ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by Tory Blue - 1 month, 3 weeks, 2 days, 5 hours, 2 minutes ago

   I did not prepare at all for LSAT and had gone out partying the night before exam and still felt a little drunk when I took them (certainly had too much fun in college!)... scored in 97th percentile.  Guys sitting next to me had spent hundreds on LSAT review courses and swotting for months over the whole thing (and even tried to make me feel worried that I hadn’t prepared!)... I didn’t see their names on the list of grads accepted at Ivy League schools.  These tests are a joke, but what a huge money-spinner for the Testing Services and Preparation Courses! If you’re a good test taker and paper writer, you can get decent scores on standardized tests and get through an undergraduate degree program with ease, which proves that they do not provide much insight into the scholarly ability, character or innate quality of potential law students. Even later in my legal career, all these twenty-somethings worried about their pensions and health plans only to go on to a life-long career of the most tedious and mundane legal practice.  Hate to say it, but it’s all about fear that keeps people worried and in reign—first as students squandering their youth worried about grades, test scores, and meaningless college nonsense—and then later about ridiculous jobs and self-important careers.  The institutions eliminating the petty distinctions of grades have finally caught on to the notion that genuine quality should be cultivated in scholars and not merely quantified by having students jumping like trained dogs through a series of hoops.  The terminally insecure who have a NEED to compete and be evaluated will no doubt disagree with me.

2. Posted by CJT - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 36 minutes ago

   Couldn’t disagree more.  There will always be those who take tests well and those who don’t.  That is why schools also look at grades.  #1 seems to be suggesting we get rid of both.  How do we measure people then, by race, good looks, football talent?  It’s also ironic that you attack the LSAT when that score is likely what handed you your Ivy League Education.  It sounds like you’ve done well for yourself and that’s wonderful, but “enlightened proposal” is really just cynicism.

3. Posted by JME - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 50 minutes ago

   Wouldn’t know.  I did okay on my LSAT, not as high as I wanted, but certainly in the top 25% of what the law school I wanted was accepting.  My undergrad grades were fine.  I stumbled in law school, barely making it the first year, but after many years away from school, I had to regain study skills (they are different for school vs work).  Each semester was better than the semester before, I wouldn’t have known that without grading.  When I look for an intern or associate, though, I don’t look at grades, I look at externals.  Fact is, if they are passing, they are probably competent.  I want to know what else they do besides school.  I have chosen to hire only those who have been members of one or both of two specific organizations while in school, and I don’t announce those.

4. Posted by Second That - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 28 minutes ago

   I have to second Tory Blue’s comment.  I was not a great student, but have always done very well on standardized tests, which got me in to one of the best law schools in the U.S.  My college girlfriend was a great student. She studied hard and got great grades, but was no good at bubble tests.  She did badly on the MCATs and ended up at a mediocre Med School.  The system worked for me personally, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize it as seriously flawed.  The problem with measuring people with tests and grades is that it doesn’t allow us to “see” people for who they are.  There are some great thinkers who got poor grades (Einstein pops to mind) and there are a lot of people who get great grades because they are good at rote memorization, but who are seriously uninteresting and never go anywhere.

5. Posted by Rogelio Lasso - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 26 minutes ago

   Even LSAC, the organization that prepares and administers the LSAT admits that it is a relatively poor predictor of the only thing it seeks to predict: performance in the first year of law school.  Although law schools know the LSAT is not particularly effective, they are unlikley to abandon it as long as U.S. News rankings are heavily influenced by the LSAT scores of incoming students.  The alternative would be to review each law school application individually but with schools receiving as many as 10 applications for each position, that would require a tremendous time investment on the part of admissions committees and that is also unlikely to happen.  The result is that the overwhelming number of law school applicants are admitted based almost exclusively on their LSAT scores so committees read a very small number of “grey” files. 
   And then, there is the preposterous grading on a curve requirement instituted in most if not all law schools.  This is pedagogically absured and it is done primarily to rank students to make it easier for employers.  With law schools being so unprincipled, is it any wonder law students and lawyers are so cynical.

6. Posted by GS - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 17 minutes ago

   As for the LSAT.  For various reasons I didn’t do well on the LSAT, but did much better letter grade wise at the two Law Schools (I transferred after my 1L year) than most of my peers who had better UG GPAs and LSAT scores.  I had to delay entry into law school for two years due in large part to a lower LSAT score.  What is the answer?  I don’t know, but it isn’t the LSAT in its current format.  In hindsight the education I received at the lesser ranked (based on LSAT/ UG GPA) was far superior to the school I ultimately graduated from who coincidentally wouldn’t accept me because of my UG GPA/LSAT as a 1L.  The LSAT stinks as a good predictor of who will succeed and who deserves to go to Law School. 

   As for letter grades in Law School.  There are various reasons why they have been eliminated some of which don’t have anything to do with the school’s stated reasons.  For instance one small school has eliminated letter grades only for their 1L students under the guise of “eliminating needless stress and competition in Law School” when in fact it was a calculated move to make their 1Ls stay for 3 years since other schools won’t have anything to evaluate them on other than a transcript of Ps.  How will all of the schools who have eliminated letter grades determine who will graduate with honors?  Will it be skin color or another form of political correctness?  Or will it be based on how financially endowed the school becomes from the student’s family? 

   When Law Schools eliminate letter grades for their students, how will the schools comply with the ABA accreditation guidelines that require schools to only retain those students that have a reasonable likelihood of graduating?  What will the new cut offs be for academic discharge?  How will a school be able to fairly evaluate if one failing grade was a fluke or a symptom of a bigger problem if with anonymous grading the only record will be pass or fail? 

   End result, I agree the LSAT is a poor predictor of who will excel in Law School and should be eliminated, but elimating Letter Grades creates other problems in terms of feedback, ability to transfer and retention.

7. Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours ago

   I think grades are GOOD and that LSAT scores are good also.

   When you work hard, you can get good grades, and I think this apply to LSAT.

   I never studied for the LSAT, and didn’t do to badly.  I did NOT think I was smart enough for Harvard or Stamford, but my boyfriend was here, and I figured I better stay closeby.

   It was GOOD.  You have to go to school where you want to work.  I also wanted to stay alot closer to my family.  They are here too.

   So if you want to get a good job, work hard in school, and ask for GRADES.  This way, you will NOT be lumped together with all the dumies out there with pass/fail.

8. Posted by JD - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours ago

   Standardized exams will be remembered as one of the most unproductive, arbitrary and harmful measures in education.  If you can’t see this now because you’re caught in a world where it has been acceptable for so long, just wait while we continue to tear it down and it’ll become apparent to you.

   As for grades, exactly as quoted, so subjective, so influential, and so incredibly inaccurate as a measure of education.  I have taught, and have graded, and know first hand this fact.

   We cannot put generic numbers on ability since strengths come as uniquely as do people.  My string of A’s will say nothing of my ability to do something not like the exams on which I received A’s.  These silly measures should be confined to themselves.

   An A on an exam means you can score well on that exam, from that professor, on that day.  A 175 on the LSAT means you can score well on that exam on that day.  The application of those measures to other facets of responsibility is not only wrong, unjustified, inaccurate, and nonsensical, it’s also very unfair, and I repeat, arbitrary.

9. Posted by JME - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, 49 minutes ago

   There is no reason why, in reference to #6 above, that the professors can’t continue grading as they have always done, and the grades then converted by the registrar to pass/fail before posting.  since grading is anonymous (at least at my school) it won’t affect anything.  As for Ellen,  if you wrote like you write in these comments, you wouldn’t have made it past the first year in ANY law school.  Learn to spell, girl!  So did you stay near Harvard or near STAMFORD? or are you really a law student or attorney, or just a poser?

10. Posted by JME - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, 45 minutes ago

    Dang, sorry.  I slammed Ellen, and dropped the caps on my second and last sentences.  At least my word program would have corrected those mistakes so a judge wouldn’t have seen them in his courtroom.

11. Posted by 2L - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, 22 minutes ago

    I couldn’t agree more with JD.  I have plenty of friends who are, as one of my old bosses would say, “test bunnies,“ and I am not.  For both the LSAT and even back to the SATs, despite being in the top fifth of my class or higher, I would score in the 60th percentile on the standardized tests.  Granted, not horrible and got me into decent schools (coupled with my grades), but not what I knew I was capable of in another context.

    In terms of the grades in law school, the one test one grade policy normally implemented is problematic.  I did reasonably well my first semester, but my second semester I got sick a month before finals, missed five of the six allotted classes in two of my courses, and was still recovering during finals.  My grades reflected that and I fell 20 percentage points in the rankings.  Had I not gotten sick, I would have kept my position and maybe even have graded onto one of the journals.  JD’s comment that the grade you get on the exam is how well you can score “on that exam, from that professor, on that day” is the best way to put it, especially since each professor will want something different.  I see so many of my friends using Legal Lines or Emanuel’s or some other aid, but that isn’t going to help you write what this professor wants on this exam.

    Do I have a solution?  Unfortunately as flawed as this system is, I don’t really have a better solution.  The LSAT is unfortunately the only equalizing factor we have because the A that someone gets from Harvard is different than the A that someone gets from UMass, but at the same time a 175 from a test bunny probably doesn’t mean as much as a 155 from someone who studied for two years.  So for admission purposes, a combination of both needs to be used, which from my understanding many places do, but there is a baseline cut-off for LSAT scores, which I don’t think is right (what if they got a 148 but have a 3.5 from a top-ranked school?)

    The solution for grades in law school, in terms of having the grade be more accurate, I can only think would be to offer midterms to have more scores to base the final grade on, but that would only cause more stress, especially during the already-stressful 1L year (especially during first semester when it takes until about midterms to figure out what you are doing).

    So, yes, the system is terribly flawed, but in the grand scheme of things, eliminating the LSAT and grades really isn’t the answer.  Unfortunately, they are the best thing we have right now.  For job interviews, I would hope that potential employers would look at all my internships in the field instead of the poor grade I got in the subject area due to illness, but that is why we have career centers and resumes.  In terms of measuring who should stay and who should be asked to leave, grades are really the only answer.  If we’re worried about people being able to graduate, that ability to graduate are going to be based on grades, not on what summer internships or semester field placements you have.  It’s unfortunately a measure of your ability to get through law school, not how good of a lawyer you’re going to be when you’re out.

12. Posted by JJH - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 45 minutes ago

    What will the Michigan undergrads do if they don’t get it?!

13. Posted by Tiger - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 44 minutes ago

    To a great extent, the legal profession is responsible for the focus on standardized testing in school admissions.  Given more applicants than spaces available in most undergraduate and graduate programs, schools absolutely have to have an objective, non-suspect basis for rejecting the candidates for whom there is no room.

    Are there great legal minds who might not get accepted to law school because of poor LSAT scores?  Sure. Are there rote memorization savants who will get a good undergraduate GPA and LSAT score, but who will make poor attorneys? Sure.

    However, no system that attempts to judge the potential of individuals on an objective basis (or subjective for that matter) will ever be more than partially effective.  No one is a perfect judge of character.  At least GPA and LSAT create some objective criteria to look at.

    Having served on the admissions committee at my alma mater, the numerical equation that LSAC provides merely allowed us to sort the students into broad groupings.  Every individual application dossier was then review in detail and determinations were made based upon the total package.  However, a poor combined LSAC index was a major factor in those who did not get admitted.

    As for letter grades in law school, who really cares.  There needs to be some way to provide feedback and letter grades are something we are programmed from grade school to understand.  Frankly, law school GPA and class rank only matter for the first job and Ivy League credentials only matter if you want to work for one of the big name firms.  Once you get out and start practicing, that is all forgotten.

14. Posted by Ben Grim - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 35 minutes ago

    Be sure to resist classification by scores and grades by attending a lower ranked law school. Maybe the elimination of grades is just an admission by Harvard and other higher end schools that they really don’t teach law much, or any, better than any other schools. I guess at a certain point the guilt would bear down on you after you spend a few hundred years fleecing your students and their families for all they have and provide only connectivity and reputation as a real benefit. Don’t get me wrong. That’s actually quite enough, but it’s bought with money. Another way to look at is might be that for the most part you have to be fairly bright to do well on the LSAT, and the grade requirements filter out people who aren’t fairly hard working, so if their reputation is for gathering a group of smart, hard working people and putting them through a fairly standard JD process to get them to think a certain way then good for them. That doesn’t seem to be along the same lines as requiring the pool not to take the LSAT, and doesn’t belong in the same discussion.
    As for the LSAT being a measure of your ability to get through law school, that’s really the point. You don’t want to waste your resources on people who can’t at least get through law school. It’s hard, but it’s not that hard.

15. Posted by Richard R Gerken - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 24 minutes ago

    I’ve been through it all, the LSAT, law school grades, a coporate law carreer and now an adjunct professor of Business Law in an MBA program.  Frankly, I believe in testing and grades as reasonable measurements of performance. Most of my students are balancing jobs, family and education so I see dedication, hard work and a desire to suceed. Most of them achieve in the A to B range.  I think dropping LSAT and grades will lead to more subjectivity.  By the way, I was a lousy standard test taker who worked hard to achieve.

16. Posted by GRM - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 23 minutes ago

    Northeastern University School of Law has not used letter grades since it was restarted some forty years ago, as far as I know.  This was important to me when I went back to school, having worked full-time for eight years after my undergrad degree.  I didn’t want the pressure of competing with people right out of undergrad programs for letter grades.  I was more interested in getting as much as I could out school without that distraction.

    In lieu of grades, the school gives written evaluations.  While many employers in the Boston area seemed more familiar with this approach, some looked confused and put off by a transcript the size of a small phone book.  A brief review of the evaluations often provided an indication of performance, though, through “code words” such as “very good,“ “competent,“ “excellent,“ etc.

17. Posted by silencedogood - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 22 minutes ago

    These measures by Harvard, Yale, and Michigan are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.  There are valid criticisms about the way grades are currently handled in most law schools, but that does not mean that the reactionary switching to a “no grade” system is the best, or even a better, alternative.  In fact it is the exact opposite of meaningful reform.

    The underlying purpose of grades is to measure the student’s absorbtion and understanding of the course material.  The current system is broken at most schools because there is only a single exam which is then graded based on a curve.  That means if the student has an “off” day for any valid reason their score will be unrepresentative to varying degrees.  In the case of a curve, if every student scores extremely high on an exam then the difference between an A and C may be the difference between 100% and 97% (which I have seen happen personally).  Despite these flaws, this form of grading gives some information however imperfect and more information is always better than less in predicting outcomes.

    Eliminating grades altogether is change in exactly the wrong direction.  It reduces the amount of information and datapoints available to gauge a law student’s likely performance.  So instead prospective employers must focus on information which is much less instructive such as the particular institution (perhaps insulating that school from competitive pressures), organization membership, and perhaps race (as it has been, at least plausibly, argued that this is covert affirmative action). 

    While that may not be that big a deal if we are talking about a Harvard grad and someone in the bottom tier of schools, what about comparisons between graded and ungraded top tier schools? 

    What is needed to reform grading systems is not less data points, its more.  As the frequency of measuring a student’s performance increases, so too will its reliability.  more frequent exams give the professor to test a wider range of the student’s skills.  Rather than only answering one or two essay question at the end of the year students could be assigned research papers, oral arguments in class, or even practical application initiatives in the community as well as the more traditional exam questions.  More frequent exams would average out the risk of having any “off” day, and as the semester progresses the student, if performing poorly, would also have advance warning that either their study methods or work ethic requires a rethink.  The combination of each of these benefits should produce better lawyers as a result as well as reduce the unnecessary anxiety of law school exams which, frankly, causes many law students to crack. 

    I had a single class like this in law school and it was the best one I’ve ever taken.  I suspect this approach has not been adopted because it requires more work and more accountability by not just students, but faculty and the institution overall.  With Harvard’s endowment it certainly isn’t the money.

18. Posted by Dan - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 17 minutes ago

    All the carping about LSATs is just a bunch of whining.  I needed the LSAT to get into law school, since 1/2 of my undergrad transcript came before I was a responsible student (i dropped out for 5 years in the middle of my BS) and I had little other way to show who I was as a person at THAT time - the time when I was applying to schools.

    Everyone keeps looking at it as glass-half-empty.  Why not look at it as glass-half-full, and see people like me that wouldn’t have gotten into their schools BUT FOR their LSAT scores?

    BTW I scored in the 98th percentile and ended up graduating with honors.

19. Posted by Dan - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 14 minutes ago

    By the way, I agree with silencedogood, and I have another possible solution to add that works for my alma mater:

    STOP RANKING THE STUDENTS.  If law schools are worried so much about competitiveness, just stop providing ranks and GPA’s - my school has neither.

20. Posted by JFS - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 2 minutes ago

    The LSAT is a test that only measures test-taking abilities and general apptitude, NOT THE LAW.  Law schools tests measure your knowledge of the law and how to argue.  Anyone else see a disconnect between the LSAT and Law School grades? 
    Face it, grades matter because employers need a way of figuring out the “best” people to hire. However, grades do not entail a good lawyer, they only signal a good student.  Many good students, top students for that matter, really suck at law.  They only know how to take tests and write articles.  They are not easy to deal with in the actual profession (as he speaks from personal experience).  If law schools really want to make good lawyers, they do need to put less of an emphasis on grades, and more emphasis on practical work.  Reading a book does not prepare you to become a lawyer.  Employers need to recognize this as well.

21. Posted by Edwin Barmaidsky - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 58 minutes ago

    LSATs and grades unfairly discriminate against MEN.  Everyone knows girls are smarter that boys, and they always get better GRADES, also because they study more while boys are often distracted.  Obviously, it is the FEMALE LAW PROFESSORS AND ADMINISTRATORS who like girls better than boys who keep this DISCRIMINATION alive.  We BOYS need to STAND UP to this FEMALE ESTABLISHMENT so we can get a fair chance, too.  Let’s go form an ACTION PLAN over a couple of beers.

22. Posted by Einstein - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 57 minutes ago

    What is great about this discussion is that it brings into the light what incredible power admissions committees have. They are essentially the arbiters of your life path. The difference in opportunity of a law student going to Yale and one going to the University of Florida is like night and day. The difference between the last person accepted into Yale and the first person rejected is nothing. Admissions committees are the closest thing to playing God in our country and it’s a major catalyst to the haves and have-nots environment we live in.

23. Posted by Terry Williamson - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 43 minutes ago

    Both LSAT and good grades are important.  Doing better in one or the other can help.  I nearly got into med school with a 2.1 undergrad average because I nailed the med boards.  Later in grad school, I had a 3.6 average for my Ph.D., which made it easy to get into law school later.

    The trend towards not giving grades is very disturbing.  As the managing member of a law firm, why would I want to hire someone from Stanford, Harvard or Yale who has a D average?  That’s what passing is.  I’d rather hire someone with a B average from a lesser school any day.

24. Posted by LJMW - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 39 minutes ago

    I think we can all appreciate that standardized testing is only an accurate indicator of talent for a small percentage of the population.  Everyone learns differently and everyone performs differently under pressure.  Instead of grades and LSATs I suggest a portfolio approach to evaluating law students and potential hires.  It works exceedingly well for architects, artists, musicians, designers etc.  For example, when considering potential hires ignore transcripts and ask:  what organizations are students involved in?, do they do pro bono work, if so, what kind and how often?, have they taken on any leadership roles in the school? Externships? did they complete a concentration? look at different papers they’ve written (not just law review and moot court).  For gauging student progress, let’s move away from the Socratic Method and try to actually evaluate how a student is progressing through the term.  Give periodic quizzes; take home worksheets; class participation as part of the grade; small essays due every two weeks.  Any combination of these, incorporated with personal interviews and discussion exams, will be a far more accurate indicator of an individual’s ability to perform well in the legal field.

25. Posted by crazy eddie - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 37 minutes ago

    I have two issues: (1) the LSAT and (2) grades. 

    (1) the LSAT didn’t do a good job of predicting performance in my case b/c I did really well on it and yet really stumbled on 1L grades.  (I was under the mistaken impression that professors were actually supposed to teach - how naive.  Law professors are the most useless and evil people on the face of the earth.  The reason they only give 1 exam per semester is b/c they are too lazy to grade more exams than that.  They get some kind of jollies by grilling some poor 1L on minor details about In re Peerless—a case they have gone over every year for 15 years—and none of those details are on the final exam.  Perhaps I digress.) 

    (2) Notwithstanding #1, I eventually figured out how to take a law school exam (I had to quit thinking and start memorizing outlines) and did well - really well by the time the 3 year rolled around.  If I was so dumb, why did I smoke my supposedly superior classmates in the last years of law school?  Problem is, b/c my poor IL grades were averaged in my overall GPA and rank were shit.  So future employers etc. are basically judging me for having a bad year as a 1L, which was over 10 years ago!  Interviewers acted like they were hiring people to take law school exams… 

    So in sum, (1) LSAT is not a good predictor of 1L performance and (2) 1L performance is not a good predictor of 3L or future legal performance. 

    Solution—they need to abolish all law schools and just let the bar reviews teach the law.  1 year of bar review + exam + 2 year apprenticeships would = way better lawyers
    Problem is the law professors and other leaches don’t care about making better lawyers, they just want to suckle the teat of this corrupt legal education system for their own benefit.

26. Posted by Mark Johnson - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 29 minutes ago

    Grades are necessary.  This should be obvious.

27. Posted by Clay - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 26 minutes ago

    There is a statistical correlation between LSAT score and law school grades, and also between undergrad grades and law school grades.  That is why they use those measures.

    And to answer the question: neither is the case.  Grades are a fundamentally fair way to rank students’ performance, but it takes a lot of work and dedication on the professor’s part to fairly assign grades.  My experience in a top-20 law school is that the profs generally did not read the exams closely.  So grades were basically assigned through a lottery system, or based on arbitrary criteria (like who ran their mouth in class).  We should expect a little more diligence from professors, and not scrap the whole grade system.

28. Posted by Eric n the Red - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 21 minutes ago

    The problem with the LSATs is that they have no bearing as to the potential performance of a possible law school student.  They, like many standardized tests, are a crutch that allow admissions committees to be lazy in their selections.  I do not believe that law school grades, again are valid indicators as to how an individual will perform as an attorney. Most of law school, with the exception of clinical programs, has little to do with practicing law. Again the elimination of grades forces law firms to actually conduct a meaningful interview and evaluate an individual’s merits. It is time to move the legal profession away from a “top 10 or 25% of the class mentality.“  Probably the best objective evaluative tool is a writing sample, with the possibility of giving a short writing assignment as a part of the interview process.

29. Posted by CS - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 20 minutes ago

    “How do we measure people then, by race, good looks, football talent?“

    You read their writing samples. You contact their references. You do a phone interview. You assign them a memorandum to write, to see how well they do on research and writing. You give them a record to look at and have them deliver a direct examination, or a closing argument to you based on it. In short: expend a little effort to actually find out how competent they are, as opposed to merely glancing at a number assigned to them based on exams that bear no relation to actual law practice. After all, what are you hiring them to do: regurgitate rules from memory over the course of three hour periods; or do research, writing, and litigation work?

30. Posted by W. Bolton - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 15 minutes ago

    Given that the majority of law schools, including my own, force rank students into a B/B- curve, relying on grades as a predictor of compentency seems ridiculous.  Regardless of how well I knew the material or how little I knew, my grades remained in that forced B range.  The remainder of my law school peers suffered the same fate.

31. Posted by Southern Attorney - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 7 minutes ago

    I received a 147 on my LSAT but graduated in the top 10% of my class.  I am now a corporate attorney in a very large firm in DC.  Obviously, LSATs are worthless!

32. Posted by BC - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 6 minutes ago

    I didn’t do well on my LSATs, I did so-so first year of law school which set the tone for my first job.  However, despite those “telling signs” of how I will perform as a lawyer, I am currently a partner at one of the top 15 law firms in the U.S., and I bring in over $2 million of business a year.  Based upon my grades and my LSAT, though, I should probably be just at a small firm, strugling to get by.

    That being said, there has to be some way to weed people in and out of the top law school programs and the top law firms.  While I don’t believe that grades and LSAT scores are necessarily indicative of how a person will perform as an attorney, I do think that it is necessary as a mechanism to judge a student looking for a job when they have no prior legal work experience.  You have to base your decision to hire them on something, and with no legal work experience, quality of the education and grades are the best way.

33. Posted by SJ - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 4 minutes ago

    Two perspectives here:  one as a former hiring partner for an AmLaw top 10 firm; one as a law school professor.  As a hiring partner, I found law school grades of critical importance in assessing talent.  No insult intended, but people have to be smart enough to do the work and hard-working and disciplined enough to get the job done.  Grades are the single best indicator I had on those attributes.  On the law faculty side, our quantitative assessment is that the single best predictor of bar passage is law school GPA.  Above a certain threshold, bar passage is extremely likely.  Below that threshold, passage probabilities are poor.  When I meet with students about how things are going in law school, knowing where they stand vis-a-vis that threshold enables me to counsel them more effectively.  Regarding the LSAT, regardless of what I think of the test, the US News uses it in a BIG way to rank us as law schools, so we can’t ignore it and have to use that as one of our targets.  LSAT is also highly predictive of law school performance, and therefore ultimately bar passage.

34. Posted by Shocked - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 53 minutes ago

    Hey, if we’re not going to give grades in law school, why give grades in college either.  After all, if giving grades is “subjective” or too stressful for students in law school, why is it any different in college?

    And, as long as we’re not giving grades in college, we might as well stop giving them in high school as well.  Teen years are difficult enough without having to worry about grades.

    And, of course, if the LSAT’s are supposedly no good, then SAT’s are no good either.

    Grades, standardized tests, I’m sure they’re all just a plot; and, they make students feel bad about themselves.

    This, of course, is the perfect way to prepare kids to compete in today’s modern global economy.

35. Posted by Clay - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 48 minutes ago

    “I received a 147 on my LSAT but graduated in the top 10% of my class.  I am now a corporate attorney in a very large firm in DC.  Obviously, LSATs are worthless! “

    I drove to work using only my feet this morning, but I did not crash or run anyone over.  I am now safe and sound at my desk.  Obviously, laws against driving with your feet are worthless!

36. Posted by I hate Ellen Barslutsky - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 47 minutes ago

    Comment removed by moderator.

37. Posted by Ellen, please, no caps - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 45 minutes ago

    Users:  report Ellen’s all cap postings as abusive, as well as her non-substantive rants.  Maybe then “she” will only post lucid comments.  Or better yet, ABA will ban her

38. Posted by JFS - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 45 minutes ago

    I have always said that I would rather hire someone in the top ten percent of their class at a second tier school than someone in the bottom ten percent of their class at Harvard.  Now Harvard is cloaking their worst students.

39. Posted by Stevie - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 37 minutes ago

    I think this article is focusing on the wrong stuff, the sytem that is outdated is the law school system in general.  All these articles focus on the top 20 schools, which is fine, but in reality there are too many people going to law school period.  There is no reason that everyone should pay the same thing for an education when the return is so vastly different.  I am not dumb enough to think that my second tier school education should have me making Big Law type money, but in the end what I am making now is less than I was making out of undergrad 10 years ago.  As are the salaries of nearly all my friends.  I don’t want anyone to get the violin out for me, but it seems that the whole system is based on making money, from the LSAT, to 120K for a second tier education, to having to take the MPRE, to having to take the bar exam for each state you want to practice.  It is all falls under the veil of “Professional regulation” but we are all lawyers here who have passed a bar exam, there is nothing about that exam that will dictate how you do as a lawyer, it is almost a hazing ritual and a painful right of passage.  The fact that you have to take a new one for every state you practice until, or if, you can gain reciprocity is further proof of the money making machine that has become the education and licensing of lawyers.

    As for the actual article, I think that you need the LSAT to attempt to even out the varying levlels of undergraduate educations.  I don’t really think it is the best idea, but it is a necessary evil.  The no grades policy makes sense at those schools that are using it, because every single person that graduates there is going to get a good job.  When one complains about the difference between 180K and 150K in a job due to your “ranking” you need to revlauate your life.

    The ABA should cut the number of law schools period to make it harder to become a lawyer.

40. Posted by Drew - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 35 minutes ago

    To comment #29:  Go ahead and do that from an ivory tower, but the reality from the OCI and resume-drop world is that employers will recruit from sometimes dozens of law schools.  This would simply not be practical, although I agree it is a more accurate metric.  In the meantime, things will remain the same, because I guarantee you will not find anyone on a hiring or recruiting committe that will endure the grading and intensive evaluation of scores of candidates for maybe a dozen summer associate spots.
    To comment #33: Of course grades are the only base of reference you have when evaluating likelihood of success in law practice, because in my (unfortunately jaded and 50th-percentile grade world—ha ha) experience, when grades are not within a certain range, no other consideration is given to the candidates.  Not even a chance to prove redemption or mitigation through an initial interview.  When you only have experience or contact with students in, say, the top 20% of their respective classes, of course you will have shining remarks for the likelihood of success.

41. Posted by Adam - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 31 minutes ago

    Re: LSAT - in order to achieve a good score, you must have strong reading comprehension skills.  Period.  Reading comrehension is a fundementally important quality in any good lawyer regardless of practice area.  So there’s that.

    Re: Grades - the great thing about dropping grades is that only the Ivy’s and other super-elite schools are going to do it.  The cool thing is that those who go to such schools, who already have a super advantage in the job market, just got an even bigger one, as they now need not worry about class-rank.  So much for meritocracy.  The rest of us schleps, even those who went to very good but not “elite” schools, will still have to suffer the cruicable of first and second year law school/class rank.  So, way to go Harvard, Yale, etc.  For all you legacy students out there, the perks just keep getting better and better.  Good for you.

42. Posted by Southern Attorney - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 27 minutes ago

    Clay, your comment “I drove to work using only my feet this morning, but I did not crash or run anyone over.  I am now safe and sound at my desk.  Obviously, laws against driving with your feet are worthless! “ didn’t reveal if you were in the top 10% of safe drivers this morning, did it?  Or even if you are an attorney and know what you are talking about.  How was your LSAT and what percentage of your did you graduate?  Care to share?

43. Posted by Stevie - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 25 minutes ago

    I agree with #40, I mean the entire compeitiive nature of law school is about making money, there is no way that the big law type work associates do would be interesting if the pay wasn’t so high.  I do agree that grades might be a decent indicator of recuitment for big law though, people who are in the library for 15 hours a day in law school will have no problem xeroxing 7 days a week for 15 hours a day!

44. Posted by Southern Attorney - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 24 minutes ago

    dare say, I mean, what percentage of your CLASS did you graduate?  Thank you.

45. Posted by Stevie - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 18 minutes ago

    Not high enough to get a big law job that is for sure!  Ha ha ha

46. Posted by Edwin Barmaidsky is my hero - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 4 minutes ago

    that was hilarious!!!

47. Posted by Steve - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 55 minutes ago

    LSAT scores largely measure how smart you are, and law school grades largely measure how smart and how conscientious you are.  Not surprisingly, the vast bulk of the populace don’t like them particularly.  But they are a whole lot less subjective than the alternative ways in which students can be assessed.

48. Posted by HVBaxendale - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 47 minutes ago

    I taught the LSAT prep course while in law school, granted many years ago.  The test is not one of reading comprehension, but of analytical reasoning.  If it were effective, it would measure a skill that is essential for a good lawyer.  Grades, however, reflect too wide a range of talent and experience to reveal much, other than that top grade students can learn how to handle a system and have the drive to do so, or that low grade students lack either drive or basic skills.  The ones in the middle, from C- to A-, should be regarded as on equal footing, other than those taking identical courses from the same school.

49. Posted by eddie winslow - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 37 minutes ago

    Both are important.  But, I’d also like to note that smart employers should rely heavily on applicants’ unedited writing samples.  If someone has produced 3 or 4 great writing samples on their own, chances are they will continue to perform well.  The proof is in the pudding.  Actually looking at someone’s work is a great way to compare applicants on different grade scales from different schools.  I came from a lower ranked school (with good grades) but was told I got my current job because my writing samples were much, much better than those submitted by applicants from top schools.

50. Posted by Robin - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 32 minutes ago

    I think the biggest problem isn’t whether grades are good or bad, etc. but the fact that these schools think their students are so great that anyone should accept them so long as they recieve a pass.  Who really thinks Harvard is going to start failing students now?? Heck, 85% of the classes coming Harvard are graduating summa cum laude!! 

    I appreciate how intelligent and driven you need to be to get into a top ranked school, but that doesn’t mean that I should automatically believe any graduate is going to be an exceptional lawyer.  I find it slightly insulting that the schools think their students shouldn’t be subject to the same standards other schools are held to.  All their doing is making hiring partners’ jobs harder and giving the bottom of their classes a better chance.  How does this help anyone but themselves and their ranks?

51. Posted by Pessa - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 2 hours, 50 minutes ago

    I don’t think it matters either way.  The law profession has a bias toward school rankings, but there are people who manage to find ways to work around that.  I was a terrible UG student because I didn’t work hard.  I had the potential to score very high on my LSATs but I made the decision to hang out with my then boyfriend.  As a result, I went to a small law school on a scholarship and ended up learning the value of hard work and studying.  So I had a higher law school gpa.  I get rankled now and then when my friends who went to brand name schools get jobs at more prestigious firms despite being incompetent, but then again, they don’t do anything important at the firms anyway.  I work at a small firm, but I’ve second chaired a trial in less than my two years of practicing and I actually get to take depos and make executive decisions.  I know that I can make it up in experience and move laterally somewhere better or use my experience to start a firm.  Grades and LSATs determine where you go to school and where you go to school determines in large part what your first and second job positions are.  After that, it just depends on you.  So the answer is: No.  Who freaking cares? And the people who agree with me, remember your experience when you are hiring and then we can abolish this emphasis on brand names and look at competency.

52. Posted by Clay - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 2 hours, 48 minutes ago

    Southern Attorney:

    My point was that the existence of a single outlier does not necessarily invalidate a proven statistical correlationl; in this case, LSAT/law school grades or undergrad grades/law school grades (which I analogized to the correlation of driving technique/trip completion). 

    You suggested that this statistical correlation was invalid (“worthless”) because it did not accurately predict your individual case, and I was trying to point out this logical flaw in your analysis. 

    I do, in fact, drive better than 90% of other drivers using only my feet, I graduated in the top 97% of my class and I do not remember my LSAT score . . . I took the test using only my feet.

53. Posted by LSAT - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 2 hours, 48 minutes ago

    LSAT

    (1)  Meaningless, but
    (2)  Weed-out process
    (a)  Some people cannot afford to take the exam;or
    (b) Have the discipline to prepare.

    The LSAT score is utterly meaningless. 
    We ALL know this.

54. Posted by Donald - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 2 hours, 29 minutes ago

    At the end of the day, who cares?  Either you figure out how to practice law or you don’t.  Unless you’re taking trial practice classes (which are typically pass/fail anyway), law school doesn’t prepare you for the actual practice of law, so grades are completely irrelevant and not at all an indicator of future success.  Sure, you’re getting some basics on certain subjects, but not enough to practice law in those areas.

55. Posted by nyclawgrad - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 2 hours, 20 minutes ago

    The biggest joke about the LSAT is that it is used purportedly as a predictor of first-year performance. Undergrad grades do this too; but the LSAT gives students a second chance to prove themselves. But get this: the correlation between LSAT scores and first-year grades? 0.4! That means that 60% of the time, your LSAT score says nothing about how you will do during 1L.

56. Posted by Ethanol76 - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 2 hours, 5 minutes ago

    I’m curious if anyone out there believes that the LSAT’s testing of how quickly one can analyze information actually helps; perhaps in some trial work?  I used to rant about the LSAT, but for me, as a 3L, it’s been a remarkable predictor; in the 35th percentile of admitted students, and now in the 35th percentile in my class.  Guess that could be just luck, though.

57. Posted by Diana - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 2 hours, 3 minutes ago

    We are living in a society where the issue of competition for grades in every school is getting a bad rap.  Our grade schools, middle schools, and high schools are dumbing down thier ciriculum / grade competition so little johnny or little janey won’t feel bad because they didn’t get a good grade. (poor babies)  So it stands to reason that this ridiculous coddeling will eventually get into law schools.  After all we don’t want anyone to have hurt feelings.

    While I do not feel that the LSAT indicates squat, other than a person can perform on a test under pressure, I strongly believe that there must be some testing to weed out law school applicants.

    As for the schools not giving grades to law students, that is just bs.  If the profs really want to help the students instead of making things easy for themselves, they will give more tests during a semester in order to help the students learn how to take a law school test.  Elimating the grading does not help the law school student when they must perform in the practice of law where everyday there are real tests.

    My opinion, these two issues are motivated by the law schools wanting more students so they can get more money.  The profession does not need a glut of pampered non-tested attorneys.  As a practicing litigator I cannot wait until one of these non-tested, non-graded non-stressed kiddies become my opposition, it will be fun to provide some real on the job training.

58. Posted by NW Lawyer - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 54 minutes ago

    The LSAT and all standardized tests for college admissions are bogus. Just a money maker for those involved in them. The results are not an indicator of success in school…I’m proof of that, I landed a corporate counsel job right out of law school.
    Grades are also bogus. My law school had a curve so no matter how well you did, the grades had to be spread over the curve (only so many A, B, C and yes even D grades) so it didn’t matter how well you did. Also, my law school had a harder curve so when it came to applying for firm jobs, our grades made us look dumber than other law schools. The B average at my school was the equivalent of an A average at other schools. Who do the firms hire…the A average. So I applaud Harvard’s action though it doesn’t matter because simply graduating from Harvard, even if last in the class, gets them jobs. Happens here in the NW all the time, hire a local law grad or a Harvard grad? Hhmmm, which looks better on the firm’s website?

59. Posted by Larry J - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 28 minutes ago

    I can understand ditching the letter grades so that you can standardize your admissions process (although I don’t necessarily agree with it and think you should look at everything to get as broad an idea of the person as possible).  I don’t understand the U. of Michigan essentially forbidding their undergrads from taking the LSAT, if they want to get into the law school.  If the law school admissions board doesn’t want to read them, they have that option.  But telling people they cannot take the test.  What’s that nonsense all about?

60. Posted by PJE - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 8 minutes ago

    The LSAT is flawed but necessary.  It is not prohibitively expensive—I was pretty poor when I took it.  It is not necessarily predictive of future performance but is a good barometer of a taker’s ability to handle stress which, as a lawyer they may encounter in future.

    Grades are necessary.  I went to a law school that made the mistake of trying a no-grade system.  They replaced grades with an inane system of quasi-grades that did not help students, professors or prospective employers know how a student performed.  The school eventually rectified the debacle and went back to grades.  The whole argument against grades deserves an F.

61. Posted by Cynthia Moore - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 6 minutes ago

    My experience is that employers look at the LSAT score as some kind of measure of innate ability for legal reasoning, and law school grades as a measure of killer instinct.  The most elite firms want the “best” lawyers, meaning the lawyers who will do what it takes to win (as judged by getting the best grades and test scores).  That means being prepared for tests even if meant you couldn’t party or were sick, using whatever study guides you have to to master the material, tutoring help (read getting someone to write or rewrite your briefs for you so you look like a stellar writer), and anything else necessary to make you stand out as clearly the best.  Ethics are irrelevant as well, because winning is not about fairness, civility or doing what is right.  Is it any wonder that ethical standards for the profession are so dismal?  People want grades and LSAT scores though so that find those “killer lawyers” so they can justify their hiring decisions.  It doesn’t matter to them that they missed out on someone else with great potential.  It ultimately comes down to fear and CYA behaviors on the part of employers (and admissions committees).  I don’t know how they could identify the “best” hires if not using grades and LSAT scores, but it would be interesting to see.

62. Posted by JME - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 54 minutes ago

    I was in the top 25% of my class based on the LSAT.  I was at the bottom of my class at the end of my first year.  I own my own law firm.  Scores for me were adequate if I was passing, I was able to discuss and argue more than competently in class, I had many opportunities to speak in public during law school as well.  When I graduated, I had people standing in line to be my clients, because I knew what I wanted, and built my level of trust, so folks want to come to my office.  I never applied to a firm for a summer associate position, I did talk a sole practitioner into allowing me to shadow him all summer, my 2nd year was doing research for a state project, so now there are folks in the legislature who have my name on documents in front of them.  My point is - take what skills you have and run with them.  The point of law school is to learn and get through it.  You only need those high grades if you want to be a pencil pusher for someone else.  A year or so out of school, nobody will remember where you were in your class standings.  They will notice how you carry yourself as a practicing attorney.

63. Posted by Shiveren Tymbers - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 45 minutes ago

    when i took the LsAt, back in 1972, i sat next to a beautiful young lady named something like Eileen Barshevsomething-or-other.  She gave me to googley-eye and i gave her the skunk eye.  But i passed with a C+ and i think she got a B.  I was saddened to hear that she decided to become a pirate and not a doctor.  Oh well, back to the salt mine with the six other dwarfs.  Hi Ho and jalapeno.

64. Posted by STK - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 25 minutes ago

    There shouldn’t be more than one year of law school.  If someone said get rid of these schools, that would be fine.  You don’t learn much the first year and the next two years are just a rehash of the first.  In the old days, law students were “apprentices” of real lawyers.  Once they had learned enough (according to the real lawyer) they took the bar.
    The hands on experience of the apprentice was the important thing.  That was the real measure of readiness to practice law.  I learned far more from my summer jobs in school than from the professors during the year.  Once I got out I went right for more apprenticeship.  I knew law school hadn’t prepared me for anything; it was just a place to wait until you were allowed to be a lawyer.  The LSAT and grades are just ways of twiddling your thumbs until you are permitted to practice.

    Getting rid of grades reduces stress while waiting.  It may improve education as well.
    I

65. Posted by Beba - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 7 minutes ago

    What ultimately helps you become a successful attorney is one of two things: (1) intellectual talent, and/or (2) extreme work ethic.  And, of course, good personality is always a plus (which is why most schools/firms look to extra curricular activities, hold interviews, etc.)!  If you are a person that can work very little and get good grades or LSAT scores, that’s great.  Just be ready to step it up when you actually do have to work.  On the other hand, people that have to work very hard to get good grades or LSAT scores, while perhaps not as naturally bright, will probably possess the necessary work ethic to succeed in their careers.  Sure, there are outliers, but grades and LSAT scores (one or both which is certainly achievable by the naturally bright or hard working) are decent indicators!  If you think that you are extremely capable, and yet couldn’t get into a law school because you lacked good grades or a good LSAT score, then just work very hard, and your alleged talent will eventually reveal itself (and quit complaining about some school you didn’t get into since you obviously recognize that those types of things are arbitrary measures of success anyway).  The good news is, the top lawyers didn’t all come from the top law schools any way, so work hard, and quit blaming testing mechanisms, etc.

66. Posted by 43rd rules - 1 month, 3 weeks, 23 hours, 54 minutes ago

    64 - you’re clearly from a third tier school working at some plaintiffs hack shop.  Personality doesn’t matter - it’s all about going to the right school and having pictures with the “right kind of people” in your office.

67. Posted by Rocco - 1 month, 3 weeks, 23 hours, 21 minutes ago

    What do you call the person who graduates last in his law school class at a 4th tier law school and passes the bar?  A lawyer.

68. Posted by Drew - 1 month, 3 weeks, 23 hours, 11 minutes ago

    The LSAT is fine so long as admissions staffs truly and geniunely put their money where their promo liturature is in actually weighing in other student factors.  As far as the grading/class rank system goes, I despise it for all the reasons already discuss.  But I would predict that doing away with it would only make competition for, and in, law journal already more cynical and unpleasant than it is.  “Big” hirers, and their wanna-bes, just do not seem capable or interested, INCREDIBLY, in rating prospectives beyond numerology.

69. Posted by Liz - 1 month, 3 weeks, 22 hours, 9 minutes ago

    Reading these comments makes me feel a little bit better.  I’m a 2L, stuck in the library on a gorgeous Friday afternoon, bemoaning my less than stellar GPA and cursing the firms that won’t interview me for their summer internships.  I have 14 years of paralegal experience, have worked tirelessly to build a strong skill-set, and know that in practice I’m going to be an extremely competent attorney.  I know how to get work done, how to move files, how to manage time, how to bill that time.  But this number, this GPA, defines me right now.  In this sea of 20 somethings with no legal experience, I’m getting passed by, my resume apparently not worth reading.

70. Posted by HVB - 1 month, 3 weeks, 21 hours, 48 minutes ago

    Liz, get to know lawyers in mid-sized or small boutique firms.  Look for an older solo.  But always ask the lawyer’s or firms’ colleagues and competitors about their reputation.  Even a statre court judge can give you some pointers.  Stay away from the big firms; it’s not worth it. Set your own recruiting track.  Also, your law school dean may give you a tip if you ask.  Good luck comes to those who work for it.

71. Posted by dfisher - 1 month, 3 weeks, 21 hours, 47 minutes ago

    As a 3L who did not have good LSAT grades but worked hard and was able to transfer from a Tier 4 to a Tier 1 school, I think that less emphasis should be given to the LSAT, but law school grades remain an intrical aspect of the whole experience.  Coming from a school that required you to study all day every day, I was shocked to see how lazy these “smarter” individuals are.  Honestly, it is a load of horse crap. Would I love to know that I just have to squeek by to graduate and get a good job, YES! But at the same time, what would I have learned. And how can we tell that we are not flooding the already gigantic pool of attorneys with people that might not truly understand the law, but we good enough test-takers to get into law schools where the only thing that matters is a “P” or an “F”.  This is the problem with society today, too many damn people with entitlement issues. Work for what you want, and it will mean so much more!

72. Posted by Gee Wedi - 1 month, 3 weeks, 11 hours, 6 minutes ago

    Where I’m from: 

    A pitiful UGPA. Top 5% LSAT got me into law school.  Did fairly well at a third/fourth tier school.  I chose to open my own shop following law school though I had a good job offer.  I practiced for 17 years successfully litigating at every level, from various trial courts up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and built a multi-attorney firm.  I was quite happy doing what I wanted to do, and enjoyed the practice.  I chose to leave the firm and became a law professor with the hope of giving something back to the profession and the next generation of attorneys.  Over the last 15 years, I have taught at first, third, and fourth tier schools based upon USNWR rankings.  I have served on admissions committees.  I’ve never been an “elite” but I’ve seen them – at every level.

    My failing is that I believe that the responsibility this society bestows upon us for the lives, children, fortunes, and honor of our clients demand that the practice of law be a profession, not just a job, a status, or a paycheck.  Likewise, I believe that law school should prepare students as best we can for the practice of that profession.  I also know I don’t “have” to teach.  I teach because I truly enjoy helping students learn, but know I could make more money if I chose to return to the practice.  All of this colors my thoughts about the costs and benefits of the LSAT and law school grades for better or for worse. 

    As a professor, I would much prefer a pass / fail system.  It is very obvious to me when a student does not “get it”—cannot spot the legal issues, recall the rule(s), or apply the rule(s) to the given facts—as is required in the daily practice of law.  It would be so simple to fail those, and pass the rest—and yes, I give my first year students a non-graded mid-term practice exam (which I “mark up” along with handing out a model answer) so they will see the types of questions that I ask, the type of answers I expect, and where they are failing to meet those expectations.  A number of my colleagues do likewise.  I, and I believe the vast majority of my colleagues, struggle over that which distinguishes a C+ from a B-.  Why?  Because the majority of our students at every “tier” demand to be graded and ranked (yes, even at the first tier school), and we know that it can make a difference in our student’s lives.  I just thank God for blind grading systems.

    A word about law school “method.“  I’ve found that most 1Ls have to learn how to read carefully, analyze critically, and formulate and apply rules to situations with which they are not familiar.  The “Socratic method” is nothing more than having to explain to Rehnquist, White, Scalia and “crew” why the other fellows’ case is distinguishable from our facts, but the rule of the case I want them to apply is foursquare with these facts – except that when we do it in my class a client’s life is not on the line.  Also, we generally get one chance to file the brief, or make the oral argument.  Tomorrow doesn’t count, all the work and practice you do to get ready doesn’t count.  The thirty minutes you spend talking to nine black dresses is your one chance to get it right, to answer their questions, and convince them to rule for your client – to be an advocate.  Is that “fair?”  Probably not.  Is that the way the legal system works?  Absolutely, whether it be one judge or nine.  And for better or for worse, the law school examination system mimics this reality.  You have one chance to answer the professor’s questions, just like you have one chance to answer the judges’ questions.  If another model can be shown to better indicate which students will be the most able practitioners, I am confident that most professors would embrace it.

    So are grades important?  Yes, for the first job out of law school, if used in conjunction with all the other “stuff” that is important to make the whole person & attorney.  Like one post said, the last in the class at the lowliest ranked fourth tier school who passes the bar examination is called an attorney and is presumptively competent.  The question is whether or not the applicant will be good at what our firm does, and will be an asset to our business – and that depends upon more than just an overall LGPA or what school you went to.  Hiring partners or committees who forget this do a disservice to their firms and their clients.  Before and after your first law job, the one doing the hiring should want to know what work you have done, whether you can research,  write, talk intelligibly to clients and judges, what matters of record you had handled or been involved in, and your reputation for honesty and integrity – is your word good enough to “take to the bank,” and can you maintain courtesy, professionalism, and even a bit of humor in the heat of battle.  The first rule of small town practice – the winner buys dinner.

73. Posted by Gee Wedi - 1 month, 3 weeks, 11 hours, 5 minutes ago

    A word about admissions.  I have watched very professional, underpaid admissions staff as well as faculty admissions committees struggle to answer the single question – can this person be successful as a law student and attorney?  It is a question that has been studied, indicated, and aptituded to death.  We still have no good answer except to admit every law school applicant into class, allow those who can do the work to pass, and fail the rest.  Somewhere between my days as a law student, and my return as a professor, it seems law schools became embarrassed about taking the tuition and fees of the 100 1Ls who flunked out to leave my class at 150 for our second year.  In my day at my school, they meant it when they said, “say goodby to the one on your left, and the one on your right, because one of you won’t be back next year.”  Now we try to discern who those 150 “survivors” would be before we take their tuition.  This does not take into consideration that we also have 15 or more applicants for every seat available in our classrooms so we have to find some way to select some and reject others.  We simply haven’t enough room for all applicants.

    The ABA, which accredits law schools, requires some form of admissions aptitude test to maintain accreditation.  Is the LSAT flawed?  Of course.  But if we are not to leave 1/3 or more of the entering class to repay their student loans after flunking out, we have to use the best indicators of success that we can find.  No one has proposed one which can be shown to be better with respect to initial applicants’ chances of success in their first year.  Is a 3.0 from Podunk State worth more or less than a 3.9 from Elite U.?  Sometimes.  It depends upon the academic standards and grading scales of both institutions.  Can a person with a 2.6 from a small private school compete with those having a 4.0 from the top ten.  Yes.  So we struggle, and do the best we can, which is never “good enough.”

    However, regardless of which “standard test” or other indicator like UGPA is considered in an attempt to provide “objective” admissions criteria, and regardless of how conscientiously admissions staff and faculty attempt to consider the “whole person,” the nature of the system puts unrelenting pressure on these folks to “improve” whatever admissions criteria is considered indicative of the “quality” of the school by the USNWR or other “best” lists.  It is not just the elite hiring firms, but some University administrators, Deans, faculty, alumni, donors, and applicants for admission who often wrongly gauge the merit of a school by its ranking in the magazines – magazines who do so to sell their product, not because they have any special aptitude for ranking schools, or because they have special knowledge about which school fits this applicant best.  The LSAT is rightly criticized.  A simple look at an overall UGPA is suspect.  The magazine ranking systems which are mostly opaque and extremely subjective, generally escapes such scrutiny by those “clients” of the schools which are important to its well-being, and which should know better.

    And finally, I will comment upon the post by the thoughtful student who transferred from a 4th Tier school to a 1st Tier school and was “shocked” by how lazy the students at the top tier school were when s/he came from a 4th Tier school that “that required you to study all day every day.”  The first Tier school may provide, in some circles, better contacts and a higher paying first job, but which school do you really think would make you a better lawyer in the long run?  So much for rankings.

74. Posted by goaway - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 16 hours, 22 minutes ago

    Ellen Barshevsky:  Gawd you’re weird.

75. Posted by Healthynut - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 13 hours, 35 minutes ago

    Along with the LSAT and grades, why not eliminate the requirement of going to law school altogether?  I mean, if you can pass the bar exam, why should pointy-headed academics be able to hold you back?  Then again, maybe we should eliminate the bar exam too (although it certainly is a predictor of success in the practice of law, since those who don’t pass it don’t get to succeed).

    Incidentally, I scored above the 93rd percentile on the LSAT, graduated in the top 15% of my class, blew away two bar exams in the same week, and scored high enough on the multistate to be admitted in every state that allows admission on the basis of a multistate score.

    But as a lawyer, I really stink. Fortunately, that probably also means I’m a decent human being.

    I just wish I hadn’t done well on the LSAT, or that I’d been kicked out of law school because of low grades, or that I hadn’t passed the bar exam.  I think I’d be a happier person - and maybe more “successful” too.

76. Posted by Anthony Alva - 1 month, 2 weeks, 5 days, 16 hours, 43 minutes ago

    Lowering the entry bar is good for the law school’s bottom line. Now, each and every one becomes even more of a diploma mill, certain to accept and graduate more students than ever who, following graduation, will be unable to pass the bar.

77. Posted by aaron - 1 month, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 1 minute ago

    So know when we apply for a job, our transcript doesn’t mean anything.  The dumbest guy in the class is on the same footing as the smartest.

    Ivy league schools are stupid.

78. Posted by Andrej Starkis - 1 month, 2 weeks, 5 days, 4 hours, 58 minutes ago

    As any number of the comments above demonstrate, the smartest people don’t always make the best lawyers; nor do the best lawyers always come from the top ranks of standardized written tests.

    That said, quality and competency matter.  So what to do?  Perhaps look across the range of information available to law-school admissions staffs (including talking to applicants) and make an assessment.  Unfortunately, something in addition to the problem of sheer numbers now comes into play.

    Because most of us have bought into the rankings game—in almost every endeavor, not just law schools (witness the many times “top” appears above attached to subjective judgments in a tone that anticipates unquestioning agreement from the reader)—the admissions process is corrupted.  The LSAT/UGPA ranges most commonly used to rank or “tier”—I love that silly word—law schools force schools (they think) to refuse otherwise qualified applicants who will make great lawyers because doing so will lower their ranking and—God forbid—possibly drop them a tier.  Admissions staffs rank applicants by their LSATs because we rank schools by their LSATs.

    As a wise old man (Walt Kelly) once informed us, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.“

    The evil of the LSAT regime is not that it might not identify those who can’t handle the level of abstract thought that is a baseline for legal reasoning but that it uses numbers to conceal the myth that we can all be lined up in a continuum of quality and that those schools that by one means or another scoop the top of the list must by definition be the “best” schools, regardless of what goes on there in the succeeding three years.

    What lunacy.  How sad.

79. Posted by Lawashighereducation - 1 month, 2 weeks, 5 days, 4 hours, 29 minutes ago

    The LSAT, or any standardized test for that matter is hardly evil, nor worthless.  As alleged lawyers or law-trained people, these comments may be more indicative that the training “didn’t take” even if you make a good living as a lawyer. 

    The test is a one tool to help make a decision.  Anyone who tried to cull hundreds of apps to make up a first year class knows how much more art than science is in the process.  The test does not identify who is going to be best or even get through law school, and it was never intended to do so.  But it is intended to bring some of the necessary analytical skills to the fore so decisions can be made on some kind of informed basis.  Test scores, grades, outside interests, personal background and experience are *some* of the factors considered in accepting students. 

    In the end, if you can make it to the end of law school, graduate, pass the bar, etc., these alone will not make you a good lawyer.  Once the student is in the real world, then his or her character becomes paramount whether they will have what it takes to practice law ethically and with the motivation to continue to succeed for their clients.

    There may be other ways to do it, but as with so many other things, there is a certain momentum to this.  Maybe the new ideas tried by UM and other schools will be the norm someday.  But this will only be the case if these ideas are successful, in the eyes of LS faculty and application committees, in helping them make their decisions.

    Regarding the comments of those to say get rid of the test and accept everyone, etc.  This is simply ridiculous.  There are already more applicants than available seats.  Even with unlimited seats, it does not make sense to accept all.  Aside from what should be the ethical and moral prohibitions of taking someone’s money simply because they want to give it to you (not much different from stealing if you provide them nothing in return), the schools have limited resources to devote to each student (faculty time, library space, etc - the “seat” is also one of these resources).  So, as with any market system, to allocate resources to a project or widget that is likely to fail is a squandering of resources and less efficient then trying to first identify where to best target your efforts.

80. Posted by Kelly F - 1 month, 2 weeks, 5 days, 2 hours, 31 minutes ago

    As a recent law school graduate now working in a small firm in a large city, I think that the real problem that we should be discussing is the disparity between law school and actual practice.  I agree with the commentor who stated that we should not just have several and varied types of testing.  For example, a friend of mine attended the top law school in the country of Colombia, where vigorous oral examinations before faculty were a mandatory part of the grading process. He and a peer who went on to earn LLMs from top US law schools both agreed that the oral examinations prepared them for practice more so than the written exams.  And at my law school, we were lucky to have one of the nation’s leading clinical programs, where students were graded based on client counseling, litigations, and oral argument skills. This program equipped students with real world skills, enabling them to get a taste of practice before matriculating.

    On the other hand, I have had many peers who were excellent test-takers. But I could not imagine these same people sitting down with clients, arguing before a judge, or even getting along with their co-workers.  They were simply young and inexperienced, but because they could work hard and/or test well, were hired by top firms, and are now representing some of the more powerful corporations and institutions in our country.  I doubt that the legal lines and 3-hours exam sessions could truly assess their trajectory for career success.

    Law schools should focus on the whole picture, and not just how well a person can do on a three-hour test.  After all, when in practice do we ever have, say, exactly 45 minuites to solve a client’s problem, starting from the moment he or she walks in the door? Law school is simply out of touch and overly focused on hitting marks within its own bubble world (ahem, US News & World Report rankings, etc.) One unfortunate result is the pool of insecure, egotistical, and unprepared attorneys flooding the market.

81. Posted by Tim - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 22 hours, 6 minutes ago

    There is little to be gained from the LSAT.  A quick look through these comments reveals that there is no correlation between hard work, fervent practice, and LSAT scores.  WIthout that correlation, how can it be an indicator used to determine (eventually) one’s ability to attend (and PAY FOR) a certain level of legal education? 

    What to replace it with should be obvious.  What could schools possibly do to evaluate applicants’ 1L abilities?  I don’t know, interview them?  Northwestern is a top 20 school, and it “encourages” every applicant to set up an interview.  Why not replace standardized test scores with an evaluation of the applicant’s ability to communicate? 

    With regard to grades, my feelings are mixed.  I think many of the above ideas translate to class-by-class grading.  But I also attended a 4th-tier law school, and understand how difficult it is to compete against ivy leaguers as it is.  Removing grades and class ranks means top firms will hire exclusively on school ranking, eliminating even those at the top end of my class from contention.  The only way around that is to stop ranking altogether, and I don’t see that day on the horizon.

82. Posted by Andrej Starkis - 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 16 hours, 50 minutes ago

    Here are a series of questions to ask of any law school:

    1.  What applicant qualities do they look for in addition to LSAT and UGPA?

    2.  What qualities, if any, rate as highly as LSAT or UGPA?

    3. What percentage of applications (or summaries of applications) are reviewed by people who have been working lawyers for at least three years (and may therefore have some idea what it takes to be a lawyer)?

    4.  In considering a particular candidate, which LSAT score is more important to them, the score they believe is a threshhold for being an excellent lawyer or the score that represents your school’s 25th (or 75th) percentile, the score the school gets in the rankings game?

    5.  Who teaches their students how to be lawyers, the school or the employers who hire them after they graduate?

    A couple of asides:

    To “Lawashighereducation”: the LSAT is not what I said was evil; the evil is in how it’s used, to make applicants serve the school’s purposes rather than to see the school as serving deserving applicants.  And of course “deserving” refers to the range of qualities that provide the raw material of a well-rounded lawyer, not merely the (numerically) smartest, (numerically) most hard-working people a school can grab away from the competition.

    And to “Kelly F”:  it’s nice that you availed yourself of “one of the nation’s leading clinical programs, where students were graded based on client counseling, litigations, and oral argument skills.“  But this emphasis on grading betrays some of the problem with the legal educational system and perpetuates the illusion that law school is just another school in a long chain of schools, another academic exercise. 

    Grading is at best a necessary evil, necessary only because students coming out of 16 years of the educational system won’t do the work required to learn how to be lawyers if there’s no grade attached.  (This is also why, I suspect, the non-grading experiments now underway are not likely to be terribly successful.) 

    Students need more than “a taste of practice” in law school.  I teach a one-semester course (required of all our students) where they handle a couple of civil cases from the ground up through the summary judgment phase.  They don’t just draft a few documents; they have to find the courthouse, figure out the myriad details that go with starting a case, and stand up in court a half dozen times to argue for or against motions in cases as real to them as I can make them.  They learn to be lawyers the way I learned, after I got out of law school. 

    Legal education can be done right, and it can be done inexpensively, but it takes a significant reorientation—on the part both of the providers and of those we serve,

83. Posted by df - 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 12 hours, 27 minutes ago

    I think the LSAT is quite useful—judging from personal experience! I had a so-so GPA from engineering, but an excellent LSAT score (178, my only preparation was writing a bunch of prior LSAT tests to be comfortable and familiar with the format). I then did extremely well at law school. There are many people who can do well at law school despite a not-so-great undergraduate performance, and the LSAT helps identify them. I don’t think having a poor undergraduate performance in engineering, or French literature, or astrophysics, or forestry, etc. means one is unlikely to succeed in law school because the skills are so different. My problems with courses in differential equations may have been relevant to working as an engineer, but not my ability to succeed in law school.

    I do, of course, think that someone who got really good marks in undergrad should be admissible at decent law schools even with a poor LSAT, due in part to the phenomenon of poor test-takers. I knew a guy who (reportedly, but reasonably reliably) had a 180 LSAT and I certainly wouldn’t hire him as my lawyer…

    As for eliminating standard grades at some elite law schools, of course they can get away with it. That doesn’t make it a good idea—it reduces the differences between students and in that sense (depending on the distribution) is likely to hurt either the really good students (if the honors pass mark is common they won’t stand out) or will hurt the good but not truly great students (if the honours pass mark is so rare and the normal pass covers a broad range, there’s no difference between “normal” passing students and “good” passing students who are perceived as average). There was some interesting discussion of this problem at volokh.com a few days ago.

84. Posted by Melanie - 1 month, 2 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 50 minutes ago

    Healthynut. . .interesting post.  I graduated in the top third of my class; I can’t remember my LSAT score (it was more than a few years ago).  I took the California Bar while completely burned out from law school and a family tragedy.  I failed it. . .by a hair (I reviewed my exam in detail).  Due to various circumstances, I never retook it.  And as months went on, I witnessed my classmates (who became licensed) fail to find jobs in a saturated market.  My best friend was licensed to practice however she worked at Starbucks for years.  Better to have a steady job in the service sector than erratic employment at uncertain legal temp work.  Ironically, failing the Bar was one of the best things to ever happen to me.  So liberating.  I ventured into a completely different career in real estate (free lance writing in my spare time) and never looked back.  My legal training is invaluable, personally and professionally.  I always wanted to take the “road less traveled;“ I just never thought it would result from “failing.“

85. Posted by Lynette - 1 month, 2 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 58 minutes ago

    I think Mr. Ivy has a point.  Afterall, what do the LSAT and grades tell us about the lawyers who bomb the LSAT and BGO (barely get out) of law school but become top lawyers?  Funny, I’ve met many ivys who beg the poor test takers for jobs.

86. Posted by Chris - 1 month, 2 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 25 minutes ago

    NOTHING..I repeat NOTHING….that you do en masse regaring law school is at all a predicter of your success as an attorney.

    I never studied in undergrad, never prepared for the LSAT,  rarely studied in law school, and never took a bar study course. Sure, I would spend the minimum required time on papers and projects in order to get them done but that was it.

    I graduated from Notre Dame with a 3.87 gpa, and scored a 178 on the LSAT. I attended Harvard Law where I graduated 3rd in my class, served as an Editor of the Law Review, and published articles in both the Harvard Law Review and the Ohio State Law Review.

    After law school I passed the NY Bar on the first try and accepted a position with a large firm making nearly 200k a year. After wasting my life away handling document reviews for 100 hours a week for 5 years, I decided big firm life was no way to live.

    Now, 6 years later I run my own law firm in the midwest. We have 11 attorneys handling Civil Litigation cases, primarly business and corporate defense. I make about 95k a year, but my standard of living is far greater than what I had in NYC.

    A high school friend of mine graduated from Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio with a 2.3 GPA.

    He drank his way through law school, graduating bottom of his class at the University of Dayton (a 4th tier school).

    After law school, he accepted a job with Legal Aid, and after spending 3 years there went to work for a national organization handling civil rights and constitutional litigation.

    He now has a job he loves and finds incredibly rewarding. He smiles all the time, and has a great sense of humor.

    I have been scarred by my years in competitive academic institutions, even if I did not totally apply myself. Big Law life killed me, and today although I am much happier, I still do not ENJOY what I do.

    Who has been more successful? I am not sure the size of my bank account is truly any indication.

87. Posted by Don - 1 month, 2 weeks, 23 hours, 45 minutes ago

    It’s like this….Good grades, but poor LSAT scores; a hard worker, but possibly not too smart….Good LSAT scores, but poor grades;  smart, but possibly lazy. Good grades and good LSAT scores; works hard and is smart.  Poor grades and poor LSAT scores; why is this person applying?

88. Posted by greg - 1 month, 2 weeks, 23 hours, 2 minutes ago

    Hmm.

    I graduated in the top 1/2 of my class - barely - and passed the California Bar exam on my one and only try. (I also passed my home state’s bar.) One of my proudest achievements.

    Oh, and my grades weren’t bad, but I took substantive courses not fluff, and my LSAT was middle of the road.