Top Law Schools

My undergrad did use a plus-minus grading system; however, there was no 4.333 for A+ grades, and they did not even put A+ grades on the transcript. Because of this, my LSDAS GPA is exactly the same as my undergrad GPA. The thing is that if my undergrad had put A+ grades on the transcript, my LSDAS GPA would be .2 higher than it is now.

Do you think law schools will consider this possibility when they see a large string of A grades with no A+ grades, or do they mostly go off the LSAC report and not really pay much attention to the transcript? Does LSAC even send the transcript?

I'm interested in this as well

hdivine wrote: Do you think law schools will consider this possibility when they see a large string of A grades with no A+ grades,

lolno

or do they mostly entirely go off the LSAC report and not really pay much attention to the transcript?

Fixed

hdivine wrote:My undergrad did use a plus-minus grading system; however, there was no 4.333 for A+ grades, and they did not even put A+ grades on the transcript. Because of this, my LSDAS GPA is exactly the same as my undergrad GPA. The thing is that if my undergrad had put A+ grades on the transcript, my LSDAS GPA would be .2 higher than it is now.

Do you think law schools will consider this possibility when they see a large string of A grades with no A+ grades, or do they mostly go off the LSAC report and not really pay much attention to the transcript? Does LSAC even send the transcript?

I have the same issue. My school doesn't give A+s (they do give + and - but for some reason no A+s). I honestly don't think law schools will consider this or care. They still have to report their class' 25th/50th/75th GPA, so they have an incentive to take people with the best numbers. If your GPA is lower than people who got A+s, then they will choose the other people.

I have no doubt adcoms will interpret plain old A's to mean laziness.

.2? That's actually kind of a lot. Go fight this out with your undergrad.

It's implications for the law school admissions process aside for one moment, I think it's generally unfair not to distinguish the A- students from the A+ students (my school gives only A's). Why should someone who scored perfectly in a class appear, on her transcript, to have scored the same as someone who scored, say, 88%?

Offering A+'s would also give students more incentive to study. Suppose a student is in a situation where she has the opportunity to do poorly on an assignment or exam but knows that, because A-'s are not distinguished from A+'s, she'll nevertheless end up with an A. If good students know they're looking at the difference of .73 grade points from that class (the difference between 3.6 and 4.33) would they not study harder, learn more, and go on to be more successful? It would combat apathy in circumstances like the above.

Moreover, I cannot think of many downsides in allowing for A+ grades, besides perhaps the more careful attention (which necessitates more time and money) that is needed when grading papers and distinguishing between A's. But is that really a bad thing, anyway?

I've drafted a letter, regarding this topic, that I've for a while considered sending to my state Governor (I go to a state school), after editing and garnering others' opinions. This issue isn't life or death; but it would be interesting to hear responses that challenge my contentions.

Now with regard to law school, I can only hope that admissions officials at least bear this distinction in mind when evaluating students' GPA's. I think they probably do; after all, admissions officials' primary objective is to accurately ascertain the academic potential of any given applicant.

Also, on the bright side, a 4.0 puts one above the 75th at every law school (that I know of).

LexLeon wrote:It's implications for the law school admissions process aside for one moment, I think it's generally unfair not to distinguish the A- students from the A+ students (my school gives only A's). Why should someone who scored perfectly in a class appear, on her transcript, to have scored the same as someone who scored, say, 88%?

Offering A+'s would also give students more incentive to study. Suppose a student is in a situation where she has the opportunity to do poorly on an assignment or exam but knows that, because A-'s are not distinguished from A+'s, she'll nevertheless end up with an A. If good students know they're looking at the difference of .73 grade points from that class (the difference between 3.6 and 4.33) would they not study harder, learn more, and go on to be more successful? It would combat apathy in circumstances like the above.

Moreover, I cannot think of many downsides in allowing for A+ grades, besides perhaps the more careful attention (which necessitates more time and money) that is needed when grading papers and distinguishing between A's. But is that really a bad thing, anyway?

I've drafted a letter, regarding this topic, that I've for a while considered sending to my state Governor (I go to a state school), after editing and garnering others' opinions. This issue isn't life or death; but it would be interesting to hear responses that challenge my contentions.

Now with regard to law school, I can only hope that admissions officials at least bear this distinction in mind when evaluating students' GPA's. I think they probably do; after all, admissions officials' primary objective is to accurately ascertain the academic potential of any given applicant.

Also, on the bright side, a 4.0 puts one above the 75th at every law school (that I know of).

Yeah the issue isn't for people with 4.0s without A-s, I don't think. I'm fairly sure a 4.0 or really high 3.9X isn't treated too differently than say a 4.1. However, it's a huge disadvantage for the people with 3.7s or 3.8s or whatever who would be pushed over the medians if they had A+s. Also, you actually have a big advantage yourself if you can't get A-s. Getting an 88 (the number you said) and still getting a 4.0 is a way bigger advantage than having to get a 99 to get a 4.33.

I think the LSDAS made a bad choice in converting A+ into 4.33 for GPA. It makes sense to have a standardized scale. But why pick one in which credits a grade a huge chunk of schools don't have, and even the ones who do, rarely use it.

LSDAS should make A+ = 4.0.

And if someone wants to argue, "well my school thinks it's worth 4.33" then why even have LSDAS convert the scores? Just have them average the GPAs on your official transcripts and be done with it.

LexLeon wrote:This issue isn't life or death; but it would be interesting to hear responses that challenge my contentions.

I'll give it a shot:
Our current system to "grade" students knowledge of a particular subject matter is far from perfect.

Giving the grading spectrum a built-in margin for error allows students to more freely engage themselves with the material and worry less about the particular grading process.

Someone who scored a 99 on a mid-term likely does not understand the material ~17% more than someone who scored a 92.

What it does take to get from a 92-->99 is a focus on abusing the medium for which your knowledge will be tested. This should not be encouraged past the degree it already inherently has to be.

All this being said, there is a clear floor. A firm belief that someone who understands the material will be able to score at least a 90% regardless of imperfections with the medium presented.

sinfiery wrote:I'll give it a shot:
Our current system to "grade" students knowledge of a particular subject matter is far from perfect.

Giving the grading spectrum a built-in margin for error allows students to more freely engage themselves with the material and worry less about the particular grading process.

Someone who scored a 99 on a mid-term likely does not understand the material ~17% more than someone who scored a 92.

What it does take to get from a 92-->99 is a focus on abusing the medium for which your knowledge will be tested. This should not be encouraged past the degree it already inherently has to be.

All this being said, there is a clear floor. A firm belief that someone who understands the material will be able to score at least a 90% regardless of imperfections with the medium presented.

But should someone who got a 99% at one school have a better LSAC GPA than someone who scored a 99% at another?

gguuueessttt wrote:
But should someone who got a 99% at one school have a better LSAC GPA than someone who scored a 99% at another?

Absolutely not. But I doubt the Governor of whatever state he's from cares about this niche community.

Not sure how to fix LSAC's problem.

Desert Fox wrote:I think the LSDAS made a bad choice in converting A+ into 4.33 for GPA. It makes sense to have a standardized scale. But why pick one in which credits a grade a huge chunk of schools don't have, and even the ones who do, rarely use it.

LSDAS should make A+ = 4.0.

And if someone wants to argue, "well my school thinks it's worth 4.33" then why even have LSDAS convert the scores? Just have them average the GPAs on your official transcripts and be done with it.

Right. I was shocked when I first learned that the LSAC did this. Seemed ridiculous.

bernaldiaz wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:I think the LSDAS made a bad choice in converting A+ into 4.33 for GPA. It makes sense to have a standardized scale. But why pick one in which credits a grade a huge chunk of schools don't have, and even the ones who do, rarely use it.

LSDAS should make A+ = 4.0.

And if someone wants to argue, "well my school thinks it's worth 4.33" then why even have LSDAS convert the scores? Just have them average the GPAs on your official transcripts and be done with it.

Right. I was shocked when I first learned that the LSAC did this. Seemed ridiculous.

I agree completely. Anyone from a school that doesn't give A+s is at a clear disadvantage, and there's really no point. LSAC tries so hard to equate all the different GPAs and grading systems from different schools; it seems odd that they count a grade that many schools don't offer.

At my university no classes can give an A+, but some classes do have A-. Thus, it's possible to get a 95% in a class and have a 4.0 forever taken away.

TripTrip wrote:At my university no classes can give an A+, but some classes do have A-. Thus, it's possible to get a 95% in a class and have a 4.0 forever taken away.

95% is arbitrary.

4.0 means perfect. If you get an A-, you shouldn't be able to get a 4.0.

Wormfather wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

TripTrip wrote:At my university no classes can give an A+, but some classes do have A-. Thus, it's possible to get a 95% in a class and have a 4.0 forever taken away.

95% is arbitrary.

4.0 means perfect. If you get an A-, you shouldn't be able to get a 4.0.

The problem here is that at my school 4.3 means perfect. So when I have a 4.0, its interpreted one way, when in fact it means something else.

Which is why LDSAS fucked up and should have made A+ = 4.0

Desert Fox wrote:

Wormfather wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

TripTrip wrote:At my university no classes can give an A+, but some classes do have A-. Thus, it's possible to get a 95% in a class and have a 4.0 forever taken away.

95% is arbitrary.

4.0 means perfect. If you get an A-, you shouldn't be able to get a 4.0.

The problem here is that at my school 4.3 means perfect. So when I have a 4.0, its interpreted one way, when in fact it means something else.

Which is why LDSAS fucked up and should have made A+ = 4.0

If they set A+ at 4.0, then what about the schools that do not distinguish A+ grades? That'd mean a perfect student with straight "As" and a 4.0 at their school would only have a ~3.8 LSDAS GPA.

Stupe wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Wormfather wrote:

Desert Fox wrote: 95% is arbitrary.

4.0 means perfect. If you get an A-, you shouldn't be able to get a 4.0.

The problem here is that at my school 4.3 means perfect. So when I have a 4.0, its interpreted one way, when in fact it means something else.

Which is why LDSAS fucked up and should have made A+ = 4.0

If they set A+ at 4.0, then what about the schools that do not distinguish A+ grades? That'd mean a perfect student with straight "As" and a 4.0 at their school would only have a ~3.8 LSDAS GPA.

A would also = 4.0. So they'd still have an 4.0.

Would make everyone with A+ grades understandably outraged.

It's a no-win situation right now though. It's a stupid system and the grading scale should be standardized in all colleges.

Stupe wrote:Would make everyone with A+ grades understandably outraged.

It's a no-win situation right now though. It's a stupid system and the grading scale should be standardized in all colleges.

Well A+'s are stupid anyway.

Stupe wrote:Would make everyone with A+ grades understandably outraged.

It's a no-win situation right now though. It's a stupid system and the grading scale should be standardized in all colleges.

Well I'm outraged! My university doesn't offer an A+. If they did, I would have a 4.33 instead of a 4.00. There's no standard!

TripTrip wrote:Well I'm outraged! My university doesn't offer an A+. If they did, I would have a 4.33 instead of a 4.00. There's no standard!

Seriously. Someone always gets the short end of the stick.

Sadly, in this case its us because our universities are...what, too lazy(?) to grade students with an A+ if they score 99% in a class.

My UG, like someone else mentioned, does hand out A-, B+, B- grades but it seems to be completely up to the professor whether they will actually use those or not. The majority of my professors didn't bother with them; in fact, the only one that did was a guy who was unnaturally fond of the '-' option...

Take two hypothetical students, one attends San Diego State University and the other attends University of California Riverside. Both students get straight-As with a third of the grades in the A- zone (90-92) and a third in the A zone, etc. Both schools grade these zones the same with A-s receiving 3.7, and 4.0 for grades above.

Both students will graduate with cumulative GPAs of 3.92. When the students apply to law school, however, the SDSU student will have an LSDAS GPA of 3.89 whereas the UCR student, who's transcript marks A+s, will have an LSDAS GPA of 4.00.

By itself, this should not be a big issue except that schools are ranking whores. All other things being equal, the 4.0 student is going to outshine the 3.8 student and this can have a significant affect on the admissions prospects for these applicants. For example, at YLS one student would be below median GPA and one would be above the 75th percentile.

LSAC could probably come up with a fairer system but the problem isn't really theirs. A student at WestPoint is going to work harder for 4.0 than students at many other schools and a student majoring in chemical engineering is going to work harder for a 4.0 than a liberal studies major. The fault ultimately lies with law schools and their need for prestige that is expressed in a pathetic subservience to largely arbitrary ranking schemes.

LexLeon wrote:It's implications for the law school admissions process aside for one moment, I think it's generally unfair not to distinguish the A- students from the A+ students (my school gives only A's). Why should someone who scored perfectly in a class appear, on her transcript, to have scored the same as someone who scored, say, 88%?

Offering A+'s would also give students more incentive to study. Suppose a student is in a situation where she has the opportunity to do poorly on an assignment or exam but knows that, because A-'s are not distinguished from A+'s, she'll nevertheless end up with an A. If good students know they're looking at the difference of .73 grade points from that class (the difference between 3.6 and 4.33) would they not study harder, learn more, and go on to be more successful? It would combat apathy in circumstances like the above.

Moreover, I cannot think of many downsides in allowing for A+ grades, besides perhaps the more careful attention (which necessitates more time and money) that is needed when grading papers and distinguishing between A's. But is that really a bad thing, anyway?

I've drafted a letter, regarding this topic, that I've for a while considered sending to my state Governor (I go to a state school), after editing and garnering others' opinions. This issue isn't life or death; but it would be interesting to hear responses that challenge my contentions.

Now with regard to law school, I can only hope that admissions officials at least bear this distinction in mind when evaluating students' GPA's. I think they probably do; after all, admissions officials' primary objective is to accurately ascertain the academic potential of any given applicant.

Also, on the bright side, a 4.0 puts one above the 75th at every law school (that I know of).

Students who are obsessing over whether they should study quite as much because they can get the same numerical grade from an A- as from an A+ are not an academic problem or examples of academic apathy at any institution of higher learning. No school is going to worry that, heavens forfend, the student who scored an A- on the exam (but got a 4.0) MIGHT have studied more! and got an A+! and therefore learned more! (lolwut?) and gone on to be more successful! if that student had earned an A+ instead. It's just not a concern. (I used to teach college.)

I do think that if a school gives out A+s, LSAC should count them in the GPA. But I also think the A+ is a stupid and unnecessary grade, so for me it's sort of a wash.