f the (law school) curve 

👉🏻 DOWNLOAD the "Beat the Curve Guide" and figure out the deal with law school grades before you start. 👉🏻 launch.angelavorpahl.com/beat-the-curve-visit

The thing that I dislike about the curve is that people presume it makes each other more competitive. But this isn't how life works, and it isn't how any other activity works. If 100 people are asked to solve the math problem 5x=10, and 100 of them solve it with x=2, we would never accept the idea of 50% of them getting the question wrong. If everyone in a literature class or math class or computer science class wrote on the level of a second semester graduate student, we would never accept any of those students making less than an A. But, if some students are at that level, and most aren't.... then the students who are at that level will make As, and those who aren't, won't. In other words, your own strength as a candidate is the thing that determines how well you do, not the guy next to you.

That sounds like a great idea! I would love to be friends with my classmates instead of mainly competitors.

The side angle is really nice, great job 👍

I once had a class curved the way you suggest. The problem with it was we had one very smart guy in the class. He always got the top score and people would always get mad at him when he did well for "raising the bar". So you create an environment where no one wants to be the highest scorer in the class because that means youre lowering everyone else's grade.

Hi Angela. Here's a question about the curve: if I wanted a job in the tax department of a law firm, and I actually got an A in Federal Income Tax, would it really matter that I got a C in Civil Procedure, for example? Or would it really make a difference per se that I might have been hurt slightly more by the curve and helped by it? Secondly, the irony is this, LL.M. classes don't have a curve. Why is that?

In Australia, there's no cold calling and no curve so everyone ends up getting their degrees pretty stress-free. But in terms of Australian "Big Law" jobs - these 6 firms have their own cut-off systems where your application (both for clerkships and graduate positions) is not even considered unless you've achieved a min GPA of 6 out of perfect 7, i.e. you're an A+/A student across almost all subjects. And it is incredibly hard, if not impossible, to get a BigLaw graduate role, unless you did a clerkship (summer/ winter internship) for that particular firm.

So this is why we dont have enough public defenders.

At most US law schools, grades matter, and they matter a lot--to 10 percent of the class. If you are in the top ten percent of class, and preferably also make Law Review, you will be interviewed for, and a have a good chance of getting 1) High-paying jobs in large, prestigious law firms and 2) Federal Clerkships leading to the same, see supra. Well, top 10 percent for most law firms, top 5 percent of the class for very grade-conscious law firms, like Cravath. All of that said, grades are literally irrelevant for 9/10 students in most law schools. There are no prizes for second place. Yes, your law school professors, Deans, perhaps the Career Services Office will tell you "Well, if you DIDN'T make top 10 percent/Law Review, but you DID make top 1/3 & Space Law Journal, that's pretty much the same thing!. . ..they tell you that so you won't drop out and they can suck you dry for another 2Y of student loans. If you are gullible enough to fall for their lies, guess what-- you aren't smart enough to be a good lawyer.

There is a curve because classmates are actually adversaries . It’s a competition. It’s also a way for law schools to eliminate the weakest students. -Kinda sucks… but if 95% of the class earned an “A”, and the rest earned a “C”, (in non curve grading), the students with the “C” will still get to graduate. Law schools (aba) can’t allow those bottom students to become lawyers. It would “water down” the profession. Personally, I know it can suck, but I’m ok with the curve.

I always find the complaints about the curve to be unwarranted and not well reasoned, aside from the arguments that it pits students against each other and the rare instances where students do have scholarships tied to grades (that I admit, and the scholarship issue is unethical in my opinion). But I say that as someone that is at the top of the curve at my school, full disclosure, but aside from the competitiveness aspect, I think every one of the other arguments against it is unfounded. It makes no difference if the median is a 3.0, 3.3, or 3.7, at the end of the day you are getting ranked. If you remove the curve, unless you also remove all grades and take away class ranks, employers are still only going to care about your rank, whether the top 10% has a 3.95 or a 3.7, so all you're doing is changing the number that the ranks are based on. And everyone knows you are on a curve, and they consider that in the hiring process when they see that 3.5 or whatever, so your law school GPA really doesn't matter and class rank is always king, and that will never change. Sorry, but no one wants to hire the bottom ranked 10% of students from just about any school. The fact of the matter is, there is no way to get around the reality that you are competing against your classmates for jobs; you and your friend can't both get the job if there is only one spot. I also strongly disagree that the curve leads to arbitrary grading. It is not a coincidence that I got As and A-s in all but two of my classes in my entire law school career; clearly I'm doing something right, I can't just be getting lucky every semester, across different professors, in all subjects. To the extent that is because I spotted an extra issue or two, or wrote more clearly, even better because that's what my future employer is hiring me for (they don't want to hire the attorney that misses at least a few issues per assignment). The only people I have met that say the grading is arbitrary or unfair are people who got Bs and Cs, and I think they got Bs and Cs BECAUSE they think the grading is arbitrary. The fact that they think that shows that they have a lack of willingness or ability to reflect on their own mistakes and evaluate their performance, and that is reflected in their grades. When I got my two B+s, both times I knew I underperformed, and that was on me, not my professors or the curve. And to the extent that the curve does not take into account the "objective ability" of the class, that's true but the employers do. That is why if you go to HYS or a T14, you can afford to be lower in your class and still get a competitive job over someone that went to a sub-50 ranked school that may have ranked higher in their class then you. I get the COVID season was weird, but we cannot make a grading system based on one anomalous year. And that was a bit exaggerated anyway, the difference was like a sliver of a GPA change and a point or two on the LSAT per school, it's not like students that would have otherwise gone to Yale were suddenly stuck going to UConn or something. This, to me, seems like another instance of students that are unhappy with their grades finding some outside factor they cannot control to deflect from critically evaluating their own performance. Also, one problem with your proposed solution is that if one student massively overperforms, that would push the whole classes grades down. For example, top student gets 85/100 and the remainder average 40/100, add 15 and the average student in the class fails. The truth is the curve does not matter, class ranks do, and those are not going anywhere fast. I don't think the legal employment market is willing to accept a system where schools refuse to evaluate their students performance because they don't want to hurt their feelings. HYS can get away with that, the rest can't.

For #1: This strikes me as a correlation/causation fallacy. They take for granted that the inability to get all possible points on a test causes the curve, when it could be: (1) the curve that causes the inability to get all points on the test; (2) both are coincidental; and (3) an unknown 3rd factor that causes both the inability to get all points on the test and the curve. For #2: This seems to be an attempt to point to #1's option (3) to explain the relationship. This will be true of any system because it is inherent in our human nature. Though, some other grading systems can mitigate this. I believe Harvard doesn't use the curve and have a pass/fail system. The difference in grading still exists, but I suspect it's much more negligible because most students score enough above passing that the difference in grading doesn't matter as much. So, while the difference in grading by the professors is still an issue, it's risk is mitigated much more. Given that most academia and professional training doesn't seek to eliminate this, it begs the question why law school is so unique in its aversion. Tests are anonymized to eliminate bias against the individual, but the unequal grading methods still manifest in other ways. Some professors may only give grades close to the curve, whereby less students do poorly and less do above average ("imperfect average approach"). Other professors are more of a spread in their distribution ("glass cannon approach"). In this way, unequal grading methods are still present in the system. In short, it doesn't seem that a desire to eliminate bias is the reason, and if it is, it doesn't accomplish what it seeks to do. For #3: I think you nailed this. My thoughts: Discussion around the curve tends to revolve around the utility of a SINGLE curve ("isolated curve"). However, throughout law school by virtue of taking many classes, we are placed on MULTIPLE curves ("convergence curve"). Building off the idea that a single curve is about averages, a student's law school career should also be one of averages. In theory, the amalgamation of all 3 years of law school grades, compared amongst all students, should be a sort of "grand curve." However, I don't think this theory would be accurate, as the ability to choose ones classes creates a system bias where some classes are graded/curved differently, catered more to the student's natural interests, and may be manipulated by the datapoint (i.e. student) in the way they strategize classes. Consequently, the median GPA at the end of the "convergence curve" will be higher than the "isolated curve." If the curve in general exists for a purpose of uniformity of averages, one would not expect disparate results between the isolated curve and the convergence curve. This issue can be eliminated by considering the convergence curve being limited as a data set to 1L year. There, everyone takes the same classes at random. So, the idea I present is that if a student performs randomly on isolated curves (sort of like the "glass canon" description in #2), they should be around median at the convergence curve (see "imperfect average approach" in #2). However, there is one thing that undermines the theory of averages. One thing may undermine this theory: High performing students and low performing students seem consistently placed on their extremes on both the isolated curve and the convergence curve. I don't think this quite undermines it. The extremes are more resistant to methods of averaging than students who are more scattered in their performance. As a consequence, both the isolated curve and the convergence curve seems to have the primary effect of separating the wheat from the chaff, and the secondary effect of just lumping everything else in the middle. It's an imperfect averaging mechanism. I'm not fond of the system because it artificially emphasizes uniformity over merit; it's not a meritocracy. On the other hand, it greatly reduces the risk of flunking out and being on the hook for up to $200,000 in tuition. So, a question manifests as to whether the curve system does a disservice to future clients by pushing out less-than-capable lawyers? I think we can answer that with an empirical observation: no. Pulling back and expanding scope, I'm not even sure law school is necessary in its current form and its certainly not the best. I frequently hear about "3LOL". I recall even President Obama said law school should be 2 years, not 3 (archive.nytimes.com/dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/obama-says-law-school-should-be-two-years-not-three/)

I have no idea how things get so complicated with grading in the US! At the (non-US) law school where I teach, we just give grades from A+ (greater than or equal to 90%) to D (less than 50%). The basic idea is that if there are no A+/A/A- grades, the professor marked too harshly and should probably bump each student up, by exactly the same 2 or 3 marks out of 100. However, it's almost *never* necessary to do any bumping up, especially in large classes. In the large classes that I teach, the mean and the median are consistently a high B- (greater than or equal to 65% and less than 70%) or low B (greater than or equal to 70% and less than 75%).