Firsty

second

third

Who cares if you comment first, second, or third?

nothing like polling ATL for grade reform. good job CLS, and thanks Elie

I'm sure that posting the link to the survey on ATL won't affect the results at all...

5 is a loser, ha ha.

I just voted on that survey and am not a Columbia student - and now that ATL has published the link I would imagine a lot more non-Columbia kids will vote as well.

Eliminating traditional grades is ridiculous. All it does is allow people at these schools to congratulate themselves on being so far above everyone else. This doesn't help anyone get jobs. I have talked to several hiring partners and they are generally frustrated by schools that don't use a traditional grading format, and this cuts against the applicants. A pass with honors doesn't hold up against someone from another school with an A average.

I am appreciating the very real grading of U Chicago even more. Only special snowflakes can't hack getting a real grade, and special snowflakes don't belong in professional schools.

schools without grades = TTT

Lat is giving a talk at UVA tomorrow. In his words (from his Wall post on the Facebook event): "I'm looking forward to the event. Thanks for inviting me!

I haven't finalized my remarks (or, truth be told, started drafting them). I like to be fairly extemporaneous when I give talks.

Since I'm still working on my talk, I'd be interested in getting input on subjects you'd like me to discuss. Feel free to offer ideas on the Wall (or send me a message).

(If you can't think of anything right now, no worries -- there will be lots of time for Q-and-A too.)"

So what should we ask him?

What is this bullshit? Killing yourself 1L to get top grades is a rite of passage for law students. Yale can arguably get away with the P/F system due to its size and rank, but if I was a hiring partner, I'd take a kid with decent letter grades from MVP over a kid with "P"s from Columbia every time.

CLS to 190!!!!!!!!!!

I'm glad to contribute my thoughts on Columbia's grade reform survey, especially since I didn't go there.

Thanks ATL!

The problem with P/F is that firms still need a sorting criteria of some sort and given that P/F is a poor instrument, they will resort to the the only other distinguishing feature that will remain between students from the same law school, namely where they received your undergraduate degree. Using where you received your BA/BS as a filter will only help those from undergraduate institutions with superior reputations, therefore disallowing student from lesser institutions the opportunity to prove themselves against their law school colleagues. This just seems like a bad idea, especially given that law school admission processes seem to aim to eliminate just this sort of undergraduate stratification with their focus on numbers instead of names.

I don't go to CLS either but I feel strongly about the issue, so I voted twice.

The top 10 or so schools could get away with pass / high pass system. On balance, I think it will help students.

For instance, my law firm is, imo, way too picky about kids from top schools. A lot of lawyers act like bc they got on law review at UCLA or Loyola, you should have really good grades at Columbia, NYU, etc. to get a job. I don't know why they don't just correlate the grades to the LSAT curve for a particular school, but they do not. In any event, no grades would allow the firm to hire those B+ and below kids w/o feeling dirty ...

As for grades being a rite of passage, I say it's one worth abandoning. Pick the policy that helps the greatest number of your students. First year of law school was 10 years ago for me, and I generally look back on my 1L year at a T5 as an annoying, boring waste of time. As a right of passage, it wasn't particularly rewarding.

So do we doctor the survey for grades or for no grades?

Keep grades. Yale can get away with it, because it's Yale. I'm guessing CLS has great placement for the middle/bottom of the class anyway. There's no need to further obfuscate who's where.

"Excuse me, your honor, do you think you could not write an opinion and just give us each a piece of candy and tell us that we all did our very best and that is all anyone can ask for?" This is crap. The legal profession is inherently competitive. Might as well get used to it in law school.

It's odd to have such a strong opinion about this. The people who will be affected by the proposed change have not yet started reading this blog (i.e., people not yet in law school). If you're not going to be affected (unless you become a "hiring partner"), why do you care so much.

But I'll give my 2 cents anyway. I think there are two good arguments for the new system at Columbia

a- Doing well on law school exams does not mean you'll be a good lawyer. As someone who got very good grades, I know that doing well on law school exams just means memorizing a bunch of stuff and spewing it out as fast as possible. As long as the spew is somewhat organized and discusses the fact pattern a little, the exam will get a very high grade. Being a lawyer, on the other hand, requires being deliberate, careful and thoughtful (not to mention that good lawyers are affable and have social skills). These skills are not tested on law school exams (though they may be tested on take-home exams, so take-homes seem like an exception). While being a lawyer also requires diligence and lots of preparation, and these skills ARE tested on law school exams, exams are hardly a perfect proxy for who's going to be a good lawyer.

The counter to this point is that even though exams aren't a perfect proxy, they are the best proxy we have. My reply:

b- I believe one of Stanford's rationales for moving to this system is that most exams are not meaningfully different in quality. While there are very bad exams and very good ones, the majority can be lumped together somewhere in between. The new system makes sense because it still recognizes both the very good and very bad exams, while recognizing that there's no meaningful difference between most of the exams in the middle. As a "hiring partner" it shouldn't really matter if the applicant has 3.4, 3.5, or all Ps.

Yeah so the resuts of this survey are now completely bastardized by Elie posting the link. But no, he thinks before he writes, I'm sure.

A pass/fail system isn't the answer, the problem is with the structure of the existing grading systems. The grading of exams is a crapshoot at best, and is not representative of one's knowledge of the material or how good of a lawyer you'll become.

I'm at a T10 law school, and some of the best grades I've gotten are in the courses I know the least about and vice versa.

I don't care what all you haters say. NYU is just as good as Columbia.

the link no longer works

"People go there to get jobs. Is a modified pass/fail system going to help CLS students get jobs? That seems to be the only relevant question."

What a pathetic way to frame this issue. I hate you.

I don't really care so I voted once for and once against.

How can Nervous T10 1L not have anything to say about this? ! ?

I voted for Columbo.

Thanks for posting the survey link, moron.

Dear Columbia,
Please dont change your systems so NYU doesnt have to change.
"NYU Law's Commentator"

HBS hasn't had grades for at least a few years without negative recruiting impact. Top 10% get a 1, bottom 10% get a 3, and everyone else gets a 2. Very relaxing system.

haha "begging." Look, NYU is a more blue-collar school than Columbia, obviously, and while NYUers may have higher LSATs, getting rid of such a system would hurt all the NYU Law people who went to state schools for undergraduate. Still, calling it "begging" seems a bit ridiculous: usually CLS / NYU people are bashing each other. Here it seemed more like camaraderie.

The point of the LSAT point I just made wasn't to troll for NYU, but to admit that Columbia gets more, e.g. Yalies while NYU gets more, e.g. UTexas folks, and that the no grade system benefits those with the Ivy undergrad, so there is a real reason why NYU might have more reason to stay the way things are.

Changing to no grades, particularly for first year students, seems like a pretty bad idea. First, the concepts of a course don't really "click" as a first year student until you've gone through the stress of preparing for an exam. If you feel certain to pass, there is no incentive to push yourself.

The stress serves a second purpose: it makes you realize you are joining a profession and are going to a professional school. Until November of your first year, people treat law school like College 2. After that first set of finals, most people realize they aren't an English major anymore, and have real work to do.

By second year, people know how to study and know they have got to be professionals, so grades as a motivator are not really necessary. CLS already corrects for this by having a significantly different 2L and 3L curve than for first year students.

Keep the system.

Changing to no grades, particularly for first year students, seems like a pretty bad idea. First, the concepts of a course don't really "click" as a first year student until you've gone through the stress of preparing for an exam. If you feel certain to pass, there is no incentive to push yourself.

The stress serves a second purpose: it makes you realize you are joining a profession and are going to a professional school. Until November of your first year, people treat law school like College 2. After that first set of finals, most people realize they aren't an English major anymore, and have real work to do.

By second year, people know how to study and know they have got to be professionals, so grades as a motivator are not really necessary. CLS already corrects for this by having a significantly different 2L and 3L curve than for first year students.

Keep the system.

Changing to no grades, particularly for first year students, seems like a pretty bad idea. First, the concepts of a course don't really "click" as a first year student until you've gone through the stress of preparing for an exam. If you feel certain to pass, there is no incentive to push yourself.

The stress serves a second purpose: it makes you realize you are joining a profession and are going to a professional school. Until November of your first year, people treat law school like College 2. After that first set of finals, most people realize they aren't an English major anymore, and have real work to do.

By second year, people know how to study and know they have got to be professionals, so grades as a motivator are not really necessary. CLS already corrects for this by having a significantly different 2L and 3L curve than for first year students.

Keep the system.

Sigh... CLS should be above this nonsense. Grades are the most potent pedagogical motivator we have.

"NYU state schoolers"?? I went to a state school and trust me, most of the people down here at Wash Sq Park are way too nerdy for state schools. Unless you mean like Berkeley or the University of Moscow.

I wish my school had a pass-fail system. That way, none of the employers at OCI this year would have been able to tell that I spent 1L year getting drunk when I should have been studying, and thus distinguish me from more deserving candidates.

Geez, Elie, was it really necessary to post the link and thereby ruin the poll? What did it add to the story?

At CLS, there are 7 grades given out: A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C. say you simplified this into A, B, C. if seen in the composite, these new grades will be weighted ~3.8, ~3.0, and ~2.2, respectively.

compare the new grade point system with the old. who would this help? obviously, people with A-'s and B-'s. who would this hurt? A's and B+'s.

This is extremely bad policy. People who submit the very best exams deserve the recognition that an 'A' provides. A-'s are a nice consolation for otherwise superior exams; I don't know anyone who complains about receiving "only" an A-.

People who get B+'s--the vast majority of law students--get totally screwed. They have always relied on that extra .33 grade points to raise their average and distinguish themselves from the truly mediocre B-range.

This RAISES competition, if anything. There is now tons more stress to fall into the top 20% that gets the A, whereas previously you had security in knowing you'd get at least partial credit for your efforts in the form of a B+. The .8 grade points (as opposed to .33) separating the 2 grades raises the stakes dramatically. The only people who catch a break are B-range students, who can now coast by more discreetly.

Disagree with above poster about NYU. Tons of state school kids here. And we need real grades.

Elie, Lat knows how to "redact" things before posting emails. You should learn this trick. You've completed f*d the survey that the CLS student government was trying to do.

#44 -- There is no C+ at Columbia. A A- B+ B B- C F

some people worry it would put more emphasis on soft factors like recommendations and connections. Me? I like soft factors. Quantitatively speaking, I look like shit.

People in my high school never got letter grades. It was no big deal.

That wasn't an open letter. No one at NYU reads that shitrag; we all heard about it here and no one gave it a second thought. TTThanks anyways

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Even if Columbia gets rid of grades, us employers will still have ways to figure out placement. We'll only hire Harlan Fiske Stone Scholars.

Overbearing jewish mother, like mine: "So what grades did you get this semester?"
Me: "I passed."
Mom: "That's it? Did you do that poorly that you don't want to tell me?"
Me: "No, I passed; that's my grade."
Mom: *confused*

http://obamaisscum.blogspot.com/

36 - learn to use e.g. appropriately.

30 - i didn't have anything to say b/c i haven't checked atl (spent all afternoon researching non-nalp firms as a back up option for 1L summer). but i'm glad about this new grading reform among top schools, if michigan is the only T-10 school with grades it will help me differentiate myself, go blue!!!

-nervous T-10 1L

52-

Problem is, w/o grades, how does CLS decide who's a Stone scholar? I believe right the standard is 3.3 or higher=Stone scholar.

There is no need to grade Columbia students. They all get NYC biglaw or clerkships regardless of grades so why bother with the pointless exercise of grading them? The only schools where grades matter are schools below the top 10. If those schools utilized a no grading policy it would become very difficult for biglaw and judges to decide which are the top students they want to hire. But it makes no difference for HYSC.

There is no need to grade Columbia students. They all get NYC biglaw or clerkships regardless of grades so why bother with the pointless exercise of grading them? The only schools where grades matter are schools below the top 10. If those schools utilized a no grading policy it would become very difficult for biglaw and judges to decide which are the top students they want to hire. But it makes no difference for HYSC.

57 - yes. it would have to be X number of HP's or something, which is retarded because you can have someone get a couple of A+'s and the rest B+'s who's not "stone" while someone else has a few A-'s and the rest B-'s and makes it.

58 - not true. At every level of the legal industry, from supreme court clerkships to cadawalader summer associateships, there is scarcity and competition.

57 - Stone is 3.41 or higher. ~Top 30% or better in the class.

Sure there is scarcity for clerkships at the second circuit and summer jobs at Cravath, but no shortage for Columbia students for clerkships elsewhere or biglaw outside the very elite firms. Has there been a HYSC student ever that wanted a biglaw job and didn't get one? I doubt it.

Sure there is scarcity for clerkships at the second circuit and summer jobs at Cravath, but no shortage for Columbia students for clerkships elsewhere or biglaw outside the very elite firms. Has there been a HYSC student ever that wanted a biglaw job and didn't get one? I doubt it.

Sure there is scarcity for clerkships at the second circuit and summer jobs at Cravath, but no shortage for Columbia students for clerkships elsewhere or biglaw outside the very elite firms. Has there been a HYSC student ever that wanted a biglaw job and didn't get one? I doubt it.

Nice try. It's HYS, not HYSC. Try CCN.

Does anyone know if there is a scarcity for clerkships at the second circuit and summer jobs at Cravath? If so, is there a shortage of Columbia students for clerkships elsewhere or biglaw outside of the very elite firms? Does anyone doubt if there has been a HYSC student ever that wanted a biglaw job and didn't get one?

ANYONE AT ALL?

Also, that paragraph is almost illegible. But not to worry - The issue has again begun receiving scrutiny

Pointless post.

CLS already basically doesn't have grades. While you get grades in each class you are not allowed to tell the employer your GPA, only if you are a Stone or Kent Scholar.

Recruiting process at any V10 for a CLS student:
Gives resume to interview, interview checks to see if Stone Scholar (top 30%. for non-V10 they skip this step), maybe skims transcript to see if any B-s (which they ask you to explain), get call back. Then your callback is judged solely on personality. If not a douche, offer. If douche, ding.

Grades only come into play for B-s (lowest grade the old grade distributions show ever being given) and then it's they want to know why you F-ed up since that means even if you do a great job 90% of the time you will drop the ball big time (see Cleary post). A High Pass, Pass, Fail scheme captures this just as well.

59,

Not entirely accurate. I go to Columbia/NYU (we'll lump them together here, as I believe this analysis is rather similar between them), and there is a significant disparity in BigLaw placement between the top 30% and the bottom 30%. While yes, most will get "a" BigLaw job, the difference between the firms in prestige, future career prospects, and pay can be pronounced. Of course, if these things don't matter to you than this won't make a difference. But my intuition is that if you read this blog, these things probably do matter to you, whether or not you pretend to denigrate those who chase prestige.

Clerkship placement is another important area in which grades are (for better or worse) extremely important.

Another thing: none of these schools are getting rid of "grades", they are just collapsing the categories into fewer available categorizations. So you will still have the same gunning/fear/rite of passage, with less minor differentiation. I think this is a very good way to say "we think there are 3 levels of student" at this level, not 6 or 8 levels (of course, I am equating level of student to exam performance, which may be inaccurate but not the discussion of this post). Especially where the exam grading itself can be so arbitrary. At these schools, the level of learning is so far advanced of schools outside the top 25 schools (from what I hear from transfers) that meaningful differentiation is difficult. That's where soft factors and people skills should come into play as far as employers and judges are concerned.

35-What do you mean by more blue collar? I always got the sense that NYU had more of the silver spoon types than CLS.

44 here.

68 is a cute response but off. That's how it works for about 3-4 firms. The V5s definitely want more than a 3.4. A couple others want you to be "intellectual" and grades are one way to demonstrate that. Most importantly, the DC firms all scrutinize your grades (to varying degrees). Not to mention clerkships, for which individual grades (conlaw, civpro, etc.) can be pivotal.

69 has it backwards. The minor differentiation is what makes that system preferable for students. Wouldn't you prefer getting an A- or a B+ than getting a B just because you're on the borderline of A and B in a 3 grade system? Right now, 2 A-/B+ students will both land somewhere between 3.33 and 3.66 in gpa. In a 3-grade system, one may get a 4.0, WLRK, and a SCOTUS clerkship, whereas the other one gets a 3.0 and stroock.

Who cares. Northeastern University School of Law has been doing this for years. They were the trendsetters in this grading system. The only difference is that they don't have as big a contingent in Biglaw.

CLS (and HLS) are never going to be like Yale and they should just stop trying. SLS has potential. But CLS and HLS are huge and full of aimless people who just happened to get 170+ on the LSAT. That doesn't mix well with a P/F system, which relies on the students being internally driven toward something other than grades/numbers. HLS will see that the gimmick failed in a few years.

@73: Harvard *might* be trying to be like Yale. But CLS sure isn't, so they don't need to "stop trying."

And you're a fool if you think Yale is full of driven people who are internally motivated toward something other than grades/numbers, any more than students at other top schools.

People seem to forget that this is a student government survey about (1) whether there should be a pass/fail grading option, which most schools have but Columbia doesn't, and (2) whether the student government should even consider asking the administration to consider asking the faculty about considering the possibility of returning to a non-letter grade system. Chill out duders.

I'm sure the student government is also interested in ammunition in case the faculty decide they too want to be spare effort required in grading, liking their lazy colleagues at YLS, HLS, and SLS.

Remember, Columbia had non-letter grades before this latest fad and decided it didn't work.

74 has raised some good points about why this survey is so important. Let's all remember to get on there and vote again today.

65, maybe I didn't want to "try CCN." I have no idea whether Chicago grads are good, I've worked at two V20 firms and never seen one. And obviously I was making a point about Columbia students, not NYU.

Basically just CLS acting like they're as prestigious as Y/H/S. The schools needs to sit down, shut up, and realize they're in the second tier of elite schools.

"While yes, most will get "a" BigLaw job, the difference between the firms in prestige, future career prospects, and pay can be pronounced. Of course, if these things don't matter to you than this won't make a difference. But my intuition is that if you read this blog, these things probably do matter to you, whether or not you pretend to denigrate those who chase prestige." -- the difference in "future career prospects" is only pronounced if you make it. This blog has helped to create/perpetuate this myth that only the V5 firms are "prestigious," only HYS grads are talented, and that you're doomed to a life of ambulance chasing of ambulances and poverty if you don't go to a T10 school. There are other "prestigious" or big money cases that don't involve Wall Street and that are outside the very top firms, and that actually let associates DO things on the case, rather than manage document reviews and the discovery process. Is some snot-nosed HYS associate quality controlling a privilege log more "prestigious" than a plaintiff's lawyer from a TTT with multiple houses and his own private plane? I wouldn't think so, but you'd think on this blog that anyone who doesn't get an offer from a V5 is worthless.

78, I have multiple V5 offers.

-- unworthless CLS troll

Does anyone else notice the irony of a bunch of predominantly left-leaning law students advocating ardently for a "competitive" system?