CURBING THE CURVE: WHY DO LAW SCHOOLS CONTINUE TO USE THE GRADING CURVE?
Author: Avery Dietz, Associate Editor
Most attorneys and law students alike are acquainted with the curved grading system commonly used by law school institutions. The empirical research available suggests that almost half of students believe law schools should not be grading on a curve.[i] The grading curve’s innate characteristics contribute significantly to student stress.[ii] These innate characteristics include the facts that (1) students cannot control their grades because such grades are based on comparisons to their classmates’ performance, (2) students are unable to predict their grades due to their grades being uncontrollable, and (3) the grading curve promotes competition rather than cooperation.[iii] So, then, in a field where nearly half of students experience depression after only three years of schooling[iv], why do law schools continue to promote and utilize the curved grading system?
One possibility for continuing to utilize the grading curve, despite students’ reported stress resulting from such a system, could stem from the fact that the curved system is a proverbial “lesser evil.”[v] One sample, taken from the William H. Bowen School of Law (part of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock), demonstrates that professors not working with a mandatory curved grading scale results in a disparity of grades across classes.[vi] This disparity presents as a difference in grade point averages (GPA) across different sections of the same classes.[vii] To some, this disparity is unfair to students because those assigned to professors who award “tougher” grades are at a disadvantage to those who received professors who award “easier” grades.[viii]
Another proposal for why law schools continue to use the grading curve is that it is simply the easiest method on the faculty. Generally, law professors are trained very little, if at all, about how to make and grade exams and other assignments.[ix] Some suggest that in an absence of training, law professors will use their own experiences as a crutch when grading and creating assignments.[x] In schools that have been long utilizing the grading curve, the inclination to use a similar curve, instead of developing a new system by which to grade students, can be tempting and usually prevails.[xi]
A third possibility is that law professors use the grading curve to reach tenure faster. What some may not realize is that this grading system is propagated by law schools’ faculty members, rather than the American Bar Association, which only broadly defines how institutions’ academic standards should appear.[xii] The grading curve is just one tool utilized by the faculty of any given law school in order to serve their self-centric desires.
The traditional model of law schools envelop a shared governance between the faculty and school administrators.[xiii] The faculty control the rules and expectations for themselves as well as the students in these types of institutions.[xiv] Tenure, a form of job security meant to protect professors from removal for controversial ideas and beliefs, is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for which all professors strive.[xv] In order to achieve tenure, professors must obey the holy trinity of “teaching, scholarship, and service.”[xvi] As one former professor, Richard Matasar, framed it: “You need to do decently well in your teaching evaluations so that people think you are doing a good job. But, do not invest too highly in trying to perfect your classes because the marginal payoff is low… if you follow this advice you will get tenure, you will become famous, the school will value you, your salary will go up, and you will have the opportunity to move up the hierarchy to a fancier school with better students.”[xvii] What Matasar argues is that schools where faculty govern themselves are governed by self-interest.[xviii]
A key point in Matasar’s advice to law professors is “to do decently well in your teaching evaluations so people think you are doing a good job.”[xix] The grading curve serves this point well, as there will always be an even spread of grades; no class will have blanket F’s, where clearly the material is too difficult, or blanket A’s, where the material may be too easy for students.
It would take an investigative expert to uncover the reasons for the grading curve at each law school that utilizes it; these are just some suggestions as to why some schools’ faculty may choose to use it. Disregarding the reasons for using a grading curve, let’s now turn to the repercussions of using such a grading system.
Law students display levels of anxiety and depression that far surpass that of the general population. In one study, psychologists noticed that a new class of law students, with anxiety and depression levels mirroring that of the general population, had their stress levels rise from eight to fifteen times more than the general population.[xx] The levels of anxiety and depression do not fade as students become acclimated to school; rather, they actually increase each year that schooling continues.[xxi]
One writer believes that there are four core paradigms at the center of the educational culture of American law schools.[xxii] These paradigms, though distinct, all share in one similar theme: “you must work very, very hard, and you must excel in the competition for grades and honors, in order to feel good about what you have done, have the respect of your teachers and peers, get a desirable job, and generally be successful.”[xxiii] The anxiety and depression that students often face stems from taking on mountainous workloads under “competitive pressures,” all in anticipation of grades.[xxiv]
It is the ambiguity that surrounds the curved grading system that heightens these anxieties of law students.[xxv] Maybe, as some suggest, the curved grading system is the lesser of all evils, in terms of how law students are assessed.[xxvi] One thing is for certain, law students exhibit much more anxiety, depression, and stress levels than the average person, and grades are a significant contributing factor in developing those stressors. Perhaps, instead of providing students with mere resources to manage their stress levels, it is time for law schools to address the root of the problem and have a serious discussion about changing the grading system.
[i] Jessica Clark, Grades Matter; Legal Writing Grades Matter Most, 32 Miss. C. L. Rev. 375, 394 (2014).
[ii] Id. at 309-310.
[iii] Id.
[iv] Mike Robinson, 6 Law Student Mental Health Statistics, Clio Blog (last updated August 10, 2023), https://www.clio.com/blog/law-student-mental-health-statistics/.
[v] Joshua Silverstein, In Defense of Mandatory Curves, 34 Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 253, 256 (2012).
[vi] Id. at 255.
[vii] Id.
[viii] Id. at 264.
[ix] DeShun Harris, Let’s Talk About Grading, Maybe: Using Transparency About the Grading Process to Aid in Student Learning, 45 U.L. Rev. 805, 820 (2022).
[x] Id.
[xi] Wikipedia, List of law school GPA curves, www.Wikipedia.com (last updated April 2, 2024), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_school_GPA_curves.
[xii] American Bar, 2023-2024 Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/misc/legal_education/Standards/2018-2019ABAStandardsforApprovalofLawSchools/2018-2019-aba-standards-chapter3.pdf.
[xiii] Richard Matasar, Second Panel: Deans: Defining our Responsibilities: Being an Academic Fiduciary, 17 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 67, 69 (2008).
[xiv] Id. at 70.
[xv] Association of American Law Schools, Frequently Asked Questions, https://teach.aals.org/tenure-track-faq (last visited April 8, 2024).
[xvi] Silverstein, supra note v.
[xvii] Matador, supra note xiii at 71
[xviii] Id. at 91.
[xix] Id. at 70.
[xx] Abigail Loftus & Elizabeth Usman, Unrealized Potential: How Shifting the Focus to Student Learning Outcomes Could Reduce Law Student Distress, 95 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 179, 186 (2018).
[xxi] Id.
[xxii] Lawrence Krieger, Institutional Denial About the Dark Side of Law School, and Fresh Empirical Guidance for Constructively Breaking the Silence, 52 J. LEGAL EDUC. 112, 117 (2002).
[xxiii] Id.
[xxiv] Id.
[xxv] Clark, supra note i.
[xxvi] Loftus & Usman, supra note xx.