19 comments

  1. Hmmm, never thought of that! I’ve just been trying to qualify for a pension over there . . .

  2. Sadly, there’s actually a reasonable explanation for this nonsense: law firms are too stupid to look at class rank.

    My alma mater used to not grade-inflate at all; the sad result was that top law firms would look at our top graduates and shriek, “Why should I hire someone with a 3.7?”. Alums, students, and Career Services would point out that the aforementioned 3.7 puts a student firmly within the top 5% of the class, to which the law firm hiring manager would reply, “But the top 5% at other schools all have 3.9s!”

    So your options are either to beat your head against a desk at the utter innumeracy of lawyers, or cave in and give firms what they are looking for.

  3. Sadly, there’s actually a reasonable explanation for this nonsense: law firms are too stupid to look at class rank.

    My alma mater used to not grade-inflate at all; the sad result was that top law firms would look at our top graduates and shriek, “Why should I hire someone with a 3.7?”. Alums, students, and Career Services would point out that the aforementioned 3.7 puts a student firmly within the top 5% of the class, to which the law firm hiring manager would reply, “But the top 5% at other schools all have 3.9s!”

    So your options are either to beat your head against a desk at the utter innumeracy of lawyers, or cave in and give firms what they are looking for.

  4. And 90% of the people running our government and our economy are lawyers.

    Might I suggest that running an economy requires some minimal understanding of numbers?

  5. And 90% of the people running our government and our economy are lawyers.

    Might I suggest that running an economy requires some minimal understanding of numbers?

  6. “Everybody does it” is a defense which nearly always works in court, or so I am told – but it was by lawyers, so the opinion could be inflated.

    🙂

  7. “Everybody does it” is a defense which nearly always works in court, or so I am told – but it was by lawyers, so the opinion could be inflated.

    🙂

  8. @Weimer,
    (a) This was an RSM post, and
    (b) “You’ve been linked sufficient times by Insty” is a non-falsifiable proposition.
    (c) You realize, as you move closer to the Hagerstown Singularity, more will be required of you.

  9. @Weimer,
    (a) This was an RSM post, and
    (b) “You’ve been linked sufficient times by Insty” is a non-falsifiable proposition.
    (c) You realize, as you move closer to the Hagerstown Singularity, more will be required of you.

Comments are closed.