Fordham c/o 2015/16 (2011-2012 Cycle) Forum

[JenDarby]

Mr. Anon is just a negative nancy who seemingly got no love from his parents and had no friends at Fordham (or whatever LS he went to). Why don't you go spam the other threads and leave these guys alone Mr. Anon.

Stating a low UG GPA means you shouldn't go to law school is one of your worst posts yet.

[manofjustice]

The part no one is mentioning that really should be discussed is that Fordham is taking a lot of sub 3.0s this year. I have seen other posters with similar numbers. There is a guy over on jdu who got in with a 2.7.

At some point you really have to question the wisdom of the whole thing. I mean, If you got a 2.2 or a 1.7 and a law school accepted you, is it really a bright idea to go? The law school is the only person who benefits.

This is part right and part wrong.

Fordham probably is accepting a lot of splitters (and giving them no $$ hoping they're desperate, but this cycle, they're not).

But almost no one gets a sub 3.0 GPA in liberal arts because they were too dumb. Their LSAT can either confirm or deny. Usually, they get a sub 2.0 because they were lazy. Being lazy is eminently correctable, especially in a professional school later in life.

Of course it is possible to correct it, but if the person is coming from any undergraduate school outside of the most selective then the chances are they are not so bright that with all the determination in the world and a wave of the magic wand that they can just turn the ship on a dime. In college you are learning how and gaining practice at how to read and write at a higher level. If you slept through that how are you going to keep up with a whole batch of folks who were killing it all the way through. If on the other hand, you are so bright that college was just too much of a boring chore for you, then I doubt law school is going to spark that kind of imagination you have to get yourself in gear.

Why wouldn't it get you in gear? Law school is like the hunger games: either you get good grades and get rich or you don't and live marginally under crushing debt without property or retirement savings. If you're "so bright that college was just too much of a boring chore for you", then yea, at law school, where it matters, you're gonna break the curve like a boss, slap your professor, bang your chest and shout "thug life."

[manofjustice]

Also you said that law school won't "spark that imagination" of the bright guys. Interesting point...can you expand?

[MrAnon]

Why wouldn't it get you in gear? Law school is like the hunger games: either you get good grades and get rich or you don't and live marginally under crushing debt without property or retirement savings.

College is not like this? I guess people who got 3.0 in college knew better, huh?

[MrAnon]

Also you said that law school won't "spark that imagination" of the bright guys. Interesting point...can you expand?

This post at 5:23 captures my thoughts

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 4&t=185584

[MrAnon]

Mr. Anon is just a negative nancy who seemingly got no love from his parents and had no friends at Fordham (or whatever LS he went to). Why don't you go spam the other threads and leave these guys alone Mr. Anon.

Stating a low UG GPA means you shouldn't go to law school is one of your worst posts yet.

I stand corrected. Low college GPA? Law school is for you! The legal world will be your oyster!

[manofjustice]

Why wouldn't it get you in gear? Law school is like the hunger games: either you get good grades and get rich or you don't and live marginally under crushing debt without property or retirement savings.

College is not like this? I guess people who got 3.0 in college knew better, huh?

No college isn't like this at all. Debt loads are hugely lower and employment prospects are hugely less disparate.

[manofjustice]

Also you said that law school won't "spark that imagination" of the bright guys. Interesting point...can you expand?

This post at 5:23 captures my thoughts

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 4&t=185584

Most points are well taken at 5:23. At one point I sense hypocrisy: he seems to say law is mediocre mimicry, and then to prove the point, he sort of jabs at some statistical term and says "this part of the law is like that." Sounds like mediocre mimicry to me.

I question the assumption that the heart of all intellectual engagement is imagination. I expect that an intellectual engagement that produces value in society must also come with tedium. The intellectual engagement of a lawyer is not for his own benefit: he must make its product fit among the interests and requirements of society at large, and that requires work, not just a spark of imagination.

As to tests: how did you take tests? Did you theory it up? Or write as much as you could about memorized rules? Mix of both?

[JenDarby]

I had an ok GPA, but not great, in UG due to graduating in two years at 19 and getting one not so good grade, which wasn't balanced out by two more years of grades. In LS I'm nowhere near a gunner, for example I went to Jamaica the week before finals last semester, yet I am doing well and have a paid firm job this summer.

Life's what you make of it to some extent, and from the sounds of it, yours is really shitty. Your bitter doom and gloom theories are too narrow minded Mr. Anon. Also they're not Fordham specific so why don't you take it elsewhere.

[manofjustice]

I had an ok GPA, but not great, in UG due to graduating in two years at 19 and getting one not so good grade, which wasn't balanced out by two more years of grades. In LS I'm nowhere near a gunner, for example I went to Jamaica the week before finals last semester, yet I am doing well and have a paid firm job this summer.

Life's what you make of it to some extent, and from the sounds of it, yours is really shitty. Your bitter doom and gloom theories are too narrow minded Mr. Anon. Also they're not Fordham specific so why don't you take it elsewhere.

So, if you're smart, you can go to Jamaica and still do well? Doing well is what? Top quartile?

I mean, let's be honest...if you're smart you can find a way to do well, right?

[MrAnon]

Why wouldn't it get you in gear? Law school is like the hunger games: either you get good grades and get rich or you don't and live marginally under crushing debt without property or retirement savings.

College is not like this? I guess people who got 3.0 in college knew better, huh?

No college isn't like this at all. Debt loads are hugely lower and employment prospects are hugely less disparate.

If you make a low college GPA and you COULD have done better, you are just hurting yourself for job prospects and grad school prospects.

[MrAnon]

Also you said that law school won't "spark that imagination" of the bright guys. Interesting point...can you expand?

This post at 5:23 captures my thoughts

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 4&t=185584

Most points are well taken at 5:23. At one point I sense hypocrisy: he seems to say law is mediocre mimicry, and then to prove the point, he sort of jabs at some statistical term and says "this part of the law is like that." Sounds like mediocre mimicry to me.

I question the assumption that the heart of all intellectual engagement is imagination. I expect that an intellectual engagement that produces value in society must also come with tedium. The intellectual engagement of a lawyer is not for his own benefit: he must make its product fit among the interests and requirements of society at large, and that requires work, not just a spark of imagination.

As to tests: how did you take tests? Did you theory it up? Or write as much as you could about memorized rules? Mix of both?

You write the rule and the policy behind the rule and why its applicable to the situation. There is a reason its graded on a curve...its not hard for everyone in the room to answer it 90% correctly.

[manofjustice]

Also you said that law school won't "spark that imagination" of the bright guys. Interesting point...can you expand?

This post at 5:23 captures my thoughts

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 4&t=185584

Most points are well taken at 5:23. At one point I sense hypocrisy: he seems to say law is mediocre mimicry, and then to prove the point, he sort of jabs at some statistical term and says "this part of the law is like that." Sounds like mediocre mimicry to me.

I question the assumption that the heart of all intellectual engagement is imagination. I expect that an intellectual engagement that produces value in society must also come with tedium. The intellectual engagement of a lawyer is not for his own benefit: he must make its product fit among the interests and requirements of society at large, and that requires work, not just a spark of imagination.

As to tests: how did you take tests? Did you theory it up? Or write as much as you could about memorized rules? Mix of both?

You write the rule and the policy behind the rule and why its applicable to the situation. There is a reason its graded on a curve...its not hard for everyone in the room to answer it 90% correctly.

What about the last 10%?

[ned]

Also you said that law school won't "spark that imagination" of the bright guys. Interesting point...can you expand?

This post at 5:23 captures my thoughts

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 4&t=185584

There is no 5:23. Are you referring to 4:23? Looks to me like a simple case of clinical depression. It's not at all unique to law school. This is just a description of almost anything in life. I assume the writer is a young adult just figuring it out and feeling frustrated and hopeless. He can get an MBA or an engineering degree and will feel exactly the same.

All these unhappy law school folks should try something else. They'll realize law school isn't unique.

[dingbat]

What about the last 10%?

that's thè difference between a C and an A

[MrAnon]

Almost everyone in your class will study and have a basic understanding of the material. If it were undergrad, everyone would get an A, besides a few stragglers of course. The only reason they include a curve is to sort all these quite adequate answers out. Maybe someone is just a better writer so he/she gets an edge. Maybe someone else remembered some tiny distinction in the rule that others didn't, so he/she gets an edge. Maybe someone else just writes a more complete answer, so they get an edge. Most likely its based on points, so he who spots the most issues gets the best grade. Maybe there are 49 issues. The most anyone will see is 26. So everyone who see 22-26 gets an A. Everyone who spots 21 gets a B+.

[MrAnon]

What about the last 10%?

that's thè difference between a C and an A

C's are pretty lousy. Indicative of no study at all. B- could be no study or just terrible prep and nervousness. If someone studies properly and writes decently the worst they'll realistically get is a B, but that's a 3.0 and awful for law school.

[Gemini]

I don't remember having such a depressing Cycle thread last year. Jeez, guys, come on! Wait till you start law school classes before the negativity begins (a la MrAnon, haha).

[JCFindley]

I had an ok GPA, but not great, in UG due to graduating in two years at 19 and getting one not so good grade, which wasn't balanced out by two more years of grades. In LS I'm nowhere near a gunner, for example I went to Jamaica the week before finals last semester, yet I am doing well and have a paid firm job this summer.

Life's what you make of it to some extent, and from the sounds of it, yours is really shitty. Your bitter doom and gloom theories are too narrow minded Mr. Anon. Also they're not Fordham specific so why don't you take it elsewhere.

I simply love your positive outlook Jen.... Personally, I agree with it as well....

[dingbat]

What about the last 10%?

that's thè difference between a C and an A

C's are pretty lousy. Indicative of no study at all. B- could be no study or just terrible prep and nervousness. If someone studies properly and writes decently the worst they'll realistically get is a B, but that's a 3.0 and awful for law school.

I thought that with grading on a curve thè worst people in the class (10-15%) end up with a C
While this would encompass those who don't study or write properly, it also means that I'd everyone studies their ass off, the weakest person in the section ends up with a C even if s/he works their ass off and writes decently (but is last because everyone else is better)
Like getting last place at the olympics doesn't mean you suck, just that everyone else there is better

[MrAnon]

What about the last 10%?

that's thè difference between a C and an A

C's are pretty lousy. Indicative of no study at all. B- could be no study or just terrible prep and nervousness. If someone studies properly and writes decently the worst they'll realistically get is a B, but that's a 3.0 and awful for law school.

I thought that with grading on a curve thè worst people in the class (10-15%) end up with a C
While this would encompass those who don't study or write properly, it also means that I'd everyone studies their ass off, the weakest person in the section ends up with a C even if s/he works their ass off and writes decently (but is last because everyone else is better)
Like getting last place at the olympics doesn't mean you suck, just that everyone else there is better

Technically I don't believe "C" is on Fordham's curve. They'd award the grade if necessary though. C+ probably is on the curve. From my experience it would be very difficult for a competent student to get below a B- and for a competent student to actually get a B- would be a bit of a surprise. If you have a decent feel for what's going on, know your stuff, and can write well and spot issues, without any superman type edges, you are starting at a B. Getting the B+ and so on requires some edges.

[dingbat]

Thanks for educating me on Fordham's grading methodology.
You obviously know more about it than me

[OnceUponAMemo]

C's are pretty lousy. Indicative of no study at all. B- could be no study or just terrible prep and nervousness. If someone studies properly and writes decently the worst they'll realistically get is a B, but that's a 3.0 and awful for law school.

I thought that with grading on a curve thè worst people in the class (10-15%) end up with a C
While this would encompass those who don't study or write properly, it also means that I'd everyone studies their ass off, the weakest person in the section ends up with a C even if s/he works their ass off and writes decently (but is last because everyone else is better)
Like getting last place at the olympics doesn't mean you suck, just that everyone else there is better

Technically I don't believe "C" is on Fordham's curve. They'd award the grade if necessary though. C+ probably is on the curve. From my experience it would be very difficult for a competent student to get below a B- and for a competent student to actually get a B- would be a bit of a surprise. If you have a decent feel for what's going on, know your stuff, and can write well and spot issues, without any superman type edges, you are starting at a B. Getting the B+ and so on requires some edges.

Mr. Anon's post is very accurate. I just thought it couldn't hurt to add a couple specifics that I've learned after speaking with some of my 1L teachers and other department heads over the last two years.

First, only required classes have a mandatory curve. So that's all the 1L classes, including LRW, plus corporations, con law, and a general professional responsibility classes. An important note is that there are multiple specialized professional responsibility classes and these are generally smaller groups and are uncurved. Many upper level classes will not have a mandatory curve, however Fordham administration recommends a curve for classes with more than 20 people and strongly recommends a curve for classes with more than 40 people. I know of multiple younger faculty members that strictly adhere to the curve as they are still looking to make a good impression for tenure discussions which begin in the faculty member's third year teaching.

For the curve itself, professors are required to give at least 4% of the class (3 people in a typical 1L class of 80) some type of C. Anecdotally, the vast majority of professors will give a C+. Professors may give up to 16-18% of the class A's of some sort, but have to balance the number of A's and A-'s given. This means there are about 7 A's and 7 A-'s in a typical 1L class. Professors have the discretion to give an A+ instead of an A, but I have never heard of a teacher giving out more than 2 A+'s in a class.

Then, about 35% of the class will get a B and 35% of the class will get a B+, depending on how many A's a professor has distributed. Around 10-12% of the class will get a B-.

I agree with Mr. Anon that it is difficult to get lower than a B without a massive mistake being made or a complete lack of preparation. I do think however, that one can secure B+'s in any class with a few strategic tips and good typing speed.

Note, all the numbers above change each year and are based primarily on conversations that took place two years ago. Each number will change slightly each year and they also may vary by department, however, next year's numbers are likely very similar to those discussed above. I wouldn't have posted so much, but I see so many posts and hear so many people talk about the curve without a detailed understanding of it and this can negatively affect how one prepares. Hope this all helped.

[JCFindley]

C's are pretty lousy. Indicative of no study at all. B- could be no study or just terrible prep and nervousness. If someone studies properly and writes decently the worst they'll realistically get is a B, but that's a 3.0 and awful for law school.

I thought that with grading on a curve thè worst people in the class (10-15%) end up with a C
While this would encompass those who don't study or write properly, it also means that I'd everyone studies their ass off, the weakest person in the section ends up with a C even if s/he works their ass off and writes decently (but is last because everyone else is better)
Like getting last place at the olympics doesn't mean you suck, just that everyone else there is better

Technically I don't believe "C" is on Fordham's curve. They'd award the grade if necessary though. C+ probably is on the curve. From my experience it would be very difficult for a competent student to get below a B- and for a competent student to actually get a B- would be a bit of a surprise. If you have a decent feel for what's going on, know your stuff, and can write well and spot issues, without any superman type edges, you are starting at a B. Getting the B+ and so on requires some edges.

Mr. Anon's post is very accurate. I just thought it couldn't hurt to add a couple specifics that I've learned after speaking with some of my 1L teachers and other department heads over the last two years.

First, only required classes have a mandatory curve. So that's all the 1L classes, including LRW, plus corporations, con law, and a general professional responsibility classes. An important note is that there are multiple specialized professional responsibility classes and these are generally smaller groups and are uncurved. Many upper level classes will not have a mandatory curve, however Fordham administration recommends a curve for classes with more than 20 people and strongly recommends a curve for classes with more than 40 people. I know of multiple younger faculty members that strictly adhere to the curve as they are still looking to make a good impression for tenure discussions which begin in the faculty member's third year teaching.

For the curve itself, professors are required to give at least 4% of the class (3 people in a typical 1L class of 80) some type of C. Anecdotally, the vast majority of professors will give a C+. Professors may give up to 16-18% of the class A's of some sort, but have to balance the number of A's and A-'s given. This means there are about 7 A's and 7 A-'s in a typical 1L class. Professors have the discretion to give an A+ instead of an A, but I have never heard of a teacher giving out more than 2 A+'s in a class.

Then, about 35% of the class will get a B and 35% of the class will get a B+, depending on how many A's a professor has distributed. Around 10-12% of the class will get a B-.

I agree with Mr. Anon that it is difficult to get lower than a B without a massive mistake being made or a complete lack of preparation. I do think however, that one can secure B+'s in any class with a few strategic tips and good typing speed.

Note, all the numbers above change each year and are based primarily on conversations that took place two years ago. Each number will change slightly each year and they also may vary by department, however, next year's numbers are likely very similar to those discussed above. I wouldn't have posted so much, but I see so many posts and hear so many people talk about the curve without a detailed understanding of it and this can negatively affect how one prepares. Hope this all helped.

Thanks a lot for the straight dope OUaM.... It does help....

[JenDarby]

That's a bit optimistic and not entirely accurate. Professors actually may give 10-20% some form of A, NOT 16-18. I had a professor who only gave 10% As, partly due to his love of A+s.

The grading policy is posted right on the website...

"J.D. Grading Curve - By a resolution adopted on April 8, 2008, the faculty made the percentage distribution of grades listed below mandatory for all first year courses (with the exception of Legal Writing). The percentage distribution of grades for first year courses will be strictly enforced."

A- to A+ (10 to 20%)
B+ to A+ (40 to 50%)
B- to B+ (Remainder (the ratio of B- to B grades must be one-sixth to one-half of the total number of B- to B+ grades))
C- to C+ (3 to 10%)
D (No Standard)
F (No Standard)


http://law.fordham.edu/office-of-studen ... s/3696.htm