<p>PSLaplace:</p>
<p>Your comments about Boalt and Chicago are inconsistent. (Chicago provides grades to the decimal point.) Moreover, do you really think recruiters are that stupid that they can’t guesstimate a class rank for an HHH/PPP Boalt student?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Boalt’s grading system makes it easy to identify students at the tippity top. However, since Ps are distributed to the “bottom 60%” of the class, it’s difficult for employers to distinguish between students at the bottom of the class and students above median. This distinction is important for employers in this economy. Because hiring is down, it’s the students above median who get hurt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s half the story. The CA legal market, the market into which Berkeley primarily places its students, has lost a significant number of jobs. Even worse, the growth rates for law firms in the area aren’t even close to the growth rates of firms in New York. This results in employers who can be extraordinarily selective. Because this recession is unprecedented, employers have had to cut back more than they expected. This has led many to express frustration toward Boalt’s grading system.</p>
<p>Very few schools can afford to have a “non-grade” grading system without hurting their students. This fact is the result of either a very small class or the fact that the class is so disproportionately talented that grading doesn’t provide a meaningful distinctions. Berkeley, at least relative to schools it regards as its “peers,” does not have a disproportionately talented student body. Therefore, the grading system just works to the detriment of students.</p>
<p>And this problem doesn’t just apply to Berkeley. It applies to Harvard as well. Fortunately, since Harvard places more students into NYC, DC, and Boston than Berkeley does, it wasn’t hurt as bad.</p>
<p>Fair enough, I take back my statements re: Chicago’s grading system. I guess the Chicago market getting slammed accounts for most of their OCI woes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Boalt’s grading scale looks like this:
Top 10% = HH
10-40% = H
Bottom 60% = P</p>
<p>Obviously employers know the kids with all HH’s and H’s are at the top of the class. But which student looks stronger to you:</p>
<p>1) H / P / P
2) P / P / P</p>
<p>Obviously #1, right? Until you realize that Boalt’s grading system means #1 could have been in the bottom 10% in two of his classes, perhaps choosing to apply himself in one class instead, where he eeks into the top 40%. And he has better grades than #2, who may well have scored above median in each of her classes?</p>
<p>Of course, it’s also possible that #1 was 11%/41%/41% instead of 39%/90%/90%. In which case, he really got screwed: he’s considered equal grade-wise to a 39/90/90 kid, and because employers have no way to distinguish them, the employer will just ding them both (along with the P/P/P student who performed above-median in all of her classes).</p>
<p>Like I said, Boalt’s grading system still allows the top of the class to shine, but it mires the other 70% in shared mediocrity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Outside of Kirkland & Ellis, Sidley Austin, Mayer Brown, and Jenner & Block, I don’t think any firms took summer classes in the double digits.</p>
<p>Contrast with New York: Wachtell, Sullivan & Cromwell, Cravath, Davis Polk, Skadden, Simpson Thacher, Cleary Gottlieb, Kirkland & Ellis, Paul Weiss, Debevoise, Weil, and even Covington took double digit summer classes. Many other lower ranked firms in the city did the same. Just a lot more jobs to be had.</p>
<p>I’m happy to acknowledge that Boalt’s grading system made it hard to differentiate among many of its students based upon their grades. That led to a lower than usual emphasis on grades, and was a significant part of the charm of the place, frankly.</p>