Trivia Tuesday: The University of Chicago Law School’s Numerical Grading System

by Clear Admit Posted on May 15, 2012

In this addition of Trivia Tuesday, we’re taking a look at the University of Chicago Law School’s grading system.  While many of its peer schools have made changes to their grading systems in the past couple of years, such as altering the curve to increase the number of students who could be given A-range grades (as NYU did) or effectively getting rid of grades entirely (as Harvard Law and Stanford have done by switching to simplified Honors, Pass, Low Pass, Fail systems), Chicago has held steadfast to the unique numbers-based scheme it has used for decades without a hint that it intends to change its ways any time soon.

Chicago’s system is based on a 186-point scale, with the numbers roughly corresponding to letter grades (i.e. 180-186 = the A-range and 174-179 = the B-range).  The curve requires instructors to give an equal number of A-range grades as C-range grades in classes enrolling over 50 students, and to ensure the median grade is a 177, or B/B+.  Seminars are given more leeway, and the median in those classes is usually higher.

Since the unconventional complexity of Chicago’s grading system would be likely to confuse recruiters, the Registrar of the University records the numerical grades as letter grades on students’ official transcript.  This resolves any bewilderment recruiters and interviewers might feel concerning Chicago students’ grades.

For more information about Chicago’s grading system, be sure to read the Clear Admit School Guide to Chicago Law School!

 

Posted in School: Chicago, Trivia Tuesday | Comments Off

University of Chicago Law Women’s Caucause Hosts Judges

by Clear Admit Posted on May 14, 2012

The Law Women’s Caucus at University of Chicago Law School hosted an Illinois Supreme Court justice and three federal district court judges on April 11th, for a lunchtime discussion about the intersection of law and gender.  Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis and Northern District of Illinois Judges Rebecca R. Pallmeyer ’79, Amy J. St. Eve and Virginia M. Kendall talked about their experiences as women in the judiciary and shared insights on how to balance their demanding positions with their family and home life. The women shared their own personal roads to their judiciary positions and reflected on the differences in the opportunities available to women then and now. The speakers also offered their own advice, such as Rebecca Pallmeyer who initially worked for a commercial law firm before securing a position as an administrative law judge for the Illinois Human Rights Commission. She stated “If you go to work for a big law firm, that’s fine. Do not live up to the salary you’re being paid. Put some of that money aside… That way, if you’re offered a terrific position in public service, you can afford to take it.” The other speakers shared insights and advice as well, sharing with law students bits of advice and wisdom.

For the full press release, go here.

Posted in Law School News, School: Chicago | Comments Off

Harvard Law School Selects Environmental Law and Policy Program Policy Director

by Clear Admit Posted on May 11, 2012

Harvard Law School has selected Kate Konschnik, current Chief Environmental Counsel to U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) as the Environmental Law and Policy Program’s Policy Director. As Director, Konschnik will work together with the Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic to support a new environmental policy project. She will also contribute by working to develop existing projects and research initiatives. In her current role, Konschnik has worked with the Senator’s office on various important environmental policy issues and helped the Senator move closer towards establishing a National Endowment for the Oceans.

Archibald Cox Professor of Law and Director of Harvard Law School’s Environmental Law Program Jody Freeman stated: “As the new Policy Director, Kate will add a critical component to our burgeoning environmental law program—developing policy initiatives on issues like renewable energy, fracking, offshore drilling and carbon capture technology. Some of this work will build on projects initiated in our highly successful Environmental Law Clinic and some will be entirely new. Kate’s work will help to promote policy relevant faculty research and enlarge HLS’s footprint in important environmental, climate and energy debates.”

For the full press release, go here.

Posted in Law School News, School: Harvard | Comments Off

Guest Post from Anna Ivey Consulting: Disclosing Criminal Issues in Your Application: Useful Terminology and FAQs

by Clear Admit Posted on May 10, 2012

Gregory Henning from Anna Ivey Consulting shares other useful tips about disclosing a  criminal issue on your law school application.

Disclosing Criminal Issues in Your Application: Useful Terminology and FAQs
by Gregory Henning

In a previous post we discussed the general rules to follow when assessing when and how to disclose a criminal issue in your background. Even with those rules in mind, however, you might find yourself struggling with how to answer a “disclosure” question on an application (whether college, law school, business school, etc.) because you aren’t familiar with the terminology.

Criminal disclosure questions often include terms that may seem familiar to you, but have specific meaning in the context of an application (e.g., arrest, charge, adjudication, conviction, “no contest,” expunge, etc.).

When you are being asked to disclose information as part of your application, it is your responsibility to know which terms apply to your situation and whether disclosure is required. You may feel comfortable remaining blissfully ignorant now (after all, if you don’t know what the terms mean, how can you be held accountable if you make a mistake?), but as we discussed in the previous post the repercussions of a “mistake” in your disclosure can be far reaching.

The best way to guarantee that you are fully informed before answering a disclosure question is to speak to an attorney who practices criminal law in the jurisdiction where your incident took place. Then, and only then, can you be certain how to classify your situation before answering the application question. The descriptions below should not in any way be taken as legal advice. Instead, they provide a general overview of the terminology you might find on applications, a basic glossary to consider before you seek further assistance in addressing your concerns.

Was I Charged with a Crime?

Applications may ask if you have ever been “arrested, cited, or charged with any criminal violation.” Generally speaking, a charge is a formal accusation of a crime. A charge is usually brought by way of some “charging document.” Charging documents include criminal complaints, indictments, or an information. It is not essential that you know the definitions of complaint, indictment or information. The important thing to determine is whether one of these documents was ever filed accusing you of a crime.
Continue reading →

Posted in Anna Ivey - The Ivey Files | Comments Off

Practice LSAT Logic Problem: The Graduation Game II

by Clear Admit Posted on May 9, 2012

Today’s practice LSAT logic game comes from the folks at Manhattan LSAT.   Try to answer the questions on your own, and then follow this link to the Logic Games Challenge page to post your answers to the Manhattan LSAT forums in order to be eligible to win a discount on their courses!

Seven friends—K, L, M, N, O, P, and R—all graduated within a six year span, The earliest graduated in 2001, and the latest in 2006. No more than two friends graduated in any particular year. The following conditions apply:

K and O graduated two years apart.
P and M graduated in consecutive years, though not necessarily in that order.
N graduated in 2003.
O and L graduated in the same year.
No one else graduated in the year that K graduated.

1. Which of the following could be an accurate accounting of when the friends graduated?
(A) 2001: P, 2002: M, 2003: N, 2004: K, 2005: R, 2006: L and O.
(B) 2001: P, 2002: K, 2003: N, 2004: O and L, 2005: R, 2006: M
(C) 2001: R, 2002: O, 2003: N and L, 2004: K, 2005: M, 2006: P
(D) 2001: P, 2002: M, 2003: R, 2004: K, 2005: N, 2006: L and O.
(E) 2001: P, 2002: M, 2003: N, 2004: R, 2005: L and O, 2006: K

2. If K graduated in 2002, which of the following must be true?
(A) R graduated in 2001.
(B) R graduated in 2006.
(C) P graduated in 2005.
(D) M graduated in 2005.
(E) M graduated in 2006.

Continue reading →

Posted in LSAT - Logic Games | Tagged | Comments Off

Trivia Tuesday: The Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Competition at Columbia Law School

by Clear Admit Posted on May 8, 2012

In today’s Trivia Tuesday, we’re discussing Columbia Law School’s Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Competition, the crown jewel of the CLS mooting program.

The Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Competition is held in three rounds starting in Autumn Term.  The tournament is open to all second- and third-year students who have not previously placed in the finals or semifinals for the Stone competition.  In the first round, students must present their oral arguments to a panel of lawyers and judges.  Sixteen contestants then go on to the semifinal round, which takes place in the spring. The contestants write briefs on two different issues raised by a given case and argue both sides of these cases.  The group of 16 semifinalists is then whittled down to four finalists, who present their arguments to a panel of well-known judges and a large audience. The competitor with the best oral presentation wins a prize.  However, all students who submit a brief for the competition have the option of receiving writing credit for their effort.  In 2009, Stone Competition participants worked with a fictional case that required thorough exploration of environmental issues and Native American religious freedom.

Columbia has one of the most active moot court programs of any leading law school, requiring 1Ls to participate in its Foundation Moot Court to practice their appellate brief-writing skills and present an oral argument in front of a panel of judges.

To learn more about mooting opportunities at CLS and other student organizations, check out the Clear Admit Law School Guide to Columbia Law School!

Posted in School: Columbia, Trivia Tuesday | Comments Off