The most cogent anti-rankings article ever! Forum

[Drake014]

First of all, I'm not assuming that there are pre-curve GPAs. I said law schools could report pre-curve GPAs. I did not say that they DO exist - I merely acknowlege the possibility that they COULD exist. (this is directed to the person who posted earlier - not necessarily the person I am quoting)

In order to craft a curve, teachers must first grade assignments. They can be given raw scores first - then changed to fit the typical curve of the class/school. Essentially, two GPAs would emerge: a raw GPA and a curved GPA. This is typical of high schools with "college prep" programs that weigh classes differently - at least where I went to high school. In order to make a curve, which essentially is just a comparison of scores, the teacher must have an idea of what they are curving, such as raw score data.

Even if they had pre-curve GPA stats.

1) Grading style changes from professor to professor, it would be a terrible thing to use as a universal measurement
2) Think grade inflation is bad now? Holy living fuck that would blow the roof off of academic integrity.

Grading style doesn't change between undergrad professors? That's where this part of the discussion stems from - the efficacy of undergrad GPAs vs. the efficacy of law school GPAs.

They do have pre-curve stats, they just probably aren't compiled. For the curve to be established, the instructor must have an idea of the actual performance of each individual on their assignment in order to curve it. Grades won't necessarily be any more inflated, that inflation will just be revealed for what it actually is.

Grading styles do change from professor to professor at undergrad. Grade inflation is much talked about and argued over. If grade inflation could increase your law school standings, you'd see a shitload of it in law school

[tomhobbes]

I think using law school GPA is a great way to rank schools. Of course, it leaves way too much room for gaming the rankings, so to make it completely fair law schools should send their exams to be graded by professors at their peer schools. I think this will work.

[hotdog123]

First of all, I'm not assuming that there are pre-curve GPAs. I said law schools could report pre-curve GPAs. I did not say that they DO exist - I merely acknowlege the possibility that they COULD exist. (this is directed to the person who posted earlier - not necessarily the person I am quoting)

In order to craft a curve, teachers must first grade assignments. They can be given raw scores first - then changed to fit the typical curve of the class/school. Essentially, two GPAs would emerge: a raw GPA and a curved GPA. This is typical of high schools with "college prep" programs that weigh classes differently - at least where I went to high school. In order to make a curve, which essentially is just a comparison of scores, the teacher must have an idea of what they are curving, such as raw score data.

Even if they had pre-curve GPA stats.

1) Grading style changes from professor to professor, it would be a terrible thing to use as a universal measurement
2) Think grade inflation is bad now? Holy living fuck that would blow the roof off of academic integrity.

Grading style doesn't change between undergrad professors? That's where this part of the discussion stems from - the efficacy of undergrad GPAs vs. the efficacy of law school GPAs.

They do have pre-curve stats, they just probably aren't compiled. For the curve to be established, the instructor must have an idea of the actual performance of each individual on their assignment in order to curve it. Grades won't necessarily be any more inflated, that inflation will just be revealed for what it actually is.

That is probably why UGPA isn't the heaviest factor weighed in admissions. The only reason it is used at all is because, while it isn't perfect for *admissions*, it's one of the only things they have to work with.

When it comes to *rankings*, they have many more things to work with that aren't nearly as subjective.

You can't really compare admissions and rankings in that way. And saying "but they use the crappy system of UGPA in admissions!" doesn't mean they should use an even crappier system of putting LSGPAs into rankings.

Just because you're forced into using a spotty indicator like UGPA in admissions *does not* give any credence to using an even spottier indicator like LSGPAs in rankings. You don't justify terrible with bad, and you don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

[Drake014]

I think using law school GPA is a great way to rank schools. Of course, it leaves way too much room for gaming the rankings, so to make it completely fair law schools should send their exams to be graded by professors at their peer schools. I think this will work.

They should be graded by monkeys with feces instead of red ink.

[MrMcAllister]

First of all, I'm not assuming that there are pre-curve GPAs. I said law schools could report pre-curve GPAs. I did not say that they DO exist - I merely acknowlege the possibility that they COULD exist. (this is directed to the person who posted earlier - not necessarily the person I am quoting)

In order to craft a curve, teachers must first grade assignments. They can be given raw scores first - then changed to fit the typical curve of the class/school. Essentially, two GPAs would emerge: a raw GPA and a curved GPA. This is typical of high schools with "college prep" programs that weigh classes differently - at least where I went to high school. In order to make a curve, which essentially is just a comparison of scores, the teacher must have an idea of what they are curving, such as raw score data.

s
So we just change the entire law grading establishment to make better USNews rankings.

¿LOL Que?

That depends on what you mean by "better." The revelation of pre-curve raw performance data won't necessarily make top-tier schools look "better" via a higher ranking. The revelation of that data doesn't even necessarily have to change the grading system. It would be a revelation of the processes of current grading systems - the process of raw grades being transferred to curved grades. It's more of an issue of process transparency than process transformation.

Its more an issue of fiction rather than fact. There isn't any universal grading system. It changes from professor to professor and from school to school. There'd be no way to establish a pre-curve grading system without implementing a national standardized law school test for every subject (many subjects don't exist at every school). It would be horrendous to design, virtually impossible to implement, and detested and opposed by virtually every professor.

Standardized tests are not necessary to the crafting of a uniform grading system. The old-fashioned 10-pt scale does not mandate a uniform test and wouldn't necessarily be difficult to implement. You're challenging the efficacy of a general GPA - not merely law school GPAs; your criticisms of it can be applied to the criteria of establishing undergrad GPAs. One of the earlier posters was saying that law school GPAs should be used in ranking the institutions rather than undergrad GPAs of the admitted students. I'm simply saying that raw pre-curve data would be more relevant - not better or easier to implement. Further, schools without certain subjects simply wouldn't have data to report for that subject.

Do you actually think that basing rankings off of relative scores rather than actual scores is better?

[r6_philly]

I think using law school GPA is a great way to rank schools. Of course, it leaves way too much room for gaming the rankings, so to make it completely fair law schools should send their exams to be graded by professors at their peer schools. I think this will work.

They should be graded by monkeys with feces instead of red ink.

Feces? That monkey can surely write better than I do. In better handwriting no less.

[hotdog123]

I think using law school GPA is a great way to rank schools. Of course, it leaves way too much room for gaming the rankings, so to make it completely fair law schools should send their exams to be graded by professors at their peer schools. I think this will work.

They should be graded by monkeys with feces instead of red ink.

Feces? That monkey can surely write better than I do. In better handwriting no less.

I'll drink to that.

[MrMcAllister]

First of all, I'm not assuming that there are pre-curve GPAs. I said law schools could report pre-curve GPAs. I did not say that they DO exist - I merely acknowlege the possibility that they COULD exist. (this is directed to the person who posted earlier - not necessarily the person I am quoting)

In order to craft a curve, teachers must first grade assignments. They can be given raw scores first - then changed to fit the typical curve of the class/school. Essentially, two GPAs would emerge: a raw GPA and a curved GPA. This is typical of high schools with "college prep" programs that weigh classes differently - at least where I went to high school. In order to make a curve, which essentially is just a comparison of scores, the teacher must have an idea of what they are curving, such as raw score data.

Even if they had pre-curve GPA stats.

1) Grading style changes from professor to professor, it would be a terrible thing to use as a universal measurement
2) Think grade inflation is bad now? Holy living fuck that would blow the roof off of academic integrity.

Grading style doesn't change between undergrad professors? That's where this part of the discussion stems from - the efficacy of undergrad GPAs vs. the efficacy of law school GPAs.

They do have pre-curve stats, they just probably aren't compiled. For the curve to be established, the instructor must have an idea of the actual performance of each individual on their assignment in order to curve it. Grades won't necessarily be any more inflated, that inflation will just be revealed for what it actually is.

That is probably why UGPA isn't the heaviest factor weighed in admissions. The only reason it is used at all is because, while it isn't perfect for *admissions*, it's one of the only things they have to work with.

When it comes to *rankings*, they have many more things to work with that aren't nearly as subjective.

You can't really compare admissions and rankings in that way. And saying "but they use the crappy system of UGPA in admissions!" doesn't mean they should use an even crappier system of putting LSGPAs into rankings.

Just because you're forced into using a spotty indicator like UGPA in admissions *does not* give any credence to using an even spottier indicator like LSGPAs in rankings. You don't justify terrible with bad, and you don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

I'm not arguing that using LSGPAs would be better; that was one of the previous posters. I'm simply saying pre-curve data would be more relevant and indicative of actual student performance. I think we agree that the LSGPA is distorted with the curve and wouldn't be a good measure for rankings.

[hotdog123]

^ You are trying to justify using it to rank schools; whether you think it is better or not I could care less.

I'm not arguing against curved LSGPA data (using curved data would be self-defeating, anyway); I'm arguing against pre-curved LSGPA data. (grade inflation, subjectivity, etc.)

Both would be terrible for ranking schools unless all 1L courses were taught by a robot made by Diebold.

[SaintClarence27]

I'm not arguing that using LSGPAs would be better; that was one of the previous posters. I'm simply saying pre-curve data, would be more relevant and indicative of actual student performance. I think we agree that the LSGPA is distroted with the curve and wouldn't be a good measure for rankings.

We should have a standardized test upon graduation! That would measure each law school's ability to teach its students! Oh wait, it's called the Bar Exam. If you're actually looking to measure teaching ability, THAT is the indicator. If you're looking to measure quality of applicants, UGPA and LSAT are pretty good indicators.

Really, wouldn't a high indicator of a school's quality be taking crappy students and getting them to pass the bar?

[hotdog123]

Both would be terrible for ranking schools unless all 1L courses were taught by a robot made by Diebold.

Somewhere, a TTT Dean is looking at this post and making this face...

[gdane]

The problem is that because of these rankings, "crappy" students dont get the chance to go to these great schools that pretty much guarantee bar passage upon graduation. Im not sure if thats a problem though. You cant expect a school like Harvard to take a 2.5 GPA, 150 LSAT applicant.

However, the rankings are problematic in the sense that Harvard wont admit a 3.5, 165 LSAT applicant because they dont want to slip in the precious rankings. If the rankings focused more on what happens in school and after school instead of what students did before, then many other people could get into certain schools.

The idea that a schools ranking is mainly comprised of its incoming students' UG GPA, LSAT scores and things like yield and acceptance rates is ridiculous. Im just saying that there needs to be a better way to rank schools based off of important things such as bar passage rates and post graduation legal employment. When all is said and done, your LSAT score and UG GPA will most likely be of no help in getting a legal job.

The T14 will probably stay the same, but many schools that are currently lower ranked may be found to be underestimated.

[D. H2Oman]

The problem is that because of these rankings, "crappy" students dont get the chance to go to these great schools that pretty much guarantee bar passage upon graduation.

Gdane, Let's see if you can figure out the flaw here. Good luck.

[r6_philly]

The problem is that because of these rankings, "crappy" students dont get the chance to go to these great schools that pretty much guarantee bar passage upon graduation.

Gdane, Let's see if you can figure out the flaw here. Good luck.

I suspect that he doesn't see the flaw, and that's the reason why he is attacking the rankings. It is paradoxical, You the the ability to understand the flaw to actually understand the flaw.

[hotdog123]

The problem is that because of these rankings, "crappy" students dont get the chance to go to these great schools that pretty much guarantee bar passage upon graduation.

Gdane, Let's see if you can figure out the flaw here. Good luck.

In fairness to him, you cut off the part where he basically admitted it wasn't a salient point.

[09042014]

I'm not arguing that using LSGPAs would be better; that was one of the previous posters. I'm simply saying pre-curve data would be more relevant and indicative of actual student performance. I think we agree that the LSGPA is distorted with the curve and wouldn't be a good measure for rankings.

The tests aren't the same...

[hotdog123]

I'm not arguing that using LSGPAs would be better; that was one of the previous posters. I'm simply saying pre-curve data would be more relevant and indicative of actual student performance. I think we agree that the LSGPA is distorted with the curve and wouldn't be a good measure for rankings.

The tests aren't the same...

Shut up, dude. People are getting ideas...

[D. H2Oman]

The problem is that because of these rankings, "crappy" students dont get the chance to go to these great schools that pretty much guarantee bar passage upon graduation.

Gdane, Let's see if you can figure out the flaw here. Good luck.

In fairness to him, you cut off the part where he basically admitted it wasn't a salient point.

To be fair, that first sentence hurt my brain so much I literally could not continue reading.

[09042014]

I've got an idea. Lets have a nationally standardized test to test the students ability. We'll call it the Law School Admissions Test.

[hotdog123]

The problem is that because of these rankings, "crappy" students dont get the chance to go to these great schools that pretty much guarantee bar passage upon graduation.

Gdane, Let's see if you can figure out the flaw here. Good luck.

In fairness to him, you cut off the part where he basically admitted it wasn't a salient point.

To be fair, that first sentence hurt my brain so much I literally could not continue reading.

My ability to persevere through such fucknuttery is my only [strike]redeeming quality.[/strike] liability.

[erniesto]

The problem is that because of these rankings, "crappy" students dont get the chance to go to these great schools that pretty much guarantee bar passage upon graduation.

Gdane, Let's see if you can figure out the flaws here. Good luck.

FTFY

[09042014]

Actually if you took Law school GPA I think Northwestern would be the highest ranked law school in America. The curve is extremely easy.

[D. H2Oman]

Actually if you took Law school GPA I think Northwestern would be the highest ranked law school in America. The curve is extremely easy.

So you should wholeheartedly support the GDANE rankings!

[09042014]

Actually if you took Law school GPA I think Northwestern would be the highest ranked law school in America. The curve is extremely easy.

So you should wholeheartedly support the GDANE rankings!

1/3 NLJ 250 data 1/3 law school gpa 1/3 average age of student

[DoktorZaius]

The problem is that because of these rankings, "crappy" students dont get the chance to go to these great schools that pretty much guarantee bar passage upon graduation. Im not sure if thats a problem though. You cant expect a school like Harvard to take a 2.5 GPA, 150 LSAT applicant.

However, the rankings are problematic in the sense that Harvard wont admit a 3.5, 165 LSAT applicant because they dont want to slip in the precious rankings. If the rankings focused more on what happens in school and after school instead of what students did before, then many other people could get into certain schools.

The idea that a schools ranking is mainly comprised of its incoming students' UG GPA, LSAT scores and things like yield and acceptance rates is ridiculous. Im just saying that there needs to be a better way to rank schools based off of important things such as bar passage rates and post graduation legal employment. When all is said and done, your LSAT score and UG GPA will most likely be of no help in getting a legal job.

The T14 will probably stay the same, but many schools that are currently lower ranked may be found to be underestimated.

It should be "composed of," but other than that, everything else here is just peachy.