| | |
|
InLawSchoolsGradesGoUpJustLikeThat 14 - 28 Jun 2010 - Main.DavidGoldin
|
| | I'm sure many of you have read the recent NYT Article, In Law Schools, Grades Go Up, Just Like That. I have enjoyed reading the comments of the article, which span from adamant support of tossing out the old regime to total disdain for a generation often described as entitled. I must admit, the article gives me a sinking feeling in my stomach, especially as we approach the Fall recruiting season. I fantasize about the minimal, or complete lack of, anxiety students at schools with no grades must be experiencing as they head into the process. What is most striking to me is that quite a few schools with students who compete with Columbia students for employment have made the determination that eliminating traditional grades altogether, or altering the curve, is in the best interest of their students. Even our friendly neighbor to the south has made alterations to its curve. This begs the question, what are Columbia's justifications for not rolling with the tide?
This topic has obviously received great attention in this course, but I still think this article is an interesting read. I would love to hear any comments or reactions people might have. | | | I stopped reading here. I find it absolutely pathetic that a CLS professor (who is making a claim about recruiting) would make such a broad generalization about recruiting that doesn't even include her own school. Which, for someone who has had Franke's experience (and inexperience in the private sector) is probably par for the course.
-- MatthewZorn - 28 Jun 2010 | |
>
> |
@Jennifer and Courtney - I don't have 10 years experience out of law school (I have 2) but I worked at a large firm for those years and have a tiny bit of insight into it. I discussed the issue with one of the partners at the firm, and he said that the reason that many (though not all) lawyers are obsessed with school/grades is that it is an easy way for non-lawyers to evaluate the quality of their lawyers.
Unlike construction workers, who produce something tangible (like a building), lawyers in many situations produce very few tangible deliverables for the large amount of work they put in. Thus, it can be hard to evaluate their work. Thus, people tend to evaluate lawyers on their pedigrees. If Lawyer X was a Blah Scholar from Harvard, he must be good.
I don't know if people in the real world evaluate lawyers this way. But it is a belief that some partners have about how their firms and work is judged. As a result, they strive to hire only the top students with lots of awards from the top schools, so they can say "look at our lawyers - they are all so smart and will do a good job". This isn't the best evaluation method, but it does say a lot about the profession.
Keep in mind, though, this is just one point of view that I happen to know about. I'd love to hear the views of others on this or if anyone else has heard a similar explanation.
-- DavidGoldin - 28 Jun 2010 | | | |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |