Does the reputation of an undergrad school affect admission to law school?

<p>By the same logic, MIT and Caltech should also give straight A's because their students are also darn smart and would be getting straight A's at state schools. Yet MIT and Caltech don't do that. The same thing could be said for the Stanford School of Engineering. Stanford engineers are pretty darn sharp, probably the sharpest of all the Stanford students, so why don't they get all A's too? Or more specifically, why is it that Stanford American Studies students tend to get higher grades than Stanford chemical engineers? Is it because the Stanford chemical engineers are lazier and stupider than the American Studies students?</p>

<p>Don't be so sure Mensa. Take UC Berkeley. The top 30% of their students are equal to Harvard's student body. And yet, only 10% of Cal students have GPAs over 3.5 or 3.6. That would mean that only 30% of Harvard students would be A students at Cal. And MIT, CalTech, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Cornell and a dozen elite LACs have student bodies that are as gifted (or only slightly less gifted) than Harvard's student body and they do not resort to inflating grades. Obviously, the average Harvard student is amazing, but some schools are really tough...even on the brilliant students.</p>

<p>Sakky, you raise an interesting point regarding more difficult majors at HYP.</p>

<p>First off, of course, this appears to indicate that grade inflation is not universal at these schools, but rather program-dependent. </p>

<p>Secondly, however, this still doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility I put forth. Couldn't we just as easily argue that the physics, engineering, etc. programs at these schools are simply excessively grade-deflated? Wouldn't a better solution simply be to ensure all programs are using the same grading approach?</p>

<p>I agree with your basic point that, to the extent schools have different grading policies, law schools should take this into account. Maybe they should focus more on class rank, or even rank within each major, the way legal employers do when looking at law school grades. </p>

<p>But simply using class rank, of course, still doesn't address the fact that some students in the bottom third at Harvard are still probably more academically gifted than some students in the top third at many other schools. Ideally, everyone would be judged on some objective scale, so they could be evaluated in comparison to students across the country without all this confusion. </p>

<p>(Even if Harvard isn't using the "objective scale" I theoretically posit, shouldn't they be? And if they were, wouldn't we see similar results, but simply extended throughout the other programs as well?)</p>

<p>This, ultimately, is one reason I love the LSAT. For all its faults, this is the one place where all students are measured by the same yardstick, on an objective scale. No one from Harvard can complain that they didn't do well on the exam because they were only up against other extremely bright kids. No one from MIT can complain that their scores were artificially kept lower in relation to students from other schools. And no one from Podunk U can claim that they get points removed because of a lack of undergraduate prestige. (Alternatively, no one can really deny the reasoning skills of someone from Podunk U, MIT, or Harvard who aces the exam.) You either get a certain score, or you don't. In light of the above uncertainly and confusion, this would almost seem to justify the heavy weight placed on the LSAT in LS Admissions, and the significantly lighter weight placed on grades. Universities can screw around with grades all they want, leading to the consternation expressed here. But they can't do much about the LSAT. Until we have a truly objective national grading scale, which somehow accurately reflects both the difficulty of the material as well as academic performance, this appears to be the best available measure.</p>

<p>Note: One way schools could weigh grades at each school is by checking the LSAT ranges and averages of students from that school, and assigning a weight based upon that information to the student's GPA. (Of course, for further clarity, one should use class rank instead of GPA.) LSAT averages from each program (engineering, etc.) could be used to weigh the grades/rank even more specifically, so if the engineers at Stanford are really the brightest bunch, then this will be reflected in the final "Grade" analysis. </p>

<p>Of course, this would further magnify the importance of the exam, and presumes that the LSAT is in fact a valid predictor of law school ability, but law schools already certainly seem to think it is. And to the extent it is flawed in this regard, the focus should probably be on improving the exam's predictive ability, as it's hard to imagine a better way to address the grade issue. </p>

<p>(One could also weigh grades/class rank against average SAT scores, of course. However, to the extent the LSAT is presumably a better predictor of law school success, it would presumably be a better tool in this context.)</p>

<p>This still doesn't really address the fact that regardless of average SAT/LSAT in any given program, the weighing factor won't really indicate if one major is much harder than another. GPA is ultimately supposed to tell us how hard someone is willing to work, and this gets lost in the shuffle to some extent. However, I'm still not sure how else we can address the issue of variance in difficulty at different schools in programs. Even if schools "take this into account", how exactly do they determine how much weight to give it?</p>

<p>Sakky... how do I put this...</p>

<p>I think you are confusing the results of the grade inflation at Harvard with the justification or "rightness" of grade inflation there. Yes, it will help their kids get into law schools or med schools by NOT punishing them for going to Harvard. The whole thing reportedly started during the Vietnam war for those reasons. Grad schools (i.e. masters/Ph.D.), from what I know, look much more upon the difficulty of a programme and its grade distributions than it does upon straight-up GPA - hence the reason why people from my alma mater with A- averages were choosing between places like MIT, CalTech, Yale, and Berkeley for science Ph.D. programmes. </p>

<p>I did a grade-deflated programme and strongly disagree with that as well - mostly because it's just demoralizing to reel in a ton of Cs when you are only slightly below the median in a smart group of people. There is a middle ground that doesn't involve the Harvard method of 1/2 the grades being an A or an A-, and something besides the engineering method of half the grades being Cs or Ds. </p>

<p>I'm now at a grade-deflated law school - the mean is kept to a 3.1 first semester. It's tough because I have to throw my class rank all over the place to look impressive to employers (my B+/A- average is pretty mediocre at some schools), but - it's not ridiculous or bad. The As feel earned, and the Bs are average, and the Cs demonstrate a lack of effort or understanding. </p>

<p>I will always think that Harvard missed the boat on grades. Under the current system, they do not evaluate superiour work, beyond that expected of the normal Harvard student, nor do they penalize students who are not putting forth effort (only 8% of students graduate without honours). Students from my alma mater are discouraged from taking Harvard pre-med classes - because med schools know that they aren't as difficult and give out higher grades. I just cannot stomach the thought of giving out grades just to make the kids attractive to law schools or med schools - undergrad, IMO, is not a means to an end.</p>

<p>I will just add that for law school, most employers do focus more on class rank than grades, given that a grade at one school can mean something very different at another school. Maybe when there's a stronger profit motive, people become more rational in their decision-making.</p>

<p>Ariesathena, how do I put this gently - it seems to me that you are taking the position you are taking out of spite and jealousy rather than looking at the facts.</p>

<p>Let me explain. You say that PhD programs look more carefully at the rigor of the program and so forth. Yet I think it's safe to say that plenty of Harvard College students are highly successful in getting into PhD programs. There seems to be no evidence that Harvard College students are being held back from getting into PhD programs because of Harvard's grade inflation. </p>

<p>The same is true when it comes to med-school admissions. You say that students are your school were discouraged from going to Harvard for their premed classes because med-schools know that those classes tend to grade high. Well, that doesn't exactly jive with the basic fact that over 90% of Harvard premeds who apply to med-school get admitted, one of the highest percentages of any premed program in the country. Unfortunately, the data that shows that is not available online, Harvard deliberately keeps that information in hardcopy only, but trust me, I've seen it, it's over 90%. Not only that, but you can't simply attribute it all to Harvard premeds being unusually bright anyway. The average admitted Harvard premed had about the same MCAT scores as the average admitted MIT premed (i.e. about a score of 32-33). </p>

<p>At the end of the day, the evidence is scant at best that Harvard College students are being hurt by Harvard's grade inflation. It obviously works when it comes to law-school admision, and looks like it also works (or is, at least, neutral) for med-school admission. There is little evidence that it hurts when it comes to PhD admission. </p>

<p>Look, ariesathena, I think I know how you feel. At one time, I was at the same place where you are now. I too was quite annoyed and frustrated when I was first confronted with the evidence that grade inflation works. I too didn't want to believe it. And I still don't really like it. But I've come to accept that it in fact works. I don't like it, I wish it didn't work. But it does work. </p>

<p>So, the way I see it is, you can't blame Harvard. Harvard found a good thing that works well to help its students, and you can't blame a school for trying to help its students out as much as it can. In fact, I would argue that that's what a school is supposed to do. A school is supposed to help its students out whenever possible. The parties that are to blame in this mess are the adcoms themselves. They are the ones who set the rules. They are the ones who deliberately choose not to see that certain grades are easier to get than others. The way I see it is, if the adcoms choose to continue to run a flawed system, then you can't really blame places like Harvard for taking advantage of the flaws.</p>

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>I am not disputing that Harvard students are extraordinarily successful in grad school admissions - we both agree on that. </p>

<p>It's quite a leap from my suggestion that Harvard pre-med classes aren't that difficult (and honestly, how hard is orgo when you aren't going to get a C?), and, given that, students from other colleges look bad when they take those classes instead of other classes, to saying that Harvardians don't do well in grad school admissions. Never said that, and I'm missing the connection.</p>

<p>I fully disagree with you that such a high level of grade inflation helps those students. It will help them in grad school admissions, but it does nothing in the main pursuit of a university education - to push students and educate them. When professors deliberately give two grades - the "earned" grade and the "official" grade, it is clear that the policy is undermining the basic mission of the university, which is to educate their students. </p>

<p>I never said that there is not a nice side effect of such grade inflation, nor that med schools and law schools are not the ones to blame for it - trust me, I know exactly how bad their policies are, having lived through the effects. However, that is a far cry from your first statement. </p>

<p>Regarding your first statement - it is inappropriate, untrue, and has no place on a discussion board of this kind. Your second-to-last paragraph is utterly patronizing and likewise has no place in this discussion. Cut out the personal value judgments about my character until you have met me and keep this discussion to intellectual disagreements. Are we clear on that?</p>

<p>Ariesathena, how exactly am I supposed to interpret your quote of "Students from my alma mater are discouraged from taking Harvard pre-med classes - because med schools know that they aren't as difficult and give out higher grades", except to conclude that you are making an implicit criticism of Harvard itself?</p>

<p>So now you say that what you are really criticizing is the notion that Harvard is not doing right by its students by molly-coddling its students and so forth, which has the effect of setting up those students well for graduate school, but perhaps not their intellectual development. Well, I would contend that may be a non-sequitur. I would contend that many Harvard students are going to Harvard precisely in order to set themselves up well for graduate school, and don't really care very much about developing themselves. So in that sense, Harvard is giving its students exactly what they want. I would also, again, point to the marked success of Harvard graduates in the workplace and in society and say that if Harvard is not developing the intellects of their graduates, it clearly doesn't seem to show. </p>

<p>And besides, seriously, much of our entire theses in these forums has rested on emotional bases. You don't like the fact that grade inflation works, and neither do I. Hence, much of our very reason for being in CC in the first place has to do with insults to our personal values and our outlook on the world. You cannot tell me that you are here on CC purely as an intellectual exercise, and neither can I. It is precisely our personal values that compel us to come here and post about subjects such as these.</p>

<p>Gee, is H above and beyond all criticism? It's just a comment that their course offerings are not always of a high caliber because of the grade inflation. Their pre-med students are not working as hard or learning as much as pre-meds from other schools. If a H student takes H orgo, no one thinks that as being odd; but if a student from another university takes an orgo class which is not the same difficulty as their own, it looks bad. </p>

<p>You are also failing to make the distinction between intellectual exercises, personal values, and personal insults. I started out on CC to give out information as a college student; I've remained here for a lot of reasons, but personal values would not be the first. You, on the other hand, happy meandered into personal insults. Out of line.</p>

<p>hmmm, calm down? Let's all focus on me, I have three eyes!</p>

<p>Well, first of all, I would argue that a non-Harvard student that choose to do orgo at Harvard may indeed be playing the same devilishly ingenious game that Harvard itself plays. </p>

<p>And come on, ariesathena. Your annoyance at the law-school admissions process (and my annoyance at it as well) is obvious to anyone and everyone who reads your posts. If you are insulted that I am pointing out what is clearly obvious to all, well, I don't know what to tell you. Surely I don't need to go back to some of your old posts and throw some of your old quotes back at you. Suffice it to say that there is no shortage of emotion in those old quotes, and I wouldn't be the first person or even the hundredth person to have noticed it. The emotion and passion behind those posts are obvious to anybody. So to say that you are here merely for intellectual discourse, seriously, come on, now you're starting to insult my intelligence a little bit. I know that I am not here solely for intellectual discourse. </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. I have gotten to know quite a few members of this board and I think I can characterize their particular motivations, and I have done so several times, and I don't think it's an 'insult' for me to point out their motivations (guys, if you think that it is, then say so please). For example, Calkidd is a guy who is deeply annoyed at the 'numbers game' of med-school admissions and of the coldness and harshness of UCBerkeley. Alexandre is a guy who believes passionately about the benefits of his alma mater, Michigan, but he is also a realist and freely acknowledges that Michigan has its faults. Kryptic is a guy who strongly believes in the power of public education to change the world and address social change, and believes that public schools, and Berkeley in particular, stands as a beacon to the power of public education. However he acknowledges that Berkeley is flawed in certain respects and is vociferously critical about those flaws. Webhappy and Rytskg are both deeply proud fanatics of the rigor of the Caltech curricula. And California1600/west-side/californiapride/rayray_222 is a guy who apparently thinks that Berkeley is the next best thing to heaven. Whether I agree with them or not is not the issue. I doubt that any of them would seriously dispute the characterization I just made about them, and I certainly don't think that any of them would feel that they had just been insulted (guys, if I'm just way off about that, then feel free to say something). </p>

<p>So if you are feel that you are insulted by what my characterization of you, well, I regret that you feel that way. All I can say is that I can present some of your old quotes to the people here on CC and let them judge for themselves whether they think that my characterization of you is fair or not.</p>

<p>Sakky, do I need to point out that you can state things in different ways, some of which are inherently offensive and some of which are not?</p>

<p>I am NOT "jealous" of anyone - dissatisfied and upset with the process, yes, but jealous of hypothetical people, no. There is a HUGE difference, and one that you would do well to learn. I have been making more nuanced arguments than you give me credit for. Frustration with a system does not, to me, equate with jealousy, an emotion which I have rarely, if ever, felt in my own life. </p>

<p>You COULD have gone through your rationale in post #26, gotten the same point across, but omitted the first and last paragraphs. The substance of your argument would not have changed, nor been diminished. The fact that you chose to put those sentences in there - those comments being nothing but patronizing character judgments - speaks volumes about YOU, not me. You can say that you disagree with me, believing that H is benefiting their students and giving them something more valuable than their education there; it is entirely another thing to degrade me in the process. </p>

<p>Lovely how, when you characterize the other posters, you do so in benign or neutral terms. Extending your characterization of me to other posters would look as follows:
"Argon is a raving maniac about USC. He hates the place - it's really weird. I don't know how to say it gently."</p>

<p>Please "throw old posts" in my face. It is entirely necessary to this discussion and will enhance the intellectual rigour of your arguments. (rolls eyes)</p>

<p>Benign or neutral terms? Hmmm. I don't know, but the word 'fanatic' doesn't strike me as particularly benign or neutral, nor does my characterization of california1600 strike me as benign or neutral anyway. </p>

<p>And besides, you've admitted to being dissatisfied and upset. Sorry to do this to you, but bingo - you just proved to me in your own words that emotions and passion have something to do with why you're here. And your stated difference between dissatisfaction and jealousy, well, you say tomato, I say tom'ah'to. At the end of the day, it seems to me that that's a distinction without a difference. </p>

<p>Nor do I think it is particularly degrading that I pointed out that you have been making your posts out of, as you put it, 'dissatisfaction'. Look. Let's be clear. If you feel insulted and degraded, then I regret that, because that was not my intent. So I feel bad for making you feel insulted and degraded. </p>

<p>But I said it before, I'll say it again, your dissatisfaction is obvious to anybody who reads your posts. Look, what can I tell you, it's the truth. I don't think it serves much purpose to deny what we can all see with our own eyes. Nor do I think it is particularly degrading to recognize it as fact. The fact is, you, I and several other people here are regulars. None of us would be regulars if we didn't feel emotional about our pet subjects.</p>

<p>I'm still missing how dissatisfaction equates to jealousy. The fact that I disagree with the methodology used by law school admissions officers and really want to help people not make the same mistakes I did really doesn't mean that I'm ready to be Lady Macbeth. </p>

<p>Meander by your local bookstore. Check out "Law School Confidential," which is written by a young lawyer who made a fortune off this premise: "I wish I knew then what I know now." (See back cover.) Proof positive that there are people who can use dissatisfaction for productive uses - such as letting the "Can I be a chemical and mechanical engineer double major and then go to Harvard Law" types that what they are shooting for is, given reality, not going to happen... or writing books... or counseling younger people... how is that jealousy? </p>

<p>I firmly believe that the wishy-washy posts of "Oh, you can probably be an engineer and get into HLS, don't worry... some people do it..." or "I don't think law schools like to see engineers, because they don't know how to write, which is what my second cousin twice removed girlfriend's mom said..." really don't cut it in terms of advice and direction. "I've been there, this is what happened" has a little more punch to it. I don't run around telling people what courses they take as economics majours will be like, nor do I run around saying what my roommate's experiences taking Manderin were like. </p>

<p>But heck, I know what it's like to be an engineer applying to law schools, and I know what engineering is like. Hence the reason I hang around the law school boards. I'm happy that my experiences (both plentiful mistakes and good ones) can be useful - "the fool does not learn from his mistakes; a smart man learns from his mistakes; a truly wise man learns from other's mistakes." I'm a workaholic; my friends compare me to the Energizer bunny, a rambunctus labrador, or a ruthlessly efficient German-type. If something (i.e. trying to get into law schools with the engineering GPA) throws me, it's a good bet that it will absolutely flatten most other people. Why on earth would I not speak up about that? How is that jealousy?</p>

<p>Nobody liked my three eyes...oh well!</p>

<p>While I think there's a lot of truth in the posts in this thread, I think there's a bit of hyperbole too.</p>

<p>LSs do take your major into account to some extent. It's true that many don't seem to give as big a "bump" to those who major in tough subjects as some people---especially those who majored in those subjects--think they should, but they do give a little bit of a "bump." More importantly, certainly majors are viewed with extra scrutiny. It's hard to get into LS with a degree in elementary education or recreational services or golf course management (yes, that's a real major). So, if you are aiming for a top law school, don't think that you should LITERALLY take the biggest gut you can, even if you don't care at all about the quality of your undergraduate education. There was a poster on one of the other law boards who majored in something like construction management. He had an extremely high gpa and a high LSAT--I know it was above 170, though I don't remember the exact number. He didn't do well in LS admissions. When he called and asked a couple of LSs why, he was told his undergrad major had eliminated him. (He said this was unfair because it was actually a difficult major; I don't know whether it is.) </p>

<p>As for grade inflation at the Ivies, I don't think it's nearly as easy to earn A's at Ivies as this thread--and others like it--suggest. Nor do I agree with the list of schools with "deflated" gpa's. Yes, there are some---MIT, Cal Tech and Carnegie Mellon are on my list. Many of the others aren't. </p>

<p>When saying something like "only 8% of Harvard students didn't get honors" remember what kind of honors are involved. Harvard gives two different kinds of honors: general and departmental. General are summa cum laude, magna c.l., and c.l. Only 5% of a Harvard class can get summa. I'm not sure of the cut offs, but I know that 30 or 35% of each class gets one of these three honors. That's the same methodology as many other schools use. (And, yes, I personally think it's easier to end up in the top third of your class at a large state U than it is at Harvard.) </p>

<p>Departmental honors are easier to come by. In many majors, anyone who meets some gpa requirement in courses in his major AND writes an acceptable honors thesis gets "with honors". (It too comes in degrees.) It's this honor that most people get. I know a young woman who graduated from another Ivy with a similar system who was an AMAZING artist. So, she graduated with a degree in studio art from an Ivy without any general honors but with highest honors in art. I don't think that's unfair. Remember all those "lopsided" applicants Harvard accepts--the kid who is abysmal at math and science, but wrote a #1 NY Times best selling novel? These kids get highest departmental honors.</p>

<p>It's only when you add departmental honors and general honors together that it becomes the case that only 8% of Harvard grads graduated without honors. I'm sure many on this board will disagree with me, but I don't think that's a sign of grade inflation. I assume that most Harvard students--not all, but most--do excel in their concentrations. Harvard and Yale have both recently raised the bar for getting departmental honors. I suspect that this won't cut the # of students who earn them all that much--students will just put in a little more effort to make sure they get them--perhaps by devoting less time to subjects not in their concentration. For many students, it may be better to graduate with a 3.1 and honors in economics than a 3.3 without departmental honors. </p>

<p>I concede that C's are rare at Harvard, though they are certainly given out. The curve in most classes outside math and science seems to be a B+. Most kids can pull off A-'s in their concentrations. So, you end up with a big clump of students with a 3.5 or so. But getting a "flat A" is a different story. Moreover, unlike many schools, notably Stanford, Harvard doesn't give A+'s. And the truth is that while the classes in the humanities and social sciences at Harvard seem to be graded on a B+ curve, those B+'s are NOT earned by people who go out and get drunk 6 nights a week and never study. The "typical" Harvard student hits the books for many hours a week--nowhere near the # a "typical" MIT student does, but many more than is "typical" of students at most other colleges. </p>

<p>So, while Sakky isn't entirely wrong in saying that you're "guaranteed" a "decent" gpa if you get into Harvard, I think a more accurate statement would be that if you get into Harvard, concentrate in the humanities or social sciences, and study about 25-30 hours a week outside class, you're virtually guaranteed to end up with at least a 3.3 (a B+),which with a high LSAT score, is good enough to get you a "shot" at most law schools. </p>

<p>But I remain convinced that if you took that Harvard student and teleported him to Cornell or UChicago and he put in precisely the same amount of effort, he'd get the same gpa. (UChicago's median gpa these days is between 3.3 and 3.4 or at least it was the last time it was posted by UChicago. )</p>

<p>Many of the stories about Ivies and other top schools which are allegedly grade inflated lump together A's and A-'s. There are gradations in Harvard grading system--the curve is just higher. From what I've seen--and I admit it's purely anecdotal--MOST intro level classes at the top schools that don't give A+'s give out fewer than 20% "flat A's" --10% is more common. In higher level seminars filled with concentrators, the percentage is higher, but it's rarely more than 30%. A-'s are more common, but, heck, how many people do you think major in philosophy at Harvard or Princeton who aren't pretty good at philosophy? </p>

<p>Years ago, as you may know, Boalt had a system that weighted grades by undergraduate institution attended. The system was based on the median LSAT of students who had actually attended Boalt, their undergraduate gpa's and the grades they earned at Boalt. Guess which colleges got a "boost" to their gpa's? The colleges so many of you are attacking as "grade inflating." In most cases, the HYP students who ended up at Boalt were not those at the top of their classes, since those students tended to go to HYS. So, the Harvard students had gpa's in the range between a B+ and A-. In law school, they outperformed students from most other colleges who had higher gpa's , so Boalt adjusted Harvard gpa's upward. </p>

<p>I suspect that one of the reasons Harvard grades on a higher curve is that it realizes that out in the big wide world, there are MANY companies and especially government agencies which do NOT distinguish between a 3.0 earned at Towson State and one earned at Harvard. Moreover, as many of you may know, there are state-funded and foundation funded scholarships which require the recipients to maintain a certain gpa, often a 3.0. So, again, I don't think it's unfair for Harvard to make it pretty easy for its students to meet this threshold. But, again, if you think that one-third of each Harvard class has a 3.9+, you are very much mistaken.</p>

<p>"Years ago, as you may know, Boalt had a system that weighted grades by undergraduate institution attended. The system was based on the median LSAT of students who had actually attended Boalt, their undergraduate gpa's and the grades they earned at Boalt."</p>

<p>This would seem to make sense, though I'm sure it was attacked for some reason. </p>

<p>Whether or not the typical Harvard kid would do as well at Cornell, MIT, etc., is an interesting question. I guess it would depend on the actual mean at those schools, given that (I presume) the entering GPA/SAT at all of them is somewhat similar. </p>

<p>Finally, Sakky, even if you may theoretically be correct, I don't know if it's necessary to get into personal motives, especially if it riles people up so much! If you're right on the facts, then it shouldn't be necessary to do so. If you just put them out there, others will be able to see it. </p>

<p>I will say that Aries may be right that, IF Harvard is making it substantially easier on its students (something which is unclear at this point), this may not be a completely unmitigated good. Whether or not it helps people get into graduate programs, it may also make them less prepared for the competition and workload once they get there. And they may therefore end up doing less well in their class than their counterparts from comparable universities with less grade inflation. </p>

<p>Now, you and I might happily take that risk in exchange for higher grades in undergrad, and an easier path in graduate admissions, but that doesn't mean there isn't a possible downside.</p>

<p>Look, ariesathena. let's get down to brass tacks. Again, I regret that you feel that my comments degraded you, because that was not my intent. </p>

<p>On the other hand, I will stand my ground and say that none of us regulars are here purely because we are looking for intellectual discourse. There are various reasons having to do with emotion and passion that compel us to come here, and I see nothing wrong with that. </p>

<p>And I maintain that I still believe you are jealous in the sense that I believe that you wish that you had the experience that the Harvard prelaws did. You are deeply dissatisfied with what happened to you in undergrad, and you see that other people had it better, and you wish that you had that too. In other words, if you had a deeply dissatisfying experience as a prel-law, but everybody else did too, then I would contend that you would not feel anywhere near as emotional about this subject as you do. You got screwed, but so did everybody else, so it's a wash. Hence, the real issue is not just that you had a bad experience, but that you know other people had better experiences, and that is the real driving force for your posts. Am I wrong about that? And I would also say that I don't think there is anything untoward with that. It is an entirely natural and human response to compare your lot with that of others. Things would never get better if people weren't always constantly comparing things against each other and determining who has it better or worse. In your case, you had it worse, and I see nothing wrong with coming here and saying that you had it worse. </p>

<p>But again, if ariesathena, if you feel that I have behaved inappropriately to you, then all I can say is that I didn't mean to make you feel bad and I hope you accept my apology.</p>

<p>Now, onto other matters. First, jonri. </p>

<p>*I never said that A's at the Ivies are a cakewalk. I said that A's at an Ivy are not as difficult to get as they are at certain other elite schools, most notably any school that ends with the words "Institute of Technology". At minimum, at least we can agree that the prelaws at MIT, Caltech, and CMU are probably getting screwed. In your teleportation analogy, I think you'd agree that if you take the guy with a 3.3 from Harvard and had him teleported to MIT, he probably would not have gotten a 3.3. </p>

<p>*That old Boalt grade-adjuster. It's too bad that that old link is now dead. But I do remember some of the specifics of that list. In that particular case, higher numbers meant more of an upward grade boost. I distinctly remember that Harvard scored an '87' on that list, whereas MIT scored an '86.5'. In other words, relative to MIT, Harvard had both grade inflation AND a higher boost on the Boalt table. In other words, MIT prelaws, relative to Harvard prelaws, got doubly screwed. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, whatever you might say of Harvard and whether you think that the grading there is appropriate or not, I think we can all agree that MIT grades substantially lower than Harvard. So if you think that Harvard's grading is appropriate, then MIT's grading is clearly inappropriate. If you don't think it's unfair for Harvard to make their gpa's better than Towson State, either for employment or scholarship purposes, then you must concede that MIT is clearly being unfair.</p>

<p>Now, to Cardozo:</p>

<p>Well, you might say that it is not an unmitigated good, and I would probably agree. On the other hand, it seems to me that Harvard College graduates are still highly prominent in the legal world. Hence, if they are getting hurt by the kid-gloves treatment at HC, it couldn't be that bad.</p>

<p>I was teleported from Cornell to Stanford as an undergrad a generation ago (the technical term for it was "transferring"). My 3.2 from Cornell put me ahead of about 2/3 of the law school applicants at Cornell; my 3.45 at Stanford put me in the 51st percentile among law school applicants from Stanford. There was about a 30 point difference in the median LSAT score of applicants from the two universities; my best guess is that my grades from the two institutions were viewed as approximately equivalent when I applied to law school.</p>

<p>Even assuming that grading today is the same as a generation ago, which I don't believe is true...</p>

<p>You didn't take the same courses at Cornell and Stanford. Your grades improved at Stanford and maybe that means that at the time, Stanford was more grade inflating than Cornell. However, it may just be that you got better grades your junior and senior year than freshman and sophomore. I think there's evidence that most people get higher gpa's during their last two years of college than during the first two years of college. (Traditionally, the lowest grades are those earned first semester freshman year. I know this data is reported once a year by some association of colleges and universities though I couldn't give you the citation. ) It really wouldn't be at all unusual for someone who got a 3.2 the first two years to get a 3.45 the last two years, even if he stayed at the same college. Looking at the same facts from a different angle, I think it's possible that you might only have had a 3.2 during the first two years if you'd spent them at Stanford. </p>

<p>It's interesting that not only did your gpa change, but your class rank changed. It dropped--with a higher gpa. That MAY be evidence that, a generation ago, Stanford students were ,in the aggregate, somewhat more competitive than Cornell students. You may have had an advantage if your first two years at Cornell didn't factor into your "rank" at Stanford and all 4 years counted for other Stanford students, since it's probable that some of those you "outranked" when your grades for the last two years were compared to those for all 4 years of your classmates would have outranked you if only their last two years were counted. Again, that's assuming that your "placement" among Stanford students was based on only two years of grades for you, but 4 for your classmates.</p>

<p>Finally,TODAY Stanford has more inflated gpa's than Harvard or Yale, in part because it gives A+'s, which count as 4.33 in the LSDAS calculations. Neither Harvard nor Yale does. It's possible to get a few B+'s at Stanford and still pull off better than a 4.0, if you also get a few A+'s. You can't do that at Harvard or Yale. I'd be the first to agree that Stanford is more grade inflated than either Harvard or Yale. So, if you want to say that a Stanford student would get worse grades at Cornell, I won't object --but Harvard and Yale students are a different matter ;)!</p>

<p>As a PS to Sakky, I've admitted many times that I think MIT has tough grading and that it has grading tougher than Harvard's. However, I think the discrepency is a bit smaller than you do because I think part of the difference is that fewer Harvard students major in math and sciences. As you yourself have acknowledged, at many universities, grading in those fields is tougher than in other disciplines. So, while I DO think that Harvard's grading is less stringent than MIT's, I think that if you just compared math and science at Harvard to math and science at MIT and economics and poli sci at MIT with economics and poli sci at Harvard, etc., there would be a difference, but not that great a one. Some of the difference in median gpa's between the two schools is, I suspect, simply a result of the difference in the proportion of students who concentrate/major in different fields. </p>

<p>Boalt doesn't use that methodology any more, but the reason why Harvard got a bigger boost than MIT was that Harvard students performed marginally better than those from MIT with similar gpa's and LSAT scores. It wasn't a plot against MIT students ;) It MAY be that the students who take those "gut" courses in philosophy, history, poli sci, etc., have an advantage in law school.</p>