<p>This may be a lazy question that I could research on my own, but I am sure the board can offer some good insight. Ive been to one school that had A,B, C , one that had A, A-, B+ , and one that had A+, A, A- . Are any adjustments made to account for these differences?</p>
<p>Everyone's grades are put on the same scale by LSDAS (Law School Data Assembly Service). However, a B will be a 3.0 whether or not your school has a B+ grade too. An A will be a 4.0 whether or not your school has an A+ grade.</p>
<p>Additionally, though, an A+ will be recorded as a 4.33, which is a little unfair as most schools don't award them at all.</p>
<p>Most schools that do award them do so very rarely, and do so outside of the grading scale meaning that a professor has to choose to award an A+, a 100% does not necessarily qualify you for one.</p>
<p>Ooh, quick question. Do only undergraduate grades from the school you got your Bachelor's count? Or do they also consider undergraduate grades an applicant took while in grad school?</p>
<p>(Essentially what I'm asking is this: Do they look at grades from your first institution, or from the whole 'undergraduate' level?)</p>
<p>I am almost certain that the LSDAS takes all college-level grades (community college, summer classes at other institutions, etc) until you receive your first degree.</p>
<p>I know that my grad-level courses were weighed in my UGPA - but they were all taken as courses towards my bachelor's.</p>
<p>As always... lsac.org has all the answers.</p>
<p>An A+ will be counted as a 4.33? Thats very unfair considering alot of schools dont have A+ s are you sure this is true?</p>
<p>Yes it is true.</p>
<p>Yes, it is true and, as I pointed out, it is kind of unfair.</p>
<p>Yeah, well, lots of things in the law school admissions process are unfair. For example, I think the most unfair part of the process is that certain majors and certain schools are simply more difficult than others, but law school adcoms don't seem to care about that.</p>
<p>Majors are never objectively difficult or easy. Everybody thinks their major is harder than everybody else's or that it's much more difficult at their school than anywhere else, etc. But it's pretty obvious when one person is essentially being graded on a 4.33 scale and the other is being graded on a 4.0 scale.</p>
<p>Americanski is 100% correct. A major's difficulty (or lack thereof) is completely subjective. I may find that math and science come easier to me, hence I do well in an engineering/physics field and obtain a high GPA. Yet, if I was put in a communications major (which some people here think its a walk in a park), I may find it difficult to do the hands-on stuff that is necessary; I might find editing a challenge or how to get the "perfect shot". Just because it isn't academically rigorous, doesn't mean that it isn't difficult.</p>
<p>However, the GPA system should be uniform. If a 98 = an A+ (4.33) at one school and equals an A (4.0) in another, that is unfair. A 98 should equate out to the same, no matter the institution. </p>
<p>But like Sakky said, a lot of things in the law school admissions process are unfair. If you don't like it, don't deal with it-- simple as that. Otherwise, play by its rules and be happy :)</p>
<p>Heck, for that matter, the justice system is unfair.</p>
<p>Difficulty of majors and grading varies from institution to institution. The LSAT is the "great equalizer," as is the MCAT. </p>
<p>The schools that are able to award A+ very seldomly do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A major's difficulty (or lack thereof) is completely subjective...</p>
<p>...Everybody thinks their major is harder than everybody else's or that it's much more difficult at their school than anywhere else, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I heartily disagree. It is not COMPLETELY subjective. It is only partially subjective.</p>
<p>As a case in point, I am fairly confident that at almost any school in the country, engineering and physics are going to be among the more difficult majors at that school. You practically never encounter any school where engineering is considered to be the 'gut' major that is full of students who are just not good enough to hack it in other majors. Nobody ever says "Yeah, I really wanted to major in Leisure Studies, but it was just too hard, so now I'm majoring in Chemical Engineering."</p>
<p>Nor is it a simple matter of everybody thinking that their own major or own school is the most difficult one. I think even most liberal arts students would concede that the engineering majors at their schools are harder. I believe a study came out in which the majority of Harvard students conceded that MIT was probably a harder school. </p>
<p>In fact, this is something that has been noted time and time again by study after study, commissioned by the Department of Education and various other educational groups - in that technical majors tend to assign significantly more work and assign significantly lower grades than do the non-technical majors. </p>
<p>"Rine described the shock he felt during his three years on the Committee on Teaching from roughly 1998 to 2000 when he reviewed teaching records for large undergraduate classes, with more than 100 students, in which no one got less than an A-, year after year. At the time, Rine asked Associate Registrar Walter Wong to assemble some data looking at upper division and lower division grading in the physical sciences, biological sciences, social sciences, humanities and engineering, so that he could distinguish trends from anecdotal exceptions. The results were clear. "The physical sciences and engineering had rigorous grading standards roughly in line with the recommendations from 1976," stated Rine, "while the humanities and social sciences in many classes had all but given up on grades below a B, and in many courses below an A-,"</p>
<p><a href="http://ls.berkeley.edu/new/05/grades.html%5B/url%5D">http://ls.berkeley.edu/new/05/grades.html</a></p>
<p>"The study also confirmed that natural science and math professors give the lowest grades, humanities the highest. (Harvard also found this; in its report to faculty, it disclosed that humanities professors were the least stringent graders, effectively giving only A's and B's, while faculty in economics, political science and social science commonly gave B-pluses, and in the natural sciences more C's and D's.) "</p>
<p>"The humanities are indeed a harbor for A's, which account for half of all the grades given in those classes; humanities professors teach about 30 percent of Harvard students. The hard sciences enroll a similar proportion and give more B's, while the social sciences enroll about 50 percent and fall toward the middle of grading trends.</p>
<p>Alexandra Mack, a 1991 anthropology major, received a C in calculus and a B-minus in Stephen Jay Gould's evolution class, but recalls breezing through one humanities exam by simply regurgitating the professor's ideas."</p>
<p>"Among CAS's three divisions, A's were most common in the humanities, where more than one-third of all grades were A-minuses or better during fall 1997. That imbalance prompted David Brumble, who was then CAS associate dean for Undergraduate Studies, to write to several of the college's most A-happy units, urging them to consider whether their grading was too generous. The Pitt News obtained a copy of one of Brumble's letters, addressed to Brumble's own department (English) and focusing on the department's writing program. At the time, well over half of the grades awarded by the program were A's. "</p>
<p>"The grading distributions were reported for all courses and broken down into four divisions: humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and engineering. All divisions except for the natural sciences saw a decline in the number of A grades assigned, because, according to the report, the natural sciences were closest to the grading targets before the policy was instituted.</p>
<p>The total fraction of A grades given to undergraduates at Princeton in the last academic year was 40.9 percent, compared to 46 percent the year before. Humanities departments gave out the most A grades of any division before the policy was implemented -- 56.2 percent -- but that was reduced to 45.5 percent last year. Social sciences departments cut the number of A grades from 42.5 percent to 38.4 percent"</p>
<p>So this notion that this is all completely subjective, I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold water in the least. That's like saying that just because there were a handful of highly successful African-Americans like Frederick Douglass during the days of slavery, that things were completely fair for all African-Americans during the days prior to emancipation and civil rights. From a pure statistical standpoint, it is hard to argue that there is no grade inflation or grade unfairness directed against the science and engineering majors. To say otherwise simply boggles the mind. Will some people think that engineering is easier than humanities? Sure. But some people will smoke 3 packs a day and still live to be a hundred. It has nothing to do with what the general trends say.</p>
<p>As a case in point, have you ever noticed that you practically never see a Division 1A football or basketball player majoring in science or engineering. Especially at the major football/basketball schools. Let's face it. A lot of those players are not really interested in academics. They're just there to try to make it to the pros. So what they really care about is majoring in something easy to let them stay eligible to play. Every school with major football and basketball programs have "jock majors" that offer easy classes. Notice how practically none of the "jock majors" are in science or (especially) in engineering. Name me a single school where, say, Chemical Engineering or EE is considered to be a "football major" full of the jocks. You can't do it.</p>
<p>Bottom line - I think that grades should not be considered AT ALL. Not AT ALL. Rather, the LSAT should be the ultimate determinant. That way, it is completely fair. Everybody takes the same test under the same rules. You either score high, or you don't. </p>
<p>Yet I haven't the slightest idea why you all complain so much about the alleged unfairness of the A+, yet choose to say not a word about the FAR LARGER unfairness of different grading standards used by different majors and by different schools. It seems to me that you should oppose ALL of it, or none of it. </p>
<p>Look at the different grading standards used by different schools. What is the biggest outrage - that some schools don't offer the A+, or that some schools hand out average grades of more than 0.5 lower than others do? </p>
<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com</a></p>
<p>First of all, I agree that the A/A+ distinction is definitely unfair. Few schools award A+'s, and even when they do, they don't award them too often.</p>
<p>Also, while 'easier' and 'harder' are terms that are hard to quantify in an objective manner, one can say this instead: Majors in the hard sciences and engineering award significantly lower grades. I went to a liberal arts college where my (science) department's average GPA was below a 3.0: it was one out of only two departments where that was the case. Most departments had average GPAs of around 3.3...the highest average GPA for a department was 3.6. Besides my department and the other natural science dept. that had average GPAs below 3.0, the other hard sciences were also very close to 3.0 in terms of average GPA. Among the social sciences, Economics had the lowest average GPA, while among the Humanities, History, Philosophy, and English had the lowest.</p>
<p>A few years ago--three maybe?--Harvard Law reported that 12% of the incoming class had undergrad gpa's above 4.0. When you consider that a lot of the students are Harvard and Yale alums and that those colleges do not give A+ grades, it's obvious that A+s can't be that rare at some schools.</p>
<p>Saying that there are no "easy" and "hard" majors is like saying that there are no "easy" or "hard" classes: they are all the same.</p>
<p>Tough luck, that doesn't fly. We've all taken classes that are tough, that have a ton of work, that are conceptually difficult; we've all taken blow-off classes. Some majors are full of the former category of courses; often, they will grade lower as well. </p>
<p>Having majored in both engineering and liberal arts, I can tell you that there is a distinct difference. (FYI: I test slightly higher in math skills than in verbal skills.) Engineering is much harder conceptually; grades on a lower curve; and assigns more work. You work harder for worse grades. You also learn more. </p>
<p>As I said... it would be absurd to suggest that every class is of equal difficulty. I don't know why people then say that majors are all alike.</p>
<p>Well, how exactly do you propose quantifying this difference between "hard" and "easy" majors? As I've said before, I think science majors will get a break when their LSATs are very high but their GPAs are not; otherwise, they don't have much of a case for special consideration. The point is that math courses aren't difficult for everyone and liberal arts classes aren't easy for everyone, but a 4.33 scale is a 4.33 scale for everyone. Well, arguably not, as some people may end up with professors fundamentally opposed to giving A+'s (profs who refuse to give As are far rarer), but this really only makes the case for counting them as just a 4.0 stronger.</p>
<p>Boalt Hall certainly factors how hard it is to get an A at certain schools.</p>
<p>So if you can't quantify the difference, it doesn't exist? </p>
<p>If some people are more skilled in one arena than another, there is no aggregate difference?</p>
<p>Uh huh.</p>
<p>First of all, people generally know which majors are harder than others and which schools are harder than others. The grading scale thing is pretty easy: have all grades come in two sets, one of which is your grade and the second one being the median grade in the class. (The second option could also be a numerical grade - i.e. 91.3 - for greater accuracy.) If you're feeling really adventerous, you could even include the standard deviation. ;)</p>
<p>As for comparing difficulty of major (conceptually, hours worked, etc) - somewhat difficult but not impossible. You could have a college aggregate similar majors (natural sciences, engineering, humanities, languages, social sciences) and report both average grades for those and some standardized measure of the students - such as average SAT of students in those majors.</p>
<p>Yes, that would be a lot of statistical work, but I think it could be done fairly easily and law schools would get good at making the comparisons.</p>
<p>No one would say that, just because you can't quantify the difference in difficulty between Harvard and Suffolk, that you should treat H and Suffolk grads equally in law schools. You can try to make a reasonable estimate of the difference; some schools use average LSAT to develop the "index" for each student.</p>
<p>IMO, the largest problem is that, quite simply, law schools don't care. They want students who improve their stats. Until US News changes its methodology, the largest problem is that schools have no incentive to accept students in hard majors.</p>