Academic

Elite Law Schools Adjust Grading Systems

By Dan Filler

Today, the National Law Journal discusses how a few top law schools are tweaking their grading policies.  It notes that Harvard and Stanford are moving to gradeless systems - with Harvard adopting a suspiciously Yale-like "honors/pass/low pass/fail" approach.  Stanford Dean Larry Kramer notes that these systems have a number of benefits including reducing perceived differences between students with relatively minor GPA distinctions, reducing student anxiety, and increasing the likelihood that faculty will be more experimental in the way they evaluate students.  Other schools like Penn, Northwestern, and Chicago - let's call them the "traditionals" - aren't messing with schemes that more effectively differentiate students. 

I certainly applaud any strategy that promotes more experimentation in assessment techniques.  One of the things I like about Drexel is that we encourage faculty to use more datapoints in assessing students.  A significant number of faculty incorporate more than just a final exam when they determine grades.  Midterms, papers, presentations, group projects - all of these provide different but meaningful insights into student understanding and performance.

But let's be real about the limits of this trend away from standard letter grades.  For students attending the 185 law schools that aren't in the top 15, grades matter a tremendous amount.  In recent years, many big firms have become more open minded about hiring from non-elite schools.  But a Latham, Dechert, or Proskauer wants differentiation.  Rightly or wrongly, they think a student in the top 5% of an Iowa or Wake Forest is different than someone in the top 20% of the same school.  As a result, few schools are in a position to play the pass/fail game.

I  hope that big firms continue to reach outside the top 15 law schools, notwithstanding the economy.  Most of us who teach at non-elite schools - after practicing at top firms - believe that our best students can stand toe to toe with associates from the strongest law schools.  Not only are our high performers smart, but they're genuinely hungry.  What firm shouldn't like that?

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on February 21, 2009 (boomark / email).