Last weekend, I was introduced to a new friend. She's been a paralegal for a few years, but has decided to take the LSAT and go to law school. It was adorable. She was so optimistic and preciously ignorant, like a golden retriever puppy jumping out of a Christmas present and into a fireplace.
I was very happy to answer all her questions. But when she asked about how the curve works, I just started laughing because honestly, I didn’t even fully understand it until, like… November of 1L? And I made a real effort to try and figure it out for good! But I still fell for popular misconceptions and listened to bad information from other students, which confused me more.
Grade normalization in law schools, often referred to as "the curve," is the most important part of law school grading because it significantly influences students' academic standings. Unlike the more generalized curves you might find in undergraduate colleges, which tend to only work one way (bring up lower scores), law schools developed a different approach. In this article I will try my best to explain it as briefly as possible, because part of the problem is over-information. My friend was having a hard time understanding the curve because of all the conflicting information and dramatic opinions that circulate about the grading policies. This article will try to inform prospective students like my new friend so that when they start hearing about “the curve” they are not completely ignorant and won’t feel embarrassed to ask “stupid” questions.
I used ChatGPT in this article to summarize Stetson’s policy, summarize academic articles, and help come up with ideas for ways to visualize the “curve”. Actually, my intention with this article was to get ChatGPT to make a really cool infographic or something similar, but I wasn’t able to get a good result (yet).
What is Grade Normalization?
In American law schools, grade normalization doesn't follow a universal standard "curve" which is applied indiscriminately across all courses and disciplines. Instead, law schools set specific policies dictating the distribution of grades to ensure a certain level of academic performance and competitiveness among students. For instance, Stetson University College of Law enforces a policy where, barring exceptional circumstances, courses are graded on an average between 2.90 and 3.10. Certain elective courses have a slightly higher mean grade range of 2.90 to 3.35, reflecting their specialized nature or smaller class sizes.
The practices of grade normalization can vary significantly between law schools, with some institutions adopting strategies that could be considered controversial. "Predatory" law schools might enforce a harsher curve to maintain rigorous scholarship standards, potentially leading to a higher rate of academic probation or scholarship loss among students. Conversely, top-ranked law schools may inflate grades to enhance their students' employability and the school's overall reputation. This manipulation of grades is a contentious issue and part of a larger conversation about the business motives behind law school operations. I will not digress, however, into that important topic here.
The Effects of The Curve: Pros and Cons
When The Curve Helps
• Equalizer in Tough Classes: In classes where the majority struggle, the curve ensures that students are evaluated relative to their peers, acknowledging the collective challenge faced by the class.
• Motivation to Perform: The curve can motivate students to excel, understanding that their grades will reflect their performance relative to their classmates.
When The Curve Hurts
• High Achievers Feel Penalized: Outstanding students may receive lower grades than their effort would merit in an absolute grading system, due to the competitive nature of the curve.
• Competition Instead of Collaboration: The curve fosters a fiercely competitive environment that may detract from collaborative learning and students' individual academic development.
Understanding Law School Grades
Law school grades, shaped significantly by normalization policies, serve more to compare students within their specific class or school rather than as absolute measures of legal understanding or ability. This internal ranking system makes it challenging to directly compare the academic performance of students across different law schools due to variations in grading policies.
The strategic application of grade normalization by law schools — whether to cull the lower-performing students or to artificially enhance the academic standing of the student body — reveals a lot about a school’s approach to legal education. These policies not only impact students' academic and professional trajectories but also reflect broader ethical and operational considerations within the legal education system.
I think it’s important for prospective law students to understand how the curve works going into law school, for study strategizing and for mental health reasons, too. Understanding how the curve impacts my grades and future career was super important to getting my anxiety and stress under control. The unknown parts of life are what give me the greatest anxiety, so educating myself on exactly how my score is computed helped calm my nerves. As to whether the curve is "good" or not is obviously a matter of opinion. I believe I have benefited from the curve far more than I have been hurt by it. My personal opinion is that the curve giveth and it taketh away; is both a fierce motivator and a ruthless equalizer, to be respected and feared.
Excellent post. I can say from a faculty perspective that I hate the curve. One reason I continue to teach is that this is a pass/fail course and I don't have to deal with the curve.
ReplyDeleteFor many years I taught family law, both at Stetson and before that at Wayne State in Detroit before moving to Florida. Both law schools use curves that are essentially identical. When my students overall did very well in the course (after all, I was their professor!), I wanted them to be rewarded with good grades.
So I would submit the grades as I saw fit, trying to place the breaks between grades at points where there were large gaps in final exam scores. I didn't want an essentially meaningless one point difference in final exam scores to be the difference in the student's letter grade.
Invariably, the law school administration would return the grades to me for correction because I violated the curve. I used to go through this exercise three or four times, each time trying to minimize the damage from the curve, before my grades were accepted. I hated this process.
So when the opportunity came to teach a P/F course instead of a graded course, I jumped at it and never looked back - even though I would love to teach family law. But I won't do it if it means dealing with the curve.
P.S. I visited my oldest daughter this weekend. She will be 50 in July and lives in Bradenton. Sitting on her kitchen counter was her LSAT prep guide. Her husband is a lawyer and she has been a legal assistant (including for me) for decades. Unlike your friend, she understands completely what she is getting into.
DeleteThank you for your insight from a professor's perspective. That's very interesting- I've basically heard the same story and sentiment from every professor who has offered me their opinion on the curve. But I still think a curve may be the most logical and practical solution for required 1L courses with 100+ students. I have a lot of reasons why I think the curve overall benefits most law students. Perhaps for next week's post!
DeleteThese are all great points. I have always found it illogical that our grades must be on .25 intervals. The curve I can understand, but I do not see why our grades cannot be given in .01 intervals instead, which would perhaps remedy some of the problems with the current system.
ReplyDelete