I think exercising the option to take classes pass/fail is fine if all you are looking to do is get a job.

But it might raise eyebrows if you are aiming for clerkships or highly competive firms. Your more ambitious classmates will probably take the graded option and end up with better-looking transcripts.

I wish pass-fail was available at my law school (or at least minus-letter grades to accompany the plus-letter grades). Law schools should promote a pass-fail curriculum. It will force students to prove in real, tangible ways that they are qualified to work in the profession, and particularly to clerk. It will prevent the coasters at top schools who glide by with decent grades to have doors opened widely based solely upon pedigree and instead require that these students prove themselves. An A in criminal procedure means nothing if you can't write a coherent sentence and don't know how to spell "circuit" (fyi, it's not "curcuit").

Make these people work for their positions...that's how it was always done, prior to the pay-for-the-trademark-of-a-degree program started.

As a clerk hiring clerks... it seems like someone is a) being lazy or b) was close to getting a bad grade in the class. Perhaps for a minor subject, it's fine... But for a major 1L course or a course like Corps/ Tax/ Con Law... looks bad. For that 5th class (a seminar)... go for it.

Uh, 10:31: what 1L is taking Corps or Tax?

At Brooklyn, we were able to take one class pass/fail. Many chose to take NY Civil Practice or another 5-credit course as pass/fail. Tax, however, was prohibited from being taken pass/fail, much to the chagrin of students who didn't read the fine print.

I'm a graduating 3L. Just checked my transcript and almost 15% of my overall course load was done on a pass-fail basis. Classes I took pass-fail:

- advanced legal writing
- moot court
- real estate
- corporate law (sales)
- directed research with a prof

We can take classes pass-fail so long as they are not required courses, and so long as the professor has not exempted their class from the pass-fail option.

In terms of 10:31's comment, laziness had nothing to do with it. I took courses that I might not have normally registered for, plus it allowed me to keep my focus on my required courses. The sanity that a few pass-fail classes provided helped me stay at the top of my law school for 3 years running.

i will be taking corporate finance pass/fail

someone tell them to grow a pair and just take the damn courses for a letter grade. pussies.

"As a clerk hiring clerks..."

10:39: How is taking courses pass/fail to protect your spot at the top of the class not a form of laziness?

That's great that 1Ls can take a class pass/fail, but the real question is why can't 3Ls take all of their classes pass/fail?

I am a 1L taking corporations and basic federal income tax !

At Georgetown, we can take a total of 6 credits pass/fail, and only 1 class pass/fail in any given semester. You can also set a "target grade." If you hit your target grade, say a B +, you can keep the grade. If you fall short, you just get a pass.

JT never took a P/F. But then, JT simply seduced examsoft into giving JT straight A grades. Examsoft is a chunk of fiiiiine lookin' woman.

Pass/Fail inevitably looks like a crutch. It screams "I don't want to do the work." Sure, some credits should be pass/fail - on my transcript, those were journal participation, legal writing assistant and a trial advocacy program, and were mandated to be such by the administration - just not the core classes. As far as I recall, there was no way to opt out of a letter grade, and I wouldn't have done it even if it had been an option. That said, I think there is merit to auditing courses if one's schedule permits, without grades or credits.

I'm on the recruiting committee, but I don't do the first level of review (selection for initial interviews or on campus interviews). As someone who just does callback interviews, I probably wouldn't pay enough attention to a candidates resume to note that they took a class pass/fail -- unless there were a LOT of pass/fails on there or it stood out for some other reason. It's better for me (personally) to see a "P" on a transcript than a B- or lower.

Guys in my high school used to take the easy way out all the time, it was no big deal.

I always look askance at P/F. Yale students always go to the bottom of the resume pile. Slackers.

1L's should not be allowed to pass/fail anything. How else will they learn that they suck? Well, I suppose those at the top might never learn that, and good for them. But the rest of the student body needs to know how bad they are and how unsuccessful they will be. Disallowing 1L pass/fails is the only way to do it!

In some situations taking a class pass fail makes a lot of sense, for instance:

A second semester 1L who had outstanding grades the first semester, but is worried about having their GPA tarnished by the second semester course load would be wise to take a class pass fail, and have more time to focus on the exams in their other classes, and protect themselves from harming the GPA firms will be looking at when making summer associate offers.

A 2L spending a great deal of time on their job hunt during the fall semester, who is also on a journal and/or moot court. This can be the most demanding semester, depending on the burdens of the job hunt.

Any 3L coasting to the finish line that isn't shooting for a clerkship.

I go to Boalt. Everything is pass fail. (But some pass slightly better than others.)

law school turns otherwise normal adults into whining, emotionally fragile little girls. "Oh no, I have to miss Lost because I have casebooks to read. What color highlighter should I use? This is so hard; I'm kind of like Jesus in the sacrifices I make. I'm going to have a good cry and switch to pass/fail." Just wait until you're in the real world, where your fellow associates don't want to hear your blithering.

Seriously, people get credit for journals? At some schools you get to balance that with your courseload. 10:59 needs to get over themselves.

Pass/Fail looks fine to employers. One might be skeptical of schools which allow it in bulk, but the schools that have limited pass/fail options should openly be used by students.

Yeah, who gets credit (P/F or otherwise) for journal participation. Lame!

Will going to Yale, with their P/F grading scheme, really hurt me in hiring?

im confused. do these people have options to take any class pass/fail and is therefore different from taking an actual course that is offered pass/fail to all participants? and i assume this does not include journal credits and clinicals graded pass/fail?

Journal membership often takes up a ton of time. Most people also write and/or publish a note, which is time-consuming as hell. Why should somebody be penalized for that? It's generally just a credit or two, anyway.

Perhaps if 10:25 "were" to use the subjunctive tense, he would seem more credible.

Reading these posts with a mocking effeminate voice is great.

subjunctive = a mood ≠ a tense.

By the way... 3 of those GENIUS 1Ls who took everything pass-fail "RK-ed" the course. What the hell does that mean? It means they basically failed the course AND those failing grades will be entered onto their GPAs. Which means...they have GPAs of 2.2 from Stanford. Hello crappy law job in the middle of Wyoming!

I agree with the whiny girl comment. These pansies don't deserve the time of day.

I can't believe those babies get to take first-year courses pass/fail. Wish I could have done that!

3L's should be allowed to take all p/f classes. Also, they should be able to take all non-law classes if they wish at the University. Also, there shouldn't even be a third year of law school. Also, you shouldn't have to take the bar if you've graduated from an accredited law school.

Lots of schools give credit for journal participation. What a joke. Back in the day, we worked on the journal for prestige and therefore jobs.

Contrary to popular belief, Yale does NOT have a pass / fail grading system. They award Honors (H), Pass, (P), Low Pass (LP), and Fail (F).

For certain positions, the proportion of Hs to Ps on your transcript DOES matter. E.g., feeder judge and Supreme Court clerkships; jobs at the most selective law firms.

11:21 - Unless you are a Rhodes Scholar, in which case your grades don't matter.

Rhodes Scholar + YLS Diploma = SCOTUS clerkship

Where I went to law school, Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey we did not have a system of Pass/Fail. Rather, we had what is known as Ram/Shank. I would say that at least 30% of my overall course load was Ram/Shank.

Also, various cheeses and dried goods were exchanged in place of currency at Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey.

YLS grad: if I'm not mistaken, Yale uses that grading system for ALL 1Ls, right? (And everyone knows this.) So P/F grades on your transcript are not going to mark you as a lazy ass (which WILL be the case for people who take the P/F option at Stanford while their more ambitious classmates get A's).

11:21: I'm curious - could a professor give all HPs or all LPs, or are the assessments on a curve?

The P/F system at Yale is for first semester 1Ls. After that, the HP/P/LP/F system goes into effect, for everyone.

What if, rather than "grades," we had been rewarded with varied cheeses...? Would this not have served to better prepare us down the road?

Funny, I'm actually reviewing 1L resumes for our summer class right now. From my perspective, if you have a great resume, it doesn't hurt you to have gone pass fail. But if you, say, went straight through and just have camp counseler and the like on your resume, and then have a transcript full of passes, albeit from Stanford, you're not giving me any reason whatsoever to put you in the "interview" pile.

only ttt students take classes pass-fail. if this was any school but stanford, i would have said that the school was ttt, as well. c'mon, to-be-lawyers, grow a sack and take classes for real grades not this Pass-fail bs.

I agree with grammar nazi. People need to learn how/when to use the subjunctive (which, in English, is rarely). Thus, Anonyi's post should have read "if this were any school but Stanford . . . " I hope you have a job because errors like that in a resume or cover letter can cost you an interview.

FYI--The article is slightly off. Something like 80% of SLS 1Ls took at least one of their classes 3k. The open letter to the 1L class was encouraging people to take all four first semester classes pass fail, and it set up a google document where people could commit to do so. 40 people signed up, but a few had buyers remorse and lobbied the registrar to change back to grades after the deadline. Text of the letter is:

"There's been a bit of a buzz today about how a relatively large number of people in our class have decided to 3K all four classes. Obviously it's a personal choice and we don't need to move in herds, but folks thought it would be helpful to see who else has made this decision and why.

The big reasons for doing this that I've heard (and feel) are

- Having grades, and especially curved grades, drives us all to the bottom line, right or wrong, doctrinal answers and drives us away from asking bigger and more interesting questions. Now's the time for raw curiosity, for taking advantage of being surrounded by really smart and really interesting people, not for hunkering down and cramming knowledge that we're going to forget and have to re-learn for the bar.

- Many of us picked Stanford because we value a life-work balance (life comes first!) and have been a little thrown off by how unhappy we've made ourselves in the last few weeks.

- If you don't learn how to break from dependence on strict external evaluation/validation now, it's going to be harder and harder to do so down the line, and you're setting yourself up for a whole lot of rat-racing. Ambition is admirable, and so is the courage to chart your own path.

- There's a solid chance that SLS will move to Yale-style grading system next fall. 3King everything shows support for that move and also spares you the weirdness of having only 1 year of grades.

-For a (relatively, for a law school) interdisciplinary school that encourages us to explore (both intellectually and especially professionally), it's slightly contradictory to force all first semester 1L students to take a heavy burden of 18 credits when only 14.3 credits/semester are required to graduate. The less time we have to pursue other options (both intellectual and professional), the more likely we will "default" into law firms. Tradition is no defense."

11:32-
It's a loose, informal curve. Profs can give mostly H's in small, touchy-feely seminars, but not in large, standard classes. Conventional wisdom is that the breakdown per class is about 30% H, 69% P, 1% LP, 0% F.

Yale 0L,
You can get a job pretty much anywhere pretty easily. With a couple of H's, you'll get offers everywhere except WLRK and the top appellate shops in DC.

As somebody with experience in hiring and on a recruiting committee, multiple pass-fail grades would stand out, but a few probably would not matter, particularly if the classes with "real" grades were good, and even more so if the student comes from a top school.

From a REAL SLS Student,

1) If you want to explore and experiment, go ahead! But you better know the right answer at the end of the day. Otherwise, you're just a guy with his head in the clouds and no understanding of the law.
Curved grades are a reflection of reality. You will be judged against your peers. ALWAYS.

Besides, the SLS forced mean is 3.4. Anyone who whines about a 3.4 forced means is...well... a whiner.

2) Real students can find time to take classes for grades and balance their life. Work-life balance doesn't mean abandoning grades. The people who keep crying "I am choosing the Life in the Work/Life balance" don't want to be judged for going out partying every other night. Too bad for them.

3) There is no courage in saying "please don't judge me based on the merits of which I am fully aware." Especially, since ALL Stanford students are at Stanford for succeeding in grades at the past.

4) If SLS does move to a Yale-style grading system, the last thing anyone at SLS administration cares about are what a bunch of 1Ls think.

5) Breaking dependence from strict external evaluation and validation makes little sense. You will always be evaluated. And you will often be fired if you decide not to play. You can't just avoid evaluation because its hard or because you want to play outside.

To be clear, I got one credit a semester for my 2L law review participation, which required a boatload of office hours doing endless cite-checking and proofreading, in addition to the writing requirement. In my 3L year, I was an editor, so I might have gotten 2 credits for what was a heck of a lot more work.

There is a big difference between upper class students being allowed to take some set number of courses pass/fail that they might not otherwise take (because of a harsh grader or large number of gunners that would kill the curve), and 1Ls being allowed to take ALL (or any) of their courses pass/fail.

For some people, Tax or Corporations are useful courses but not actually necessary to their career. I was glad to have the option to take courses like that and learn the material without stressing out about competing against people who needed to take it. Also, at Michigan if you would get a C- or below, that grade goes on your transcript and is factored into your GPA.

But yeah, pass/failing all your 1L classes... I guess that's a luxury that only Stanford and Yale can afford to its students. Also part of 1L year is learning that you're not always on top- and perhaps students at the best schools could use that lesson the most.

Let's at least consider replacing the nickle with small, similarly sized disks of hearty cheese.

12:22: Good points. At my law school, they actually relaxed the curve for Fed Courts because enrollment numbers were so low.

Law review is a scam.

Michigan has P/F but only for 2L and 3L years. You have take the standard 1L classes for a grade. I think it's a nice option in your 2L and 3L years if you have a lot of other stuff on your plate, such as Law Review and/or a clinic.

Many law firms have fairly strict grade cut-offs, and if you take everything pass/fail, you have no grades (and yes, firms with grade cut-offs assign weights to Hs and Ps at Boalt and similar schools). At least some of those firms (including mine) will deal with that by refusing to consider you. And in order for us to consider you as a 2L, your remaining few grades are going to have to get you above the grade cut-off. So, taking your first semester entirely pass/fail doesn't really help you.

Does Chuck Norris take classes pass/fail?

Another Mich grad here. We got a certain number of credits (15, I think) to take on an optional P/F basis 2L and 3L years.

I had always assumed most everybody took the full complement. I sure as hell did.

One of the enjoyable things about reading these posts is watching the tough guys mock everyone else for not having "balls," or for being "effeminate" "pansies". Meanwhile, none of them had the spine to attach his real name to his message. Also, what does it say about the legal profession that in a conversation about employment, not a single word of that sexist garbage went unchallenged? How successful are you going to be in the workplace if that's how you think and talk? And how successful are law firms going to be if they're dominated by frat-tastic cowards who don't have the self-confidence to put their names on what they believe?

As for pass-failing classes... Grades are useful for people who don't have anything else on their resumes to demonstrate to an employer how they can be expected to perform. Beyond that, they don't serve much of a purpose except to feed the pathos of insecure, compulsively overachieving 22 year olds who need constant validation to be able to get up in the morning. Last time I checked, Harvard & Stanford Business Schools, and Yale and Stanford Med Schools were managing to produce the top professionals in their fields without relying on grades to motivate them to perform.

So what we're asking in this thread is, "Can I take classes pass/fail, and therefore do less work, and still get a biglaw job/clerkship?" I think that if those things are desirable to you, you already know whether to take class P/F (especially as a 1L).

John Kimble:

you surely are a 1L. Not posting your name has nothing to do with being a coward you arrogant ass. It has to do with the fact that you have ZERO reasonable expectation of privacy as to anything you post online. Firms will read this and judge YOU rather than a simple moniker. I wouldn't hire you. Not because you stood up for yourself . . . no, I wouldn't hire you because you are stupid. Thank you that is all.

I support being able to take external classes pass/fail. For classes at the business school, and language classes, law students should not feel pressured to compete with outsiders to preserve their resumes.

However, for core classes, it's a cop-out. Competition is part of what law school is all about. You could say the same thing about the profession. It's SUPPOSED to be stressful.

John Kimble: the law is more of a hierarchical profession than business or medicine. It is inadvisable for a 1L to make assumptions about the profession and what credentials you need to succeed in it.

12:57 - said it best. Also Mr. John Kimble, please get off your pompous platform. Unlike you, most of us are associates at top law firms around the country, and we know what we are talking about. Also, our firms are doing perfectly well with us "frat-tastic cowards," unless you want to blame the recent slowdown on us...

In response to the four rationales for stanford students taking all classes pass/fail:

(1)Bullshit.

(2)Bullshit.

(3)Bullshit.

(4)Bullshit.

GW faculty voted recently to change the 1L legal writing class from P/F to A-F.

12:57

Mr. Kimble wins. His point is only that it is cowardly to post sexist comments on an anonymous basis. Period. Of course a firm will judge the poster of a sexist commenter on a negative basis. What is your point? Finally, your ad hominem attacks and empty threats not to hire Mr. Kimble add nothing to the argument.

GW just changed its 1L legal writing course from P/F to A-F.

"It's not a tumor!"
-John Kimble

My boss just came in and told me that (1) my transfer went through, and (2) my request to be compensated in dry goods and cheeses was denied.

1:13:

I disagree. I'll concede that *if* a post is sexist (and sexist posts are in poor taste to the extent that they are meant to be taken seriously) it is cowardly to post anonymously. But even such cowards are smart enough to know when not to broadcast who they are. The fact that someone would post their name, even if they have a valid point, indicates to me that they are not smart enough to realize where the bounds of privacy fall and I would worry about their ability to keep confidences. The ad hominem attack was a direct response to the fact that he identified himself as going to Stanford. That information is only germane if he is talking directly about his experience with the Stanford pass/fail option. He was not doing that. He was finding a back door way to brag. He needed to be taken down a notch. I've had my share of humble pie and now it is John Kimble's turn. You, 1:13, need to learn to look beyond the mere words written in Mr. Kimble's post.

1:27 --

I agree with your basic premise (i.e., the riskiness of identifying yourself). However, I don't think Kimble attached Stanford to his name as a back-door way of bragging. I think he was simply doing this to more precisely identify himself. After all, as 1:23 observed, John Kimble is not the most unique name.

Not 1:13:

I agree that you may be right. The issue is that I believe my interpretation is reasonable. The point is that when you use written communication, you must be very careful (because non verbal cues such as tone and pace etc aren't available and more interpretations of any given phrase become reasonable). Mr. Kimble, at least implicitly, failed to recognize this and that is a major issue in my book.

I'm one of the 70% or so who decided to take their classes for a grade. I did it because I wanted to learn the material and because I know myself well enough to know that I work harder when I'm being evaluated. That was my decision, and others had just as valid and personal reasons to take their classes pass-fail. I don't get where all the anger on this board is coming from. I think grades are a mostly good thing, but others don't. That doesn't hurt me at all, if anything it made it easier for me to beat the mean...

12:57

Mr. Kimble wins. His point is only that it is cowardly to post sexist comments on an anonymous basis. Period. Of course a firm will judge the poster of a sexist commenter on a negative basis. What is your point? Finally, your ad hominem attacks and empty threats not to hire Mr. Kimble add nothing to the argument.

1:48's post is a good example of what John Kimble should have done. 1:48 cannot be accused of bragging because s(he) does not give their name. Furthermore, 1:48 telling us their school puts the particular post in context. The body of the post explains this individual's response to the pass/fail option at Stanford (the original topic of discussion). It is a well crafted post. 1:48 will do much better in law than will John Kimble. If 1:48 is John Kimble, then you have shown that you can learn and that is a good sign.

12:04 --> Giant Gunner

I concur: 12:04 is SUCH a giant gunner.

1:27 Friend -

To be clear, I included "Stanford 1L" to identify myself as the person who initiated the letter to the Stanford class referenced in the original post (and to distinguish myself from other John Kimble's out there in the world who don't want their names on my words.)

Putting my name on this post has nothing to do with my ability to keep something confidential. If I were to post the dozens of private email replies I've received because of all this, *that* would give you good reason to doubt my discretion. But what I wrote above is something that I've already said publicly and in job interviews. By putting my name on my post I've gotten great, thoughtful, private responses that point out ways that I'm right and ways that I'm wrong. I would have never heard any of those thoughts if I'd posted anonymously. (If you want to distrust someone, consider my classmate who posted the text of an internal class memo to this forum without seeking the permission of the 40 people who wrote, edited, and signed it.)

I also chose to identify myself because anonymous postings generally enable inappropriate discussions that reflect badly on our profession. There's a lot to be gained from taking responsibility for your ideas, even if it means taking heat when you're wrong.

Cheers,
JK

John Kimble for President!

Okay, maybe that's going too far, but he seems like a good guy.

Mr. Kimble:

Your most recent post is, admittedly, well said. But, unfortunately I do not think we are going to agree over the propriety of using your name. I still think doing so is extremely ill advised and does (for me) call into question your ability to keep confidences. But, I will give you credit for being consistent and being willing to take the heat (assuming the truth of everything in your post). I stand by the remainder of my disagreements with your earlier posts.

I think going gradeless is a good idea.

It makes no sense to base job prospects on how you did on a handful of random, 3-hr exams.

It makes even less sense given that those exams bear no relationship to what happens in class. Someone can not do any of the reading, never show up to class, never participate, and ace an exam.

Moreover, exams bear little to no relationship to the practice of law, or to whether one would make a good partner at a law firm.

Here's what I would do. Set up a pass-fail system, with a high "honors" designation. Which means, give the "honors" designation to only the top 5% or so. This awards those who are shooting for SCOTUS or whatever. No "low pass," just a "fail" for those who made no effort whatsoever. Another option would be to grade writing & research classes on mean - since writing & research is a class that should be more important to law firms than torts.

Lastly, I'm going to clerk myself on the COA, but it's always struck me as strange that people who randomly happen to be good at a few exams end up getting nice clerkships, which bring huge bonuses and prestige.

The system doesn't make much sense.

JK,

JT likes your style.

11:10 - If you are really on this board asking that question, please spare us your presence.

who is your daddy and what does he do?

Mr. Kimble:

You're totally wrong on HBS.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:MxI_4b3AsAgJ:www.hbs.edu/mba/recruiting/pdf/facts_and_frequently_asked_questions.pdf+HARVARD+BUSINESS+SCHOOL+AND+GRADE+DISCLOSURE&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

HBS and Wharton always had grades, but they weren't disclosed to employers. Now HBS has changed its policy. Wharton also changed its policy to allow grade disclosure.

These top business schools, unlike you, are aware of the fact that grades matter, and gave in to the demands of future employers who wish to go beyond whether a candidate had a firm handshake at the recruiting event.

John Kimble, I think it's important to note how cowardly it is to post on the internet under some alleged name with nothing that may be used to verify the identity of the poster. In the future, please include your birthdate, SSN, and mother's maiden name.

I sure as shit wish I got into Stanford. What a joke...

I believe Mr. Kimble's namesake summed it up best:

"Stop whining! You kids are soft. You lack discipline."

2:38 said:

"Someone can not do any of the reading, never show up to class, never participate, and ace an exam."

Yeah, this happens sometimes, but it's fairly rare. In my experience, the people who performed the best on exams usually went to class and knew what was going on. Your theory that top performers just "randomly" do well on exams has no basis in logic or common sense. Unless you have some evidence to back up this claim, I'm not buying it.

Northeastern Law School in Boston has no grades for any of their classes, just written evaluations. Surprisingly, people who go there have no job prospects whatsoever.

Perhaps he wanted to distinguish himself from *detective* John Kimble.

COA clerk,

People's performance on exams isn't random. But it can vary in ways unrelated to their ability or mastery of an area, and for a number of reasons.

First, grades on a forced mean are basically ranks. So, you can know material really, really well, but happen to rank in the bottom of the class. This issue often comes up in 3L year "gunner" classes, like Federal Courts. The 3L could know her Fed Cts well, but not as well as her friends. Should an employer, or a court, conclude then from a low grade that she was no good? It might matter to SCOTUS, but should it matter to anyone else? To a firm?

Second, most exam setups exaggerate rather than spread or attenuate risk. Why is it that we make an entire grade depend on how someone happens to do over a 3-hr period on an issue-spotter that likely does not cover all the parts of the class?

Third, while you're certainly right that performance isn't random, I have seen on a number of occasions that people who engage material more superficially do better than those that dig deep. This is what I was thinking about when I said you don't need to go to class. Why should employers (or our judges) place much trust in our superficial acquaintance with the broad principles of, say, contract law? Is that what will be required to resolve the issues that go before the COA? Or to resolve the issues that the best firms are paid to face? I can't think that it would.

What you want is a system where risk is spread broadly, and where the performance markers attach to conduct that employers should care about.

What law schools need to do is offer a pass/fail course in having social skills, a class I can actually excel in. That's an important part of being a lawyer right? Not being weird?

Thanks for the thoughtful response, 4:52. I disagree with your first and second points, but I tend to agree with the third. Just to touch briefly on the first point: I think it's fair to have a strict curve because, in most cases, employers know what they're looking at. If you end up in the bottom third in a course at Harvard, employers will not jump to the conclusion that you don't know your stuff. Yes, they'll prefer the person that did better than you, but only marginally so. Obviously, that marginal difference will expand to something meaningful if there is a huge disparity -- as, I think, it should.

My schlong is oh-so-long and gives ladies something to munch on!

I love how the take-the-P/F-option crowd is making lengthy arguments about the irrelevance of grades. Polish those arguments up so that you'll be able to make them to judges during clerkship hiring season.

No, on second thought, don't bother: because your app will be in the trash and you won't get an interview. Sorry, but that's just the way things work. If you love business school so much why don't you marry it?

Also, I believe at least some of the "John Kimble" posts are trolls; "cheers" is just too obvious given last week's thread on annoying email sign-offs.

"FS,"

A true stud has no need to stoop so low.

to 12:57, AKA John Kimble,

LIGHTEN UP!

Your whining about "sexist posts" was straight from the PC police manual . . .

to 4:52-

Well said. I go to a top-10 school and did pretty well on my torts exam, but it was a joke. It was basically a typing contest to see who could apply duty-breach-cause-harm the most in 3 hours. I seriously doubt that's what SCOTUS or biglaw is looking for. Though perhaps that made the prof's life easier in terms of grading.

Things are actually flipped upside down. The top schools like Y/H, where the students are the most sophisticated thinkers, should have grades, b/c they actually might reflect something beyond typing skills. Other schools should just dispense with grades all together -- or maybe just grade legal writing class -- b/c grades are a crapshoot at these schools anyway!

Wow - 5:47 is quite the feminist, like our man Johnny Kimble...

Guys in my high school used to take classes pass/fail all the time...it was no big deal.

JK was smart, friendly, and really nice back then, and he's still smart, friendly, and really nice now.

As a 1L at a top-tier school, I think there could be a good argument for LR&W being graded pass-fail. Encouraging the students who are naturally better, quicker learning or previously experienced with legal writing to not help their classmates develop essential skills is stupid.

CLS all P/F to 190k!

Seriously, I'd love for CLS to have a P/F option.

Naive guys in my high school used to sign their real names to pompous self-important rants about sexist anonymous posts all the time, it was no big deal.

Yo, JK - do us all a favor and wait till you've actually taken a few laps around the practice track (let alone finish your first year) before you start telling us whether grades are a good indicator of performance.

P.S. - you can't use "our profession" until you have the paper on the wall

P.P.S. - Run, get to the choppa!!!

some poeple seem to say pass fail is good for 3l asnd bad for 1L becuase people need to learn to not be at the top.

but what about having everyone get aquaited with law school beofre you start seperating the men from the boys based on the 3 hour exams for entire 1l courses?

what about people who not only learn they suck..but fuk up so bad they cant catch up becuase their grades are low on a high curve...even if they are justt as godod as evryone else for the rest of law school..or even a little better?

why should 1l count more for how you compare to your classmates then 3L?

if its so imprtant that peopel leran that they suck..they can leran it when it counts...at the end of law school when everyones awuaited and on the same page with law school.

and btw..the idea that people havnt encdountered grading curves before they went to law school and think they are on top unitl 1L is a myth spread by snobby law students who like to brand all grade reform ideas as problem of studentss coping with their egos. most undergrad schools have ccurves..and not all law students were at the top of those.

there are ligitamate reasons for pass fail and papers and midterms..etc..that have nothing to do with studnets egos.

People have encountered grading curves, but they really didn't matter. When your class comes in with 3.7's+ from wherever they went to school, that means they basically got straight A's and that rarely means they had to work all that hard at it.

The sort of schools where people are weighing P/F programs versus grade point and how it is perceived by employers with strict grade cutoffs pretty much does not take people who got less than an AB average unless there are some serious external factors and a high LSAT to explain them away.

8:49 - the purpose of grades is to separate wheat from chaff. Employers use grades as a proxy for determining who is and who is not a good candidate for the firm. It's not perfect, but its better for firms than to take blind shots at law students and cross their fingers that the kid isn't a total screw up. I'm sorry that you don't like the system and wish it were different, but that's the way it is. Oh, and in case you were wondering, I AM one of those people that did mediocre first semester and ended up Magna. I am one of the people you say the grading system hurts, I'm just not a little baby about it.

I'm not normally one to be a grammar/spelling snob when it comes to blog comments, but damn, 8:49, you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself. I can't take your point seriously when it's filled with that many errors.

4:52, your idea is bas-ackwards.

There is no reason for grading legal research and writing. The people who are actually far above average at it make moot court and law review and employers kind of know that. Most of the rest are generally good, and a few people either can't do it or won't do it. That sounds like a perfect situation for H/P/F to me.

Why is everyone at Stanford and places like it so afraid to compete? It's no big deal, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. You must have had some capacity to compete or you wouldn't be there. Are your egos really so fragile that you need to be protected from yourselves? If you want a work/life balance, make the necessary sacrifices and take it upon yourself to live by your values -- making everyone else back off so you can without any personal sacrifice is the coward's way out and shows no work/life balance whatsover.

I went to Boalt and I can tell you that I have been turned down for job interviews because they can't figure out the grading and don't want a candidate without a class ranking or GPA. Sometimes it really sucks.

9:34

i understand the purpose of grades. there is no indication in my post that i iwould disagree with a stytsm of seprrateing and ranking people...i even propose ranking based on 3l grades rather than the current focus on 1l grades.

you point out that employers want a systtem to help them choose the best..why not develop a system that doesd that by looking at the grab bag of alternatives such as:

pass fail for some classes
papers
midterms
1st year grades counting less

that might be a more mature way to think about it than to simply call everyone who disagrees with the current system a baby

btw im not talking about people who did "medicfore" or avrage 1st semster...im tlaking about people who got 2.5 on 3.5 curves and couldnt get better without a miricle..but clearly do fine of even above avarage the next few semstters and clearly know it jut as well as the rest and eend up with a 3.0 on a 3.5 curve that doesn't show it.

As a recent Stanford alum, I can tell you this "trend" is not new. Almost every single 1L 3Ks one class.

I 3Ked three classes my first year-- and it didn't adversely affect my law firm, clerkship, clinic, or other employment prospects. In fact, I think it helped. Employers want to see quality over quantity when it comes to grades.