<p>I thought the purpose of LSDAS GPA was to unify everyone's GPA on a common scale.
But some colleges give A+ and some don't, like mine.</p>
<p>But if I got 98 in a course, I will still only get A, which will be counted as 4.0 by LSAC, while someone else attending an institution that gives A+ who also got a 98 will get an A+, which will be counted as 4.3 by LSAC.</p>
<p>Isn't this a disadvantage for me? The difference of .3 seems too great.
I think A+ should be counted less (may be 4.1). </p>
<p>A simple search of this and many other forums can give you the response youâre looking for-- err I mean NOT looking for hahahaha. :)</p>
<p>And by your reasoning, B+ and B should weighed be the same, which I you would presumably deem unfair also. B and B- should be equal too, since they are separated solely by a +/- as is the case with the B+ and B, and for that matter A+ and A. So where do we draw the line by YOUR logic? Will a C and A be weighed the same?</p>
<p>Now you might say that my comparison isnât analogous because not all colleges offer A+'s, but as youâre probably aware, not all colleges offer +'s or -'s at all. Should the system change to include that as well? Your (89.4) B+ is now just a B.</p>
<p>Most schools have B+s. A significant enough number of schools donât have A+s that many are disadvantaged. Until someone puts together a universal grading system, thatâs the best that can be done.</p>
<p>^^^ I only know of one school that doesnât have +/-'s other than than A+'s. Iâm sure there are more, but they probably make up less than 2% of American schools (probably significantly less)? On the other hand, I believe the majority of schools donât give out A+'s, so the kids from the ones that do have a significant advantage.</p>
<p>Even if the majority of the schools donât give out A+'s wouldnât that just mean that less, and less students would actually get this advantage? So if really the amount of schools that give A+'s is insignificant, and even less graduates apply to law school (because Iâm sure youâre aware that not all 25,000 undergrads at A±granting-UCLA apply to law school) and even less of those few individuals get a competitive LSAT scoreâŠare you really disadvantaged? I would say youâre hypberolizing the issue.</p>
<p>Haha are you trying to honestly argue that students with schools giving A+ grades do not have an advantage? I would have over a 4.0 GPA in this case. There is no way in hell it is not an advantage. It helps to cancel out those pesky A- and B+ grades.</p>
<p>How could anyone ever say that a 4.33 is not better than a 4.0? Iâm merely saying to suck it up and move on. Itâs not a big deal and if youâre a good candidate, youâll get into a good law school. Iâm also saying that if you read the context of posts, youâd realize that people are exaggerating the issue and using flawed logic to support their lack of support for the policy.</p>
<p>The number of schools that give A+'s is not âinsignificantâ. A large number do, a large number donât. What I was referring to as being insignificant are the schools, like Brown, that only give A, B, or C, and nothing else- for all I know Brown may be the only one (though I think there are a handful more).</p>
<p>Attempting to use vague language to somehow safeguard your posts from criticism isnât really that strategic. Saying that the âmajorityâ donât give A+'s is not the same as saying that a âlarge number do, a large number donâtâ. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The point is simple, the advantage isnât âsignificantâ because if the âmajorityâ of colleges donât give A+'s and the âmajorityâ donât apply to law school and the âmajorityâ donât get a good LSAT score relative to their high GPA, then the advantage is â[in]significantâ and the â[min]orityâ gets a small advantage.</p>
<p>If for every ten applicants with a GPA/LSAT combination that would make them candidates for Law School X, two come from undergraduate schools that give A+'s, those two, whether they actually received A+'s or not, would have an advantage in A+'s having been âavailableâ to them. </p>
<p>I donât think the use of the word âmajorityâ was really that vague, but whatever. Cornell, UPenn, Columbia, Princeton all give out A+'s, whereas the other half of the Ivy League does not. Looking nationally, I believe that a majority do not, but probably greater than 20% do, meaning that roughly 20% of law school applicants have this advantage.</p>
<p>Do people whine about this more than is necessary? Probably. But it does exist.</p>
<p>Of course not. The point is that some people are being graded on a 4.33 scale and having their GPAs treated like they were earned on a 4.0 scale. And LSAC could solve the problem simply by calculating an A+ as a 4.0 instead of a 4.33.</p>
<p>Why does the LSAC have to respect collegeâs grading policies? It certainly does not with A-'s-- I know several colleges that give more points for an A- than the LSAC.</p>
<p>And it certainly does mean that. If an A+ is weighed the same as an A, a B+ should presumably be weighed the same as a B. The difference is simply the + is it not?</p>
<p>No. An A+ is a 4.33 on what is supposed to be a 4.0 scale. You donât have to eliminate every gradation between 0 and 4 to get rid of the obviously unfair âbonusâ an A+ gives. Alternatively, LSAC could acknowledge that schools giving A+âs are actually using a different scale and knock a third of a grade point off their studentsâ GPAs.</p>
<p>1.) Yes, this is unfair.
2.) No, LSAC does not originate the unfairness.
3.) Failing to recognize it would ALSO be unfair, because it would erase A+'s that some students have earned.
4.) LSAC chooses to perpetuate an unfairness that preserves differences rather than an unfairness that suppresses them.
5.) It doesnât matter, since very few A+'s are given out anyway.</p>