of just not admitting them, you get $40k out of it and THEN dump them.

ajax adonis wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Well, schools that admit almost everyone tend to be much stricter about curves and booting people out after the first year if they don't get good enough grades. I mean, I can't imagine anyone flunking out of Harvard, but people flunk out of Cooley all the time. So maybe it's that you're working with a student population where you need to have a broader curve to distinguish between the reasonably decent and the truly bad.

Then just don't admit the kid with the 140 and 2.2. I don't understand why you even admit them in the first place?

No argument here. Not justifying, just explaining.

shock259 wrote:

Ded Precedent wrote:They have to be able to get rid of the kids drooling on themselves because they'll hurt their bar passage rate.

This was always my understanding. It's a convenient way to dump people. And instead of just not admitting them, you get $40k out of it and THEN dump them.

And in this sense it makes sense that top schools give less C's. There are less people to give the scarlet letter too. But even at a T10 a single C grade is basically a flag to employers "don't hire this person", and I think professors know that

Doubtful one C at a top 10 will in itself get you no hired. It's more that it's so far from the median, and A+'s are so rare (most classes have 0) that it would be impossible to bounce back from GPA wise.

Also if someone can hit a 165+, they could likely pull enough crap to get at least a B- even if they never read or attended class just using common sense, and writing about the facts relating to their common sense. A hypo will rarely only be about some difficult concept like easements, and will probably involve finders/inheritance/etc. If I never took property, I'd still take a look at the grantor's intent, and make an argument. Additionally, some people have no clue. One of the biggest idiots I've ever met, literally could barely read 7th grade level is top third at a TTTT. I doubt he studies hard.

ajax adonis wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Well, schools that admit almost everyone tend to be much stricter about curves and booting people out after the first year if they don't get good enough grades. I mean, I can't imagine anyone flunking out of Harvard, but people flunk out of Cooley all the time. So maybe it's that you're working with a student population where you need to have a broader curve to distinguish between the reasonably decent and the truly bad.

Then just don't admit the kid with the 140 and 2.2. I don't understand why you even admit them in the first place?

Because LSAT/GPA are only very broad indicators. 140/2.2 gets dinged at Cooley. But even amongst 150/3.1's a bunch will do okay but a certain percent are fucking retards.

ajax adonis wrote:Does that actually help, though? I think giving all your students Bs and As would help their employment chances more because if I'm an employer, all I see is A, B, or C. I wouldn't really be up to date on all that grade curve stuff.

Well employers are smarter than that. Why don't all schools just give their students all As so that all employers see is 4.0s? Employers ask schools for grade distributions. There are a few schools at the very top that can get away with flattening the curve, which is what all schools would like to do, but the lower ranked the school is, the more employers want to see differentiation.

I guess this topic is a bit stale but what the hell...

TTTs generally keep their curves strict during the 1L year because they do not want their students transferring to higher ranked schools. Let's keep it real - 99% of Whittier students (or its equally ranked neighbors like Chapman and Western State) attend aspiring to transfer. So if all of their students got As and Bs, most of them are going to try to transfer to a higher ranked school and many might actually succeed. This is bad for TTTs because it means less tuition money and the remaining students are most likely not the sharpest tools in the shed.

The end result is a screwed up system - TTTs have to bribe the top students to stay who may not be better off career wise by staying there. The admins of TTTs probably think that the top students will end up being someone important. This is such BS. Try googling "Whitter summa cum laude" or "Chapman magna cum laude" for the lulz. Hint: A disappointing few are in Biglaw.

f174635 wrote:I guess this topic is a bit stale but what the hell...

TTTs generally keep their curves strict during the 1L year because they do not want their students transferring to higher ranked schools. Let's keep it real - 99% of Whittier students (or its equally ranked neighbors like Chapman and Western State) attend aspiring to transfer. So if all of their students got As and Bs, most of them are going to try to transfer to a higher ranked school and many might actually succeed. This is bad for TTTs because it means less tuition money and the remaining students are most likely not the sharpest tools in the shed.

The end result is a screwed up system - TTTs have to bribe the top students to stay who may not be better off career wise by staying there. The admins of TTTs probably think that the top students will end up being someone important. This is such BS. Try googling "Whitter summa cum laude" or "Chapman magna cum laude" for the lulz. Hint: A disappointing few are in Biglaw.

but GPA per se doesnt matter for transfer. its rank thats important, so i dont know how this greatly affects things.

stillwater wrote: but GPA per se doesnt matter for transfer. its rank thats important, so i dont know how this greatly affects things.

Right. But I suspect that some schools will still look at your grades even if you have a high class rank. Also, there is the psychological aspect for some - if some people see a lot of "C"s, it will dissuade them from transferring because they think they will lose out to a top student with straight As and Bs.

It's a money trap.

They give substantial scholarships to most incoming matriculants, even those with perhaps laughable credentials. Then, after 1L year, a substantial percentage of the under-qualified yet scholarship-induced students do, in fact, fall on the bad side of the curve. Now those students have a choice. (1) Quit. Or (2) Pay sticker for years two and three at that institution because, come on, 1L year is done, they cant transfer because rhey arent good at lawschool, and fuck it, life choices, you know?

Bam. For profit law school.

Bronte wrote:

ajax adonis wrote:Does that actually help, though? I think giving all your students Bs and As would help their employment chances more because if I'm an employer, all I see is A, B, or C. I wouldn't really be up to date on all that grade curve stuff.

Well employers are smarter than that. Why don't all schools just give their students all As so that all employers see is 4.0s? Employers ask schools for grade distributions. There are a few schools at the very top that can get away with flattening the curve, which is what all schools would like to do, but the lower ranked the school is, the more employers want to see differentiation.

I don't think employers care all that much about differentiation, at least not as much as they used to. The people that come to OCI at most low end schools are a handful of solos/small firms, a few document review agencies and the unusual - like startup charities seeking internship work. These people are not looking the cream of the crop. They want to hire someone who is professional and reliable and care more about interests and prior work experience. Or they want the law student's free Westlaw/Lexis.

The VERY few TTT students that end up working for biglaw or midlaw got there for a variety of reasons including good grades. Usually this is the rare student who had the numbers to make it to a East Coast T14 but didn't go because her boyfriend or spouse was attending med school or a top B-school.

Why is everyone entitled to As and Bs?

Is an adverse ruling considered a "B" in real world courts?

I.P. Daly wrote:Why is everyone entitled to As and Bs?

Is an adverse ruling considered a "B" in real world courts?

B+ bro

I.P. Daly wrote:Why is everyone entitled to As and Bs?

Is an adverse ruling considered a "B" in real world courts?

This.

By giving poor students Cs, it prepares then for the real world, where they will usually be on the losing side.

At least in litigation, it's not just a matter of how good you are, but also about how bad the other side is. That's why the forced curve is a good thing: it separates the good from the great, or the bad from the worst.