Stanford Adopts ‘Retroactive’ Honors Policy:
Students Complain In Real Time
Update: Harvard Law School also just announced changes to its grading system that will make it more like the Yale and Stanford systems. See here.
In May, we reported that the faculty of Stanford Law School voted to change their grading system. The school went from the traditional “A, B, C, Die” system to a Yale-esque pass/fail hybrid. From the May message of Dean Larry Kramer:
[T]he faculty voted to adopt a grade reform proposal which will change our grading system to an honors, pass, restricted credit, no credit system for all semesters/quarters. The new system includes a shared norm for the proportion of honors to be awarded in both exam and paper courses. No grading system is perfect, but the consensus is that the reform will have significant pedagogical benefits, including that it encourages greater flexibility and innovation in the classroom and in designing metrics for evaluating student work.
We noted then that the school was still working on the exact meaning of “honors.”
“Honors” has now been defined. “Watch that first step … it’s a doozy.” From Dean Kramer:
[W]e will no longer use or award Order of the Coif or “Graduation with Distinction,” honors we have in the past recognized and given out at or after graduation. Instead, prizes will be awarded in individual courses to recognize outstanding student performance. Tentatively called “book prizes” (after the fashion of some other schools that use this system), one book prize may be awarded for every 15 students, and this will be true in all classes, whether the basis of evaluation is an exam or a paper. In first-year required classes, 2 prizes will be available in small sections, and 4 in large sections. In advanced classes, professors have discretion about whether and how many prizes to award, though within the same maximum guideline of one per every 15 students (faculty may round up at 8). Discretion is meant to signal that faculty are recognizing genuinely outstanding performance, not just the event of receiving a high grade. Prizes will be registered on student transcripts when grades come out at the end of each term and you will be free to list them on your resumes. The policy is effective beginning this term….[T]he faculty also concluded that we should award book prizes to students in the class of 2010 for their 1L classes last year, following the standard set forth above. (It will take some time for these retroactive prizes to be calculated and incorporated onto student transcripts.)
The full message is reprinted, and students weigh in, after the jump.
Stanford is changing to all book prizes, all the time. That’s certainly one way of pitting classmate against classmate in a 15 person Royal Rumble to determine the next SCOTUS clerk.
But how would you like to be a 2L at Stanford right now? In case you missed it, book prizes will be applied retroactively to 1L transcripts. But even Kramer doesn’t know exactly how that is going to work.
According to one tipster:
Students here are very unhappy. This is not what we expected.
- Screwed 2L
In May, we polled the readership, and 36.7% of you said that you would prefer a Yale-type grading system over a traditional one. But Stanford didn’t copy Yale exactly.
Are you in the top 7% of your class? Because “best of 15” is suddenly going to mean something at Stanford.
STANFORD LAW SCHOOL — MEMORANDUM — GRADE TRANSITION - HONORS
From: Larry D Kramer
Date: September 25, 2008
Subject: [law-2010] Grade Transition—-Honors
Dear All:
Last week, the faculty met to resolve the final issue in our grade system transition, namely, what kind of honors to award.
First, our new policy does not apply to the class of 2009, which will remain for honors purposes (as with grades) on the old system.
Second, we will no longer use or award Order of the Coif or “Graduation with Distinction,” honors we have in the past recognized and given out at or after graduation. Instead, prizes will be awarded in individual courses to recognize outstanding student performance. Tentatively called “book prizes” (after the fashion of some other schools that use this system), one book prize may be awarded for every 15 students, and this will be true in all classes, whether the basis of evaluation is an exam or a paper. In first-year required classes, 2 prizes will be available in small sections, and 4 in large sections. In advanced classes, professors have discretion about whether and how many prizes to award, though within the same maximum guideline of one per every 15 students (faculty may round up at 8). Discretion is meant to signal that faculty are recognizing genuinely outstanding performance, not just the event of receiving a high grade. Prizes will be registered on student transcripts when grades come out at the end of each term and you will be free to list them on your resumes. The policy is effective beginning this term.
As with the new grading system, our belief is that the award of individual honors for outstanding performance in specific classes better fits our pedagogic goals than the raw end-of-school ranking Coif and Distinction required. We also believe that the new policy will send a stronger, earlier signal to employers about the immense and diverse talents of all our students. Different people do better in some formats, courses, and fields of study than in others, and the book prize policy will reflect these ranges of accomplishment more accurately than raw ranking.
Third, the faculty also concluded that we should award book prizes to students in the class of 2010 for their 1L classes last year, following the standard set forth above. (It will take some time for these retroactive prizes to be calculated and incorporated onto student transcripts.)
Best,
Larry
(64) Comments
Comments
1st and hls just did this too
the pass/fail is a good idea. book prizes are silly.
What did HLS do?
To all students:
I am writing to let you know that the faculty decided yesterday to move to a grading system with fewer classifications than we have now. The new classifications, much as at Yale and Stanford, will be Honors-Pass-Low Pass-Fail. The faculty believes that this decision will promote pedagogical excellence and innovation and further strengthen the intellectual community in which we all live. The new system will apply to students entering HLS in fall 2009; yet to be determined is whether it also will apply to some or all classes of current students.
The faculty began consideration of this issue last year, and has consulted with groups of students, alumni, and other employers in the course of our discussions. Before making a decision on whether to implement the system now, for all or some of our current students, I want to make sure that any interested student has a chance to express his or her views. To provide this opportunity, I will hold a “town hall” meeting on Thursday, October 2 from 2:30 to 3:30 in Austin North. I look forward to seeing you some of you there.
Best,
Elena Kagan
Too long, didn't read.
What kind of circle-jerk nonsense is this? Give grades, damn it... how else are you supposed to recognize merit.
Hey 5 - Why the F#!* do you think we care that your attention span is so short you can't be bothered. Your post: too moronic, didn't care. And won't in the future. Go away.
Any other HLS types able to confirm #4?
This is ridiculous. The best way to reflect merit is to give numbered grades so that class rank can be determined. Cornell, Penn state and some of the other ivies still do this, and its the only system that makes sense.
Confirmed at HLS
hey #6. i think you need to reevaluate the way you recognize "merit." Do you honestly think "objective" test scores are the best measure of merit?
Confirmed (again) at HLS
doesn't "Honors-Pass-Low Pass-Fail" equate to A-B-C-F?
Yeah, the 'too long, didn't read' schtick works on dealbreaker, but we're lawyers, dammit. We read 120 page credit agreements for breakfast, and it gets bigger from there.
merit is overrated when it's hard enough to get into the top schools
13, include a "barely pass" for D, and everyone's happy.
@14 - Good point. Too short, didn't read.
At my school, the administration tried to recalculate upwards the grade cutoffs for latin honors (cum, magna and summa) and then apply those to changes retroactively to ALL students currently enrolled. This would include 3Ls who were six months away from graduation (which where I stood at the time). Needless to say, people were quite pissed and a petition was delivered to the administration featuring ~1,000 signatures. The petition expressed dismay, and implied that the signatories would be less inclined to donate to the school as alumni. After a quick meeting, the administration decided that the new policy wouldn't apply to 3Ls or 2Ls (but decided to screw the 1Ls who only had 6 months of law school under their belts).
When did SLS ever have a "traditional" letter grade system? WIWILS there were over 20 points on the SLS grading spectrum..
It's difficult to get into Harvard, Stanford, and Yale. But that doesn't mean firms, judges, and other interested parties will take all graduates from those institutions. We still need a traditional grading rubric; this honors-pass-etc. system is just too vague.
13: The important issue with any grading system is whether the grades can be aggregated into one number—the GPA—and the students ranked on that basis. The A-F system is mapped onto the 0-4.0 scale (or 0-8, at HLS, until now). The HP-F system is not mapped onto any numerical scale. This makes it impossible to precisely rank students (without developing your own formula). For instance, who's to say whether 5LP + 5P + 2HP, is better or worse than 3HP + 7P + 2 LP?
How does this "book prize" system make any sense? Many law schools already have awards for the top performers in each class (CALI awards, etc.).
Also, despite Kramer's references to how the awards won't just be about getting a good grade, I'd imagine that professors will do just that -- give the awards to a subset of the students who receive a high pass / honors mark in the class. How else would they give them out -- arbitrarily to students who did poorly grade-wise, but who participated a lot in class?
All this new system does is create a high pass / honors with distinction mark for those around the top 7%. I'd rather have an overall top 10% and top 30% cutoffs than a top 7% cutoff based on each class.
11. I agree that grades aren't everything, but face it, you've entered a competitive environment. Perhaps, if you're lucky, its one with some collegiality, but you're still there, to a large extent, to perform and punch your ticket for that next step known as the real world. How is the real world supposed to discern among all the book prize recipients, or lack thereof? You think mereit equates to who raises their hand the most and makes meaningful comments without going so far as to be a gunner? Perhaps. Or maybe its the stealth person who says nothing but studies his arse off, masters the area, and writes brilliantly. Who knows. Sure, grades aren't everything...that's why we interview, but at least they're one useful tool.
6 - who rejected a call back candidate today, based IN PART on mediocre grades. Such is life.
21, I agree with your general argument, but isn't your example a little jenky? "For instance, who's to say whether 5LP + 5P + 2HP is better or worse than 3HP + 7P + 2 LP?" How could the latter (more HPs and Ps) not be better than the former (more LPs)? Am I missing something?
Once again proving why the U of C is the hardest law school.
23 - at sls, grades only matters to the few who somehow still saw everything as a competition and for those people, they'll just find other ways to distinguish themselves in a new grading system. but for the vast majority of us, changing the grading system is some recognition that, at least at this level, getting is performing well enough. and it should be enough. i was surrounded by an insanely smart group of people who really don't need to prove themselves anymore.
23, i'm not normally one to slam people for grammar issues on blogs, but did all those "insanely smart" people write like you? That post is ridden with tense and subject-verb disagreement.
26, i'm not normally one to slam people for grammar issues on blogs, but did all those "insanely smart" people write like you? That post is ridden with tense and subject-verb disagreement.
27/28, sorry my shitty grammar bothers you, but yes, this is a blog so obviously i don't really care.
26/29 - so you're pretty much saying that you've reached the pinnacle of any competition merely by getting into SLS, and that you don't need grades to differentiate among your class, since you're all the shit to start with? I'll grant that there may be enough market perception for you to have that attitude, but that is not mutually exclusive with also being viewed as an arrogant prick for thinking your shit don't stink. I'm sure you won't care, since you're already at SLS and have your ticket punched, but nevertheless. Fine, I'll grant that HYS can pretty much do what they like, but for those with a little more down to earth credentials, grades still matter.
26, speak for yourself. It's only you and your 3K (pass-fail) everything comrades who supported the grade switch. Many 3Ls and alums are very disheartened by the switch and think that it's going to hurt our school's reputation and unfairly lump the entire middle 70-80% of the class together. If I'm 21% in a class and just miss the high pass, why should I be lumped with you, who was 79%, 89%, etc. and just missed getting a low pass? How is that fair to the people who put more effort in and actually tried vs. those who slacked off?
And, your whole shtick about "how it should be enough" is a total load of BS. By that logic, getting into a top ugrad should be enough, or getting a good firm job should be enough. The world just doesn't work that way, and you're constantly going to be compared to your peers -- for firm jobs, clerkships, partnership, etc. You're going to be surrounded by an insanely smart group of people at many top firms, and just because that's the case, doesn't mean they're only going to expect adequate work out of you / make everyone partner just because you were qualified enough to get hired in the first place.
You need to get out of this pathetic, lazy, risk-averse mindset and realize that your value is more what you can do today than what you've done in the past to get there.
Bye-bye Order of the Coif. It was a nice feather while it lasted.
Grades are stupid. Instead, a transcript should just be (1) a record of a student's race, gender identity, sexual orientation, and any disabilities, and should (2) a paragraph about whatever "barriers" the student might have overcome.
If employers want to know anything else, they're just being bigots.
Grades are stupid. Instead, a transcript should just be (1) a record of a student's race, gender identity, sexual orientation, and any disabilities, and (2) a paragraph about whatever "barriers" the student might have overcome.
If employers want to know anything else, they're just being bigots.
31 - Amen brother!
The sad truth is the world DOES work somewhat like what 26 thinks. But, people can simultaneously hold two opinions - one that someone is clearly smart and bright for having gotten into HYS, and two - that the experience one gets at those schools is so full of touchy feely bullshit that they don't even get real grades makes the whole thing suspect (but I'll hire one anyway). That's the opinion people have of you. I hope you aren't too disappointed. Its not personal.
29--
Actually, I suspect you're using that as an excuse, and you really can't write worth a damn. This would also explain why you view acceptance to SLS as a free pass -- it's a ready-made response to anyone who criticizes your work (like, "Whatever. I got into Stanford, so who cares what you think?").
I graduated coif from Stanford a few years ago. While 26 may be right to some extent in that grades don't really matter that much for your first law firm job, it's amazing how being able to put order of the coif on my resume has helped open doors for me. It may not be fair, but that's how the world works.
31 -- 26 here. i've already graduated with a 3.7 average. i dont care if i cant be distinguished with someone who graduated w/ a 3.4 average because i honestly don't think i'm necessarily smarter and definitely not harder working. i'm for the P/F system because i didn't really think grades at SLS correlated to how hard you worked or even how smart you are, except at the very top of the range. you have to be ridiculous to get straight As/A-s, but for your average SLS student, you might get 3.6s in classes you didn't study as hard for and 3.3s in classes you worked hard in. so why differentiate?
and as for your perception of the "real world" where it is constant comparison to peers for the best jobs, clerkships, partnership, etc., you're talking about a very narrow subset of firms (like wachtell) or the top clerkships where you do need to distinguish yourself. and people like you will still continue to that in a P/F system. but for many of us who don't desire or even want that, taking grades out just makes things more relaxed. i don't care about making partner or getting that great clerkship. i'm smart, i did well in school all my life and i do a great job as an associate. that's enough for me and for a lot of SLS people. so please don't lecture me on what the right perception i need to have on life. not everyone is an uptight gunner like you.
While I couldn't give less of a fuck how Stanford and Harvard choose to evaluate their students, I do appreciate quotes from Groundhog Day. Please run more stories about Ned, Ned Ryerson.
"you might get 3.6s in classes you didn't study as hard for and 3.3s in classes you worked hard in. so why differentiate?"
True in some cases; not true *on average.* That's why you differentiate. (Of course, good grades don't always follow from hard work; talent is at play also, but that's a different topic.)
"Harvard Law School also just announced changes to its grading system that will make it more like the Yale and Stanford systems."
I think you meant to say that Harvard, Yale and Stanford recently went to a system that will make it more like the *Boalt* grading system. ;)
-Boalt 2L
26 has a big surprise coming when s/he starts working at a firm and can't simply coast on having a prestigious law school degree. Law school reputation is great, but it'll only get you the job -- from there in, it's about your productivity, billables, etc.
At least in theory, everyone starts off with a clean slate at firms and if 26 is being lapped (in terms of hours, efficiency, effort) by the Fordham, GW, Brooklyn, etc. student, then guess what? The Fordham, GW, Brooklyn student is going to advance up the associate ranks and probably make partner while 26 is going to need to look for a new job.
And don't be fooled - while the average HYS student is smarter than the average Fordham, GW, Brooklyn, student, the Fordham, GW, Brooklyn ones who make the top firms are probably just as smart. Moreover, they're probably hungrier, more desperate to prove themselves, and have a chip on their shoulders for not getting into the top schools. Therefore, this "I've made it to the top already -- why should I have to compete" attitude isn't going to keep 26 with a job for long with others willing to put in maximum effort and compete.
31: Do you actually think grades at Stanford mattered when 4.0s were being handed out like candy in History of American Law?
Getting rid of grades actually takes out a lot of the incentive for people who obviously took BS classes to boost their GPAs to a point where having a 3.8 isn't even that impressive if you 3Ked the right classes and took all touchy feely seminars.
And you sound like a douche. You should've gone to HLS. Oh wait, too bad they are now getting rid of grades too.
Frickin' Gen-Yers messing up the traditional grading.
They should give a book award for overt gunning. One for the single best act of gunning, one for best performance by a gunner over the course of a term, and a lifetime achievement award given to one graduating gunner.
It would be hilarious to watch that play-out in class.
Frickin' Gen-Yers: boo hoo, love me, define me, I got in to HYS so now I can coast for the rest of my sorry life. Right on #36.
"but for many of us who don't desire or even want that, taking grades out just makes things more relaxed. i don't care about making partner or getting that great clerkship."
Then, why do you care about your grades at all, whatever they be? You have every right to be relaxed and approach your classes as if they were pass-fail under the old graded system. If you have no ambition of getting a super prestigious firm job / clerkship, then whatever grades you get being relaxed should be sufficient for your goals.
You're basically saying "because others and I feel stressed about having grades, we should remove grades for everyone." How does this not hurt your classmates who just miss out on the high pass, book awards (ex, what would formerly be 3.6-3.7 marks) and have no distinguishing marks on their transcript? If they're like you and want to be more relaxed / not shoot for the high-powered jobs, clerkships, then there's no cost. But what if they are looking for those opportunities that a 3.6-3.7 GPA could otherwise provide? There's simply no way that a transcript of passes is valued by employers and judges as much as that GPA would be.
OMFG!
Stanford is turning in to Berkeley!
This is exactly what Boalt does!
41/Boalt -
Unless you system has been in place since the 70s, you didn't beat Yale to the game. Also, you still have high honors/honors/pass, with quotas - that's a lot more restrictive than Yale's system.
43 -- remember 3.4 Mendez? Grading at SLS has always been arbitrary and inconsistent. Kind of a joke actually.
Notwithstanding any other arguments, the fact that Stanford is now being mentioned in the same breath as Boalt should be reason enough to be against the change.
42 -- i'm already a 3rd year associate. i know how things work. nobody gives a shit where i went to school and i don't give a shit where others went either. just because i coasted in law school doesn't mean i am lazy in my job.
47 -- i don't know why you're so pessimistic. given that yls students have no problems getting top firm/clerkships, i highly doubt sls students will suddenly be regarded as 2nd class citizens. and now that hls is doing it too, it's back to square one for everyone who attends HYS. if anything, having a huge mass of Ps might open up opportunities to people who otherwise wouldn't have them with a 3.4. i don't think they're any less deserving of a shot at a top clerkship as someone with a 3.7.
yes, they are. it's called doing better in school. what the hell don't you get?
so somebody who has a 3.4 because they took classes like secured transaction is "doing better in school" than somebody who has a 3.7 from taking family law?
you can also P/F a few classes, spend all your time studying for the others, giving you a higher GPA overall than somebody who takes 4 classes.
no grades means no more incentive to pad their GPA with fluff or gaming the system with the old P/F system.
obviously, i meant the other way around re secured transactions and family law. i'm more impressed by someone who gets lower grades in tougher classes.
the point is GPAs are so subjective and fucked up at SLS anyway because of the way people game the system.
i'm glad they're getting rid of it.
52 -- Ignoring off-mean classes and other such gaming (which is another problem altogether), a 3.4 is theoretically 50% in the class and 3.7 is probably somewhere between 10% and 20% in the class.
I understand that grading can be arbitrary, but are you really arguing that over three years of law school and 80 or so credits, that someone with a 3.4 average is as qualified as someone with a 3.7 average? Of course, there will be exceptions (the 3.4 who takes the hardest classes and the 3.7 who takes joke seminars), but are you really arguing that we should equate most 3.4 students with most 3.7 students?
Assuming that both students took all 3 credit courses over ~80 credits, the 3.4 student had the equivalent of ~27 worse grade marks (ex, A- vs. A and B+ vs. A- as 1, A vs B+ and A- vs. B as 2, etc.) than the 3.7 student. However arbitrary grades might be, that deviation is significant. Admittedly, you may be able to game the system a bit through gut courses, easy graders, etc., but odds are, you're not going to be able to do it 27 times -- there just aren't that many gut courses around.
Justice Blackmun went to Harvard and missed the top 25%. Under this system, he might have been mistaken for a bottom 25%-er and never made SCOTUS :(
2 As, 4 Bs, 8 Cs, 3 Ds. Grade inflation much?
Maybe every HYS grad can go be a community organizer and leave practice to T14 grads who's feelings don't get hurt by getting grades?
56 -- honestly, i don't think 3.4s and 3.7s should be differentiated, just b/c i have so many friends who may have lower gpas than i do, but worked harder than i did and are just as smart. i just don't see the same correlation between effort/smarts and grades as you do (except at the very top and very bottom).
even if you think 3.7s are somehow more deserving of better opportunities, at the end of the day, it's not like the 3.4 grad can't handle working at wachtell or having an appellate clerkship.
how does this post affect associates at WILDMAN HARROLD??
I'd give Stanford leniency for this system if their LSAT range was less like Georgetown's and more like Columbia's.
LOL. It's funny to see all the jealous haters on here who are putting down SLS students who feel like they've "made it" just by getting into the school. Fact is, for all your shit-talk, YOU COULDN'T GET IN. You should get bonus points for making it into one of the most selective law schools in the country. That counts for something.
The idea that a Professor can judge, across 60 final exams, each written in 3 hours, the difference between a 3.5 and 3.6 student, is totally absurd. The grading system shoudl reflect the operational limitations of the measurement system. The new system does. The old system claimed a level of precision that far exceeded the reality of what the method of assessment actually provided. Good riddance.
62 -- It's called conventional +/- grading. That would have immediately eliminated all the nit-picking between 3.5 and 3.6 marks and lumped grades into less precise, but still meaningful categories. I agree that the grading system should reflect the operational limitations of the measurement system. However, are you really arguing that a 3.6-3.7 (whatever grade just misses honors / high pass) can't be differentiated from a 2.6-2.7 (or whatever grade just misses a low pass)? It's basically impossible to get below a 3.0 at SLS short of purposefully tanking the course anyway and so getting a low 3.0 grade means you really screwed up somewhere -- definitely distinguishable from those in the high 3.X range.
I agree that the former system was flawed, especially in terms of nit-picking between close grades, but that doesn't mean the answer is to lump all grades between A- and B- together into some amorphous pass mark. All that does is lump the A- students in with the B- students -- punishing those who just missed honors / high pass and rewarding those at the bottom of the class who just missed low passing the course. Why should the slackers and those who just plain didn't understand what was taught in a course be equated with those who worked really hard, understood just about everything in the class, but just missed being in the top honors group?
I didn't apply to Stanford. Who the f goes there? It's on the west coast.