Monday, January 14, 2008
It's Time For A New Semester-- and a New Post
This is going to be a catch-all post. I forgot my password for a couple of weeks and couldn't log in to start something new. Anyway, go ahead and comment on anything in particular. I don't start classes until tomorrow, so I don't have anything law schoolish to say, really. My main concern today: to read or not to read. I'm guessing the latter wins out. I've had 3L apathy since I was a 2L. Anyway, unlike the other post where I actually set boundaries that were then summarily discarded, this post has no real boundaries. Everything but names, profanity, and comments in *extremely* poor taste are fine. Of course, the final arbiter of "fine" is Rice Eater, since he/she is the main mod and I'm just a contributor. So anyway, feel free to jump the shark! It's allowed!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
So here's one that I've thought about lately--probably inspired my lousiest grade ever. What do people think of the new ranking system? Personally, I live in perpetual fear of falling out of the rankings every semester and have been tempted to avoid classes just because of an unfavorable grade distribution. I also think choosing to rank the top third was a poor decision since many employers request top 50%. I can see lawyers, a notoriously anal bunch, being really frustrated with our ranking system.
I think grade points tell a story, too, so that even if you fall out of the rankings, if your gpa remains pretty good, then obviously that's something to talk about. Also, everyone needs an outlier grade, curious. :)
Most BIG firms only care if you are top 25%. I have never heard of one caring if you are top 50%. Most small firms hire you if you know someone. As someone who has fallen in/out of rankings twice (including last semester, were I fell out after getting my second best semester of grades), no firm has really made an issue about it.
Sorry about that illiterate post. I was writing quickly. Hopefully it is understandable (the post, that is).
A large number of government positions ask for top 50%.
I'm concerned that employers prefer certainty and may discard a candidate who can't state that they meet the qualifications because of CU's ranking policy.
Honestly, hasn't everyone realized that jobs are just a big crapshoot anyway? You would honestly be best off just rolling those chicken bones/dice/whatever lucky charm you want. I am fairly high up there and struggling just like everyone else.
Anyone see the snippet of the Wolf Building in the National Law Journal?
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1199986622494
Here's to being in the bottom half and having an offer. Life is good.
Cheers, anon 10:11. Im just out of the top 30% and also have a great offer. Glad I didnt sweat it too much over the few years.
I am no longer ranked and I have an offer, as well. Not to rub salt, but there is hope for the unranked. I think if I could offer any advice it would be to take a p/t job or extern out the arse just to make connections.
I think we should eliminate rankings entirely. Employers are not stupid. They know what the median is. If you are above it you are top 50. Easy. Maybe compromise and only rant the top 10.
Then again maybe I am underestimating the people who hold all the power.
I have great grades and no job offer, and fully agree with the people who have posted saying that it doesn't really matter that much. However, every time I interview for a job, my grades and rank come up. So it does matter at least a little.
I think the reason we do the top 1/3 instead of the top 50% (if I remember from 1L year) is because the middle third is so closely bunched around the 85-84 part of the curve.
As for government jobs asking for the top 50%--maybe Cindy could publish where it is for each class based on GPA, and then people who applied for jobs requiring top 50% would know whether they qualify or not. Of course, that would kinda suck for those people who are a hundredth of a point below the cut off, so it might be best to just tell employers our GPAs and what the median is.
Grade whores... haha
man....i REALLY hate law students
It's completely dependent on the firm hiring. At the firm I have accepted an offer at, there is a split between departments. One partner at the head of a department values grades, rank, and the name of the school very highly. The other department values the interview, and previous (non-grade) accomplishments more. I ended up in the second department, and when hired was unranked. However, he did inquire why my rank wasn't on my transcript or resume. I guess it didn't hurt me.
Law and the Holocaust grades are FINALLY up.
Come on, issuing grades is retarded, and they are especially retarded when combined with class rankings. Leave the rankings aside and grades might inspire some to work harder. Otherwise grades and ranks just make it all the more difficult for pompous jackasses to get over themselves. Grades and Ranks also serve to make some of those that aren't in the upper echelon but for some reason wish they were, (and those that apparently don't know where they are in the class) depressed.
Neither law school nor law school exams provide much of an opportunity to prove your worth as a person or as an actual attorney.
Grades and rankings don't have anything to do with what kind of human being you are or how successful you will be (with successful being defined by someone who is not a pompous jackass--i.e., success = happiness, family, friends, contributing in some meaningful way to the community, etc. rather than working 120 hours per week for some "big named firm" (quite literally, sometimes) for an extra digit or two in your salary, not seeing your family, not having friends, and just being some wealthy piss ant that is a drain on society and only 'contributing' to society by donating large sums of money to some industry- (or church-) owned political candidate).
In case you missed my point, grades and rankings are useless. Prove worth by your value as a human being and your work ethic, not your ability to repeat back to a professor what she said in class or to get lucky in an arbitrary distribution of grades.
If you are reading this and you are in the top ten percent of your class, I'm not impressed by some number(s) alone.
Ok ok im not impressed, fine, I see your point. But really, tell us how you feel.
I've never heard anyone say that grades measure one's worth as a person, or even how smart one is. Grades do measure how well you do on exams, which is slightly correlated to things like how hard you work, how good you are about staying on top of your work instead of cramming, and to what extent you're able to and write clearly under considerable time pressure.
I've never heard anyone in law school claiming that good grades imply good character or that bad grades mean a person will be unsuccessful. Such a person indeed be a pompous jackass. But your comment, i'm not impressed, implied that all those who care about grades are pompous jackasses, and that's just silly. There are plenty of people in this school who care about what grades they get but recognize that they mean very little except about one's ability to take exams.
"slightly correlated to things like how hard you work, how good you are about staying on top of your work instead of cramming"
I'd say VERY slightly, given some of the grades I've gotten in law school. The curve makes the whole thing a crapshoot for 90% of the class.
On the subject of outlier grades, in which class did you get yours? Mine was in the Amazing Pizzi's Crim Pro Adjudicative. Still don't know what happened. Had the third lowest grade in the class. Loved Pizzi. Thought the material was interesting. Really sucked it on the final.
If you read it carefully, I said it makes it more difficult for pompous jackasses to get over themselves. I did not say that all who do well, or all that care about their grades are pompous jackasses. If I had, I would have been calling myself a pompous jackass.
You are correct that grades and how well you do on exams is SLIGHTLY correlated to things like how hard you work, how good you are about staying on top of your work instead of cramming, and to what extent you're able to and write clearly under considerable time pressure. But only slightly. I've received my best grades while cramming and not working very hard.
And you make my point for me. Grades do not measure ones worth as a person, etc. To say otherwise would be preposterous. My point is that grades do very little, other than make people feel good about themselves--not necessarily a bad thing, but they can tend to make it all the more difficult for some to get over themselves.
My point is that people get too caught up in grades when in the bigger picture, grades don't mean sh!t. Go to a pass fail system, have some kind of incentives for students to continue to challenge themselves (i.e., top three essays or something nearly equally silly if you feel it necessary), and let people focus on things that really matter in life. But as long as we have grades, I encourage you to strive to do well and caution you to get over yourself quickly.
I've had good and bad outliers. I also had a really bad grade in Pizzi's Crim Pro. I certainly knew more about it and paid more attention (for the same reasons you cited) than a lot of other classes and did considerably worse. As far as good outliers, Krakoff's Civ Pro (where THAT grade came from, I'll never know) and Campos's Legislation (I went to class three times in the semester and got my 3d best law school grade) come to mind. I don't think the exams always test what they're supposed to be testing.
I also got my worst grade ever in Pizzi's Crim Pro class. I'm wondering if it was maybe the multiple choice part of the exam? I went to classes, studied, thought I knew the material, etc. And all my other grades that semester were really good. No idea what happened with Crim Pro.
wow- i also got my worst grade ever in pizzi's crim pro- i haven't heard yet of anyone doing well in that class. weird. to the person that looked at the grade sheets- any info on the spread there? i'm curious to see how much i sucked relatively.
"Go to a pass fail system, have some kind of incentives for students to continue to challenge themselves. . ."
Like P, F, and C, the latter standing for errr "coif?" I understand the point but, as a certain ex-Prof. here once pointed out, we are not Harvard or Boalt Hall. BIGLAW and Assoc. like to see the numbers and some people here want to work for them so they can pay off that massive loan more quickly. Law school isn't the place to meet lots of people who don't care about being number one, winning, or making money.
So here's a new topic, possibly deserving of a new thread. What professors would you recommend?
I'm a huge CH (Family Law, Immigration Law) fan. She's brilliant, keeps you on top of your stuff, and is just an all around great teacher. I think SM (Employment Law) was a great hire. He's funny, smart, and engaging. I also really like PO (IP, Crim Pro, Copyright) who really knows the areas he teaches and is also a great teacher, and ML (Agency & Partnership, Corporations) the guy is hilarious, an effective teacher, and really approachable.
I'm a fan of CH, but not of her classes, if that makes sense. The conversations tend to get out of control in class. AE is my favorite, and PO is great too. LS is great, even though I only had her for contracts.
ML sucks because his tests suck, unless you are AA. I received an A on one and a C + on another. I thought I flunked both. Suck it, Trebek.
I really enjoy the picture of LS on the new website, where she has this look on her face like, "are you f&cking kidding me with all of your socialist b.s., AW?" (He's sitting across from her)
As for professors, Mimi rocks, PJW's tough but fair, PO's seminars are awesome, and DM will unscrew your head and sh!t down your neck unless you have a medical title behind your name.
Then there's my classes: pass/fail externships, one worthless meeting during the course of the semester where you discuss your feelings, and free pizza. Best of all, I can claim to teach something.
Crap. I have another commission to name after myself.
I love EC - she's tough but awesome. RBC is cool too. And ND is great, but his classes fill too fast.
CH is great and Judge R.
Does anyone have any insight regarding TC and secured transactions?
most tests suck unless you are AA.
Dirty Harry--I don't see law school as a place to meet people that are worth a sh!t. I see law school as a place that's supposed to produce people that are worth a sh!t. But I understand your point. Especially when you throw the bit about loans in there. My point is that if you change the system, you can still do well in school and get a job (with BIGFIRM) that pays off your loans, ideally without being a pompous jackass.
I don't understand some people. MW is nice, but she is not a very good teacher. Check that, she is not my style of teacher. I like more structure. She is all over the place. So 1Ls, if you like teachers that are all over the place, she is the one for you. Also, you may get meet some alpacas.
The 1Ls didn't get RC this year. He rocks, without question. I'm surprised his name didn't crop up already. What is wrong with you people?!?!
The 3L class has two AAs. Male or female?
Impressed, most people come into law school as pompous jackasses and leave law school as jaded, pompous jackasses.
speak for yourself, cadoner
From my experience with the AAs, the male version seems to be much more in cahoots with ML than the female version, who seems much less gung-ho. Male AA also posts his outlines to the outline bank with his grades and apparently gets As in everything. So I think anon was referring to male AA. Doy.
I got an A in my pants.
Any seminar taught by PS is worth taking. Really light reading (one law review article a week), no exam, often no textbook to buy, and the median for small classes is 88. Plus you get to listen to PS say brilliant things. Unless you hate big picture stuff and/or writing, in which case you definitely shouldn't take any classes taught by PS.
I agree with the earlier post about MW, crim law was impossible to follow and the exam (a novel) left people in tears. However, I am a big fan of DM and have actually found her very approachable despite my complete lack of any medical knowledge. She really knows her stuff and is very animated and engaging. And of course, CH rocks.
RC came up already, but I agree he's good.
Would people advise against Ethics with RN? They're considering opening a section with him this semester.
RN is nice. It's a touchy-feelyish class with some short papers, some 4 pages single spaced (which is actually pretty long since it's in 11 point font) and then what I'd term "daily discussion papers," only they're due at weird intervals, not each class. There is still a final, part MC, part essay. I wouldn't say it was "hard," although I don't have my grade back so can't tell you what grade I got. There is an attendance policy, so you pretty much have to come to class or your grade allegedly will suffer. I'm sort of "meh" on the whole thing, truthfully. What bugged me the whole time is that he reminds me of some old-time actor and I can't think of who it is. Maybe from old horror movies? I'm not even kidding. I wish I could name the guy I'm thinking of.
I can't beleive the best prof of them all hasn't been mentioned CM! I'm such a groupie!!!!
RN is just fine; the problem some have with his class is that he expects you to internalize the ethics a little, and that can be uncomfortable. Besides, if you do it, you can take AC's Education Law class, which I likewise highly recommend.
So far I have found AC to be my favorite professor here (see commment above). He's underrated, probably because he is not a "rock-star" professor. But he is an excellent instructor, fair grader, has high expectations of his students, and really cares about his job.
I agree with the AC comment. I have really appreciated him as a legal writing prof since I'm now at a firm, and Education Law is great. On top of it, he is as sincere as any prof in the school, probably more so. (There are some who are quite popular but who reek of insincerity). IMO he deserves some recognition.
I agree re: AC. I sat in on Education Law on a whim and ended up taking and loving the class. His enthusiasm is infectious. He really cares about teaching and his students.
AC is the best prof i think i've had. he truly cares about his students and will do anything to help you. and he keeps classes interesting. he is very tough on legal writing papers, but i consider that to be a good thing.
AC, whom I adore, would be positively thrilled to see all of these comments. He would be gratified not because it's an ego stroke, but because he truly cares about his students and about his performance as a prof.
I also do a great impression of him that's "reaaaally, reaaaally good!" (Those of you who know him will know.)
I also really like A.C. He's very sincere and truly dedicated. One thing I appreciate about him is his willingness to mentor students and genuine efforts to get to know them.
I would add that I admire AC's immense compassion, having been on the receiving end of it during an emotionally difficult time (death in the family) and also having seen it in action on behalf of other students.
I am glad to see so many good things expressed about the great educators we have here at CU. I urge you to keep these things in mind in a few weeks when we're asked to nominate our favorite professors for recognition.
There are some who are quite popular but who reek of insincerity.
A few come to mind immediately...
God, this is the worst conversation ever. Let's talk about something better. Like puppies.
Post a Comment