LSATs and Letter Grades: Telling, or Useless?
Last week Harvard Law School joined Yale and Stanford’s law schools in adopting a no-letter-grades policy. Georgetown University Law Center has not jumped on the bandwagon at this point, although FOX News commentator Greta Van Susteren admitted that during her time there as an adjunct law professor, she gave mostly A’s. “Have you ever graded? It really is disturbing that it affects people’s lives the way it does when it is so … subjective.”
And two weeks ago, the University of Michigan announced a program that would allow its undergraduates to apply to its law school, but included the condition that these students not take the LSAT.
Both stories caught fire in our comments. We want to keep the discussion going. Do you think those who can’t make the grade or ace the test are just whiners, or do you think that numbers are sabotaging great legal talent? If you believe the latter, what alternatives to these metrics would you propose that law schools and law firms consider?
Respond in the comments below.
Read last week’s question and answers about illegal interview questions.
Our favorite answer from last week:
Posted by mills: “In the mid-1980s, I was in an interview at a company with the General Counsel and CFO. The CFO asked me if I had any serious illness such as cancer. He went on to explain that they had hired someone who had cancer and that person’s medical bills caused their health insurance premiums to increase. I could not believe that the General Counsel would let an officer of the company not only ask such a question, but to explain why the question was asked.”
