I am not sure how the rest of you reacted but aside from some choice GSF emails we received throughout the year, this had to be one of the most ridiculous law school communications I have read thus far. Choice parts that I reacted to include the hard reasons that the Dean gives for exactly why timely submission of grades are so important. He writes that it can "complicate the job search" and gives the highly illuminating explanation that it "can impact students in other ways as well." Oh well that explains it. It is important because of the things that it does to the people. Right.

          Now, I know I have friends who were certainly frustrated by late grades last semester, but can anyone explain to me how exactly this impacts us as students? To me, I think it is a blessing. Employers actually have to interview you and speak to you, speak to your references and maybe even read writing samples to evaluate you as a candidate. The only complication seems to be that employers have to open the cans and taste the meat instead of just reading the label- maybe the Dean can send them can openers instead of circulating lists that to me seem to be nothing more than a form of bullying. I am pretty disgusted by any form of public shaming as a coercive measure and the list of faculty who don't submit grades seems to be just that. And then fines? The Dean has so little control over the faculty that he de facto leads that he has to dock their pay?

          Maybe there are students to whom this issue is important and if so, I would love to hear the reasons why, but to me this is little more than a foolish email that has much potential for Above the Law lampooning and on a more serious note threatens the kind of evaluative feedback that classes like this provide. If there are students who feel the same way and want to explain to the Dean why we need more feedback instead of just faster grading of exams, we should get together and formulate a way to present our thoughts to the Dean.

-- ElviraKras - 23 May 2012

Hi Elvira,

Thanks for posting this - i completely agree and would definitely be interested in getting together and looking at ways of trying to make a change on this. One of my personal goals this summer, inspired by Eben's initially confronting teaching style (which was unlike any i've ever experienced, both professionally and in a family of teachers), is to start to get my head around some of the adult/tertiary education literature in order to see how current best practices in tertiary, graduate school, and professional school teaching in particular differ from those in pre-k, primary and secondary education. My next step after that is to begin researching and compiling a list of innovative law school teaching models from around the world, in order to determine if any themes can be discerned and applied to our environment. Finally, I'd like to set up some time to talk with some professors in the law school - preferably those with an interest in innovative teaching methods - about their suggestions for reform. If you'd be interested collaborating on any or all of these ventures, please let me know. Also, some others in addition to myself have expressed interest in the related topic of curricular reform on the Duncan Kennedy thread (Skylar, Abiola, Meagan, Angeline, Jared and Alex if i have read it correctly), so if you do began to move forward on this it might be worth combining the two threads and people for greater impact.

-- RohanGrey - 23 May 2012

Hi Elvira,

I found your post really interesting. I do have alternative views on what you consider to be a "blessing" and the punishment that the administration plans to impose on professors who do not turn their grades in on time. First, I would like to play devils advocate with your description of a "blessing." I know of some students who applied for jobs at firms without their grades, had interviews, and were well liked by their interviewer(s). When the firm got a hold of their grades, which were not up to the "standards" of the firm, they were not offered positions. While this may be a testament to the flaws in basing employment on grades that are more or less arbitrarily given (based on the fact that the candidates were well liked based on their resume, work experience, and education and were not offered a job), I also think that it speaks to the ways in which certain valuations are ingrained in certain spheres of the legal profession. I do believe that potential employers should take a more holistic approach to analyzing candidates, however, I don't believe that what some students may perceive as "slacking" by tenured professors can be contrived to be viewed as a blessing in disguise.

Secondly, I agree that public shaming isn't a productive way to handle the ways in which the faculty may be slacking on getting their grades in on time. I do believe, however, that there should be some form of accountability. If not a fine than some way of insuring that professors are encouraged to get their grades in on time. If not for something that requires meeting a hard deadline like a job, a scholarship, or an application for an academic position, generally knowing how well one read, analyzed, and applied information can be essential to one's emotional and mental well being. Considering that 1L final grades are the only form of evaluation we get after our first semester, it is understandable why our peers would be anxious to receive their grades and why the administration felt compelled to make changes in the grading policy.

I'm personally not gunning for a firm job, but I can definitely empathize with those who may have been bothered by the slow turn around between taking their finals and getting their final grades.

-- JenniferAnderson - 24 May 2012

Elvira I too felt that email was absurd and insulting. I was mostly pissed off the Dean tried to act like this was for the benefits of the students and the Dean cares so much about what the students want, when I doubt getting grades submitted on time is the number one concern or complaint of students. And I doubt if polled, students would choose this issue as the one which they'd like the dean's threats of empty power. I'd be happy to help either you or Rohan in whatever way I can.

-- SkylarPolansky - 26 May 2012

Elvira, I completely agree with you and thought the dean's e-mail (and his priorities) was very disappointing. I was considering sending him an e-mail explaining my thoughts, but if you would like to coordinate something, I would definitely be game. Rohan, I would also love to contribute to your efforts as well - I'm not sure what energy I have to expend at this point, but if you need someone to bounce ideas off, etc., through this thread, I would definitely be game.

-- JaredMiller - 28 May 2012

Elvira, as far as the grades issue, I would have to agree with Jennifer. Not having grades is only a blessing if people actually decide whom to hire based on what they "taste from the can", but more than likely, they wont (unless we have no grades). In the end, everyone opens up the can and everyone tastes the meat, not having grades "on time" just makes them focus on the meat a little bit earlier, and maybe longer, than they would have. Plus, are resumes, interview and references really the best way to "taste the meat"? Does a 20 minute scripted conversation really tell you all that much about anyone? Not only do people prepare heavily for interviews, most resumes are highly doctored. Even taking references into account, something we have a little bit less control over, does anyone ever put down a reference that wouldn't say they were the best person in the world? At the end of the day, grades are one of the only truly objective metrics that anyone can go by. Flawed as they may be, from an employer's perspective, grades are probably the best option (especially when they have to differentiate between a group of individuals with impeccable resumes, interviewing skills and references).

(Elvira, I didn't address the other portions of your post either because I didn't have anything productive to add, or I agreed)

-- JonathanBrice - 28 May 2012

Jonathan, if not having grades means employers focus on the "meat" a little bit earlier and longer than they otherwise would have, isn't that making Elvira's point? Scripted conversations, tailored resumes and overly complementary references bring their own problems, but the answer there is to have less scripted interviews, and greater scrutiny over resume claims and references, not to give up on actually trying to get to know people as human beings. The biggest risk, in my opinion, of having grades in an interview is that they are the easiest of all the various components to directly and quantifiably measure people against each other, and as such will function as the default triage mechanism before any meaningful attempt is made to actually get to know each person.

Also, I'm a little worried that after everything we've talked about this semester in class and outside, you still say grades are "truly objective metrics" - objective in what sense? How often do we receive an exam back with comments and an accompanying grading metric? Do we ever get given lists of expected outcomes and performance indicators, sample answers from varying bands of performance or comparisons of raw performance scores to weighted rankings - a.k.a. grades? What about statistics on the average grades received by women vs. men, minorities vs. non-minorities, direct-from-undergraduate vs. non-direct, or different undergraduate majors? Without such information available to analyze, it's extremely difficult to assess the extent to which this grading system is even "objective" within its own educational paradigm, and that's before getting into everything we've talked about in class about the inherently political nature of testing "mastery" of a substantive area of law using a time-limited, research-exclusive, non-collaborative format based around hypothetical issue spotters or a true-false/multiple choice questions. Although my academic and professional education background is limited to the pre-k, elementary and secondary levels, I've also attended seven other tertiary institutions in various capacities prior to CLS, and can say quite confidently that the curriculum and assessment system at law school is the most opaque I've ever come across. We didn't even get a syllabus for Contracts last semester! Another professor emailed me prior to the release of grades to let me know that despite my (undeniably) poor exam performance, they thought I was one of the better students in the class and had bumped my final grade up as far as they could without being unfair to other students. Now, while I personally appreciate the fact that professor realized that exams aren't the be all and end all, I can't see how such a system, or indeed one in which Eben is able to tinker with grades over summer, should ever be considered "truly objective."

I'm also not sure I understand what you mean by "impeccable resumes, interviewing skills and references." Can you elaborate? No two people have identical life experiences, personalities or intellects, so I don't see how you can evaluate two resumes as both being "10/10". Isn't that type of reductive and dehumanizing "apples-to-apples" approach far more likely to occur with a grading system in which there are only five commonly used grade levels (A to B-)?

-- RohanGrey - 28 May 2012

Rohan, I don't think it is because it is unlikely to be determinative. To me, its only a benefit if it makes a difference. In the end, the employer's frame of reference will still be warped by the grades. The only way to make employers truly focus on the meat is to devalue grades by pulling an HLS or just not give grades.

Sorry, maybe "objective" wasn't the best word to use in that situation. What I was trying to say is that they are one of the few things that we can't tamper with as students. Flawed as they may be, they are what they are. While I will agree that grades should never define an individual, from an employer's perspective, how else are you suppose to initially differentiate between the meat worth tasting and the ones not? Not only are employers receiving hundred or even thousands of applications per position, a lot of the applicants are often very good candidates. Without grades, they're forced to taste all the meat, something that's just not economically feasible. In the end, because no employer realistically has the time or resources to taste every can, they read the labels in order to set aside a pile of the ones they want to try. While they will miss some good meat by doing that, they're hoping that the marginal benefit in terms of the bad meat they eliminate will outweigh the marginal cost in terms of the good meat they discard. Whether in reality this is true or not, I'm not sure, but I can see how one would be inclined to believe that it is.

To me, its seems that what you're getting at is not grades as much as the lack of feedback. I agree with you that we should get more feedback, but that doesn't necessarily mean that grades are bad. I don't see why we can't get both. And yes, grades will probably be dependent on variables such as sex, race and socioeconomic class, but that speaks more to the weaknesses of the education system. We should find a way to make it so that ones success is not determined by your race, sex or socioeconomic background, not just get rid of grading. Getting rid of grading just put a band-aide on a broken bone.

Regardless, I am more inclined to view grading as a good thing when it comes to something as the legal profession. As lawyer's, we serve clients. If our work product please our clients, they reward us, if it doesn't, they don't. Why cant we view professors as clients? Each semester, we are tasked with providing them with a work product, if it pleases them, they reward us, and if it doesn't, they don't. Just like real life clients have to pick what firms to rank as their top go to firms, teachers pick which students they want to rank at what position--your story about the professor bumping your grade goes to show this. The one flaw with this analogy is that we are also their clients as well. A professor's job is to make sure that we learn how present a good work product. This is the area where things like feedback and a syllabi would be helpful.

Yes, no two people have identical life experience, personalities or intellect, but a lot of people have some that are sufficiently impressive enough to not be able to conclusively pick one over another. When I say "impeccable resumes, interviewing skills and references", I mean that students at schools like CLS probably have very impressive resumes, interviewing skills and references; thus, its hard to differentiate them solely based on that. And yes, you can't quantitatively measure two resumes, but you can say that one resume is better than another, if you have to. Practically, that differs very little from whether you assigned one a higher numerical score that helps convey your overall emotions. In the end, while I do agree that this is a reductive and somewhat dehumanizing "apples-to-apples" approach, I personally see why people use it...its fast, cheap, easy, and more efficient that anything we have at our disposal. What else would you suggest? (I actually want to know if you have any suggestions) - 30 May 2012 - 02:34:41 - JonathanBrice?

Jonathan,

Didn't you answer your question in the first paragraph of your response? Why is it that our peer institutions (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley) have done away with letter grades, yet Columbia continues to hang on? The students at our peer institutions don't seem to be performing worse in the job market with their Pass/Fail grading system. The employers that hire these students don't seem to mind that they must rely on more than grades to make an assessment of a student's capabilities. I would be remiss not to mention a great deal of attorneys who have told me (and I believe you as well) that law school is nothing like practicing law, law school does not do a good job of training future lawyers, and how well an individual does in law school is not a good indicator of how good of a lawyer he or she will become. Comparing law to other fields, a number of medical schools have also done with away with letter grades because of the focus it takes away from education, yet residency programs do not appear to have trouble finding students that they'd prefer to train.

So much of the law school system is flawed; there are too many students and giving letter grades based on a 1L curve is one of the flaws. When I am paying over $70,000 a year for my legal education, I do not want something that is fast, cheap, or easy for anyone involved in the process.

-- AbiolaFasehun

For me it's pretty simple. When I was applying to different jobs last semester (both firms and other), a lot of places considered my application incomplete until I could provide a fall transcript. Until all my grades were in, my applications to various places were held up and the whole job-hunt process took longer. Now, please don't take that as me saying that grades don't suck and that I think this issue is a top priority or anything like that. Anyone who took a non-Moglen class with me this semester probably knows how much I care about grades themselves. But it was definitely annoying to have my job hunt delayed because a professor or 2 would take a month to grade exams.

-- JosephItkis - 3 June 2012

Abiola,

I honestly don't see it as a solution. It might help us, as students and potential employees, in that employers wouldn't be able to characterize us based on our law school grades, but it doesn't solve the problem of them finding good meat. None of the other things they would look at would actually be tasting the meat, it would simply be tasting what we give them...it would simply force them to roll the dice and hope they get a good can. I honestly don't believe that firms have a better idea of what type of students they're getting when it comes to our peer schools that don't issue letter grades...from all the recruiters and employer's I've talked to about the HLS/YLS/SLS?BLS system, it seems that all they do is try their best to turn the "grades" those schools do give into something they can use, hoping they get a good can (HP, P and LP are still grades)...but maybe I'm wrong. It also seems that they rely a lot more on their undergraduate grades, something they would likely do with us if we got rid of grades. Don't get me wrong, I think getting rid of grades is moving in the right direction, but I don't see it as a solution.

Also, yes, a great deal of attorneys have told me that law school is nothing like practicing law, but 90% of them have also been transactional attorney who barely do anything legal. In talking to litigators, both in the public and private sector, it seems that a great deal of them disagree with the statement that law school is nothing like practicing law. While yes, they echo that we still have a ton to learn before we can become standalone attorneys, they seem to disagree with the statement that law school as a whole is nothing like practicing (some types of) law. Lastly, while I don't disagree with the statement that how well an individual does in law school is not a good indicator of how good of a lawyer he or she will become, I also don't agree with it. To me, if the system was that flawed (in that grades we're completely useless and didn't decide anything), it would seem that employers would place a lot less weight on them.

In the end, maybe the system is flawed on an even deeper level (assuming that this isn't the way the system was mad to work). For example, in the beginning we have good meat and bad meat. Because we can't effectively separate the good from the bad, we assign them grades that don't rightly define them. The good meat that gets a good labels gains confidence and becomes a good lawyer, and the bad meat that gets a good label gets a good start, but is soon doomed by the fact that they are bad meat. On the other end of the spectrum, the good meat that gets the bad label is shaken at first, but because they're good meat, they still succeed; the bad meat that gets the bad label does nothing, and ends up exactly where they would've ended up if they had gotten a good label. If that's the way the system actually works, which I honestly don't know, then grades and whether or not employers look at them means absolutely nothing in the long run...and we basically shouldn't worry ourselves about them.

Ps: I realize that this has deviated from the original purpose of the thread, but I sill ascribe to the view that late grades don't benefit students.

--Main.JonathanBrice

Hello all,

I wrote the below letter and am thinking about sending it to Dean Schizer. Anyone who would like to join in on sending it with me is more than welcome (would love to get a big group of students behind this). Any and all comments/suggestions/edits are much appreciated. Thanks!

Dear Dean Schizer:

We are second-year students who wanted to voice our concerns relating to the e-mail you sent to the student body last month about professors' timely submission of grades. While we and our fellow students appreciate that you are asking professors to be more cognizant of the timeline of our job searches when submitting grades, we are worried that the attention being paid to speed in the grading process obscures a much larger and (in our view) far more pressing problem: the serious lack of feedback that students receive as part of their evaluation. There is obviously much debate among the student body as to whether grades should be kept or abandoned, but one thing almost all students agree on is that the amount of constructive feedback we receive to complement those grades is grossly inadequate. Yes, most professors are happy to take the time to go over your exam and point to areas of potential improvement, but many only have the time to do so months after we received our grades, at a time when we have little memory of the issues and the feedback contains little value.

There are larger issues at play apart from busy professors that contribute to the lack of adequate feedback. We understand that there is a long tradition in law schools of students being evaluated by a single exam at the end of a semester or year. But such a system makes it impossible for students to have any real improvement or any guidance from the professors whose mandate is, in part, to teach us how to improve. Our entire grade is based on our ability to spot issues, make arguments and reason logically over the course of four hours, but when we take our exams at the end of first semester, this is the first time that we have done this, apart from a few practice exams that we take in the weeks leading up to the exam, also completed without any feedback or constructive criticism from professors. Our professors spend the semester teaching us the substantive material relevant to contracts or property, but they don't give us any guidance as to how to incorporate this information into a successful legal analysis until after the exam.

Yes, many students don't like grades in part because they create stress and competition, but we largely don't like grades because they seem arbitrary and unrepresentative: They reward students who have an intuitive grasp of the skills required and leave those who don't with no understanding of what they should have done better, and they fail to account for the fact that students who have the ability to improve those skills over the course of a semester can be just as effective lawyers as those who "get it" earlier in the learning process. Giving students more opportunities to be evaluated (either officially or unofficially) throughout the semester would help solve this problem, as would emphasizing to professors how important feedback is to the learning process.

We understand that teaching is only part of a professor's job requirements. We also understand that, as a result, professors have limited time to devote to working with individual students, especially in large 1L classes. But the way the system is set up now, students have very little opportunity to improve upon the skills on which they are being evaluated and which are vital to building successful lawyers; consequently, many students will leave Columbia with largely the same aptitude in legal reasoning and analysis that they came to campus with three years earlier. For those students, Columbia becomes merely a gate they must pass through on the way to a legal career rather than a place that actually builds lawyers. That, we think, is a shame. Again, we appreciate that you have taken the time to pressure professors to submit exam grades more promptly, but we would like to see that the larger problems surrounding the grading process are being emphasized and remedied as well. Thank you for your time and we look forward to continuing this dialogue.

-- JaredMiller - 09 Jun 2012

I hope people won't mind a little humorous cynicism but I often feel like this describes law students' idealism about grades very well.

-- JosephItkis - 10 Jun 2012