The Curve: A Law Student’s False Friend
By: Law School Humor
Throughout my three years at law school, I have seen the effects that “the curve” has had on students. The curve, in effect, makes it so that it is nearly impossible to fail any law school class. Students, especially upper-class students who have experienced the curve, change their study habits to reflect the almost guaranteed minimum, resulting in less studying, less class preparation, and less effort. While I am not calling for the end of the curve, I am, however, calling for a change in how the curve is used to more accurately reflect a student’s effort.
The current system of how the curve works encourages many students to put forth the bare minimum of effort. Most upper-class students know that they simply cannot fail a class because a professor’s curve will only go as low as a C. Other students, moreover, know that with a few hours of studying they will likely fall into the class average and obtain a B. I am constantly surprised with how many students admit to me that they do not begin studying for a final or midterm until shortly before the exam. I am then more surprised to hear that they not only passed the exam, but also got a B.
In some instances, there is simply no reason to study at all if all you wish to obtain is a B, which is an embarrassing reality of the curve. My school, Touro Law School, for example, offers a “Pass/No Credit” option. In order to receive credit for a “Pass/No Credit” class, a student must receive a grade of C+ or higher. Each student is entitled to use this option twice for non-required courses outside of 1L year. When I exercised this option, I did no studying for the course’s final and still received a grade much higher than was required to receive credit. I knew that it would be nearly impossible to obtain a grade lower than a C+, and I was right.
To illustrate this point, perhaps actual data of law school grades is required. In my American Legal Studies class, a 3L class that focuses on bar preparation, there were 175 students who took the midterm. The midterm was valued at 100 points, and the high score in the class was a 98 and the lowest was a 24. The “A” range, including grades from A+ to A-, was from 98 to 68, which included 44 students. The “B” range, including grades from B+ to B-, was from 66 to 36, which included 114 students. Finally, the “C” range, which included C+ and C, was from 34 to 24, which accounted for 17 students. Most shocking to me was that there was no grade below a C on this exam. There were 6 students that received below a 30 on this exam, and none of them received a grade lower than a C. Furthermore, the sheer size of the B range shows that it is very difficult to fall below this range. The lowest score on this exam, 24, only fell 12 points below the score required to be in the B range, 36. A 36 on this examination should not even be a passing grade, let alone fall in the B range. There is no doubt that students are aware of how this scoring system works and tailor their efforts accordingly.
For those students who believe a B average is acceptable, the curve is actually most problematic. The curve makes obtaining a B so easy that it fosters low effort in school. If it were more difficult to obtain the B, students would be forced to put more effort into their studying, class preparation, and class participation to achieve their desired results. The low effort needed to obtain a B in law school, equates to more difficulties in passing the bar exam. After attending law school for three years, where very little work is actually required, students will undoubtedly believe that their current work ethic is acceptable, resulting in this same level of effort being applied to studying for the bar exam. In fact, my school is an excellent example of this point: my law school currently ranks fourteenth out of New York’s fifteen law schools in bar-passage rates. Perhaps allowing students to receive a C for a score of 24 out of 100 in a bar exam review course is a poor choice.
My law school, however, may actually hold the key to using the curve effectively to foster a greater work ethic. Rule 2.74 of my school’s student handbook is a requirement that applies to first-year classes and one that I support: “8% to 15% of all grades for Required First Year Courses . . . initially submitted to the registrar shall consist of grades of C- (C minus = 1.667) or lower.” Unfortunately, this rule only applies to first-year classes and not to upper-level classes: “For elective courses with 30 or more Touro students, the mean of all final grades submitted — irrespective of the use or non-use of ‘bumps’ — shall be greater than or equal to 2.90 and less than 3.36.” To increase work ethic of upper-level students, schools should require a higher percentage of curved classes to submit grades that fall at a C and lower, including failing students who clearly put forth no effort. Regarding my school’s upper-level course curve requirement, I would reduce the range from 2.90 to 3.36 to a flat 2.667, which is a B-. This requirement would, at the least, force students to put forth some moderate amount of effort to obtain a B.
The curve has its purpose and is a necessity in law school. There are often “different” sections inside of law school, comprised of the same cohort of students, and these groups of students usually take core classes within their own section. As my student handbook states, “The curve[] [is] designed primarily to promote fairness and normalize grading among different sections.” The curve must be modified to promote the “fairness” it purports to create. It is unfair to students at the top of the B range, who have put forth an effort, to receive the same grade as those at the very bottom. To those students who receive a failing score on their bar exam after obtaining a consistent B average throughout law school, the current curve system is most unfair.
