Grade Inflation Won't Help Students Find Jobs

The new trend of grade inflation is just another desperate move by law school scam artists to appease a growing number of law students who are visiting our blogs and demanding change in what will likely be a very long jobless era. Inflating grades is another way of pulling the wool over students' eyes because it allows law schools to ignore bigger problems like tuition inflation, its existence as a third tier law school in an oversaturated legal market, and law school teaching methods by academics rather than trained and experienced lawyers. It also pits third tier law students against each other in an imaginary battle for jobs that do not exist for them or the other 99 percent of today's law school graduates. Making a B-minus into a B doesn't change any third tier law students' dire situation in this economy.

Chapman is the latest law school where students have become so frantic about their job prospects that they are petitioning to increase the mandatory median gpa from 2.8 to 3.0. Orange County Register columnist and law student Frank Mickadeit tells us more:

Loyola Law School in L.A. recently announced it was automatically bumping up student GPAs roughly 0.3 (on a 4.0 scale) across the board, immediately drawing criticism, from academic circles. Loyola's reason: the previous mandatory median of a B- (or what would be about 2.8) was excluding students from jobs where a 3.0, or a B, was required.

Loyola law grads also were less competitive with grads from USC and UCLA, which seem to be racing each other to the heights of absurdity. There, as at UCI, the median GPA is already 3.3 on a 4.3 scale. Did I mention that Loyola's bump would be retroactive to as far back as 2007?

Not to be left behind, students at my law school, Chapman, have petitioned to increase the mandatory median from 2.8 to 3.0, essentially keeping pace with Loyola, but moving ahead of Whittier Law, which maxes out the median grade at 2.875.

I signed the petition because I didn't want to be the only weasel in my class not to – which I was assured I would be – but I don't feel good about adding to the nonsense. The national average GPA has increased from 2.93 to 3.11 since 1992. The "Gentleman's C" has become the "Delinquent's D."

It's hard to know what any employer can really make of a GPA. This rather forces them to rely on the tried-but-not-always-so-true method of evaluating a graduate based on his or her school's reputation, as evidenced by the quality (or lack thereof) of recent graduates. In other words, the prospective lawyer is being evaluated on others' performance.


Some elite schools, such as Harvard and Yale, have done away with grades. Last year I made my own deal with a grading structure that seems impossibly flawed: I simply don't look at my grades. And if, in the back of my mind, I know it's possible that I'm just one-tenth of a point above the academic probation line, well, that makes me study harder.

Elite schools like Harvard and Yale have never needed a grading system. When you're someone like George W. Bush, is your future really dependent on whether or not you fail a class at Yale? Of course not. Many students at top tier schools and even not so top tier schools have the connections to obtain prestigious positions independent of their grades. I know of someone who attended an Ivy League college and a Tier 1 (not T14) law school. This person, through personal East Coast connections that were developed long before law school, was able to obtain a mid-sized law firm job during the recession without even having to show any grades from law school. This person had never worked for a law firm prior to receiving this offer. That is how things have always worked within elite circles. It's just that the inequality is more glaringly obvious now that everyone else has to fight tooth and nail for even an interview. A slight bump will not help law students nearly as much as someone who received a C in Contracts but didn't have to show their grades because they are the son or daughter of an influential person. Not even law school rank, as I and many other T14 grads who have shown up here to attest, will guarantee you a job if your family does not belong to the town's elite.

I can understand why students would believe that grade inflation will give them an edge. A decade ago maybe it would work in helping lower tier graduates or students from poor and middle class families find good jobs. Those days no longer exist. If anything this recession and the bailouts to the rich should make it crystal clear to the majority of us that the gap between rich and poor in this country will only grow wider. A degree and a glowing transcript from a third tier school won't change that.

Ahhhhh.. the Memories.

So, I've been totally honest with my readers and explained that I fucked up my first semester.  I did well the rest of law school--never getting below a "B"--but the damage is done.  If you don't do well your first semester, as in top 25% at a first tier like my alma mater, it will be an uphill struggle.

So, around this time of year--during my first year of law school, grades were released.  It was plainly obvious at that time that a Professor's feelings for you didn't matter.  He didn't know whose exam he was grading. I was a number to him when he graded my exam... not an intelligent student who does well under the Socratic Method in class.  Also, it was plainly obvious that class participation counted for nothing. Not that I was ever "into it."  But there were surely people that were into it... that were a bit deflated to see that it wasn't even a factor in their grades.  It was eye opening time.

I ran into my Torts professor in the hall and he said, "Hey, how did you do????"  I told him I got a B- and he was a little disappointed... he was sure that I would get an A.  Oh well.

The other little tidbit of information that you knew... but didn't completely understand.. was the curve.  My school, considering itself competitive and difficult, liked to fuck its students in the ass.  I know, I'm a  bit vulgar, but this topic brings it out of me.  The curve was around a low C--about a 70.  I knew that when I started, but wasn't sure what that meant.

So, back to mid-January of my 1L year.  I get my grades off of some chart on a billboard with our ID numbers listed on the left and the grade on the right. I'm old, so it was low-tech at the time.  I think the tech transition happened by my 3L year.  I am checking the billboard for my Crim Law grades.  This was, and arguably still is, my favorite subject.  I am a True Crime buff, by the way. I love to read about serial killers.  When I started law school, I used to declare that I came to law school to be a criminal defense attorney--not a lawyer.  So, this topic was easy for me.  I studied it and knew it like the back of my hand.  I had an excellent back and forth with the Professor. He liked me.  My case briefs were in order.  I knew my stuff.  Frankly speaking, of all the first year subjects, Crim Law was the easiest to master for everyone.  So, I felt I needed this one in the bag.

But I got a D.  I was blown away.  I thought it must be a mistake.  It was the worst grade I have ever gotten. I don't even remember having gotten a C since middle school.

The Professor handed out some sort of answer key to the students.  I reviewed it and and I was confident that I had spotted all of the issues. ALL OF THEM!  How could I get a D?  I felt like my future was in jeopardy.  So, I went up to visit my Crim Law Professor during office hours to ask him to reconsider his mistake.

He explained it to me this way:

Angel, you spotted 100% of the issues I was hoping you would see, but that is not how you are graded.  This is how I grade exams.... I grade all of the exams and put a number at the top, standing for the number of issues that you spotted on the exam.  On the exam, there 50 issues that I expected the students to spot. You got 50.  You exam goes on the floor.  The next exam taker spotted 52.  2 more than I expected anyone to spot, or that I saw myself.  That exam goes to the left of your exam.  I pick up the next one and that person spotted 55. That exam goes to the left of yours and the other.  The next exam taker only spotted 40.  That goes to the right of your exam.  I picked up the next exam and they spotted 48 of the issues.  That exam goes on the floor between yours and one where 40 issues were spotted.  I go through this exercise with all of the exams on the floor in a big line.  The one in the middle gets a 70.  The one on the right gets a failing grade and the one on the left gets a 100.  So, although you spotted all of the issues that I anticipated, more than half of the students in your class saw more issues than you or I did.  Therefore you get a D.  Because of the curve, someone will get a 100 and someone will fail, and everyone else is distributed into a bell curve around a 70. I'm so sorry.  You did a great job, but others in your section did much better.

At least I got the reassurance that I knew my stuff.  But that is not how one is graded in law school.  Today, any experience in criminal law is sorely missing from my resume.  I did manage to move past this bad grade, never getting a C or lower the rest of law school. But my fate was decided.  So, if your grades were worse than expected, don't be sad.  It's not you, it's the system.