Interesting… does anyone really care what your grade was if you come out of the classes with a degree? There was the old joke about:
Q: “what do you call a doctor who graduated with C- or D in all his courses?”
A: “Doctor”.
The other interesting thing about higher more specialized education that I remember (not Law or Med school) was that the university was far more forgiving on grade distribution in higher more specialized classes. Presumably the people qualified to be taking, for example, PHY450H1 Relativistic Electrodynamics are pretty much all A or B material unless they completely slack off that term.
The vicious competition I remember hearing about was more for those in the undergrad courses trying to qualify for med school, when every mark mattered. After that, no problem. They’d made it.
I could see where they might want to avoid grade inflation, but the idea that only 15% of a class in Law were above C-level, given the competitve selective admission process, seems unfair. (The snide counterpoint would be “or it says something about the intelligence of most lawyers…” )
I was at a job fair in university and some fairly high up HR executives from some major (Canadian) corporations were there. In a Q&A session someone asked how important marks were, and one guy said “we did an informal survey of our executive offices, and nobody there was a shining A-plus student.” It’s the paper, not the marks, that really matters. For example, Ted Cruz, Brett Kavanaugh, and President Obama all went to prestigious law schools. Nobody ever mentions what mark they got there, just that they graduated. That’s all we need to know.
Of course. The medical school you attended and how well you did makes a difference in getting into a program for a good specialty. If you want to work at a neighborhood clinic, it’s not a big deal. If you want to be a neurosurgeon, it matters.
Your grades (really, I think, your class rank) in law school is heavily determinative of your options after law school. Large law firms; prestigious fellowships; judges; etc. all look at your law school performance. At some top schools, it probably doesn’t matter as much (which may explain the trend away from grading at those places).
But there are a lot of (less well-regarded) law schools where the difference between being in the top 5% of your class or not is the difference between a real chance at post-graduation employment or not. I think those are the places that have the rumors about hiding books, etc.
I always thought there was not enough recognition that - numerically - the bottom quartile of the class was exactly as exclusive as the top quarter! Further, I don’t think the folk in the top quarter gave those of us in the bottom quarter enough credit. Face it, if it weren’t for us, they wouldn’t all be in the top quarter!
This 100%. In fact, our first year grades were essentially what determined post law school options, as most prestigious law firm interviews occurred in the beginning of the 2L year. Top 10% (or so) 1L grades all but guaranteed a 2L summer job as a law clerk. As long as we didn’t blow it during the summer gig, a permanent offer was virtually a lock.
Many firsthand experiences in litigation would support that implication. Have dealt with some pretty dense characters in court.
As for the fairness of the curve, I recall many law schools adjusting their grading policies 10-15 or so years ago. Not sure how prevalent curved grading is now but as I understand, it was the norm in U.S. law schools for many decades.
Well, there were a plethora of articles about 5 years or more ago about how there were far too many lawyers/law students graduating in the USA, so perhaps some law schools are not exclusiv enough…?
Some aren’t exclusive at all but I imagine most have some standards. That said, they are businesses that need revenue. They aren’t concerned with a glut of lawyers.
On the other hand, we have limited law schools in Canada—I think only 16 common-law law schools. Under those circumstances, I’d say that pretty much every one is exclusive. Getting into one is an achievement; there are so few.
In addition to what others have already said (for law school at least, some employers really do care what your grade was), there is also this:
Q: You know what you call someone who just graduated from law school summa cum laude at the top of their class with an A+ in everything?
A: Not a lawyer (because they still have to pass the bar exam, among other things).
In fact, during bar study, I recorded a joke about a recent top graduate (A) from a top law school in their home state of A and a barely graduate (B) from a bottom tier law school in state B (but their home state is actually C) whose paths crossed (or were about to cross) catastrophically in state D between graduation and A’s bar exam, but with one of them in route to state E intending to take up residence, with a convoluted fact pattern that seemed like it was setting up a forum/venue/jurisdiction-style bar exam question, but the culmination was “What do A and B have in common?”
The answer: “Neither one of them can call themselves a lawyer.”
My sister (an attorney) is quite proud of herself for passing the (Illinois) bar exam on her first try. She claims (I don’t know if it’s true or not) that Hillary Clinton did not accomplish the same feat, so she has one up on Hillary!
Thanks. My experience with not-doctor-not-lawyer hiring was that marks or a prestigious university might matter to get that first foot in the door at your first job… but after a few years, your work history or accomplisment matters more.
But yes, I can see where scholastic level does matter for going into further education, obviously. OTOH, someone who chooses to be an academic needs to be proficient and has chosen to essentially be a student for the rest of their life. For doctors, specialization is an additional jump in income and perhaps a more interesting job. Not sure how it works for lawyers - is the specialization route as explicit as for doctors? How do you become an expert/specialist in contract law or divorce or criminal trials, other than practice, practice, practice?
It’s practice, practice, practice. You can do a postgraduate degree in some specialist area of law, but the main value of this is that it makes you a more attractive candidate for jobs that involve practice in that area. It’s only by getting such a job and doing it for a while and establishing a bit of a profile that you come to be accepted as a specialist in that area. And if you are fortunate enough to get such a position without doing the postgraduate degree, not having the postgraduate degree will not handicap your subsequent progress or detract from the reputation you build as a specialist in the area.
Other than tax or international law, where an LLM (specialized law degree) is considered helpful, there’s no academic route. I’m Florida, the bar offers board certification in specialist fields, though not quite as fine grained as “divorce” - it would be something broader like “family law.” Until now I assumed there were broadly similar programs in other states but it looks like a lot of states only offer board certification in a couple of areas. New York apparently recognizes some private certifications which are recognized by the ABA (a private body but also the de facto accreditor of law schools everywhere except California).
I’m Florida, board certification requires a minimum number of years practicing in the field, a minimum number of trials (which depends on how common trials are in that field), a peer review and a written exam. In some areas like international law or wills where there are many transactional lawyers (or very few trials), the trials requirement may be replaced by another measure of experience.
Board certification in medicine differs from Florida in that the medical accreditation boards are private organizations and they are national or transnational.
Also, certification is more common in medicine. It’s expected if not actually required that every physician will pursue board eligibility and then certification. 87% of US physicians are board certified but only 6% of Florida lawyers are.
I agree. But some schools (many now, I hope) have legal clinics for third year law students where they can represent real clients. I did the criminal law clinic. Others did landlord/tenant issues, family law, or employment law. But when you pass the bar, you’re a lawyer “qualified” for any type of work. In reality, it takes experience in the field.
But, as I am sure you understand (and for the benefit of other board members), that hardly makes a new graduate an expert. If it did, I’d be an expert in workers’s rights, pediatric advocacy, veterans law, and human trafficking… I mean the representation of victims of human trafficking.
Oh, and 2Ls were allowed to enroll in clinics as well (and 1Ls in my school’s workers’ rights clinic—it’s how I managed to do so many clinics. Beats an elective in Corporate Tax Law—or even regular Tax Law. A lot easier to get an A, too…).
There were in my med school a bunch of students who were very used to always being at the very top of their classes; it was interesting watching the majority adapt to being in the middle section on test scores. Me, I was just happy to be there.
My own personal sense is that if you could know your doctor’s medical school class rank you’d be best off to avoid both those in the lowest and the top 10%. The top 10% tended to be more likely off in some other ways, mostly lacking in communication skills.
Yeah the prestige of the bigger name institution gets some interviews. I’m not sure how much very high class rank in the academic years matter to the most highly competitive residency spots? I think ratings during the clinical rotations matter more. Hence the boot lickers.
One of my own favorite experiences was being on a surgical rotation and asking if we students were required to come in for rounds on Sunday. The supervising resident said no not required but eagerness to do so might be reflected in your rating. Before I could stop myself I volunteered that I was going into Peds and a report that I’d be a poor surgeon might be read well by the residency directors I’d be interviewing with, as long as I pass!
My understaing is decades old, and things may have changed. But at one time, a school allowing TO MUCH clinical experience was disfavored in determining accreditation. Never made any sense to me. I thought law school would be better w/ 1st year teaching basic concepts and vocabulary, and the 2d (and if needed 3d) yr being highly supervised clinical experience.
Was it only “a bunch” of students who felt that way? My recollection was that law school was strikingly different than any previous school experience because there were NO dummies. If there was going to be anything resembling a curve, a bunch of folk who were used to getting primarily As would find out the joy of being a C student. (Soon, those of us who realized we lacked what it took to be on law review adopted the phrase “Hook (earn a grade of C) and go!” We couldn’t figure out how to get an A (or didn’t care to put in the effort), but we could get a C with essentially no effort.)
)
.