Making the Grades

The New York Times reports that at least ten law schools have raised their grade curves in the last two years. The new rationale for this timeworn response is that students need a competitive edge in a tight job market and higher gpa, however contrived, is just the thing. Ironically, by outing the culprit law schools, the New York Times has probably reversed any advantage their students might have reaped from the sudden lift in gpas.

The premise that a law school can give its graduates the edge in the job market simply by raising their gpas across the board is offensive. Rank in class and rank of law school provide much more useful comparative data than gpa, so the premise that higher gpas, all other things equal, will translate into more job opportunities is dubious. Even assuming that raising the grade curve for all students yields a benefit among a segment of the market (gpa fetishists), the benefit to students at a particular school is at best a wash. Students with otherwise lackluster gpas benefit at the expense of the top of the class who find it increasingly difficult and pointless to distinguish themselves from their peers. If everybody is special as a matter of law school policy, why bother with the time consuming ritual of studying?

Raising the grade curve may make a law faculty feel compassionate in the short run. But all it really accomplishes is to make the faculty less relevant to the market as an evaluator of relative quality. Expert faculty differentiation among students (via competitively awarded grades) is a huge part of what makes a JD valuable. If the market doesn’t perceive any meaningful differentiation among students on the basis of the grades we assign, we’ll be out of business in the blink of an eye. At the very least, we won’t be worth our current salaries.

Two things remain true regardless of the winds of grade inflation. I’d hire someone with a C+ in Corporate Tax over another with an A in (fluff of your choice) any day of the week. And, all students want A’s until the day everybody gets them.

Do Law Schools Golf?

I used to ask my students whether they would be golfers or football players when they graduated. The distinction I was trying to make was between golf, a sport in which players observe the rules and actually report themselves with they violate them, and football, where there are also rules but the idea is to bend them and disregard them and hope not to be caught. So, a lineman holds a charging defensive end and it's a great play as long as he is not caught. In golf it is a matter of observing social norms or even principle. In football it is strictly a cost benefit analysis.

When I ask whether law schools golf I mean both the faculty and the institutions as a whole. For the institutions the best example to which these standards could be applied is the information that forms the basis of the USN&WR rankings. I'd say that the schools fit the football player model — it is not cheating unless you are caught.

How about faculties? The example here might be teaching evaluations and I'd say it is mixed. To be a golfer means to do what is best for the students to prepare them for practicing law. Sometimes that clashes with high teaching evaluations. For example, you may be a stickler for attendance, preparation and being on time because you believe those practices are consistent with professionalism in practice. On the other hand, you may not stress those things because you may then be regarded as being disrespectful and if your dean is big on student evaluations and keeping the students happy it's not a good thing for you. I will forgo the list of ways teachers can game the student evaluations. If enough people game them they become irrelevant. My own view is that even when not gamed only the very low ones or the very high ones signal that something is amiss in the classroom. Yes, I did say even very high ones are suspect — even on the rare occasions I get them.

So if law school administrations are operating by football player rules and a significant number of law professors are doing the same, what does that suggest about the example set for students. Should we expect them to do what we say or to do as we do?

I actually do not know but I hope it is not the latter. Maybe their parents have taught them golfing rules. On the other hand, many years ago a friend whose daughter filled the newspaper racks around campus told me that the only machine where there were consistent more papers taken than money left was the Law School. That is football player behavior and not a good sign.

Collateral Damage

Law schools have now engaged in the USN&WR battle for several years and the collateral damages is mounting. I used to rail against my law school's participation in the war but now wish the Dean would go nuclear, whatever that means.

Most of the collateral damage is known to most of us. The biggest is huge publicity machines that turn out glossy magazine as schools fight for something comparable to economic rents. As best I can tell the biggest beneficiaries of these efforts are administrations who then can keep alums off their backs and keep their jobs. Faculties win too thought. Happier alums make for more contributions. I think we would all be astounded to compare most law school's publicity budgets of 1980 with what they are in 2010.

Other collateral damage is the hiring of one's own graduates in order to inflate the employment figures. Why is this collateral damage? Mainly it is a charitable contribution or welfare payment to already well-heeled people.

And then there is the endless fiddling with classes. The standard is to reduce the size of the entering class and admit more transfer students. Or report students as part time.

My reason for this post, since we have hashed this out before, is the impact of the new emphasis on GPA's and LSAT scores. I used to have the view that a state school should provide some opportunity for students who did not have the highest GPAs and LSAT scores. In favoring that view I did not think about the older applicants. What happens to a person who graduated with a 3.3 twenty years ago or more before grade inflation or who has an under 160 LSAT score but had not taken a standardized test for 25 years? The GPA/LSAT obsession pretty much closes them out even thought a 3.3 might be a 3.8 today. That person also offers age diversity to a school that generally admits 22-25 year olds who are wet behind their ears and have no idea what they want to do in life.