Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • fau on Public opinion on same-sex marriage

    • Mike Zimmer on From the other side at AALS . . .

    • Mike Zimmer on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Mike Zimmer on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • M.G.M on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • A.J. Sutter on Lawyers: Don’t Trade on Inside Information!

    • No Load Funds on Consumer Financial Product Safety?

    • grad student on Princeton and the Behavioral Revolution

    • Anon321 on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

    • Steven Kaminshine on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Alex Kreit on Politicians: Have you talked to your constituents about drug policy?

    • Alex Kreit on Election Night 2009

    • mikeb302000 on Election Night 2009

    • Neal Goldfarb on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

    • Orin Kerr on Politicians: Have you talked to your constituents about drug policy?

  •  

    Site Meter

To D or not to D, that is the question

posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger

Let’s talk for a second about every law student’s favorite subject – grades.

Back when (and where) I attended law school, the curve was right around B+. For any given class, perhaps 25 or 30 percent of students would receive an A or A-minus, perhaps 30 percent would receive a B-plus, and another 30 or maybe 40 percent a B. A small group of stragglers might receive B-minuses, but only truly derelict students – serial killers, for example, or Republicans – ever stood to receive anything less.

Things are different at my current employer. There is a 2.5-2.8 mandatory average, and there are caps for each grade level. As a result, my curve required me to assign a number of B-minuses, C’s and C-pluses.

Below that group lay a subset of exams which is the topic of this post: Those which were clearly going to end up below C level. The question on my mind was just how far below C level these should fall. Should I lump them all together under the C-minus umbrella? Or were some of them destined to receive D’s?


Let me be clear on one thing – none of the exams I received were truly abyssmal; none were, in my opinion, F-worthy. None were pure gibberish, and all demonstrated some grasp of the concepts covered in class. But some exams were better than others. The below-C-level cohort was the weakest group of exams. Each of them suffered from serious deficiencies, such as entirely missing significant parts of the right answer. More relevantly, some of them were worse than others. Should I divide this group into the C-minuses and the D-pluses?

My first step was to investigate local norms. At Columbia, a D is the kiss of death, poison on the transcript. I wasn’t sure if the same applied at TJ. I asked around, and found that D’s are not rare at TJ, but neither are they particularly common. Professors are not required to give D’s under the mandatory curve; where a professor does assign D’s, they usually comprise 5 percent or less of the class.

So now I knew that on the one hand I wasn’t forced to give D’s; on the other hand, I wouldn’t be viewed as an ogre if I did choose to give a few D’s. But the question remained unanswered of whether I should give a D.

In the end, I decided the issue based on a few things. First, I knew that, even if TJ norms provided for the occasional D, some employers would likely still see them as the kiss of death. Second, I felt that I had had a pretty good class. Everyone participated, everyone got involved in the class discussions. Finally, I didn’t feel that any of the C-minus exams differed from the rest by a significant order of magnitude. Some were worse than others, yes, but any line I chose to draw would be my own creation, not something that simply jumped out of the numbers. I had drawn such lines in other places where the curve required them, but there was no such requirement here.

And that is the story of how I chose to assign no D’s this semester. I don’t know whether I’ll be doing the same in future semesters, but I feel pretty good about how it turned out this time around.


 January 8, 2006 at 9:15 pm   Posted in: Uncategorized   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (2)

  1. Mike Dimino - January 9, 2006 at 1:51 am

    I think you correctly note that each class will be different in terms of how much worse the bottom of the pack is from the rest. So far, though, I definitely side with being a lower grader than necessary. I have given Fs to students the past two semesters, and though I feel sorry for some of the students, I know that the exams they turned in did not show a minimal competence in the subject matter (or, generally, in English usage).

    Giving grades at the very low end of the curve allows me to make up for it at the high end, and also helps give me a reputation as a tough grader, which means that students self-select into my classes to some extent. Both of these are side-effects, though. I give low grades because I cannot honestly satisfy myself that the students should receive credit for the course given their exams (and papers).

    If Ds are the kiss of death, then there is a substantial detrerence function to giving them — deterring, that is, slacking off. Additionally, low grades encourage students who would be poor lawyers or who would fail the bar exam to find other careers. This last effect also helps the school, as U.S. News will get better bar-passage and post-graduation employment statistics.

  2. J - June 24, 2006 at 2:15 am

    “Additionally, low grades encourage students who would be poor lawyers or who would fail the bar exam to find other careers.”

    Are you kidding me? It is presumptuous to make all those generalizations. A student does not deserve an F unless they were incapable of spotting any issues and failed to provide a semblance of something that looks like a response to the fact pattern. I know I got a couple of D’s for not outlining. I had a mental block on two separate occasions and forgot to analyze an issue. It wasn’t because I didn’t understand the concepts or fact patterns.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress