gregh  2008-07-03 11:15  curve  gradeinflation  grades  Law_School  usf   

So, what's the impact of USF's new, unnecessary, inflated curve?

Obviously, it has greatly increased GPAs, which stands to reason. However, it should also be clear how much the altered curve will disadvantage those who have less opportunity to make use of it.

This year's 2nd-year part-timers had an entire first year under the harsher curve, but their class ranking will be negatively impacted during recruiting because, for ranking purposes, they'll be bunched in with students who have had an entire, full-time first-year under the new curve.

This year's 4th-year part-timers like me entered this year, with the gentler curve, with fewer units to take (and one semester entirely scheduled, even if we wanted to do something about it) before graduation.

All told, slipstreaming such a massive change in on everyone else with no method of correcting for the changes is wildly unfair. Next spring, when this year's 2nd-year part-timers are in the same pool as this year's first-year full-timers for rank, what are they going to tell employers who couldn't care less about GPAs (most of them) when their rank is lower, because they had a tougher curve?

The administration claimed they did this immediately because it was the best solution. I think it's pretty clear that they actually did it because it was the expedient solution. Well, they got what they wanted. People have higher GPAs. Yay.

gregh  2007-08-07 20:55  gradeinflation  grades  Grading  Law_School   

I'm not really sure I buy into the idea that grade inflation leads to better job opportunities for law students. In fact, in "The one goes to 11," I mocked the practice. I pointed out, "Recently, there was a limited push by the SBA at USF to look at raising the median; I think it's withered on the vine." Therefore, it gives me no great pleasure to report that USF has decided to repaint the numbers on our grading dial. All current students should have received an email from Dean Micon today informing them of the change. Specifically, we are told that the new policy allows grades to "accurately reflect student achievement, provide students reliable information about their academic progress, and establish a basis for meaningful comparison with both classmates and counterparts from other institutions."

I'm at a loss to explain how any of those things is better accomplished by this changed policy. As I look at the tables, here's what I see: 1) One or two students, who would likely get the CALI anyway, not get an A+; 2) Professors no longer have to give out anything lower than a B- in any elective; and 3) The middle is fatter. There are some other changes, but they seem considerably less significant. Two classes saw the greatest impact. Constitutional Law and Evidence previously had 10% to 20% of students receiving grades of C- and below. Now, it's possible that no students will receive a C- or below.

I know that many students will be jumping for joy over this. A number will be thrilled with the changes to the grading of bar elective courses. I, personally, don't have a huge problem with it, other than that it throws of my spreadsheets and with the 4.3 value afforded A+'s, potentially my class rank extrapolations. That, and that I don't really see the point.