As I continue my recent foray into law school grades, one thing I've been interested in over the years are the variations in the percentile ranks between years. With a curve in place, one would expect these to be relatively constant. However, the curve has a lot of room for professors to play with, and based on limited empirical data but lots of anecdotes, some classes have harsh professors while others do not. That may be one reason for variances.

What I've done, then, is take the data and chart it. The first thing that becomes clear when it's charted is that the differences aren't that great. Of course, with a range that effectively begins at 2.0 and ends at 4.0, there won't be too much going on, anyway. Depending on where you fall and how much you care, these little changes can indeed be meaningful. What's more, even some of these little differences can be interesting.

I've pulled the cut-offs for each of the percentiles and charted them. I've done two different types of charts. The first type is a combined chart by year of the numbers as distributed by the registrar. The second type is a multi-year chart by class, so see where the variations are there. I've included the Fall 2006 combined chart, even though it's the only Fall data I've kept. Because it's the only one, and also because most of the interesting stuff happens at year-end, I didn't do anything with Fall data in the class-by-class breakdowns.

• Spring 2007 Combined
• Fall 2006 Combined
• Spring 2006 Combined
• Spring 2005 Combined
• 3FT-4PT By Year
• 2FT-2PT-3PT By Year
• 1FT-1PT By Year

Combined Charts

For someone who purportedly doesn't care about grades, you certainly spend a lot of time thinking about them and analyzing them!

All the better for the rest of us, though, that can refer here for info on the curve. Thanks!

I obviously care about grades. I certainly didn't intend to suggest that I don't care about them. However, I don't really feel like I have a whole lot riding on my grades.

The recent attraction has largely been playing with my spreadsheet, waiting to see what I would need to do to secure a cum laude distinction at graduation. That's not mandatory, of course. It's just something I figure would be nice to have. After this semester, I would have to really screw up a year of electives (I've got all required courses out of the way) not to get it.

Of course, it was "easy" for me. As I mentioned in response to your grades post, as a part-timer, I was never going to be transfering, and my low grades in Contracts (B- & C- -- I never could get the hang of Osborn) took me out of the running for the money in the top 10 students. However, I never lived the 1L life you described, either. I set out to enjoy this experience, and I would say that the only truly unenjoyable part is the waiting.

Take it from someone who has great grades and has never fallen below the top 10%. Coming from USF, it doesn't land you a job. Perhaps just bragging rights at school, if that.

While top grades don't secure you a job, most of the people I know that are up in the top of the class have found good jobs. You still have to be able to interview and sell yourself but grades absolutely matter. In fact, at USF grades probably matter much more than they do at other higher ranked schools. In the legal recruiting world if you are at a lower ranked school you've have to be in the top of the class to be marketable. Mediocre grades at Stanford? You'll still get a job. Mediocre grades at USF? You've got little to no chance, at least as far as Big Law goes.

Don't let anyone fool you, how you do in your first year gradeswise is huge in terms of your job prospects. The system sucks but it is what it is.

And as far as bragging rights go, are you serious? I don't think there are many people at school who would actually be lame enough to brag about their grades.