There is a persistent law school myth that grading is arbitrary. Most of us are familiar with the tongue-in-cheek urban legend that professors grade by merely tossing exams down the stairs and grading according to where the exams land. As a law student, I could not understand why the amount of time I studied or even how well I thought I knew the subject matter was not reflected in my grades. There were times I earned a higher grade in a course where I felt I knew less about the subject matter, and an okay grade in course that I thought I aced. It was not until I began teaching legal writing that I truly understood the type of analysis that resulted in “A” grades rather than grades of B or below. Because legal writing assignments are due before the exam period, the course began to serve a diagnostic function. In fact, by mid-October or so I could predict with pretty impressive accuracy which students would earn spots on law review even when the writing class was pass-fail!
One of the things I tell my students is that there really is not much difference between what the B student and the C students know. The A student probably does know more, and is strong at analysis to boot, while the student who bombs a class probably missed critical issues and/or is truly struggling with analysis. As for the rest, most spot the same issues but the difference is the strength (or weakness) of the analysis.
I read this post. It's an informative post for law students.Certain aspects of law school are similar for all students, but, like every graduate program, law school requires non-traditional students to think about additional considerations such as family and full-time employment on top of academic components.
ReplyDeletelaw school classes