HLS Grade Reform: Splitting the Baby Was The Only Call
When Harvard law school announced that they would be dropping their letter-grading system in favor of a pass/fail system, we noted that the school had not yet decided how to apply the new system to current law students:
But the crucial question is whether this new system will be applied retroactively to the classes of 2009 and 2010.
Well, today Harvard decided. After discussing the pros and cons of applying the new system to current 2Ls, Dean Elena Kagan announced:
In light of these strong arguments on both sides of the question, the School will adopt something of a middle course, suggested by a number of second-year students. (I should note that second-year students offered several other creative approaches to the issue, and we seriously considered all of them.) In 2008-09, members of this class will continue to receive traditional grades. In 2009-10, members of the class will receive grades under the new grading system, with the result that the entire school in that year will operate on this new system. Graduating honors will continue much as now, based on performance from all three years. This approach will allow students in the position I have described above to show the kind of improvement in their academic records most easily recognized by judges and other employers (because based on the same metric). At the same time, it will enable the entire Law School, including members of the class of 2010, to participate in, and gain the educational benefits of, the new system beginning next year. I understand that some may view this solution as akin to cutting the baby in half, and it will disappoint some students on both sides. But it seems to me to respond appropriately to the most powerful concerns on either side and thus to represent a judicious, even if by no means perfect, resolution of the issue.
This is a big difference from what Stanford instituted this September. Remember, SLS decided to retroactively apply their modified pass/fail system to the 1L grades of current 2Ls.
Harvard’s balancing act is designed to give 2Ls the best chance at getting jobs and clerkships in this tough market. But transcripts of 2010 law school graduates will still look … a bit weird. At least 2010 SLS transcripts will all be on the same system, somehow.
Which do you prefer?
Read Kagan’s full memo, including her discussion about what happens to 3Ls and LLMs, after the jump.
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL —- MEMO —- NEW GRADING SYSTEM
Dear HLS students:
In the last couple of weeks, I have received thoughtful input from many of you about the Law School’s transition to a new grading system. I am very grateful for your views and suggestions. I am writing to let you know how the School will resolve these questions.
Current first-year students will receive our new grades (Honors-Pass-Low Pass-Fail) in all of their courses this year, including spring semester electives. The faculty has agreed that this new grading system will have significant educational benefits. It makes sense for first-year students, who have not received any grades under our old system, to share fully in these benefits. Input I have received in the last couple of weeks indicates that an overwhelming majority of the first-year class agrees.
The application of our new grading system to second-year students presents a more difficult question. Input from members of this class indicates that a majority favors immediate application of the new system, essentially for the same reasons that the faculty approved the change. A very substantial minority, however, raised serious issues about this approach. The most weighty concern, to my mind, relates to the ability of members of this class to show improvement in grades over time, so as to increase their chances of receiving a clerkship, public service job, or other late-occurring opportunity. Numerous students wrote me that although they would have favored our new grading system if applied from the beginning, they thought that applying it midstream would further highlight their first-year grades and deprive them of a chance to show that they could do better than they had done under the traditional system. Some of these students also noted that they had made choices of courses or extra-curricular activities in the expectation that they would have this opportunity.
In light of these strong arguments on both sides of the question, the School will adopt something of a middle course, suggested by a number of second-year students. (I should note that second-year students offered several other creative approaches to the issue, and we seriously considered all of them.) In 2008-09, members of this class will continue to receive traditional grades. In 2009-10, members of the class will receive grades under the new grading system, with the result that the entire school in that year will operate on this new system. Graduating honors will continue much as now, based on performance from all three years. This approach will allow students in the position I have described above to show the kind of improvement in their academic records most easily recognized by judges and other employers (because based on the same metric). At the same time, it will enable the entire Law School, including members of the class of 2010, to participate in, and gain the educational benefits of, the new system beginning next year. I understand that some may view this solution as akin to cutting the baby in half, and it will disappoint some students on both sides. But it seems to me to respond appropriately to the most powerful concerns on either side and thus to represent a judicious, even if by no means perfect, resolution of the issue.
Third-year students will complete law school under the traditional grading system. Thus, all upper-class JD students this year will operate under the traditional system, whereas next year all will operate under the new system.
LLM students will be graded in the same way as the JD students in each of their classes. Thus, LLM students in first-year classes (e.g., contracts) will receive grades for those classes under the new system. LLM students in upper-level classes will receive traditional grades. The same is true for any SJD students taking classes this year. This approach will maintain the important and longstanding principle that JD and LLM students be evaluated according to identical standards. For LLM or SJD students taking both 1L classes and upper-level classes, and thus receiving two kinds of grades, an explanatory note will be added to their official transcripts.
Once again, I appreciate your input regarding these transitional matters. In the town hall meeting I held on the subject, in all of your emails and petitions, and in my conversations with representatives of student government, I have been struck by your appreciation of the complexity of these issues and your generosity toward classmates who have opposing views. I think these changes will make the school better, and I look forward to a successful implementation over the next two years.
Best,
Elena Kagan
Earlier: Not To Be Left Behind, Harvard Changes Grading System Too
Stanford Adopts ‘Retroactive’ Honors Policy: Students Complain In Real Time
(51) Comments
Comments
first!
SLS' system was awful. This isn't a disaster, but it's not good. The system should be applied to each incoming class--new students should be grandfathered in.
CLS to 190!!!!!
I prefer a hiring freeze for 3-5 years of all HLS graduates. They don't know anything anyway.
SLS to third.
I prefer neither - they're both ridiculous. The notion that somehow grading on an A, B, C, F scale (rather than A+, A, A-, B+, etc. or 4.0, 3.9, 3.8, etc.) will somehow improve anything is just silly. All it does is less accurately reflect individual student performance and show that H & S will do anything to try to look more like Y.
*nervously optimistic that my good grades from michigan will be better than a pass at harvard*
-nervous T-10 1L
If you go to HLS or SLS and are not a complete retard socially, you'll get whatever job you want anyway. What difference does it make which system is used and when? Stop posting on this, it does not matter.
-2L with a job from a TTT
Idiots who couldn't bullshit their way to better than a B- on a torts exam bitch their way to another year of grades for all of us.
8, yes because all 800 students at HLS and SLS can work at Wachtell or the OLC or clerk for the Supreme Court.
*nervously optimistic that my good grades from michigan will be better than a pass at harvard*
-nervous T-10 1L
Since when is "Harvard law school" a plural necessitating the use of "they" and "their"? Get a clue, mysTTTal.
*nervously optimistic that my good grades from michigan will be better than a pass at harvard*
-nervous T-10 1L
when is this coming to Wisconsin?
Since when is "Harvard law school" a plural necessitating the use of "they" and "their"? Get a clue, mysTTTal.
*nervously optimistic that my post will show up if I click the button 42 times*
-nervous T-10 1L
Fuck this.
-Bitter HLS 2L
MysTTTal
Why does it even matter what type of grading system HLS, YLS, or SLS uses? These people have a fancy brand name on their degree. Potential employers won't really care about this, because they know that they can hire HLS grads and then use this to justify the outrageous hourly rates they charge their clients.
Why no discussion about how changing to a pass/fail system disproportionately benefits URMs?
Why no coverage of the brewing First Amendment controversy in Los Angeles? It's got law, politics, and a sexy governor. All signs pont to success:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-palineffigy28-2008oct28,0,3849487.story
SLS didn't retroactively apply the pass/fail system to 2L's first year grades, just the honors "book prize" system. Our letter grades from last year remain on our transcript.
BREAKING: OBAMA SAYS TAX INCREASES WILL HIT THOSE MAKING $200K.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJvkRFKGgGw
BREAKING: BIDEN SAYS TAX INCREASES WILL HIT THOSE MAKING $150K.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAEE1_IUycs
SLS didn't retroactively apply the pass/fail system to 2L's first year grades, just the honors "book prize" system. Our letter grades from last year remain on our transcript.
10--Sorry you go to HLS, can't talk to people, and get average grades. Don't worry, there might not be a job for you at Wachtell or the Court, but Wiley or someplace similar will surely hire you.
oh merciful god, why couldnt you give me a rich daddy to afford a kapland lsat course. apparently all you need nowadays to succeed as a lawyer is a good score on a test that gauges absolutely nothing you'll do in law school or in practice.
also, may all you "nervous T10 1Ls" rot.
Harvard - no longer best in Asia
Harvard = TTT
Harvard graduated Elie
Harvard is so 10 years ago.
Harvard is the new Cornell
26 - bitterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
- 1-25
I'd like the names of the douchebags who wanted another year of grades so they could "show improvement." Guess what folks, either you're a gunner and your grades from last year will be perfectly fine to get you a nice job for next summer and another year of grades won't land you a SCOTUS clerkship, or you're a dumbass and another year of grades isn't going to change that. Bunch of jackasses.
26 -- Notwithstanding anything other point you were trying to make, I seriously doubt that taking a Kaplan course is going to help you get into HLS. Of the major test prep companies that offer LSAT classes, Kaplan seems to have the worst reputation by far and appears to teach to the middle of the class (i.e. get you from a 140-150 to 160, not from a 160+ to a 170+).
I am tired of lawyers and law journalists misusing the phrase "split the baby". It is routinely used to mean "split the difference". This is incorrect.
The origin of "split the baby" is the Old Testament story where two women came to King Solomon with a baby, each claiming to be its mother. Solomon proposed to solve the problem by splitting the baby. When one woman begged him not to and give the baby away instead, he knew she was the real mother.
Thus, "split the baby" means the opposite of "split the difference". It refers to a split that cannot be made, a futile attempt to apportion an indivisible object.
the only useful thing that i have ever learned from ATL was just posted by 31.
Really, 31?
So I should stop telling my secretary that I'll pay for her to split the baby?
31 - People get it; it's just a catchier way of saying it. It takes an ATL commenter to care about the technical misapplication of an idiom.
Hey ATL, Read "Eats Shoots and Leaves." It's a great way for self-righteous grammarians and punctuation police to re-enforce their self-rightousness.
the new SLS grading system doesn't retroactively apply to grading (so the transcripts will have both number grades from 1L year and p/h for 2/3L years), just the honors system (book prizes will retroactively apply)
the new SLS grading system doesn't retroactively apply to grading (so the transcripts will have both number grades from 1L year and p/h for 2/3L years), just the honors system (book prizes will retroactively apply)
Good use of wikipedia 31. Why don't you scroll down to the bottom of the same article you've quoted from:
"The expressions "splitting the baby" or "cutting the baby in half" are sometimes used in the legal profession for a form of simple compromise solutions which "split the difference" in terms of damage awards or other remedies (e.g. a judge dividing fault between the two parties in a comparative negligence case).[1][2] The term is often used informally or humorously, rather than in any literal sense."
who gives a f#ck. they're TTT material anyway.
SLS did NOT replace our 1L grades with the P/HP/R/F system. Where did you get that? They just switched the current 2L class to the new grading system for our remaining time at Stanford. We will have split transcripts.
SLS transition plan for the class of 2010:
*1L year with numerical grades, meaned to 3.4, retroactive book prizes for honors
*2L and 3L on a P/HP system with book prizes instead of honors
*Graduating in 2010 with mixed transcripts
I'd like to second 17.
-Another bitter HLS 2L
I'm 10 years out, but most HLS 2Ls are pretty bitter people to begin with. I'm not sure what it all matters in the end.
26 = HUGE LOSER who couldn't clear 170 on the LSAT unless his "rich daddy" was rich enough to pay someone smart to take the test on his idiot son's behalf.
-HYS student w/ a 178
42- you are a bama...Get a life...
LOL @ you 43, sorry about that 165. now off you go to the law library in the hopes that you can be king of the retards at GW and actually get a shitty biglaw job that would be laughed at in the hallowed halls of my institution. A legal metropolis, if you will.
42
My annoyance with Elie on this gloomy day goes beyond 15's comment and must be released. Corrections are in caps/brackets:
When Harvard [L]aw [S]chool announced that [IT] [WILL] be dropping [ITS] letter-grading system in favor of a pass/fail system, we noted that the school had not yet decided [ON] how to apply the new system to [ITS] current law students:
1) Last I heard, HLS is a proper noun.
2) 15 noted singular/plural inconsistency
3) Elie doesn't seem to know his verb tenses too well.
4) Assume that any new grading system instituted by HLS will apply only to its students, and not all students currently enrolled in law schools.
Too picky? Maybe so, but for now, I get paid to be precise and avoid litigation.
45, "decided on how to" is more wordy and no more clear or correct than "decided how to."
31: Ever occur to you that lawyers use "split the baby" because to them, such a split is not "a futile attempt to apportion an indivisible object"? LOL
46, sorry, that was my own typo! Anyway, IMHO, entire phrase is flawed. Perhaps the following?
...school has yet to decide how it would apply the new system to its current law students...
42=TTT student with a 151
29 is absolutely right. Jackasses. Now I have to try...
34, this is 31. Please note that in her original message to the students, Dean Elena Kagan used the expression correctly: "I understand that some may view this solution as akin to cutting the baby in half." In other words, "I understand that some may view this solution as a poor way of resolving this issue."
Whereas the headline of this post uses the expression incorrectly: "Splitting the baby was the only call".
There is nothing technical or self-righteous about suggesting that expressions be allowed to retain their original meaning. "Split the baby" means something distinct from "split the difference". Why collapse the two? Why not use the right one?
The fact that lawyers habitually misuse the expression means nothing ---- lawyers are ignorant about many points of grammar and usage. For instance, lawyers are fond of using "Hobson's choice" to mean a "difficult choice" (wrong) or a "dilemma" to mean a "problem with many possible solutions" (also wrong).