Behind the Curve: Rethinking Norm-Referenced Grading in First-Year Legal Writing Courses

undefined

Introduction

There is no debate: law school grades (still) matter.^[1] Long before students don cap and gown, grades^[2]—often earned as early as fourteen weeks into law school—influence, if not dictate, future outcomes by signaling to students which paths are open to them and which are closed.^[3] Even in first-year legal writing courses,^[4] where students receive extensive feedback and their performance is often evaluated against criterion-based standards, final course grades collapse a student’s lawyering competencies into a single hierarchical symbol. Add those symbols together with those from other 1L courses and each student ends up with a 1L GPA. High 1L GPAs lead to summer employment, teaching and research assistantships, and invitations to law reviews.^[5] Low GPAs can result in extra classes,^[6] extra tuition,^[7] and sometimes even dismissal from law school.^[8] The impact of first-year grades is so substantial that the ABA’s House of Delegates passed a resolution in August 2023 “urg[ing] legal employers to evaluate law students holistically during the On-Campus Interview process by considering more than a student’s grade point average and class rank.”^[9]

Despite their import, law school grading practices have received sporadic attention in legal scholarship over the last three decades.^[10] Even less has been written about grading practices in first-year legal writing courses. This relative silence has endured despite the major changes law schools have made to their grading practices over the last fifty years—changes that have affected students and legal education. This article begins to fill that gap by reporting on the first empirical studies of grading practices in first-year legal writing courses.

This article makes two important contributions. First, it demonstrates that the broad law school movement to adopt grade normalization dates to the 1990s and was rooted in concerns about a very narrow conception of “fairness.”^[11] Unlike their casebook colleagues,^[12] leaders in the development of the legal writing discipline did not champion normalized grades per se. Instead, to combat decades of marginalization within their institutions, they advocated for grading first-year legal writing courses just like every other required first-year course.^[13] For them, grading parity communicated the importance of legal writing courses and faculty. Although they advocated for grading parity, they developed first-year legal writing courses that were markedly different from casebook courses. Legal writing courses place students into the role of the lawyer and introduce them to a wide range of lawyering skills. In addition, students complete numerous assignments and receive frequent, detailed feedback—a stark contrast to large, lecture-style casebook courses.

Second, this article discusses two new data sets that I developed about law school grading practices.^[14] These studies, which I conducted between January 2022 and September 2024, demonstrate that most first-year legal writing courses are now governed by grade normalization policies.^[15] Though these grading policies vary widely from institution to institution, many require faculty who teach first-year legal writing courses to use the same normalization methods as casebook courses. This finding is particularly alarming because first-year legal writing courses, unlike their casebook counterparts, focus on helping students develop numerous lawyering competencies through intensive feedback, reflection, and iteration. Additionally, they use multiple modes of assessment throughout a student’s learning cycle, the results of which cannot be easily summed up and ranked hierarchically.

The data also suggests that a student’s first-year legal writing grades may say more about which law school they attend and its placement in the U.S. News & World Report (U.S. News) rankings than it does about what they have learned. That is because higher-ranked schools have grading policies that produce higher grades. As a result, students who attend higher-ranked law schools with more lenient grade normalization policies experience a double-bump from their higher grades.^[16] This double-bump has the effect of undervaluing the lawyering competencies of most students.^[17]

This article raises important concerns about current grading policies for first-year legal writing courses. While grading “fairness” and faculty/course equity remain important, this article argues that normalized grades in first-year legal writing courses—at least as they have been established by current law school grading policies—do not adequately or equitably address these concerns. As a result, law faculty should revisit the rationales for maintaining grade normalization policies in first-year legal writing courses and begin the process of reform.

I. Motivate and Sort: The Roots of Normalized Grades in Law Schools

Grades are embedded in all aspects of the U.S. educational system.^[18] Their origin and modern evolution are intimately bound up with nineteenth and early-twentieth-century social, cultural, and economic history.^[19] Within the broader scientification and bureaucratization of American education, grades acquired new significance, evolving into powerful symbols of academic aptitude and future promise. Unsurprisingly, the practice of grading in American legal education also reflects these historical patterns and pressures.

A. The Origin of Grading in American Education

From their beginning in the United States, schools served to acculturate a complex and stratified society. In the early years of American education, schools primarily emphasized three core elements: basic numeracy, literacy, and moral instruction.^[20] Without access to paper and pencil, student assessment focused on memorization and recitation, and students were often ranked and re-ranked daily.^[21] By the mid-1800s, schools began moving away from daily, public quizzing and re-ranking to periodic report cards.^[22] Education reformers believed that issuing private, periodic report cards would decrease overt competition and “return the focus of education to the intrinsic value of learning rather than the extrinsic motivation of academic acclaim.”^[23]

With the U.S. population rapidly increasing, progressive educators and industrialists alike argued that democracy and capitalism depended on compulsory education for the expanding U.S. populace.^[24] In addition, they argued that standardizing grades and grading systems would facilitate tracking students as they moved through the educational system.^[25] Despite the perceived benefits of standardized grading, by World War I, grading systems and the meaning of grades within those systems still varied.^[26] This variability presented a challenge for policy-makers and school leaders who were enamored with the mental testing movement.^[27]

This period was marked by the profound influence of social Darwinism on learning theories. Psychologists and psychometricians^[28] sought to identify the contours of “natural intelligence” and quantify it.^[29] Among these scholars, education psychologist and Columbia University’s Teachers College professor Edward Lee Thorndike^[30] set about developing subject-specific achievement scales that could be used to assess students’ achievements.^[31] He captured the tenor of the times when he wrote in 1927: “Men are born unequal in intellect, character, and skill. It is impossible and undesirable to make them equal by education. The proper work of education is to improve all men according to their several possibilities, in ways consistent with the welfare of all.”^[32] Extending the theories of inherited (and hierarchical) intelligence, Thorndike and his peers developed other theories such as behaviorism, reinforcement, and the law of effect, all of which focused on teaching people to act in certain ways based on punishment and reward.^[33]

During this period, standardized testing emerged as a solution to the widely held belief that people needed to be sorted. By 1932, 73% of the cities with more than 100,000 residents used IQ tests to assign students to schooling tracks based on ability.^[34] Once placed on those tracks, grades purportedly motivated students to reach their highest genetic potential. These individual course grades, and the even more simplified composite grade or Grade Point Average, also provided an efficient package to communicate a student’s academic performance and potential to various audiences. By the mid-1900s, most schools—from elementary to college—had adopted the A-F grading scale.^[35] Additionally, many of those grades were being assigned according to a curve distribution.^[36]

B. The Challenge of Making Law School Grades “Fair”

As formal legal education took hold in the United States, newly formed law schools also adopted practices to motivate and sort.^[37] Reflecting positively in 1875 on Harvard Law School’s new requirement that all law students complete undergraduate education before enrolling, President Charles Eliot stated that law schools “have been for fifty years in process of degradation through the barbarous practice of admitting to them persons wholly destitute of academic culture.”^[38] This new admission criterion effectively eliminated 96% “of the otherwise eligible population.”^[39] From increasing admission standards to instituting exams, law school leaders sought to rehabilitate the maligned profession and ensure its members regained a respected and influential place in the unfolding American narrative. “Direct and indirect exclusion based on wealth, race, ethnicity, gender, and religion was a status-related theme that animated access to the profession throughout the twentieth century.”^[40]

In addition to implementing more stringent admissions standards, law schools also began experimenting with more formalized student evaluations. By the early 1900s, law schools across the country had adopted graded essay-style exams as the primary mode of student assessment.^[41] These graded exams and the consequences that followed them brought new attention to grading.^[42] Professors began to question whether student performance could be reliably and objectively assessed. A series of early-twentieth-century grading studies at Columbia Law School, conducted by one of Thorndike’s former students, Ben Wood, revealed widespread grading discrepancies.^[43] Based on his six-year study, Wood determined that course material, instructional methods, and examination styles were fairly consistent across classes, but grades varied dramatically from one professor to the next.^[44] For example, from 1916 to 1922, the average grade for all courses at Columbia Law School was “a very high C+.”^[45] However, from year to year the average grade fell from a B- to a C and the percentage of A grades steadily decreased from 25.4% to 10.6% while other grades across the range fluctuated up and down.^[46] These trends occurred even though there was no concerted effort at the law school to increase examination standards and no decrease in student admission standards.^[47] Wood concluded that law professor subjectivity rather than students’ inherent acumen lay at the heart of the grading discrepancy.^[48] Another study conducted by Wood revealed that, in the 1918–1919 academic year, nearly 40% of the grades in one first-year course were Ds or Fs, whereas less than 10% of the grades in another first-year course were Ds or Fs, despite the two courses sharing at least 95% of the same students.^[49] Wood concluded that, “[i]f reasoning power is as fickle and inconsistent as these figures would indicate, it would not seem to be worth measuring at all.”^[50]

Wood’s negative reaction to the variability of grades was based, at least in part, on his belief in natural intelligence. He assumed that any given student should perform about the same in every course because “the material of law courses from the viewpoint of the psychology of learning and of thinking is very homogeneous, and the method of teaching is the same in practically all the law classes.”^[51] He proposed various reforms, including that Columbia Law School require a standard intelligence test as part of the admissions process.^[52]

Wood was not alone. Emphasizing similar concerns over grading fairness that were tethered to ideas of natural intelligence, Professor John Grant expanded on Wood’s work at Columbia and, in 1929, proposed a single standard of grading.^[53] Grant was driven by his concern that “naturally” smart people were receiving grades that did not reflect their natural intelligence.^[54] For him, this result was particularly unjust because he thought that the most important practical significance of grades was their ability to accurately sort students’ comparative achievements for proper allocation of awards, fellowships, and jobs.^[55] He noted:

In most law schools eligibility for membership on the board of editors of the law review is based largely upon the candidate’s average grade. Where scholarship assistance is given worthy students in need, it is the average grade that determines the worthy student. The leading law firms consciously compete in obtaining the services of graduates who have high scholastic rank, measured by their average grades, and in many law schools a minimum average is required for continuance in the school.^[56]

Therefore, in order for a student’s average grade (or GPA) to have useful comparative meaning, Grant argued that professors needed to align their grading standards.

To solve this problem of improperly identifying comparative human intelligence, Grant proposed a distribution of possible grades that students could earn in each class. He calculated this distribution by mapping average course grades from previous years onto Thorndike test scores.^[57] As the name suggests, Thorndike test scores were derived from an intelligence test created by the same education psychologist and Columbia’s Teachers College professor Edward Lee Thorndike who believed that there was a genetic basis for each person’s capacity for abstract thinking that could be measured. The base distribution Grant devised from his calculation set grades between A and F as follows:^[58]

Grant’s base distribution fit a bell-type curve, which is not surprising based on his belief that natural human cognitive ability fit that sort of curve.^[59] What may be surprising is that the distribution he suggested in 1929 looks a lot like the grade curve produced by some law school grading policies today.

C. Achieving “Fairness” by Normalizing Law School Grades

Both Wood and Grant were right about one thing: scoring student work can be unreliable. Studies demonstrate that numerous human factors complicate the grading process.^[60] Student grades can be impacted by differences in grading criteria and professor leniency.^[61] Grades might also be impacted by something as simple as the order in which a professor reviewed the submission.^[62] Despite questions about how to reliably evaluate essay-style exams and some proposals to adopt “objective” tests,^[63] law schools have continued to heavily rely on high-stakes final essay exams, especially in the critical 1L year.

To address the grading “fairness” concerns, that is to say—“to compensate for the differences among professors or between academic years”—law schools adopted rules around grading, and those rules included policies to normalize grades.^[64] Normalized (or norm-referenced) grading encapsulates various grading practices that share a common principle: grades are standardized and reflect how a student performed in relation to other students. Even when faculty identify criteria and use explicit rubrics to evaluate a student’s work, in most law school courses, at the end of the semester that data gets neatly packaged, stacked up, and measured against data from other students in the same course to determine each student’s final grade. Law schools have adopted various grade normalization practices, including means, medians, standard deviations, and prescribed distributions. Additionally, these practices have been subject to various levels of administrative rigidity, from soft recommendation to mandatory requirement.

To current law students (and perhaps even professors) normalized grades may seem as old and enduring as Langdell’s Socratic method, but grade normalization policies are a fairly recent phenomenon. A study on law school grading policies conducted by Professor Steve Nickles in 1975 revealed that many ABA-approved law schools didn’t have any grading policies at all.^[65] His study also revealed that only a small portion of law schools with policies had adopted any sort of mandatory grade distribution.^[66] Most law schools were still eschewing normalized grades in the 1980s. A 1983 survey conducted on behalf of the AALS Teaching Methods Section found that of the 107 responding schools, only 7% “administratively adjust” grades while 35% had “guided curves or suggested grade distributions.”^[67] In fact, most law schools did not require any grade normalization until sometime after 1996—more than sixty-five years after Grant proposed achieving “justice in grading” through curves and at least a decade or two after other educational institutions were beginning to reject normalized grading and to clamor for grading reform.^[68]

Many law schools across the U.S. began tinkering with their formal grading practices in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and this tinkering changed how grades were assigned.^[69] For example, Nancy Kaufman’s 1993 survey of ABA-approved law school grading policies documented that significant changes had occurred in the use of grade normalization between the 1983 AALS study and hers.^[70] At that time, over one-third of the responding schools reported that they had made changes to their school’s grading practices within the previous five years,^[71] and over half of those schools altered their grade normalization policy.^[72] Notably, twelve schools adopted grade norming practices for the first time and eight schools made changes to existing curve policies.^[73] Additionally, the survey results indicated that 66.4% of the responding law schools had adopted some form of grade normalization for some courses.^[74] Importantly, at that time, only 21% of law schools reported that they required grades in first-year courses to be normalized.^[75]

Just three years later, in 1996, Robert C. Downs and Nancy Levit conducted another nationwide survey of law school grading practices that returned even more granular data.^[76] Together, these studies suggest that the number of law schools normalizing student grades was increasing. For example, whereas the 1993 Kaufman study reported that 66.4% of responding law schools used some sort of grade normalization practices, three years later, in the 1996 Downs & Levit survey, 84%, or 97 of the 116 responding law schools, responded “yes” to the question “Does your law school have formal or informal rules, policies, customs and/or expectations regarding the standardization or normalization of grades?”^[77]

The Downs & Levit data also revealed that many of the surveyed law schools had recently adopted grade normalization policies. While the earliest policy was adopted in 1970, the median year for policy adoption was 1988 and the mean year was 1989.^[78] More importantly, since Kaufman’s 1993 study, seven law schools reported that they had adopted formal grade normalization practices for the first time^[79] and twenty-nine schools reported revising their grade normalization policies.^[80] In comparison, twenty years prior, only 3% of law schools surveyed by Nickles reported requiring professors to adjust grades to a common mean, and 9% required professors to adjust course grades to fit a required distribution.^[81]

In addition to more schools adopting and revising grade normalization policies, the percentage of schools requiring professors to normalize grades also increased. The data from Appendix B to the Downs & Levit survey demonstrates that 32%, or 37 of the 116 responding law schools, reported that their schools required professors to follow grade normalization policies in first-year courses.^[82] Six law schools reported requiring grade normalization in courses based on class size, which presumably would increase the number of law schools curving first-year courses.^[83] Finally, five law schools reported that they require grade normalization in some courses without specifying to which courses those policies applied.^[84] This data represents a significant increase from the Kaufman study where only 21%, or 25 out of 119 responding law schools, reported requiring professors to curve first-year course grades.^[85]

Law school respondents to the Downs & Levit survey reported the same concerns raised by the early critics of law school grading; they explained that they adopted grade normalization policies because of “concerns of fairness, equity among sections, or fears of inequitable grading.”^[86] Although they shared similar concerns, law schools adopted a variety of different grade normalization standards to achieve “fairness”: some policies contained grade distribution requirements, some had mean or median requirements, some required standard deviations, and some had a combination of two or more of these practices.^[87] In addition, schools also applied different grading practices to different courses.^[88] For example, three-quarters of responding schools with formal policies did not apply the same normalization practice to every course.^[89] Some schools made distinctions between first-year and upper-level courses.^[90] Others made distinctions based on size or type of course.^[91]

Reflecting on the fairness concerns surfaced in their survey, Downs and Levit argued for adopting grade normalization policies in the late 1990s, at least in “standards-based” courses, to offset the many factors that impact grade validity and reliability.^[92] They asserted:

People are not hired out of law school based on absolute merit, but on the basis that the individual would be relatively better for the job than the other applicants. One gets ahead in the employment arena not by having a fixed quantity of good stuff, but by demonstrating more good stuff than other workers. In short, the world operates on a curve.^[93]

Fueled, at least in part, by the desire to more accurately and consistently signal each student’s relative performance, this trend toward grade normalization continued apace.^[94] In 2003, less than a decade after the 1996 Downs & Levit survey, the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) sent a memorandum to deans and associate deans at 188 law schools seeking information about grade curves.^[95] The resulting report, completed by Andry Mroch in 2005 (2005 Mroch Report), captured information returned by 145 law schools.^[96] It confirmed that 79.3% of them had adopted formal grading policies, and 70.4% of these policies were mandatory.^[97] Notably, of the 115 law schools reporting formal grading policies, all but one had adopted some sort of norm-referenced grading.^[98] At that time, the most common form of grade normalization was a distribution or “grade range” system where only a certain percentage of students could earn each available mark.^[99] The second most common approach was to establish a mean.^[100] By the early aughts, norm-referenced grading had become the norm—at least in large, lecture-style casebook courses. Legal writing courses soon joined.

II. Legal Writing’s Tangled Roots in Legal Education

The transformation of law school grading practices—from 1975, when only a handful of schools required normalized grades, to 2003, when nearly all schools required or strongly encouraged them—extended beyond casebook courses. Although the 2005 Mroch Report noted that “[m]any policies specify that grading curves do not apply to small courses, legal writing courses, and/or seminars,”^[101] data from surveys jointly conducted by the Association of Legal Writing Directors (ALWD) and the Legal Writing Institute (LWI) tells a different story.^[102] That survey data confirms changes were afoot in first-year legal writing courses as well.

Between 1999 and 2015, law schools adopted or extended their norm-referenced grading policies to first-year legal writing courses. Faculty who taught legal writing advocated for (or acquiesced to) these changes as part of their ongoing efforts to improve their own status and the status of their courses.^[103] Unfortunately, these grade policy changes did not necessarily account for the fact that legal writing courses had already developed into vastly different courses from other required first-year courses. This disconnect between the grade policy changes and the unique nature of legal writing instruction raises new “fairness” concerns.

A. A Brief History of Legal Writing Courses

Although the skills that are now associated with modern legal writing courses have long been part of a law student’s education, the history of teaching theses skills is not linear.^[104] At the turn of the nineteenth century, law schools relied on moot court and practice courts for students to expand their critical thinking, writing, and oral communication skills.^[105] By 1910, on average, law students received 101 instruction hours a year in practice courts, which equals approximately six credit hours under today’s credit-hour standards.^[106]

While practice courts continued to provide opportunities for students to learn and practice legal writing up through the 1930s, critiques began to emerge from the bench and bar in the early 1900s.^[107] At that time, most law schools maintained open admissions policies and few (if any) prerequisites existed for enrolling other than ability to pay. Some decried that newly admitted lawyers were unable to write and argued that this model was not preparing students for law practice.^[108] Some suggested that research and writing should be specifically taught as part of the general law school curriculum, and debates about the purpose and place of law school animated the profession.^[109] Responding to these critiques and concerns, a few law schools, like the University of Michigan, Northwestern, Virginia, and the University of Washington, developed comprehensive legal research and writing curricula by offering a series of required courses that integrated substantive law and law practice skills.^[110] Other law schools, like Washburn, U.C. Berkeley, and Cornell, expanded their writing programs by offering additional drafting courses.^[111] Even with these changes, the glimmers of the modern first-year legal writing course were still a few decades away.

Some scholars have described early legal writing courses as “essentially remedial, gap-filling courses” meant to address the skill deficiencies of students enrolling in law school.^[112] However, curricula from thirty-six law schools in the 1930s suggest a more complicated picture—one in which law schools were trying to enrich their lecture courses with skills-focused offerings that would foster practical lawyering skills in their students.^[113] The University of Chicago Law School is credited with launching the first 1L legal writing program in 1938.^[114] Staffed by one permanent faculty member and four fellows, this eight-credit course spanned both semesters of the 1L year.^[115] Over the course of the year, students spent approximately 300 hours completing twelve written assignments totaling over 25,000 words.^[116] This legal writing course was meant as a “complement to, and remedy for, the shortcomings of traditional first-year doctrinal courses.”^[117] A little under a decade later, the AALS formally recognized two separate categories of skills instruction in its Directory of Teachers in Member Schools: one in “Legal Writing” and another in “Legal Method.”^[118]

Between the 1960s and 1990s, the number of first-year legal writing courses rapidly increased. A survey of individuals listed in the Directory as teaching a “Legal Research & Writing” course and/or a “Legal Bibliography” course revealed that at least sixty-three law schools had courses in one or both of these subjects in the 1969-1970 school year.^[119] The staffing models in these courses varied. Some schools relied on students to teach them while others relied on attorneys or short-term instructors. Most of the responding schools, however, relied on full-time faculty members.^[120] As more law schools began to include legal writing courses in their curriculum, the focus of these courses also evolved.^[121] These practice-oriented courses reflected the ongoing critique that law schools needed to emphasize skills training.^[122]

Without question, by the 1990s, first-year legal writing courses were distinctly different from their predecessor courses and from other required first-year courses.^[123] The Legal Writing Institute, founded in 1984 by J. Christopher Rideout and Laurel Oates to “unite LRW professionals intellectually, to share resources, and to monitor and encourage the development of effective LRW courses,”^[124] launched its first ground-breaking survey of legal writing programs in 1990, with Professor Jill Ramsfield serving as Reporter.^[125] Containing over 100 questions, this survey gathered data about course structure, content, and professional status.^[126] The survey data confirmed that a core legal writing curriculum for first-year students had formed. At that time, most law schools offered two semester-long courses in the first year that focused on legal analysis, research, writing, and speaking.^[127] Even with a high student-to-faculty ratio, faculty teaching these courses provided extensive written and oral feedback to students on numerous practice-focused assignments over the year.^[128]

Since then, first-year legal writing courses have continued to develop as “competency-based courses.”^[129] These competency-based courses have clear, learner-focused objectives, and professors work with students to develop and demonstrate competencies by providing scaffolded assignments, individualized feedback, and frequent assessments. To this end, most legal writing courses now use a combination of formative and summative assessments. Students routinely produce assignment drafts and attend writing conferences during which they receive detailed feedback specific to their work. After receiving this expert feedback, students revise their work and submit a final product. This type of active learning cycle helps students to learn experientially.^[130] Furthermore, it cultivates a growth mindset: a belief that a person’s abilities are fluid, and everyone can “change and grow through application and experience.”^[131]

B. First-Year Legal Writing Courses Follow the Normalized Grading Trend

By 1996, every ABA-approved law school included a legal writing course in its first-year curriculum.^[132] In that year, the ABA formally required all accredited law schools to provide students with a writing experience.^[133] In addition, the ABA adopted the first provisions to protect faculty who taught legal writing.^[134] These protections, however, were inadequate because they permitted law schools to maintain policies and practices that treated these courses and the faculty who taught them differently from casebook courses and faculty.^[135] From contracts to voting rights and salary, many faculty who taught legal writing continued (and continue) to face profoundly unequal treatment.^[136] In fact, in most schools, legal writing course grades were fully integrated into the program of legal education long before the professors giving those grades were.^[137]

Leaders of the field of legal writing saw grading as an opportunity to improve the position of legal writing courses and the faculty who taught them.^[138] This is evident from early national surveys of legal writing programs, scholarship, and the Sourcebook on Legal Writing Programs. The first national legal writing surveys demonstrate an interest in how legal writing classes fit into the overall law school curriculum, rather than in how faculty calculated grades for the legal writing course. Out of the 108 questions in the first 1990 survey, only one question asked about grading. It asked: “How is LRW graded?”^[139] Survey respondents could choose from the following options:

a) graded by letter averaged into GPA

b) graded by letter not averaged into GPA

c) graded by numbers averaged into GPA

d) graded by numbers but not averaged into GPA

e) graded pass/fail or S/U

f) graded honors/pass/fail

g) other _____________^[140]

This question received responses from 125 law schools; 75% of them reported that grades from legal writing courses were averaged into a student’s GPA.^[141] At that time, fifteen responding law schools (12%) indicated that legal writing courses were graded Pass/Fail and nine responding law schools (7%) reported that legal writing courses were graded Honors/Pass/Fail.^[142]

Before 2000, however, there is very little data about how legal writing course grades were actually calculated by each law school. Neither the Kaufman nor the Downs & Levit survey specifically addressed the use of grade normalization in first-year legal writing courses.^[143] Additionally, the ALWD/LWI survey did not probe whether course grading practices relied on norm-referenced policies until 2000.^[144] When the ALWD/LWI survey began to include questions about grading practices in 2000, the surveys only captured general grade policy characteristics.^[145] For example, the 2000 ALWD/LWI Survey included the question: “Is the entry-level program graded on a curve or with a required mean and distribution?”^[146] The 2000 survey did not ask respondents to describe any additional specifics such as which grade mean was required or how grade bands were apportioned in a required distribution. In that year, 136 law schools responded. Of those schools, 72% reported using some type of normalized grades in legal writing courses.^[147]

Between 2000 and 2015, the trend toward using grade normalization in legal writing courses increased. By 2015, 194 law schools responded to the ALWD/LWI survey, and 92% of respondents indicated that legal writing courses used some form of grade normalization.^[148] Additionally, 60% of responding law schools reported that legal writing courses followed the same grade normalization policy as other first-year courses—an increase of nearly 19%.^[149]

Beginning in 2002, the ALWD/LWI Survey also began to capture more granular data about grade normalization policies in first-year legal writing courses. Between 2002 and 2015, the survey asked respondents to report the minimum, maximum, and average required means on a 4.0 scale.^[151] The survey grouped the results by grading category: legal writing courses that applied the same grade policy as other first-year courses; legal writing courses that applied a course-specific grading policy; and legal writing courses that applied some “other” grading policy. During this fifteen-year period, the lowest required mean was a 2.00, and it was reported each year in the category of “legal writing courses applying the same grade policy as other first-year courses.”^[152] Additionally, this 2.0 mean was reported in the category of “Other Policy” in 2015.^[153] The highest reported required mean was 3.75, which appeared each year from 2011 to 2015 in the category of legal writing courses that apply the same grade policy as other first-year courses.^[154] The highest mean grade for a legal writing course applying a course-specific grade policy was 3.70; it appeared in 2006 and remained consistent in the surveys through 2015.^[155] Across all years and types of grading policies, the average required mean fluctuated between 2.71 (B-) and 3.30 (B).^[156]

Recognizing the continued development and even expansion of legal writing courses, after 2015 ALWD and LWI overhauled their survey to gather even more specific data about the “varied, complex, and unique circumstances” of each law school.^[157] While the redesigned survey captured more data on a course-specific basis, after 2015 it no longer clearly captured information about the precise grade normalization requirements for required first-year legal writing courses.

C. Using Grade Policies to Leverage Legal Writing Status

The largest and fastest increase in the number of legal writing courses adopting the “same” grade normalization policy as other first-year courses occurred between 2001 and 2006. During this time, the number of schools applying the same grade policy rose from 41% to 64%.^[158] Two changes impacted this increase. First, law schools that did not apply any normalized grading policies to first-year legal writing courses began to use them, and they chose to apply the same policy that applied to other first-year courses. Second, law schools that had been applying course-specific or “other” grade normalization policies began to use the same policy as other first-year courses. These increases in the early aughts followed recommendations by leaders of the national legal writing community to grade first-year legal writing courses like other required casebook courses. Notably, in 1997, when the first edition of the Sourcebook on Legal Writing Programs (Sourcebook) was published by the American Bar Association, less than 50% of law schools required first-year courses to use norm-referenced grading.^[159] Therefore, grading like other required first-year courses didn’t necessarily mean norming grades.^[160]

Written by the ABA’s Communication Skills Committee, the first edition of the Sourcebook set forth the “parameters and common features that define successful [legal writing] programs.”^[161] It stated that grades in “quality” legal writing courses are expressed the same way as other required first-year courses and factored into a student’s GPA.^[162] It cautioned: “If a school treats legal writing differently, it sends a message to students that the course is not as important as the doctrinal courses, and that the abilities and skills it seeks to inculcate are not essential.”^[163]

At that time, the Sourcebook’s authors seemed concerned about the nearly 20% of first-year legal writing courses that still employed pass/fail grading.^[164] To them, pass/fail grades did not appropriately “reflect a student’s true abilities and skills.”^[165] Instead, a “pass” grade “artificially” communicated to students “that they have all reached the same level of skill,” deceiving students and future employers.^[166] They were also concerned that pass/fail grading sent the wrong message to students about the time, effort, and attention they should dedicate to their legal writing courses.^[167]

Almost ten years later, the second edition of the Sourcebook, published in 2006, continued to advocate for legal writing courses to express grades in the same manner as other required first-year courses.^[168] But by then, almost 70% of law schools required norm-referenced grading for first-year courses.^[169] Grading like other courses had come to mean normalized grading. According to the authors, “[t]he more LRW faculty resemble other faculty members, the more likely it is that the course will be graded like other courses.”^[170] The text went on to explain that grading like other courses in the first-year curriculum and including these grades in a student’s overall GPA “has the significant advantage of helping to integrate the legal writing course into the first-year core curriculum.”^[171] It also noted that when this approach is followed, “[d]octrinal faculty teaching in the first year are more likely to view the legal writing course and faculty as serious contributors to the overall first-year curriculum.”^[172] Finally, the publication continued to stress that students may take the course “more seriously because the grading method sends the message that the course is just as important as all other first-year subjects.”^[173]

Expressing grades like other first-year courses didn’t necessarily mean that legal writing courses needed to use the same grade normalization scheme as their casebook colleagues. Notably, after 2002, the percentage of law schools applying the same policy to first-year legal writing courses stayed relatively stable—hovering around 60%.^[174] At the same time, the percentage of law schools applying a course-specific grade normalization policy increased from a low of 17% in 2002 to a high of 27% in 2015.^[175]

The adoption of course-specific policies may reflect an acknowledgment that legal writing courses were, in fact, distinct from other required first year courses. For example, some scholars had long warned that grade normalization may not be appropriate for competency-based courses like first-year legal writing courses because of their focus on individual student mastery rather than relative performance.^[176] Others had cautioned that normalized grades might not be appropriate in smaller section courses.^[177] Even the first edition of the Sourcebook raised concerns about grade normalization for smaller-section first-year legal writing courses. In particular, it suggested that, where possible, professors should normalize grades around a mean range rather than a distribution to avoid perceived unfairness because “random disparities in talent will occur more frequently” in the lower-enrollment legal writing courses.^[178] The second edition further suggested that law school grading policies may present particular problems for legal writing courses when it stated that what will “work well in any specific legal writing class” depends in part on “how much the legal writing curriculum capitalizes on the strengths and mitigates the drawbacks of the grading system used.”^[179]

By 2020, and the third edition of the Sourcebook, all but a handful of first-year legal writing courses were graded.^[180] Grading legal writing courses like other required first-year courses had become the benchmark for a “quality legal skills education.”^[181] There was also evidence that legal writing courses and the faculty who taught them were enjoying more status and security than in the past. In that same year, this journal issued a call for essays on the topic of professional status for legal writing faculty.^[182] The resulting essays engaged with “status,” broadly defined, acknowledging the many, many ways in which the tide had risen for the legal writing community, while recognizing the distance left to go.^[183]

Despite the critical role of grades in legitimizing legal writing faculty and their courses, and ongoing concerns about grade fairness, the Sourcebook offers remarkably little guidance about grading practices. For example, when discussing “Grades” in the section on “Pedagogical Methods in First-Year Courses,” the third edition of the Sourcebook largely discusses assessment, not grading.^[184] There, the text describes various assessment practices like whether to assess a work “holistically” or whether to use a rubric or checklist.^[185] It also discusses the benefits and drawbacks of assigning a grade to interim drafts.^[186] The only advice it provides about “grading,” however, is that the grading process must be “both fair and workable.”^[187] That is to say: “It must appear objectively reasonable to the students, and it must offer the professor some flexibility even when required to adhere to a mandatory curve distribution.”^[188]

Furthermore, the Sourcebook does not take a position on whether mandatory or even advisory grade normalization is pedagogically appropriate for first-year legal writing courses. Instead, as advice to professors who teach legal writing courses subject to grade normalization policies, the third edition merely says to “consider those constraints when grading memos.”^[189] It then provides two recommendations: (1) “consider the grading range even on interim assignments” to “help students avoid the ‘sticker shock’ of receiving higher grades on earlier assignments and then getting a final grade suppressed by the grading curve”; and (2) “talk to students about the grade normalization scheme throughout the semester so they can manage expectations about final grades.”^[190]

III. The 2022 Survey and 2024 Study: Methods and Findings

In 2021, I began teaching legal writing at my third law school. This move meant decoding a new grading policy and figuring out how to best map what I was teaching and assessing onto the grading algorithm I was required to use to create course grades. I had already taught at one law school with a rigid distribution scheme, where each graded assignment was subject to distribution normalization and course grades were computed by adding those weighted grades together. There, final grades were not normed again. I had also taught at a school that used narrative feedback for first semester course “grades” and then a combination of narrative feedback and honorifics for year-end grades. These honorifics were lightly (and to students, nebulously) normed. In 2021, at Brooklyn Law School, I faced another rigid distribution scheme, but there only course grades were subject to normalization, leaving me free to import the criterion-referenced assessment style I used at my previous law school.^[191]

After five years of full-time teaching, I noticed that at the end of their 1L year, the 200 or more students I had taught at all three law schools demonstrated similar competency levels in core lawyering skills—skills that would help them thrive in their 1L summer employment placements. They also had similar knowledge and values to draw on as they continued their learning journeys. What they did not have were similar grades. Frustrated with what felt like arbitrary grade bands untethered from learning outcomes or demonstrated proficiency, I began to research the history of law school grading policies and to look for data on school-specific grading policies for first-year legal writing courses.

I created an initial data set in 2021 that confirmed most ABA-approved law schools required some sort of grade normalization.^[192] Many grading policies stated either that first-year legal writing courses followed the same grading methods as other required first-year courses or that they were subject to a different grading method. Some, however, did not. In 2022, to fill in the gaps and to better understand why legal writing courses used grade normalization, I designed and conducted the Legal Writing Grade Policy Survey (2022 Survey), the first national survey of first-year legal writing grading policies. I then followed up this survey by systematically collecting and coding a new set of publicly available law school grading policies in the summer of 2024 (2024 Study).

The first section below details the methodology for the 2022 Survey and reports some findings. The second section describes the 2024 Study and reports on findings that focus on grade normalization policies for first-year legal writing courses.

A. 2022 Survey: Design and Findings

My goal for the 2022 Survey was to complement the data already available from the ALWD/LWI Surveys by gathering even more granular data about first-year legal writing grade policies. The questions in this survey focused on whether a law school has a policy or practice of using normalized grades in its first-year legal writing courses. In addition, the survey sought information about the type of normalized grading policy each law school employed in these courses and the reasons for adopting the policy. I used Qualtrics to design and deploy the survey and solicited one response per law school using the LWI listserv and direct email to legal writing professors. The survey had a 54% response rate with 106 ABA-approved law schools completing it.^[193] These law schools included both public and private institutions.^[194] The law schools also ranged in size from the very small (with an entering class of twenty-five) to the very large (with an entering class of 570).^[195]

Nearly all respondents confirmed that their law schools had a policy or practice of normalizing grades in one or more courses.^[196] Additionally, seventy-three survey respondents, over 75% of respondents, confirmed that their law school had a formal or informal policy or practice of normalizing final grades in first-year legal writing courses.^[197] Fifty-four respondents stated that their law school had a “formal” policy, eight respondents stated that their law school had an “informal” policy, while eleven responded that their law school grading policy contained a combination of formal and informal components.

To the seventy-three respondents that indicated their law schools normalize first-year legal writing course grades, the survey next asked tailored questions about those policies. Respondents were permitted to select more than one description. Nearly one-third of respondents stated that their law school applies a required mean range to final grades in first-year legal writing courses. Approximately 20% of survey respondents stated that their law school applies a required distribution, and approximately 17% of them stated that their law school applies a required mean.

When asked to indicate when the most recent policy had been adopted, thirty-nine law schools, or over 50%, of the seventy-two respondents to this question selected the option “more than five years ago.” Nine respondents selected the option “within the last five years,” ten selected “within the last three years,” and nine selected the option that the policy had been adopted in the 2021–2022 academic year. Finally, eleven respondents indicated that they did not know when the most recent policy had been adopted.

The 2022 Survey also captured information about why schools had adopted their grade normalization policies for first-year legal writing courses. Although limited, the data suggests that faculty remains concerned about grading consistency. The survey asked respondents to answer the question: “What prompted your law school to adopt the most recent 1L LRW final course grade curve policy or practice?” Respondents could select one or more statements.^[198] This question received responses from seventy-two law schools. Concern about grade consistency across legal writing sections taught by different professors received the highest response rate with thirty-one respondents selecting this choice. One “Other” response also echoed this sentiment by explaining the policy was adopted, in part, to maintain consistency in a program taught predominantly by adjunct faculty. The second highest response, at twenty-seven, was “Desire to make grading policies consistent in all 1L courses.” The third highest response, at twenty-six, was “Concern about the message LRW grades signal to potential employers.” The options “Concern about grade consistency with law schools in your geographic area” and “Concern about grade consistency with similarly ranked law schools” received sixteen responses each. Fifteen respondents selected “Desire to signal the importance of LRW courses to students.” Notably, the statement “Desire to signal the importance of the LRW course to other faculty members” only received eight responses. Additionally, statements related to a change in credit hour allocation for legal writing classes and a change in status for professors who teach leach writing each received only two responses.

Open responses for those who selected “Other” provided some additional context. Four respondents noted their law school did not make any separate considerations for first-year legal writing courses when making changes to the grading policy. Three respondents stated that the policy change was adopted, in part, because of the rising credentials for incoming students. Three responses described various concerns about fairness and consistency in grading. Three responses noted that the policy change was partly adopted because the previously required distribution forced professors to give low grades that did not reflect student growth during the semester. Two responses noted that the relatively small class size led to anomalies when attempting to meet the grade normalization requirements for larger classes. One response explained that the change was adopted to balance concerns about competition with other law schools and the need to communicate the risk of bar failure to students. Finally, sixteen respondents selected “I don’t know,” indicating that they did not know why their law schools had adopted the current grading policy that they apply each semester to the final grades in their first-year legal writing courses.

B. 2024 Study: Design and Findings

In the summer of 2024, I collected and coded current, publicly available grading policies for 186 of the 196 ABA-approved law schools with the goal of uncovering more details about grading policies in first-year legal writing courses.^[199] I located policies by conducting keyword and natural language searches on the internet using Google. I also conducted keyword and natural language searches on each school’s website. Almost every ABA-approved law school had a current, publicly available grading policy on its website.^[200] Where a law school described the grading practice in another document like a student-facing “Academic Q&A,” I treated this document as a current, publicly available grading policy.^[201] However, if a law school’s website only contained summary information about grading in a section of the website designated for career services and targeted toward employers,^[202] I coded this information as “grading policy not publicly available.” In addition, if a law school linked to a grading policy that was password restricted, I marked the law school as not having a publicly available grading policy.^[203] Law schools varied in the level of detail they used to communicate their grading policies. If the grading practice existed on the law school’s webpage but did not describe the grading system, namely whether the law school used criterion-referenced grading or norm-referenced grading, then I noted that the law school had a publicly available grading policy but that the grading practice didn’t specify the grading system.^[204]

For each publicly available grading policy I reviewed and coded the following information: (1) the law school’s general grading policy; and (2) the law school’s grading policy for first-year legal writing course grades. The sub-sections below describe how I coded the data in each policy.

1. Language Governing How to Apply Grade Normalization

Each law school’s grading policy is unique. Some are written in plain, concise language that is simple to interpret. Others are dense and convoluted. As a result, I created coding rules to evaluate the specific language of each grading policy. First, I identified whether the language required faculty to normalize grades, whether the language merely advised faculty to normalize grades, whether the language included both mandatory and advisory normalization components, or whether the language did not specify whether grades were subject to normalization.

I coded normalization grading practices as mandatory when the description used words like “mandatory,” “shall,” “must,” and “presumptive.” If the grading policy used language like, “the Law School has the following grading mean,” I also coded this practice as mandatory.^[205] I coded grade normalization policies as advisory when they used words like “expected,”^[206] “recommend,” and “should.”^[207] For example, the grading policy for Texas Southern Thurgood Marshall School of Law states: “Each Faculty member is expected to follow the following grading pattern in Lawyering Process I and Lawyering Process II.”^[208] While in practice law professors at Texas Southern likely treat this grading policy as mandatory, under my coding system, this policy is advisory because it uses the word “expected,” not “required.”

Finally, some seemingly “advisory” policies include additional provisions allowing faculty to deviate from the policy under specific circumstances. For example, Barry University School of Law’s policy contains a “Strongly Recommended Grade Distribution” for all required first-year courses.^[209] The policy explains that “strongly recommended” means that a “faculty member must justify in writing deviations from the recommended distribution to the satisfaction of the Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs.”^[210] I coded policies requiring approval for any deviation as mandatory because, ultimately, faculty members do not have discretion over the final grade distribution for the course.

2. Deciphering Grade Normalization Language for Legal Writing Courses

In addition to determining whether faculty are required to follow a particular grade normalization scheme or merely advised to do so, I also had to sort out whether first-year legal writing courses were subject to a general policy or whether there was a course-specific policy that applied to them. Some general policies only apply to courses of a specific size. Some only apply to “letter-graded” courses. I relied on data from the 2021–2022 ALWD/LWI Institutional Survey to help decipher whether an ambiguous grading policy likely applies to first-year legal writing courses. For example, according to that Survey, virtually all first-year legal writing courses are letter-graded courses.^[211] As a result, where a policy states that it applies to all first-year “letter-graded” courses or uses other language to denote that the policy does not apply to courses that are graded by another method, such as pass/fail or credit/no credit, I coded that policy as applying to first-year legal writing courses.

Although first-year legal writing courses generally have lower enrollments than other required first-year courses, enrollment still varies nationally. As a result, I only coded policies as applying to first-year legal writing courses when the underlying data from the 2021–2022 ALWD/LWI Institutional Survey on course size confirmed to a near certainty that a policy applied based on course size.^[212] For example, very few first-year legal writing courses are capped at fewer than fifteen students.^[213] In the 2024 Study, one policy stated that it applies to courses with nine or more students,^[214] three policies stated that they apply to courses with fifteen or more students,^[215] and one policy stated that “the mandatory distribution” would not “have significance for classes of fifteen students or less.”^[216] Because it is almost certain that those four policies apply to first-year legal writing courses, I coded them that way. Conversely, where survey data made it possible but not nearly certain that the policy applied, I coded these policies as “Grading Policy does not specify.” Using this approach, I coded five policies as “Grading Policy does not specify.”^[217] Additionally, one law school policy contains a combination of student enrollment and assessment type to denote which course grades are normalized.^[218] Even though this language likely excludes first-year legal writing courses, I coded the policies as “Grade policy doesn’t specify” because it did not contain any other explanation of grading practices for first year legal writing courses.^[219]

Finally, some policies specifically state that legal writing courses are exempt from the general grade normalization policy for first-year courses. I coded these policies as “Grading policy does not specify” unless the policy also included unambiguous language explaining the grading practices for first-year legal writing courses.^[220] Using this approach ensured that I did not undercount the number of schools applying some type of grade normalization practice to first-year legal writing courses. Additionally, it illustrates a lower level of grade policy transparency for first-year legal writing courses than for other required first-year courses. The only time I coded a grading policy as “No grade normalization practice” is when the policy affirmatively and clearly made such a statement.

C. First-Year Grade Normalization Systems

Since the 2005 Mroch Report, law schools have continued to adopt, amend, and strengthen their grade normalization policies. The publicly available law school grading practices I collected between June and September 2024 demonstrate that most law schools require professors to normalize grades in required first-year courses.^[221] Of those policies 65% (122 policies) require professors to follow specific grade normalization policies in their first-year courses; 11% (twenty policies) include terms like “should,” indicating that adhering to specific grade normalization policies is highly desirable, albeit not required; and 9% (sixteen policies) contain a mix of mandatory and advisory policies. Finally, twenty-five law schools, or 13%, had either webpages or linked documents discussing grades and grading, but these sources did not specify whether they normalize grades.^[222] Only two policies specifically state that first-year law school grades are not normalized for casebook courses.^[223]

Within these categories, the grade policies vary drastically. Some policies require professors to give A+ grades.^[224] Others explain that the A+ grade should be awarded sparingly, for truly outstanding academic performance.^[225] And some law school grade scales do not include A+ grades at all.^[226] Some policies set the lowest required first-year grade as a B,^[227] while a few policies require professors to assign D+ grades.^[228]

D. First-Year Legal Writing Grade Normalization Systems

Law schools also apply grade normalization policies to first-year legal writing courses; however, the picture is more muddled because not all grade policies clearly address how or whether they use them. In the summer of 2024, although 186 law schools made their grading policies publicly available on their websites, over 25% of those policies did not clearly state how professors calculate grades in first-year legal writing courses.^[229] Even without data for those forty-eight schools, the study data still confirms that normalizing first-year legal writing grades is widespread: 135 out of 186 law schools with publicly available grade policies, or approximately 73% of law schools, have some type of grade normalization in first-year legal writing courses: of those policies 72% require grade normalization; 16% advise grade normalization; and approximately 13% include both mandatory and advisory language in their policies.^[230]

The 2024 Study data also reveals that a significant percentage of first-year legal writing courses are subject to the same grade normalization policies as other required first-year courses. Of the 159 general policies that contain mandatory or advisory grade normalization rules for first-year courses, seventy-nine policies, or approximately 50%, apply in the same way to first-year legal writing courses.^[231] This data represents a decrease from the 2015 ALWD/LWI survey, the last date for this data, where approximately 60% of respondents stated that legal writing courses were graded the same way as other first-year courses.^[232]

Most of the law schools that apply the same grade normalization policy to both first-year casebook courses and first-year legal writing courses have mandatory policies.^[233] Additionally, three policies apply the same grade normalization practice to first-year legal writing courses, but the policies are advisory rather than mandatory.^[234]

Approximately 30% of law school policies apply different grade normalization rules to first-year legal writing courses.^[235] For example, some policies retain a required median or mean range but permit discretion with the distribution requirement.^[236] Some policies allow for a higher or wider mean range.^[237] Others remove the distribution requirement from first-year legal writing courses.^[238] Some policies that retain distribution requirements provide more leeway in assigning higher grades,^[239] and some remove the requirement to assign a certain number of grades at the lower range.^[240] In general, those policies vary from the policies governing other first-year required courses by permitting more flexibility in awarding higher grades.

In addition to varying how stringently they apply their grade normalization systems in first-year legal writing courses, law schools vary how they actually norm grades. Across the policies with some level of grade normalization, law schools use means, mean ranges, medians, median ranges, distributions, and standard deviations. While most law schools use only one method, many law schools use more than one method.^[241] Mean range and distribution are the two most prevalent grade normalization methods. Eighty policies include an advisory or required mean range method. Sixty-two policies contain an advisory or required distribution method. Twenty-six policies include both the mean range and distribution methods. In contrast, standard deviation is the least prevalent method with only three policies containing this method.

Gathering insights from and reporting on grade normalization policies is complicated by the fact that law schools use different symbols to communicate “grades.” Even when they use the same symbols, these symbols do not necessarily have a uniform weight. Some law schools use an A to F or A+ to F scale where each grade equates to points on a 4.0 or 4.3 scale. Other law schools use a numeric scale. These variations impact how medians, means, and distribution ranges are calculated. Schools that use an alphanumeric system may slice grade ranges differently from those with numeric systems. For example, while many schools using an alphanumeric system convert a B- grade to a point value between 2.67 and 2.70, Washington University School of Law uses a numeric system with numbers between a 4.30 and a 2.50.^[243] On this scale, 3.10-3.04 equates to a B- grade and 2.68-2.50 equates to an F.^[244] Due to these nuances, the data in Figures 7 and 8, depicting grade mean frequency only includes law schools with grade policies that map onto standard grading scales.^[245]

This approach reduces, but does not fully alleviate, possible errors related to reporting grading trends. Schools can still employ grading rules that impact how grades can be allocated. Schools that use a 4.3 or 4.33 scale will produce different normalized grades than schools that use a 4.0 scale, even when applying the same rules. Additionally, some schools include calculation rules to determine course means like calculating all grades of B- and below as 2.67^[246] or calculating an A+ as 4.0^[247] rather than 4.3 or 4.33. Schools also draw their grade reference cut-offs at different places. For example, Boston College Law School equates a B+ with 3.33,^[248] while Indiana University Mauer School of Law equates a B+ with a 3.30.^[249] These school-specific approaches impact how grades are assigned to meet various normalization requirements.

Thirty law schools include calculating a course mean in their normalization policies for first-year legal writing courses and specify the mean they use.^[250] Across these policies there are fourteen different means; the highest mean is 3.6 and the lowest is 2.8.^[251] The figure below depicts grade mean frequency.

Although grading policies with a mean or mean range are set out numerically, those numbers are converted into final course grades that get communicated on academic transcripts and reweighted to calculate law school GPA. Almost every school that normalizes grades around a mean sets those means at letter grades in just two grade increments: B+ and B.

Although both the rankings themselves and the tiers they produce are flawed, the Top 14 or T14 in the U.S. News ranking is often described as the “top tier” for law schools.^[253] Only two law schools ranked in the T14 include a mean in their grade normalization policies for first-year legal writing courses, and each of these policies sets the mean at a point value that would result in a B+ mean.^[254] Notably, both law school policies also include a mean range, however, that would permit the course mean to be as high as a 3.5, which pushes it toward the A- grade.^[255] The other twelve law schools with B+ means rank between 26 and 89.^[256] The median U.S. News rank for this group is 42. The three schools with an A- mean are ranked 25 and 28.^[257] The twelve schools with a B grade mean are ranked between 52 and 178-196, and only four of those schools are ranked in the top 100.^[258]

Seventy-four law schools include calculating a mean range in their grade normalization policies for first-year legal writing courses and specify that mean range.^[259] By definition, policies that include mean ranges permit both higher and lower course means. There are over fifty different mean ranges and at least fifteen different mean-range spans.^[260] Some law schools establish a mean range with a target mean.^[261] Others establish a mean with a permissible mean range or identify a span that satisfies the identified mean.^[262] The widest-mean range span is .60^[263] and the smallest is .017.^[264] Wider mean-range spans permit greater flexibility in assigning course grades from course to course and year to year, while smaller mean-range spans produce more consistent grades from course to course and year to year. The most prevalent mean-range span is .20. Generally, letter grades represent a point span that is approximately .30. For example, points falling between a 3.2 and a 3.49 will result in a B+ letter grade. As a result, a .20 mean-range span tends to conscribe the mean around a single letter grade increment.

Like means, mean ranges impact the possible distribution of letter grades in a course. The most common mean range is 2.90–3.10; thirteen schools use this range, which results in a B grade mean. The mean range encompassing the highest grade is 3.4–3.7.^[265] This mean range permits the course mean to fluctuate between an A- grade and a B+ grade. On the other side of the spectrum, the lowest mean range is 2.15–2.40.^[266] This mean range permits the course mean to fluctuate between a C+ grade and a C grade. These high and low ranges are relatively consistent with data from the ALWD/LWI survey from 2015, which reported that the highest mean was 3.75 and the lowest mean was 2.0.^[267]

Depending on the law school, these means and mean ranges permit first-year legal writing course averages of anywhere from an A- (3.7) to a C (2.15).^[268] For law school policies that rely on a mean, grades tend to be clustered in the B to B+ range and also tend to be higher overall. For law school policies that include a mean range, grades are spread across six grade increments. Like the policies that include a grade mean in their normalization scheme, law schools with higher mean ranges tend to have higher U.S. News rankings.^[269]

Law schools with grade distribution requirements specify even more granularly how many grades a professor can give at each band.^[270] Depending on the school, these grade bands include designations for grades A+ through F. While there are no schools with publicly available policies that definitively require professors teaching first-year legal writing courses to give A+ grades,^[271] three law schools bundle the A+ grade with other A grades. For example, UCLA School of Law, with a U.S. News rank of 13, states that the median grade in first year courses cannot exceed a B+ or 3.3.^[272] Additionally, the policy advises that 15-20% of first-year course grades should be A+ or A grades.^[273] While the median is required for Legal Research & Writing, the policy notes that “[d]ue to the smaller class size, faculty teaching Law 108A/B – Legal Research & Writing have the discretion to make modest adjustments to this distribution to assure that grades accurately reflect course performance.”^[274] At University of Texas at Austin School of Law, with a U.S. News rank of 16, the required mean grade for all first-year classes must fall between 3.25 and 3.35.^[275] Additionally, professors are advised that 35% of legal writing course grades should be an A+, A, or A-.^[276] Finally, the University of California Davis School of Law, with a U.S. News rank of 55, has an advisory grade normalization policy for Legal Research and Writing in which “faculty should distribute grades” such that 30% of grades, plus or minus 3%, are A+, A, or A- and 70% of grades, plus or minus 3%, are B+, B, B- and below.^[277] Additionally, course grades must fall within a mean range of 3.25–3.35.^[278]

On the other side of the grade spectrum, no law school requires law professors to submit F grades.^[279] However, the grading policy for Capital University Law School, ranked 178–196, does advise that on average 3% of first-year course grades should be a E, which has a grade point value of 0.00.^[280] Additionally, Cleveland State University College of Law, ranked 103, has advisory “Grading Guidelines” that serve as “prima facie evidence of what constitutes a reasonable distribution of grades” in “other law courses.”^[281] These guidelines specify that 0–5% of students can receive F grades, although the “standard %” is zero.^[282] The guidelines also specify that it is “standard” for 2% of students to receive a D, withing the permitted range of 0–7%.^[283] The figure below reports on the lowest grade either required or suggested for first-year legal writing courses and the number of law school policies using that grade.

Evaluating the effect of grade policies on legal writing course grades confirms that students who attend schools with higher U.S. News rankings are likely to get higher grades. In the T14, thirteen schools had publicly available grading policies, but only eight of those schools state that they normalize first-year legal writing course grades.^[285] The policies indicate that approximately 40% of first-year students at these schools can expect to receive an A range grade in their legal writing course.^[286] Additionally, very few, if any, students will receive a grade lower than a B. The lower a law school is ranked, the higher the number of students who must receive B grades and below.

This grading narrative plays out at the end of each semester and impacts the GPA students can demonstrate on their transcripts as they apply for various opportunities at their law schools and beyond. As students enter the job market, the meaning of their grades takes on additional import. For example, four law schools in the Washington D.C. area with publicly available grading policies normalize grades in first-year legal writing courses to widely different effect.^[287] Georgetown University Law Center, ranked 14, enrolls approximately 600 first-year students. The grading policy requires professors to normalize grades in first-year legal writing courses the same way they distribute them in other required first-year courses.^[288] The grade normalization scheme contains a recommended mean target and a mandatory grade distribution.^[289] Based on this distribution, of the nearly 600 1Ls at Georgetown, approximately 75% will earn a B+ or higher in their first-year legal writing course.^[290] Only 15–25% of these students can earn a B.^[291] Furthermore, professors are not required to give any student a grade lower than a B, and they are prohibited from giving more than 5% of grades between a B- and an F.^[292] American University Washington College of Law, which was ranked 98 by U.S. News in 2024 but historically enjoyed substantially higher rankings, enrolls approximately 390 first-year students.^[293] It exempts its first-year Rhetoric course from the mandatory 1L mean range of 3.1–3.3, and does not provide any additional information about how professors calculate those course grades.^[294]

In contrast, at Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, professors must distribute grades to a mean between 3.00 and 3.30.^[295] Catholic was ranked 94 by U.S. News in 2024 but ranked below 100 in the 2015–2022 U.S. News rankings.^[296] Like at Georgetown, professors at Catholic, with an annual first-year enrollment around 115 students, are not “required” to give any student a grade lower than B.^[297] However, unlike Georgetown, due to the required mean range at Catholic, grades lower than a B are almost inevitable, unless almost all students are assigned grades in the B to B+ range.^[298]

The most stringent grading policy in the Washington D.C. area is the one in force at Howard University School of Law. With a U.S. News rank of 130 and an incoming first-year class of approximately 175 students, Howard uses numeric grading.^[299] It imposes a mean range between 81–83% and strict grade distribution requirements.^[300] According to its letter grade equivalency table, Howard requires that at least 30% of students in first-year legal writing courses receive a grade of C or below.^[301] Of these students, at least 10% must receive a grade in the D range.^[302] At the other end of the spectrum, only 15% of Howard students may receive an A range grade.^[303] Comparatively, up to 42% of Georgetown students can receive an A range grade in their first-year legal writing courses.^[304]

The data demonstrates that this grading story is not unique. Students in higher-ranked law schools with more lenient grade normalization policies get higher grades—or an absolute grade bump just for attending those law schools. By attending a highly ranked law school, they also experience a prestige bump from their higher grades.^[305] This double-bump has the effect of unfairly undervaluing the lawyering competencies of most law students.

IV. Rethinking Grading in First-Year Legal Writing Courses

The 2022 Survey and 2024 Study help to illuminate and contextualize the evolution of grading practices in first-year legal writing courses. While normalized grading is now standard practice across law schools, legal writing courses followed a distinct path to this destination. Initially operating on a pass/fail or credit/no credit basis, these courses gradually became graded, and those grades became normalized.

The rationale for normalized grading differed markedly between traditional casebook courses and legal writing courses. For casebook courses, grade normalization emerged as a solution to inconsistent grading practices in large, exam-based classes. Norm-referenced grading was meant to mitigate the most extreme (and most harmful) grading practices. In contrast, legal writing faculty embraced, or more likely accepted, normalized grading not to address these consistency concerns, but as part of a strategic campaign for institutional recognition. Their push for graded courses represented a broader effort to elevate the standing of both legal writing courses and faculty.

The discussion below challenges the continued use of norm-referenced grading in first-year legal writing courses. It asks faculty to disentangle grading practices from how we think about and express faculty value and course value. It also asks faculty to think about the role of “fairness” in our grading practices and to adopt a thicker description of “fairness” in our legal writing courses.

A. Disentangling Grading Practice from Legal Writing Value

Professors who teach legal writing have worked tirelessly to develop the legal writing discipline. As part of this effort, they have created robust, skills-focused courses that are now required for every first-year law student. These modern legal writing courses teach legal problem solving and how to use substantive law in practice. They are foundational lawyering courses that prepare students for their 1L summer internships. They also provide scaffolding for future learning in law school and for ethical participation in the profession. At the same time, as part of this effort to meaningfully participate in law school governance structures, and to secure stronger contracts, better pay, and smaller class sizes, professors who teach legal writing have adopted (or capitulated to using) hierarchical and comparative grading systems in their courses.

Adopting equal grading policies likely helped to integrate legal writing into the law school fabric, but there is no evidence to suggest that the faculty who taught legal writing courses actually believed that norm-referenced grading was an appropriate grading method for their competency-based courses. In fact, had law schools not adopted norm-referenced grading in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the legal writing community’s movement for improving legal writing status and value was picking up speed, it is unlikely that legal writing courses would have ever adopted them.

But here we are. The remnants of marginalization still echo—albeit less loudly—in the legal writing discipline.^[306] Data from the 2022 Survey reflects that some law school faculty remain concerned about how grade policy decisions affect the perceived value of legal writing courses and the professors who teach them. This response, however, garnered considerably less support compared to other survey options, with only approximately 10% of respondents selecting “[d]esire to signal the importance of the LRW course to other faculty members” as one of the reasons for adopting the current grade normalization policy for first-year legal writing courses.^[307]

This relatively low percentage may suggest that integration of legal writing into the core curriculum and improvement in faculty status have reduced the concern about how students and other faculty view the discipline. It may also suggest that, after decades of scholarship and critique calling for more practice-focused courses in law school—as well as anticipated licensing changes—faculty who teach legal writing now feel more secure in the value that they bring to their institutions and the profession.

As the 2022 Survey data suggests, professors who teach legal writing remain concerned about what their course grading policy will signal to students. Fifteen survey respondents selected “[d]esire to signal the importance of the LRW course to students” as one of the reasons for adopting the most recent grading policy for legal writing courses. Although the 2022 Survey did not ask questions about the perceived connection between student motivation and grades, it is possible that faculty concerns about student motivation underlie this response. Some professors (and perhaps even students) may be concerned that if legal writing courses follow different grading policies than other required first-year courses, then students will not give adequate time and attention to learning in their legal writing courses.^[308]

This notion that extrinsic grade motivation fosters learning in first-year legal writing courses requires further consideration. Some scholars have noted that grades encourage students to do their best possible work, not merely adequate work targeted toward passing.^[309] Grades motivate students by creating the possibility of reward and by threatening negative consequences. But, even “[f]or those who are motivated by extrinsic reward, the primary motivation that grades provide is the motivation to get good grades.”^[310] This type of motivation may prize short-term learning over the deep, sustained learning necessary for law practice.^[311] Grade-focused motivation may have other drawbacks as well, particularly when students must compete against each other for those grades.^[312] For example, norm-referenced grading may undermine student learning for those students who do not thrive on competition.^[313] Norm-referenced grading can also exacerbate student anxiety by requiring students to compare themselves to others in order to understand what their grade means.^[314] Finally, empirical literature has linked inequity in legal education to grading practices.^[315] The possible negative effects of grade normalization must be weighed against the multidimensional learning goals at the heart of first-year legal writing courses.

Ultimately, a good portion of the learning that takes place in first-year legal writing classes isn’t set up to create linear hierarchies. Built on decades of legal scholarship, these courses emphasize lawyer effectiveness. Faculty have deliberately designed these courses around the knowledge, skills, and values lawyers need to thrive in the profession today. They know that “professional competence requires not only the analytic quickness and precision that law school currently seeks, teaches, and rewards, but that it also requires relational skills, negotiation and planning skills, self-control and self-development, creativity and practical judgment, among other proficiencies.”^[316] First-year legal writing courses are important because of the knowledge and skills they impart, not because they rank or sort students.

Although moving away from the extrinsic motivating power of grades and toward cultivating intrinsic motivation for learning might be destabilizing at first, faculty who teach legal writing courses have already been laying the groundwork. Even before the recent ABA revisions to Standard 303,^[317] faculty who teach first-year legal writing courses have been infusing their curricula with professional identity formation. In addition, they have been developing, deploying, and producing scholarship on and teaching resources for fostering metacognitive skills development. These crucial skills, though, are undermined by the continued use of comparative and hierarchical grading in most first-year legal writing courses.

Lessening the extrinsic power of grades and enhancing the intrinsic power of purpose, self-direction, and professional identity will help students retain (and even develop) the sense of why they want to practice law, and it will provide them with the skills to do it. Helping students understand and embrace why they are learning is likely to be an even more effective motivator for sustained, deep learning than grades.^[318] This type of motivation aligns better with preparing future lawyers for competent, ethical lawyering than grade motivation.

Continuing to use norm-referenced grading methods like casebook courses might still be prudent in the ongoing push for law schools to value the legal writing discipline and its faculty. But other factors caution against such an approach. There is also evidence to suggest that disentangling student grades from faculty (and course) value has already begun. While the number of law schools applying the same grading policy to all required first-year courses remained at approximately 60% from the early 2002 through 2015, since then, this percentage has decreased to approximately 50%.^[319] At the same time, the number of law schools applying different normalization policies to first-year legal writing courses has increased from 19% in 2000 to 30% in 2024.^[320] These course-specific grading policies permit greater flexibility to assign higher grades and remove requirements for lower grades.^[321] Presumably, the law schools that have adopted these course-specific policies recognize that it is inappropriate to apply the grade normalization policies for large-enrollment casebook courses with limited assessments to small-enrollment, competency-based legal writing courses where students complete numerous formative and summative assessments. Although most of these policies still rely on norm-referenced grading,^[322] the existence of course-specific policies reflects some acknowledgment that first-year legal writing courses aren’t just like other required first-year courses.

B. Towards a “Thicker” Definition of Grading “Fairness” in First-Year Legal Writing Courses

The history of law school grading demonstrates that concerns about “fairness” influenced the adoption of norm-referenced grading policies.^[323] Responses from the 2022 Survey suggest that “fairness” remains a concern today for faculty who teach legal writing, particularly in terms of consistency across sections of legal writing taught by different professors and consistency with other first-year courses.^[324] These concerns echo those outlined in a century’s worth of scholarship on grade normalization. Going back more than 100 years, Professor Ben Wood concluded, after surveying professors and studying six years of grades in six Columbia Law School courses, that the professors “maintained significantly different standards of excellence.”^[325] These different standards were (and remain) problematic in the first year of law school due to the role grades play in the distribution of rewards and penalties.

As described above, to achieve grading “fairness” so that law school’s rewards can be “equitably” distributed, law schools now employ a variety of grade normalization methods. Currently, eighty law schools employ the same grade normalization policies in their first-year legal writing courses as they do in their other, likely much larger, first-year casebook courses.^[326] This data is concerning. Even if one accepts that the central limit theorem applies to intelligence such that a sufficiently large random sample of people will demonstrate a “normal” or “bell-shaped” distribution of academic achievement, most legal writing courses fall below this “sufficiently large” threshold.^[327] With enrollment in most first-year legal writing courses capped at thirty students or fewer, these courses are more likely to have students who do not conform to an expected distribution.^[328] In addition, depending on the law school and its course enrollment practices, the student population in legal writing courses might not even approximate the 1L population of that law school. Normalizing grades under these circumstances runs counter to the very “fairness” arguments that underlie their original use.

Additionally, the types of grade normalization policies now employed by many first-year legal writing courses do not necessarily produce grade consistency across sections of legal writing courses taught by different faculty or with other required first-year courses. Currently, seventy-two law schools use a single method of normalization. Forty-one of those schools either require or advise law professors to conform their final first-year legal writing course grades to a mean or a mean range.^[329] While means and mean ranges are more flexible than fixed distributions, if the original “fairness” reason for adopting grade normalization was to produce roughly the same grade output in every course and to ensure that a student’s final grade reflects a student’s performance rather than a professor’s grading proclivities, a mean or mean range policy does not necessarily achieve this outcome. That’s because professors can achieve the required mean GPA for a course in at least three very different ways: they can distribute grades in a bell curve with most grades in the middle-range; they can spread grades more evenly across available grades; or they can assign grades in a “U-shape” with grades clustered mainly at the high and low end.^[330] Such “flexibility” directly undermines the goal of producing similar grades in every course.^[331]

Some law schools have added guardrails to seemingly prevent “extreme grade distribution practices.”^[332] For example, some law schools set an aspirational target within a mean range such that “consistently awarding grades at the low or high end of the range is not compatible with a good faith application of the system.”^[333] While these additional rules may help to produce the desired bell curve, they do not necessarily interact with or reflect student learning in a competency-based course. Indeed, the 2007 Best Practices report didn’t laud the bell-curve result. Instead, it called the bell-curve outcome “a failure of instruction.”^[334] While fixed distributions can force a bell curve, their inflexibility produces other problems in competency-based legal writing courses.

As previously discussed, the 2024 Study reveals that a student’s grades in their first-year legal writing course may say more about the law school they attend and its placement in the U.S. News rankings than it does about their demonstrated competencies. Some may argue that certain law schools’ policies are justified because of the high incoming credentials of the students they enroll.^[335] To evaluate this claim, let’s return to three of the D.C. area schools. First-year students at Georgetown entered law school with relatively high incoming LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs.^[336] Most of its students are already used to earning (or getting) As: Even students in the 25th percentile for undergraduate GPA have a 3.72 or an A- average.^[337] However, law students at Catholic and Howard are also accustomed to excelling academically. At Catholic, 50% of entering students have an undergraduate GPA of 3.64 or above.^[338] And students in the twenty-fifth percentile have undergraduate GPAs closer to a B+ average (3.38). At Howard, 25% of entering students have an undergraduate GPA of 3.70 or above.^[339] And students in the twenty-fifth percentile also have undergraduate GPAs closer to a B+/B average (3.0).^[340] These students are not accustomed to earning less than a B; yet at most law schools many students must receive them.

This data demonstrates that student “fairness” concern must move beyond narrow notions of consistency across courses. Particularly in first-year legal writing courses, where students are immersed in a foundational introduction to legal discourse and practice, replicating higher undergraduate grading trends in higher-ranked schools while advising or enforcing lower grades in lower-ranked schools devalues the intensive teaching and transformative student learning that occurs at every law school.^[341] Rigid, norm-referenced grading simply does not measure or communicate whether a law student is becoming a competent lawyer.

Certainly, there are reasons external to measuring student learning and achievement that create incentives for law schools to use norm-referenced grading in first-year legal writing courses. Such reasons, though, must be weighed against the educational value of this type of grading and the direct impact these policies have on students and the profession. For example, employers rely, at least in part, on student grades to make certain hiring decisions. However, many law school grading policies, particularly those that require a substantial number of grades below a B, may reinforce exclusionary hiring trends and hinder efforts to build a more robust and representative legal profession.^[342] Law schools also rely on grades to make various academic and enrollment decisions due to the connection between 1L GPA and bar passage rates. However, first-year legal writing grades are a blunt tool, lacking the nuance necessary to convey the specific support a student may need to successfully complete law school and pass the bar.

Taken together, these possible negative impacts are substantial. It is time to question what we mean when we talk about “fairness” in grading and to reevaluate whether normalized grades in first-year legal writing courses can ever be fair to our students.

C. Looking Ahead: Moving Away from Normalized Grades in First-Year Legal Writing Courses

Grading systems are a matter of choice. This choice, though, is neither simple nor straightforward. In part, that’s because grades are all around us. To students and their teachers, they serve as both carrot and stick. For employers and other institutions of higher education, they serve as shortcuts, or as I have written before, as confidence decoys.^[343] Grades signal someone is safe to admit or to hire. But grades are also noisy. And, when it comes to assessing student performance, complicated and enduring forces that marginalize individuals and entrench inequality also produce signal distortions. In fact, as a signal, end-of-term grades, particularly normalized grades in first-year legal writing courses, do little to communicate actual skill and knowledge proficiency.

As Professor Barbara Glesner Fines remarked nearly thirty years ago, “[h]ow an institution grades says a lot about what it values.”^[344] While students have numerous opportunities to practice and receive feedback in their legal writing courses, a final curved grade removes all the subtlety and texture from their learning journey. Unfortunately, the standards reform movement, which called for law schools to integrate skills, values, and knowledge throughout the law school curriculum and to prepare students for practice, did not alter the trend toward grade normalization.^[345] Norm-referenced grading persisted after the ABA passed new accreditation standards requiring law schools to focus on student learning outcomes and to employ both formative and summative assessments.^[346] But this story doesn’t need to stop here. It is time for faculty who teach legal writing to jumpstart the conversation about grading policies in our own law schools and with our colleagues across the country. More than 20% of respondents who completed the 2022 Survey indicated that they did not know the reasons for adopting the current grading policy used in their first-year legal writing courses.^[347] This data is concerning. It’s also not surprising. Outside of basic instructions on how to comply with grading policies, many law faculty receive very little formal training on the purpose or process of grading.^[348] Both the purpose and process behind grading are essential to the “fairness” conversation.

Going forward, we need to ask: what is fair and fair to whom? Any conversation about grading policies must go beyond the early, narrow concerns about grade consistency. We must develop a thicker description of “fairness”—one that engages with the goals of any first-year legal writing course in light of legal education’s exclusionary roots, the uneven burdens and benefits students bring with them to law school, and the needs of the legal profession and the public.

Professor Leslie Rose argued in 2011 that the twin reform efforts to develop learner-focused curriculum and assessment along with the movement to humanize law school should compel professors of legal writing programs to adopt criterion-referenced grading.^[349] Criterion-referenced grading measures and reports on a student’s performance against an established standard.^[350] Aligning evaluations with clear learning expectations helps students understand their progress toward defined benchmarks. As the Carnegie Report noted, the philosophy underlying criterion-referenced assessment is that “the fundamental purpose of professional education is not sorting but producing as many individuals proficient in legal reasoning and competent practice as possible.”^[351] Since many faculty who teach legal writing already use criterion-referenced assessments in their courses,^[352] for faculty (and law schools) intent on using letter or numeric grades to report student achievement, the move to criterion-referenced grading is a logical step.

Certainly, fairness concerns will not evaporate just by adopting criterion-referenced grading; but criterion-based grading eliminates fairness concerns related to unregulated grading. Criterion-referenced grading may require both more regulation and more time, particularly at the outset. For example, professors will need to decide what skills, knowledge, and values can and should receive a grade. Then they will need to develop the criteria for each grade band. Professors teaching legal writing at a particular law school may also want to develop common guidelines tied to their school’s and their course’s learning outcomes to ensure that a student’s grade does not depend on the professor they have for the course. Such essential work is time intensive, and professors who teach legal writing already carry a significant teaching, service, and (in many cases) scholarship load. The time, effort, and money that law students spend on becoming lawyers, though, requires this investment. Our students are entitled to a grading system they can trust to be fair—one directly connected to both course and lawyering competencies.

It might also be time to take a step beyond adopting criterion-referenced grading. Combining a credit/no credit final grade to criterion-referenced assessment should also be explored as a remedy to legal education’s storied history of exclusion. Moving (or returning) to a credit/no credit model is not without risks, particularly in a transitional period. Without doubt, grades can serve as a source of motivation. But, importantly, recent studies confirm that grades are not necessary to motivate student learning. During the COVID-19 pandemic’s early days in spring 2020, all but five U.S. law schools adopted either a mandatory or optional pass/fail or credit/no credit system.^[353] One recent study conducted by Professors David Sandomierski, John Bliss, and Tayzia Collesso found that students whose schools had adopted mandatory pass/fail grading during this period reported that “the system made them more cooperative (as opposed to competitive), less demoralized, [they] experienced more joy in their learning, and [] they thought the system was more fair.”^[354] In open responses, one student reported that the pass/fail grading system alleviated stress and allowed them to focus on “getting value out of the material.”^[355]

Additionally, survey responses from faculty indicated that “the new grading systems had a minimal negative impact on students’ level of effort, performance, and learning, and a positive impact on anxiety alleviation[.]”^[356] Importantly, law faculty reported that equity concerns motivated this COVID-policy change.^[357] “Many students and faculty wrote that if law schools had not adopted pass/fail grading in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, results obtained under curved grading systems would operate as proxies for privilege, not markers of academic performance.”^[358]

While the COVID-19 pandemic has passed, the fissures it revealed remain. Normalized grades likely still operate as proxies for privilege. Moving away from hierarchical grading, however, should not proceed without careful attention to developing new signals to communicate student competence across the spectrum of essential lawyering skills. Without this attention and effort, any new grading system risks recreating grading methods rife with bias and discrimination.^[359]

Conclusion

It’s time to rethink norm-referenced grades in first-year legal writing courses. These courses—unlike traditional casebook courses—are uniquely situated to foster a student’s growth as they develop their lawyering craft. Conventional practices of ranking and sorting detract from this vital mission. Encouragingly, recent data indicates a clear trend toward change. In the past decade, fewer first-year legal writing courses have adhered to the same grade normalization practices used in casebook courses at their law schools. This data represents measurable progress, but more progress can be made. By advocating for the abandonment of Thorndike-inspired grade normalization practices, professors who teach first-year legal writing courses can reject narrow definitions of “fairness” and outmoded hierarchies. Such a shift does not mean abandoning rigorous assessment methods. Rather, it calls for developing grading systems better aligned with the pedagogical goals of contemporary first-year legal writing courses. Above all, this change is more than academic; it embodies a commitment to a legal profession that prizes inclusivity and collaboration while maintaining the highest standards for the public good.

---

Appendices

Appendix A. Law School Grading Policies

Albany Law School
Explanation of Grading System Letter Grades and Numerical Equivalents, https://www.albanylaw.edu/student-experience-support/student-handbook-2021#3925188384-3054937669 [https://perma.cc/6C5V-5HTP]

American University Washington College of Law
2023-2024 WCL Catalog [ARCHIVED CATALOG], Law School Regulations: Grades and Assessments, http://catalog.wcl.american.edu/content.php?catoid=12&navoid=146 [https://perma.cc/BKV5-EGYP]

Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University
Academic Regulations (Juris Doctor Students), at 30–32 (Jan. 25, 2024), https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/academics/academic_regulations.pdf?ver=07feb2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/KVR5-TM28]

Appalachian School of Law
Chapter 5 Academic Standards & Policies, at 8–12 (Jan. 2024), https://www.asl.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2024/01/Ch.-5-Academic-Standards-Policies-updated-January-2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/R5UH-4Z26]

Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
J.D. Statement of Student Policies, at 16–18 (revised Dec. 15, 2021), https://law.asu.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/jd-statement-of-student-policies.pdf [https://perma.cc/ZQ36-HNCL]

Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School
Student Handbook, at 33–34 (revised Oct. 26, 2023), https://www.johnmarshall.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024-Student-Handbook-April-29-2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/AB89-NTV5]

Ave Maria School of Law
Student Handbook & Catalog, at 12 (Academic Year 2021-2022), https://www.avemarialaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Document-for-students-2021-22.pdf [https://perma.cc/4YYT-DA3Q]

Barry University Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law
Student Handbook: General Policies, Academic Policies and Procedures, at 43–45 (revised Aug. 8, 2023), https://www.barry.edu/media/4aabidri/student-handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/G9U4-2Q3G]

Baylor Law School
2024-2025 Academic Catalog, School of Law, Grade System, https://catalog.baylor.edu/school-law/grade-system/ [https://perma.cc/WBU4-MW5J]

Belmont University College of Law
Student Handbook, at 7–8 (Academic Year 2023-2024), https://www.belmont.edu/law/_files/law-student-handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/AF9C-UGPY]

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Student Handbook, at 64–65 (Academic Year 2022-2023), https://cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/2023-03/JD LLM%20Handbook%202022%20-%202023%2029MAR2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/2CKU-QHYE]

Boston College Law School
Student Policies & Procedures Handbook, at 15–18 (2023-2024), https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/bc1/schools/law/top-bar/current-students/Academics/_documents-forms/academic_policies_and_procedures.pdf [https://perma.cc/L2XM-UZJJ]

Boston University School of Law
Policies, Grades and Course Units, School of Law Policy - Grading Scale and Procedures, https://www.bu.edu/academics/law/policies/grades-and-course-credits/ [https://perma.cc/MPA5-8GFW]

Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School
Policies and Procedures, at 27–29 (Sept. 1, 2023), https://law-23-media-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/PoliciesAndProcedures2023Sep01-dn-1.pdf [https://perma.cc/P57M-78BF]

Brooklyn Law School
Policy Unavailable

California Western School of Law
Student Handbook, at 18–21, (2023–2024), https://www.cwsl.edu/files/student_life/complete_student_handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/77F6-YJSC]

Campbell University Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law
Academic Program, Academic Standards and Regulations, https://law.campbell.edu/learn/academic-program/grading-information-and-academic-standards/ [https://perma.cc/5ARR-ADHU]

Capital University Law School
Chapter 4 – Academic Regulations, at 24–27 (2024-2025), https://www.law.capital.edu/media/g2mj3ha5/chapter-4-academic-regulations.pdf [https://perma.cc/ZHM2-6QKQ]

Case Western Reserve University School of Law
2023-2024 Student Handbook, at 17–19 (Aug. 2023), https://case.edu/law/sites/default/files/2023-09/Student Handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/CXK4-DE6A]

Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
2023-2024 Catalog Announcements, Academic Rules: J.D. Program - Grading and Exclusion, https://www.law.edu/academics/catalog-announcements/2023/academic-rules.html [https://perma.cc/ZD5W-CRRW]

Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Student Handbook, at 10–11 (updated Aug. 1, 2023), https://www.chapman.edu/law/_files/student-handbook_fall_2023_080123.pdf [https://perma.cc/G3V5-BJYG]

Charleston School of Law
Charleston School of Law Juris Doctor Program Catalog and Student Handbook 2023-2024, Academic Policies: Grading Policies, https://charlestonlaw.libguides.com
/c.php?g=1298935&p=9542537 [https://perma.cc/9ELF-LC5A]

Chicago-Kent College of Law - Illinois Tech
Student Handbook, at 32, 34–35 (2023-2024), https://kentlaw.iit.edu/sites/default/files/2024-01/Student Handbook 2023-2024--rev'd December 2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/YGR8-PCVV]

Cleveland State University College of Law
Student Handbook, at 19 (updated Fall 2023), https://www.law.csuohio.edu/sites/default/files/medialib/document/handbook-january-2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/X8EA-4UGU]

Columbia Law School
Columbia Law School Academic Rules, at 19–26 (updated Mar. 21, 2024), https://connect.law.columbia.edu/get_file?pid=4bb94af41f53deb7af7f5aca272190881fd02f33b34e8210e8c4248dc4ec25fb [https://perma.cc/TW82-QNM3]

Cornell Law School
Student Handbook, at 23–24 (2023-2024), https://community.lawschool.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/The-Cornell-Law-2023-2024-Handbook-Accessible-Version-posted-7.31-UPDATED-9.14.23.pdf [https://perma.cc/6ASW-BCUT]

Cooley Law School
Policy Unavailable

Creighton University School of Law
Academic Rules, at sections 5.1 - 5.5 (revised Mar. 25, 2024), https://www.creighton.edu/sites/default/files/Academic-Rules-March-2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/HVC4-3SVC]

CUNY School of Law
2024-2025 Law Student Handbook: Section V: Grading and Evaluations - 5.1 Grading System for All Courses, https://law.catalog.cuny.edu/section-v-grading-and-evaluations/grading-system-for-all-courses [https://perma.cc/TR2M-E2ZB]

5.2 Academic Standing Policies and Procedures, https://law.catalog.cuny.edu/section-v-grading-and-evaluations/academic-standing-policies-and-procedures [https://perma.cc/WC8V-2YA6]

DePaul University College of Law
2024-2025 Academic Catalog Law Student Handbook: University and College of Law Academic Policies - Grades (Catalog update: May 15, 2024), https://catalog.depaul.edu/student-handbooks/law-student-handbook/academic-policies/grades/ [https://perma.cc/QE4T-BS5Z]

Drake University Law School
Student Handbook, at 29, 31 (July 2023), https://www.drake.edu/media/collegesschools/law/documents/STUDENT HANDBOOK - JULY 2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/8CG6-PUYC]

Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law
Student Handbook Academic Year 2023-2024 JD Students, at 10–11 (revised May 2024),https://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/law/Student Life/Office of Student Affairs/JD Handbook.ashx?la=en [https://perma.cc/5K7W-EH9T]

Duke University School of Law
Academic Policies: Grading Policy (2023-2024), https://law.bulletins.duke.edu/policies/academic#grading-policy [https://perma.cc/8C25-TLYJ]

Duquesne University Thomas R. Kline School of Law
Policies & Procedures, at 13–15 (2023-2024), https://www.duq.edu/documents/academics/colleges-and-schools/law/policies-and-procedures-2023-2024-update-9-21-23.pdf [https://perma.cc/4CVG-RF7K]

Elon University School of Law
2022-2023 Student Handbook and Academic Catalog, at 52–53 (Aug. 3, 2022), https://eloncdn.blob.core.windows.net/eu3/sites/996/2022/08/Student-Handbook-2022-2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/VP2M-EHS8]

Emory University School of Law
Student Handbook, at 45–48 (2022-2023), https://law.emory.edu/_includes/documents/sections/student-life/final-emory-law-student-handbook-2022-2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/J9WC-5J44]

Faulkner University, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law
Policy Unavailable

Florida A&M University College of Law
Student Handbook 2023-2024, at 58–59 (revised Sept. 2023), https://law.famu.edu/college-of-law-registrar/pdf/2023-2024-FAMU-LAW Student Handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/EMH3-UWSF]

Florida International University College of Law
J.D. Student Handbook, at 11, 13–15 (revised Fall 2023), https://law.fiu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/04/J.D._Handbook_As_Revised_Effective_Fall_2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/3GY3-DJVY]

Florida State University College of Law
Academic Rules, Policies, and Procedures for the J.D. Program: Grading System (revised July 20, 2022), https://law.fsu.edu/academic-rules-policies-and-procedures-jd-program#Class Rank [https://perma.cc/6ZZX-63SR]

Fordham University School of Law
Fordham Law Academic Regulations, XXIII. Rules Governing Examinations, Grades, and Honors, https://www.fordham.edu/school-of-law/academics/registrars-office/academic-regulations/ [https://perma.cc/SS5H-2KLY]

George Washington University Law School
Juris Doctor (JD) Degree: Academic Regulations- Academic Evaluation, https://bulletin.law.gwu.edu/juris-doctor-degree#academic-regulations [https://perma.cc/HW7Z-QAAL]

Georgetown University Law Center
Student Handbook of Academic Policies, at 12–14 (2023-2024), https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/syzimfl775mex2n2n8styv3u0ff3swcw [https://perma.cc/7XSL-DHPB]

Georgia State University College of Law
Academics: Grading - Grading Details, https://law.gsu.edu/student-experience/academics/#grading [https://perma.cc/JE3Y-P2UG]

Golden Gate University School of Law
2023-2024 Law School Student Handbook [ARCHIVED CATALOG]: Academic Standards - Grading Policies, https://catalog.ggu.edu/content.php?catoid=14&navoid=788#grading-policies [https://perma.cc/Q2MH-TBTX]

Gonzaga University School of Law
Student Handbook, at 37–39 (2023-2024), http://www.zaglawhandbook2324.com [https://perma.cc/B5WV-VPTF]

Harvard Law School
Handbook of Academic Policies, at 28–31 (2023-2024), https://hls.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/HLS_HAP.pdf [https://perma.cc/JXD7-LUA3]

Howard University School of Law
Student Handbook, at 31, 33–34 (Dec. 5, 2023), https://law.howard.edu/sites/law.howard.edu/files/2023-12/Howard University School of Law Student Handbook December 2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/8ZYK-6NVP]

Indiana University Maurer School of Law (Bloomington) Academic regulations, grading policy, and policy on field placements, https://law.indiana.edu/students/student-affairs/academic-regulations.html [https://perma.cc/69SB-TSJE]

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law (Indianapolis)
Student Handbook, Part I: Academic Rules & Requirements, at 15–16 (May 9, 2024), https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/students/student-handbook/index.html [https://perma.cc/2MUM-JKJU]

Inter American University of Puerto Rico School of Law
Juris Doctor & Graduate Programs Catalogue, at 45 (2022-2024), http://derecho.inter.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/IAUPR-School-of-Law-Catalogue-2022-2024-Rev2023_0312-compressed-2.pdf [https://perma.cc/4YX3-MBPS]

Lewis & Clark Law School
What’s What Law Student Handbook, Grading, Academic Achievement, Probation, and Dismissal, (Aug. 14, 2024), https://law.lclark.edu/academics/whats_what/grading_system_probation_and_dismissal/ [https://perma.cc/UMR3-VWBT]

Liberty University School of Law
Law Student Handbook, at 35–37 (2023-2024), https://www.liberty.edu/law/wp-content/uploads/sites/83/Law-Student-Handbook-2023-2024-1.pdf [https://perma.cc/FXQ6-J6RK]

Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law
Student Handbook and Catalog 2022-2023, at 91–94 (revised Aug. 2022), https://www.lmunet.edu/duncan-school-of-law/documents/2023StudentHandbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/6K2N-C48Z]

Louisiana State University Paul M. Herbert Law Center
2023-2024 LSU Law Catalog [ARCHIVED CATALOG]: Examinations, Grading and Transcript of Academic Record - Grading, https://catalog.lsu.edu/content.php?catoid=28&navoid=2591 [https://perma.cc/MQD7-SZR2]

Loyola Marymount University Law School
Grading - JD Program, https://www.lls.edu/academics/officeoftheregistrar/gradesrankingsandhonors/summaryofgradepolicies/grading-jdprogram/ [https://perma.cc/KE77-Z4JU]

Loyola University of Chicago School of Law
Registrar Policies: Grade Curve, https://www.luc.edu/law/currentstudents/registrar/registrationplanning/registrarpolicies/ [https://perma.cc/FM76-WULD]

Registrar Policies: Grade Scale, https://www.luc.edu/law/currentstudents/registrar/registrationplanning/registrarpolicies/ [https://perma.cc/FM76-WULD]

Loyola University of New Orleans College of Law
2023-2024 Law Bulletin, Academic Regulations: Grading Guidelines,https://lawbulletin.loyno.edu/regulations/academic-regulations#Grading Guidelines [https://perma.cc/YE83-UEPU]

Marquette University Law School
Marquette University Law School Curriculum Committee: Grading Scale and Grading Guidelines (revised May 1, 2012), https://law.marquette.edu/assets/current-students/pdf/grading-guidelines.pdf [https://perma.cc/Z6TH-TDUW]

Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Student Handbook, at 27–28 (2023-2024), https://law.hofstra.edu/sites/law.hofstra.edu/files/2021-08/student-handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/SXH8-T67L]

Mercer University School of Law
Law Student Handbook 2023-2024, at 9, 11 (updated Aug. 7, 2023), https://law.mercer.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/79/2023/11/2023-24-Law-Student-Handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/F9RG-KGC7]

Michigan State University College of Law
Student Handbook, Grade Curve Policy, (updated Dec. 5, 2018), https://www.law.msu.edu/studentaffairs/handbook/grade-curve.html [https://perma.cc/S5TF-WWB2]

Mississippi College School of Law
2023-2024 Academic Catalog,at 26–28, https://law.mc.edu/application/files/9217/0725/5159/2324Catalog0206.pdf [https://perma.cc/SG38-JAQX]

Mitchell Hamline School of Law
2023-2024 Catalog: 1.05.Grading System, Class Ranks and Transcripts, Honors and Awards, https://mitchellhamline.edu/catalog/1-05-grading-system-class-ranks-and-transcripts-honors-and-awards/ [https://perma.cc/B6NW-QASD]

New England Law (Boston)
Student Handbook Rules and Regulations 2024-2025, at 17–18 (updated Sept. 13, 2024), https://www.nesl.edu/docs/default-source/default-document-library/Student-Handbook-2024-2025.pdf [https://perma.cc/M9CU-J6L9]

New York Law School
New York Law School Grading System, https://www.nyls.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MKT-Web-About-Policies-Grading-System-Policy-0520-v1-locked.pdf [https://perma.cc/3J3R-5M58]

New York University School of Law
Academic Policies Guide: Grading System and Academic Standards, https://www.law.nyu.edu/academicservices/academic-policies/grading-system-academic-standards [https://perma.cc/6BRK-AT9H]

North Carolina Central University School of Law
2022-2023 Student Handbook, at 20, https://law.nccu.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-2022-NCCU-Law-Student-Handbook-1.pdf [https://perma.cc/TXD4-FY9T]

Northeastern University School of Law
Student Information Handbook, at 7–8, 16–17 (2024-2025), https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northeastern.edu/dist/a/4349/files/2024/10/JD-Handbook-24-25-Academic-Year.pdf [https://perma.cc/WBS3-45HM]

Northern Illinois University College of Law
Student Handbook: Academic and Administrative Policies, at 50–54 (revised May 2024), https://www.niu.edu/law/_pdf/student-handbook-final.pdf [https://perma.cc/AYW8-4TXZ]

Northern Kentucky Salmon P. Chase College of Law
Student Handbook: Academic Policies, at 26-28, https://chaselaw.nku.edu/content/dam/chase/docs/students/studenthandbook/Student Handbook Academic.pdf [https://perma.cc/TA3J-MKLS]

Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Academics & Clinical, Registration and Records: Grading Policy, https://www.law.northwestern.edu/registrar/gradingpolicy/ [https://perma.cc/E8NS-DKFJ]

Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law
Code of Academic Regulations, at 23–25 (Aug. 24, 2023), https://www.law.nova.edu/current-students/code-of-academic-regulations-august-24-2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/QG9H-BVPR]

Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law
2023-2024 Catalog, at 20, https://law.onu.edu/sites/default/files/law_catalog_2023-2024_final_6.6.23.pdf [https://perma.cc/EJF7-MK5Q]

Oklahoma City University School of Law
Academic Standards and Regulations, https://law.okcu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/ACADEMIC-STANDARDS-AND-REGULATIONS-1.pdf [https://perma.cc/55KH-NFTF]

Pace University Elisabeth Haub School of Law
Academic Rules and Regulations, at 17–18 (revised Jan. 17, 2024), https://law.pace.edu/sites/default/files/academics/AcademicRegulations.pdf [https://perma.cc/9K9W-TMBL]

Penn State Dickinson Law
Student Academic Handbook, at 40 (Jul. 19, 2023), https://dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/2023-08/2023-24-Student-Handbook-August-8-2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/J27U-D5K8]

Penn State Law (University Park)
Grading Norms, https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/current-students/student-academic-handbook/grading-norms [https://perma.cc/D3U5-FCPR]

Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law
Academic Policy, at 16–17 (effective after May 1, 2023), https://community.pepperdine.edu/law/academics/content/2023-academic-policy-statement.pdf [https://perma.cc/6UH2-9KV4]

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico Escuela de Derecho
Academic Policy, at 7 (revised 2021), https://derecho.pucpr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Academic-Policy-PCUPR-LAW1-REV2021.pdf [https://perma.cc/NS3Q-BVFR]

Quinnipiac University School of Law
Academic Regulations: II. Grades, Grading, and Examinations (2024-2025), https://catalog.qu.edu/school-of-law/academic-regulations/#text [https://perma.cc/UG46-L83X]

Regent University School of Law
Policies and Procedures Manual, at 39–40, 48 (revised Aug. 2023), https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/documents/PoliciesandProceduresManual.pdf [https://perma.cc/M5ZK-5UGU]

Roger Williams University School of Law
Student Handbook, at 61–62 (revised Aug. 1, 2023), https://law.rwu.edu/sites/law/files/downloads/academics/docs/Student Handbook 23.24.pdf [https://perma.cc/NRQ4-W8DK]

Rutgers Law School
Academic Requirements and Information, at 16–19 (Aug. 3, 2023), https://law.rutgers.edu/sites/law/files/RLaw-Academic-Rules-2023.08.03_0.pdf [https://perma.cc/3P4Y-6DDU]

Saint Louis University School of Law
Student Handbook, at 81–82 (Aug. 2023), https://www.slu.edu/law/academics/pdfs/student-handbook-23-24.pdf [https://perma.cc/5ZNW-Y8FX]

Saint Thomas University Benjamin L. Crump College of Law
Catalog and Student Handbook, at 69–70 (2023-2024), https://www.stu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2023/11/Catalog-and-Student-Handbook-2023-2024-11.13.23.pdf [https://perma.cc/B8LB-VN47]

Samford University Cumberland School of Law
Faculty Policies on Academic Standards, at 11–12 (May 1, 2023), https://www.samford.edu/law/files/academic_standards.pdf [https://perma.cc/PU5W-XE2C]

Santa Clara University School of Law
Student Bulletin – Academic Policies, https://law.scu.edu/bulletin/academic-policies/ [https://perma.cc/N6T5-4SB6]

Seattle University School of Law
Student Handbook, at 31, 33 (2023-2024), https://law.seattleu.edu/media/school-of-law/documents/student-life/Seattle-University-School-of-Law-2023-2024-Student-Handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/M9K3-7TCK]

Seton Hall University School of Law
Grades, https://law.shu.edu/Students/examinations/grading-system.html [https://perma.cc/88ZL-R422]

South Texas College of Law (Houston)
Student Handbook, at 23–24 (2023-2024), https://stcl.edu/stanley/pdf/StudentHandbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/6VB5-BM5G]

Southern Illinois University School of Law
Rules of the Southern Illinois University School of Law, at 9–12 (Academic Year 2022-2023), https://law.siu.edu/_common/docu
ments/rules/SoL-Rules-AY-2022-2023-FOR-POSTING-May-8.pdf [https://perma.cc/92WU-BKFD]

Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
2023-2024 Graduate Catalog [ARCHIVED CATALOG], Dedman School of Law: Enrollment and Academic Records, Dedman School of Law Policies and Procedures, https://catalog.smu.edu/content.php?catoid=64&navoid=6104 [https://perma.cc/2N5A-JY32]

Southern University Law Center
Grade Distribution Policy, at 2 (Apr. 14, 2023), https://www.sulc.edu/assets/sulc/Policies/academicaffairs/1-004-Grade-Distribution-Policy-Policy---Updated-4.14.23.pdf [https://perma.cc/R7UT-3EMR]

Southwestern Law School (Los Angeles)
Grading and Scholastic Honors Policy, at 3–4 (revised June 2024), https://www.swlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2024-06/Grading and Scholastic Honors Policy 6.7.24 for posting.pdf [https://perma.cc/L39P-JTG8]

St. John’s University School of Law
Student Handbook, at 50 (2023-2024), https://www.stjohns.edu/sites/default/files/2023-10/2023 - 2024_Student_Handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/KE4N-CNED]

St. Mary’s University School of Law
Student Handbook, at 23–24 (Academic Year 2023-2024), https://www.stmarytx.edu/policies/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2023-2024-Student-Handbook-Final-1-10-24.pdf [https://perma.cc/T5AB-PXBY]

Stanford Law School
Law School Grading System, https://bulletin.stanford.edu/academic-polices/grading/law [https://perma.cc/T7TA-36BB]

Stetson University College of Law
Grade Normalization, at 2 (Apr. 20, 2022), https://stetsonuniversity.navexone.com/content/dotNet/documents/?docid=20&public=true [https://perma.cc/2H5B-D4KF]

Suffolk University Law School
Academic Rules & Regulations, III. Grading/Exams, https://www.suffolk.edu/law/academics-clinics/student-life/policies-rules/academic-rules-regulations [https://perma.cc/U3RK-7L2K]

Syracuse University College of Law
Academic Handbook 2023-2024, at 40, 42–43 (revised Dec. 13, 2023), https://law.syracuse.edu/wp-content/uploads/academic-handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/GG3H-VHBM]

Temple University Beasley School of Law
Policies & Procedures, Grading, https://law.temple.edu/resources/policies-and-procedures/grading/ [https://perma.cc/9W87-3FWA]

Texas A&M University School of Law
Student Handbook, at 20 (2023-2024), https://law.tamu.edu/docs/default-source/current-students/Student-Handbook-2023-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=2 [https://perma.cc/AS6H-7VNS]

Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Student Rules and Regulations, 15–18 (2023-2024), https://www.tsulaw.edu/student_affairs/2023-2024-TMSL-Student-Rules-and-Regulations.pdf [https://perma.cc/WH8G-8EME]

Texas Tech University School of Law
Grading Policies, (revised Feb. 16, 2022), https://www.depts.ttu.edu/law/policies/grading-policies.php [https://perma.cc/3PUY-9QBA]

The Ohio State Moritz College of Law
Policy Unavailable

Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Student Handbook, at 28–30 (2022-2023), https://www.tourolaw.edu/pdf/student_handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/EN8U-JNAB]

Tulane Law School
Student Handbook, at 19–20, 28 (2022-2023), https://law.tulane.edu/sites/default/files/files/Student Handbook Final 2022-23.pdf [https://perma.cc/MD65-4HPJ]

UCLA School of Law
Academic Standards and Related Procedures: IV. Policies Concerning Grades and Grading, (updated May 20, 2024), https://libguides.law.ucla.edu/c.php?g=843027&p=6027635 [https://perma.cc/AVZ9-JJYF]

UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law
Policy Unavailable

University at Buffalo School of Law
General Academic Requirements, Policies and Code of Student Conduct, at 11–16 (revised May 2024), https://perma.cc/Y5ZC-MNX8 [https://perma.cc/Y5ZC-MNX8]

University of Akron School of Law
Policy Unavailable

University of Alabama School of Law
Grading, https://www.law.ua.edu/academics/curriculum/grading/ [https://perma.cc/6RDN-A9HN]

University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Arizona Law Student Handbook, at 20–23 (revised Aug. 21, 2023), http://www.arizonlawHandbook23-24.com [https://perma.cc/H9L4-N28T]

University of Arkansas Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law
Academics, V. Academic Standards: A. Grading & B. Mandatory Grade Curve, https://ualr.edu/law/academics/academic-rules/academic-standards-2/ [https://perma.cc/WBK7-7YWU]

University of Arkansas School of Law
Academic Policies: Grading System, https://law.uark.edu/current-students/academic-policies.php [https://perma.cc/8AHJ-D68A]

University of Baltimore School of Law
2023-2024 Student Handbook, at 104–08 (Aug. 11, 2023), https://law.ubalt.edu/academics/pdfs/UB School of Law Student Handbook AY 23-24b.pdf [https://perma.cc/Q33U-HVVX]

University of California Berkeley School of Law
Academic Rules, https://www.law.berkeley.edu/academics/registrar/academic-rules/ [https://perma.cc/2BTM-C68M]

University of California College of the Law (San Francisco)
Academic Regulations: Academic Year 2024-2025, at 7–9 (effective July 1, 2024), https://www.uclawsf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Academic-Regulations.pdf [https://perma.cc/S48B-S89F]

University of California Davis School of Law
Regulations of the Faculty of the School of Law University of California, Davis, at 8–10 (2023-2024), https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/media/documents/UC Davis Law Faculty Regulations 2023-2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/V5BZ-NF3J]

University of California Irvine School of Law
J.D. Academic Rules, Standards, and Procedures: VII. Grades and Grading Policies, https://www.law.uci.edu/academics/registrar/academic-rules/jd/grades/ [https://perma.cc/6DS6-N2E6]

University of Chicago Law School
Student Handbook: Classes, Exams & Grades - 4.16 Grading, https://www.law.uchicago.edu/students/handbook/academicmatters/grading [https://perma.cc/QB2B-4ARW]

University of Cincinnati College of Law
Student Handbook: JD Academic Rules - Grades and Grade Averages, https://law.uc.edu/student-life/student-handbook/jd-academic-rules.html [https://perma.cc/386L-M83N]

University of Colorado Law School
Rules of the School of Law School, at 54–55 (effective July 1, 2024), https://www.colorado.edu/law/sites/default/files/attachedfiles/law_school_bylaws_effective_july_1_2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/3VCQ-U4GP]

University of Connecticut School of Law
Academic Regulations Governing the Juris Doctor Program, at 30–33 (revised May 20, 2024), https://www.law.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3082/2023/07/jd-academic-regulations.pdf [https://perma.cc/H4F9-TBAG]

University of Dayton School of Law
Policy Manual, at 33–34 (updated May 2024), https://udayton.edu/law/_resources/documents/policy_manual/policy_manual_final.pdf [https://perma.cc/5HQF-VB6F]

University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Student Handbook: Examinations and Grading - Grading System, https://www.law.du.edu/resources/current-students/student-handbook/examinations-and-grading [https://perma.cc/TJ68-GGK6]

University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
Student Handbook 2023–2024, at 23–24 (updated Apr. 2023), https://law.udmercy.edu/students/Detroit-Mercy-Law-Student-Handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/6BQM-JFLH]

University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
Student Handbook: A Guide to Academic Regulations and Requirements, Vol. 1 at 31–37 (Academic Year 2023-2024), https://law.udc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Student_Handbook_Vol_I_2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/DP99-XDGB]

University of Florida Levin College of Law
UF Law Student Handbook & Academic Policies: Grading & Examinations, https://www.law.ufl.edu/life-at-uf-law/office-of-student-affairs/current-students/uf-law-student-handbook-and-academic-policies [https://perma.cc/FEJ8-B4EX]

UF Law Student Handbook & Academic Policies: Grade Distribution, https://www.law.ufl.edu/life-at-uf-law/office-of-student-affairs/current-students/uf-law-student-handbook-and-academic-policies [https://perma.cc/FEJ8-B4EX]

University of Georgia School of Law
Student Handbook 2024–2025: Grading Policy, (updated June 6, 2024), https://www.law.uga.edu/student-handbook [https://perma.cc/2YCK-E63R]

University of Hawai’i William S. Richardson School of Law
Student Handbook 2023-2024, at 27–29 (as amended Jan. 1, 2024), http://www.hawaiilawpolicy23-24.com [https://perma.cc/JR3V-PBBS]

University of Houston Law Center
Student Handbook, at Handbook Part: II 18–19 (May 28, 2024), https://law.uh.edu/jd/current/handbook.pdf? [https://perma.cc/R8KK-5KDD]

University of Idaho College of Law
College of Law Student Handbook, at 25–26 (2023-2024), https://www.uidaho.edu/-/media/UIdaho-Responsive/Files/law/academics/academic-admin/law-catalog-handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/KKR5-AJJK]

University of Illinois Chicago School of Law
Grading and Class Ranks (updated Jan. 23, 2023), https://uofi.app.box.com/s/0rkx3dg43hig6t4nnzv52erixk0q7svx [https://perma.cc/9E2T-XUXS]

University of Illinois College of Law (Urbana-Champaign)
Academic Policy Handbook: Juris Doctor Students Academic, at 15–16 (Academic Year 2022-2023), https://law.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/JD_AP_Handbook_-_2022-23.pdf [https://perma.cc/5JZS-CSMV]

University of Iowa College of Law
Student Handbook 2023-2024, at 28–31, 41–44 (updated Jul. 21, 2023), https://law.uiowa.edu/sites/law.uiowa.edu/files/2024-01/Student Handbook 2023-2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/E39J-4FU9]

University of Kansas School of Law
Academic Regulations - Grading System, https://law.ku.edu/current-students/policies/academicregulations#:~:text=Grading System&text=A mandatory curve is used,courses is 3.2-3.4 [https://perma.cc/U6GC-H7F4]

University of Kentucky Rosenberg College of Law
Academic Regulations -9. Grades, https://law.uky.edu/current-students/academic-resources/academic-regulations [https://perma.cc/S6JS-P7RU]

University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
Student Handbook, at 25 (2024-2025), https://louisville.edu/law/experiences/student-life/handbooks/student-handbook-24-25/view [https://perma.cc/65P8-FUNZ ]

University of Maine School of Law
Student Handbook: Academic Requirements, Policies, and Procedures for the Degree of Juris Doctor, at 25–26 (2023-2024), https://mycampus.maine.edu/documents/1685896/1859359/Law+JD+Student+Handbook.pdf/d13c7f46-b503-7c58-c86d-4e1db5dc1473?t=1679427748300 [https://perma.cc/2VK9-X498]

University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Academic Standards & Honor Code, at 9, https://www.law.umaryland.edu/all-policies/academic-standards--honor-code/ [https://perma.cc/VCQ9-9PZL]

University of Massachusetts School of Law-Dartmouth
Student Handbook, at 17–19 (Aug. 15, 2023), https://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/school-of-law/forms/umass-law-student-handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/M64E-2EJH]

University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law
Academic Regulations, at 9 (Aug. 1, 2023), https://www.memphis.edu/law/registrar/academic_regulations_through_august_2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/V66Q-35Q8]

University of Miami School of Law
Grades/GPA Overview: Grade Distribution, GPA Calculation, Honors-Pass-Fail, https://student.law.miami.edu/exams-grades/grades/ [https://perma.cc/9ZEC-VXLD]

University of Michigan Law School
Policy Unavailable

University of Minnesota Law School
Policy Unavailable

University of Mississippi School of Law
School of Law Grading Policy (revised Apr. 12, 2023), https://law.olemiss.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Grading-Policy-05102023-pdf.pdf [https://perma.cc/NQ9W-S955].

University of Missouri School of Law
Academic Q&A, https://law.missouri.edu/academics/academic/ [https://perma.cc/XAT2-FFPQ]

University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
Academic Rules and Regulations for Juris Doctor Degree Program: Examinations and Grades (2024-2025), https://catalog.umkc.edu/colleges-schools/law/academic-rules-regulations-for-juris-doctor-degree-program/examinations-grades/ [https://perma.cc/ZXL8-MHAA]

University of Montana Alexander Blewett III School of Law
Student Handbook 2023-2024, at 30–31 (Aug. 1, 2023), https://www.umt.edu/law/students/alexander-blewett-iii-school-of-law_student-handbook_2023-2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/P4DF-G7CF]

University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law
Academic Regulations, https://law.unl.edu/academic-regulations/ [https://perma.cc/5D3H-ZQKE]

University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law
Law School Academic Catalog, Juris Doctor Academic Rules & Regulations: Rule IV. Grading, https://catalog.unh.edu/law/juris-doctor-academic-rules-regulations/grading/ [https://perma.cc/RY78-PRBY]

University of New Mexico School of Law
Bulletin and Handbook of Policies: Juris Doctor Program 2023-2024, at 34–36 (revised Jan. 24, 2024), https://lawschool.unm.edu/academics/common/docs/bulletin-handbook-policies.pdf [https://perma.cc/5L9D-3MT5]

University of North Carolina School of Law
Academic Policies: Evaluation and Grading, https://law.unc.edu/academics/academic-policies/ [https://perma.cc/3FBA-8GHQ]

University of North Dakota School of Law
Policy Manual: I. A. 5 Grading System, https://law.und.edu/_files/docs/policy-manual/section-l-a/l-a-5-grading-system-approved-april-2016-reformatted.pdf [https://perma.cc/96EM-F6SH]

University of North Texas Dallas College of Law
Grades, https://www.untdallas.edu/lawschool/academics/registrar/curriculum/grades.php [https://perma.cc/8D2A-95U3]

University of Notre Dame Law School
2023–2024 Bulletin of Information, at 12, https://registrar.nd.edu/assets/546197/boi_law_school_2023_2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/MMV2-NCMK]

University of Oklahoma College of Law
University of Oklahoma College of Law Student Handbook 2023-2024, at 6 (updated June 10, 2019), https://law.ou.edu/sites/default/files/2024-02/student_handbook_2023-2024_final.pdf [https://perma.cc/U3GJ-5CXQ]

University of Oregon School of Law
UO Law Grading System, https://law.uoregon.edu/jd/requirements/grading [https://perma.cc/P3UA-4XW9]

University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law
JD Student Handbook 2023-2024, at 26–28 (Aug. 1, 2023), https://law.pacific.edu/sites/default/files/users/user242/jdStudentHandbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/B3C6-BYFT]

University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School
Policy Unavailable

University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Policies & Procedures: Grading Policies, (revised Apr. 7, 2022), https://www.law.pitt.edu/student-resources/policies-procedures/grading-policies [https://perma.cc/N7FZ-FT4J]

University of Puerto Rico School of Law
Policy Unavailable

University of Richmond School of Law
Law Academic Regulations: Grading Policy, https://catalog.richmond.edu/policies/lawacademicregulations#grading-policy1 [https://perma.cc/7GUW-Q92G]

University of Saint Thomas School of Law
Academic Policy Manual, at 47 (Mar. 15, 2024), https://law.stthomas.edu/_media-library/documents/required-disclosures/policymanual.pdf [https://perma.cc/7ZYR-VYAK]

University of San Diego School of Law
Grading and Ranks, https://www.sandiego.edu/law/registrar/grading-and-ranks/ [https://perma.cc/9USC-GRSP]

University of San Francisco School of Law
Academic Policies: Juris Doctor and Graduate Tax Programs 2023-2024, at 18–19 (updated Aug. 2023), https://myusf.usfca.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Law/Registrar/Academic Policies.pdf [https://perma.cc/4T96-SGQZ]

University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law
Student Handbook: Section VIII. D. Grading, https://sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/law/internal/current_students/handbook/section_008.php [https://perma.cc/2Q2R-D4GH]

University of South Dakota Knudson School of Law
Academic Rules and Student Policies, at 12–13 (updated Aug. 1, 2022), https://www.usd.edu/-/media/Project/USD/DotEdu/Academics/Colleges-and-Schools/Knudson-School-of-Law/lawacademicrulesandstudentpolicies.pdf [https://perma.cc/8653-Q82J]

University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Class Rank & Grading - Juris Doctor (JD), https://gould.usc.edu/academics/degrees/jd/curriculum/grading/ [https://perma.cc/M4NQ-936D]

University of Tennessee College of Law
Academic Policies (Student Handbook), at 8–9 (2022-2023), http://law.utk.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/COLStudentHandbook_2022-23.pdf [https://perma.cc/66Y2-UP3H]

University of Texas School of Law (Austin)
Academic Planning: Policies and Procedures - Grading Policies, https://law.utexas.edu/students/grading-policies/ [https://perma.cc/28JR-DXDG]

University of Toledo College of Law
Academic Rules of the College of Law, at 5–6 (amended Nov. 29, 2023), https://www.utoledo.edu/law/studentlife/resources/pdf/academic-rules.pdf [https://perma.cc/6T3H-U6VY]

University of Tulsa College of Law
Policies and Regulations, at 9–10 (amended July 1, 2024), https://bulletin.utulsa.edu/mime/media/view/50/2738/TU+Law+Policies+and+Regulations+2024-2025.pdf
[https://perma.cc/5FA5-2LF3]

University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Student Handbook, at 34 (revised Jan. 26, 2023), https://app.box.com/s/r8qoqpdt1rwpous8hd1qduk8fd39hckf
[https://perma.cc/4USH-VLLZ]

University of Virginia School of Law
Academic Policies: I. Academic Policies and Procedures – I. Grading System, https://www.law.virginia.edu/policies/i-academic-policies-and-procedures#grading_system [https://perma.cc/3VBR-852W]

University of Washington School of Law
Student Handbook 2023-2024, at 34–35 (updated Feb. 2024), https://www.law.washington.edu/students/studenthandbook.pdf?xww2lrm [https://perma.cc/9LM8-K8VW]

University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School
Law School Rules - Chapter 2. Grading Rules for 2005 and Lawyer Matriculants, https://law.wisc.edu/current/rules/chap2.html#2.07 [https://perma.cc/RU27-K58F]

University of Wyoming College of Law
Student Handbook, at 10 (2023–2024), https://www.uwyo.edu/law/current/resources/studenthandbook-2023-24-3-6-24.pdf [https://perma.cc/FNU8-D58U]

Vanderbilt University Law School
The Office of Student Life: Academic Operations - Grading Policy, https://law.vanderbilt.edu/student-life/academic-life/#:~:text=Vanderbilt Law School does not rank its students.&text=Anonymous grading is accomplished by,grades of the written examination [https://perma.cc/WQ8U-HKBZ]

Vermont Law and Graduate School
Student Handbook, at 36–37 (2023-2024), https://www.vermontlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2023-08/2023-24_student-handbook_rev20230808_1414.pdf [https://perma.cc/7CM3-5DR2]

Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Student Handbook: Academic Rules – Rule 5 (updated Apr. 18, 2024), https://libguides.law.villanova.edu/studenthandbook/academicrules [https://perma.cc/VY49-2P9Z]

Wake Forest University School of Law
Student Handbook Ch. 10: Grades, https://sites.google.com/wfu.edu/law-student-handbook/chapter-10-grades?authuser=0 [https://perma.cc/BM75-T5L4]

Washburn University School of Law
Policies: Grading Guidelines for Average Grades and Grade Distribution, (effective Fall 2023), https://www.washburnlaw.edu/policies/gradingguidelines.html [https://perma.cc/4Q54-ZBN2]

Washington and Lee University School of Law
2023-2024 School of Law Catalog [archived]: Academic Regulations - Grading System, https://catalog.wlu.edu/content.php?catoid=37&navoid=3635&hl="grading"&returnto=search#grading [https://perma.cc/HQ9X-EZUY]

Washington University School of Law
Student Handbook, at 12 (2022-2023), https://bulletin.wustl.edu/pdf/2022-23 Law School Student Handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/4GUS-WW2E]

Wayne State University Law School
J.D. Academic Regulations: Grading Norms (Appendix B), https://law.wayne.edu/jd-regulations/grading [https://perma.cc/ZV73-3AC7]

West Virginia University College of Law
WVU Morgantown College of Law: Academic Policies and Procedures - B. Grading Information and Procedures, http://catalog.wvu.edu/graduate/law/academic_policies_and_procedures/#Grades [https://perma.cc/2E23-VQXG]

Western New England University School of Law
Law Student Handbook, at 16–17 (2023-2024), https://wne.edu/law/current/doc/Handbooks Policies/Academic-Standards-and-Honor-Code-for-2023-24-Handbook1.pdf [https://perma.cc/AT9M-XEL7]

Western State College of Law
Student Handbook, at 31–32 (effective Aug. 1, 2023), https://www.wsulaw.edu/Uploads/Student-Handbook/WSU-Student_Handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/AK3P-JUQH]

Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Student Handbook, at 21, 57 (Academic Year 2023-2024), https://commonwealthlawwidener.edu/files/resources/2023-2024-wlc-student-handbook-final-8-11-23.pdf [https://perma.cc/PFT5-NVAU]

Widener University Delaware Law School
Student Handbook, at 14, 65, https://delawarelaw.widener.edu/files/resources/dellawstudenthandbook090922.pdf [https://perma.cc/RXA3-3YDM]

Willamette University College of Law
Law Handbook & Policies (2023-2024) - Grading Rules and Practices (updated Aug. 2023), https://willamette.edu/law/internal/students/osa/handbook/index.html [https://perma.cc/3ZKF-G9BL]

William & Mary Law School
Grading Policy: Mandatory Grade Policy, https://law.wm.edu/academics/whatabout/examsgradestranscripts/gradingpolicy/gradecurve/ [https://perma.cc/K969-MCEL]

Yale Law School
Grades at Yale Law School: Explanation of Grading System, https://law.yale.edu/about-yale-law-school/offices-services/registrar/grades-yale-law-school [https://perma.cc/8U25-U3YT]

 

Appendix B. Association of Legal Writing Directors & Legal Writing Institute Survey Reports

1999 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.alwd.org/images/resources/1999 Survey Report (AY 1998-1999).pdf [https://perma.cc/ZH8S-JNH3]

2000 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.alwd.org/images/resources/2000 Survey Report (AY 1999-2000).pdf [https://perma.cc/W6CW-UGDQ]

2001 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.alwd.org/images/resources/2001 Survey Report (AY 2000-2001).pdf [https://perma.cc/4GDM-TRTM]

2002 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.alwd.org/images/resources/2002 Survey Report (AY 2001-2002).pdf [https://perma.cc/DJX7-J3BL]

2003 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.alwd.org/images/resources/2003 Survey Report (AY 2002-2003).pdf [https://perma.cc/F5XE-FVD8]

2004 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.lwionline.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/2004-Survey-Results.pdf [https://perma.cc/TZG4-RFT8]

2005 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.lwionline.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/Survey-Results-2005.pdf [https://perma.cc/9DMS-TY67]

2006 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.lwionline.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/Survey-Results-2006.pdf [https://perma.cc/W9HS-3LFZ]

2007 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.lwionline.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/Survey-Results-2007.pdf [https://perma.cc/P6SF-C2HN]

2008 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.lwionline.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/2008Surveyresults(REVISED).pdf [https://perma.cc/7N64-RP5Y]

2009 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.lwionline.org/sites/default/files/2009-Survey-Results.pdf [https://perma.cc/S7PZ-P9EV]

2010 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.lwionline.org/sites/default/files/2010-Survey-Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/CTQ5-829W]

2011 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.lwionline.org/sites/default/files/2011-Survey-Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/R6G7-UEZC]

2012 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.lwionline.org/sites/default/files/2012-Survey-Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/EM42-J66K]

2013 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.lwionline.org/sites/default/files/2013-Survey-Report-final.pdf [https://perma.cc/J3PK-N5XE]

2014 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.lwionline.org/sites/default/files/2014-Survey-Report-Final.pdf [https://perma.cc/KC8G-VGC5]

2015 ALWD/LWI Survey
https://www.alwd.org/images/resources/2015 Survey Report (AY 2014-2015).pdf [https://perma.cc/G3D7-V3FQ]

2016–2017 ALWD/LW Survey^[360]
https://www.lwionline.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/Report-of-the-2016-2017-Survey.pdf [https://perma.cc/4CW6-PVZ9]

2021–2022 ALWD/LWI^[361]
https://www.lwionline.org/sites/default/files/2021-22 Institutional Survey Report.FINAL June 2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/FK3E-LN3A]

 

Appendix C. Sources for Figure 9: First-Year Legal Writing Distribution Lowest Advisory/Required Grades (N=60)

B Grade: Required (5 Schools)

Five schools identify a B as the lowest required grade in their distribution scheme.

• Duke University School of Law, ranked 4, uses a “slightly modified form of the traditional 4.0 scale” and requires that 20–40% of grades be in the 3.0–3.3 range. Duke Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

• UCLA School of Law, ranked 13, requires 25–35% of grades to be a B and below, while giving faculty the “the discretion to make modest adjustments to assure that grades accurately reflect course performance.” UCLA Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

• Georgetown University Law Center, ranked 14, establishes that 15–25% of grades must be a B, with a recommended target of 23%. Georgetown Univ. L. Ctr., Grading Policy, at 13.

• The University of Washington School of Law, ranked 48, requires at least 25%, but no more than 50% of grades, to be a B or lower. Univ. of Wash. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 34.

• The University of Connecticut School of Law, ranked 55, requires that 55%–60% of students receive a grade of B+ or higher and 40–45% of students receive grades of a B or lower. U. Conn. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 33.

B Grade: Advisory (3 Schools)

One school identifies a B as the lowest advised grade in its distribution scheme.

• The grade normalization policy at Boston University School of Law, ranked 24, establishes a mandatory grade distribution of 15–50% for B grades in all first-year doctrinal courses, subject to a limitation of 40% on A range grades. B.U. Sch. of L., Grading Policy. The policy states: “For the first-year Lawyering Program, the above distributions are not mandatory.” Id.

At two other schools, depending on how a professor allocates grades, the B grade could be the lowest grade.

• The University of Texas School of Law, ranked 16, contains required and advisory elements; it establishes a mandatory mean range between 3.25–3.35 and recommends that 35% of grades should be A+, A, or A- and 65% should be B+, B, or B- range. U.T. Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

• The grade normalization policy for U.C. Davis School of Law, ranked 55, is advisory for first-year legal writing classes. U.C. Davis Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 10. In addition to an advisory course mean of 3.3 plus or minus 0.05, it states that in Legal Research and Writing, faculty members should distribute grades so that 30 %, plus or minus 3%, of the grades are A+, A, A- and 70%, plus or minus 3%, of the grades are B+, B, B-. Id.

B- Grade: Required (10 Schools)

Seven schools specifically identify a B- as the lowest required grade in their distribution scheme.

• The University of Florida Levin College of Law, ranked 28, requires 5–20% of grades to be a B-. Univ. Fl. Levin Coll. of L., Grading Policy.

• The University of Iowa College of Law, ranked 36, requires the course median for first-year Legal Analysis, Writing & Research to be between 3.2 and 3.4, and 15–35% of grades to be a 2.9 and below (B-/C+/C/D/F). Univ. of Iowa Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 43.

• Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, ranked 36, requires 20% (plus or minus 5%) of grades to be a B- and below. Ariz. St. Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 17–18.

• The University of California Irvine School of Law, ranked 42, requires that all first-year courses have a B+ median and that 14–18% of course grades are a B- or below. U.C. Irvine Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

• The grade policy for Seton Hall University Law School, ranked 61, uses a mandatory grade cap structure for A, A- and B+, and B grades requiring that some percentage of students receive a grade of B- or below. Seton Hall Univ. L. Sch., Grading Policy.

• The policy at the University of Richmond School of Law, ranked 66, includes a required course “grade point average” of 3.30 (plus or minus 0.10). Univ. of Richmond Sch. of L., Grading Policy. Additionally, it requires that 5–25% of grades be a B- and below in courses with sixteen or more students. Id.

• The University of Houston Law Center, ranked 68, requires that course grades fall within the mandatory mean range of 3.20–3.40 and that 5–20% of grades be B-/C+ or below. Univ. of Hous. L. Ctr., Grading Policy, at 18.

Three schools have policies that result in required B- grades even though that grade requirement is not specified in the policy text.

• The policy for Michigan State University College of Law, ranked 108, requires both a target mean of 3.0, with a permissible range based on class size, and a distribution. The distribution limits B-range grades (B+, B, B-) to 70%. Mich. St. Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy. Therefore, some number of B- grades are required due to the combination of the target mean, mean range, and distribution. See id.

• The policy for Albany Law School, ranked 117, requires both a median of 3.0 and a presumptive distribution where 20-35% of grades are As, 45-65% are Bs, 0-15% are Cs, and 0-10% are Ds and Fs. Albany L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 3. Based on the combined requirement, B- grades are required. See id.

• The policy for Southwestern Law School, ranked 145, requires first-year courses to have a mean of 2.800 (plus or minus 0.05) with a standard deviation of .70. Southwestern L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 3. Additionally, it requires that at least 15% of grades are in the A range (A+, A, and A-). Id. Based on the combined requirement, B- grades are required. See id.

B- Grade: Advisory (3 Schools)

One school’s policy expressly identifies a B- as the lowest advised grade in its distribution scheme.

• The policy for William & Mary Law School, ranked 36, includes a mandatory mean range between 3.20 and 3.40 with a target mean of 3.30 for first-year legal writing courses. William & Mary L. Sch., Grading Policy. In addition, the policy specifies that “to the extent practicable” 15% of grades should be a B- or below. Id.

Two other advisory policies imply that B- is the lowest expected grade in their distribution scheme.

• The grade policy for Saint Louis University School of Law, ranked 94, only suggests a distribution for A range grades (A+, A, A-) between 5%–15%; however, the required mean range of 2.7–2.9 implicitly suggests that some amount of B- grades are advisory. St. Louis Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 81.

• The grade policy for University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, ranked 117, contains a mandatory mean range between 2.8–3.0. UMKC Sch. of L., Grading Policy. Additionally, the policy states: “[i]t is recommended that 10 percent of the grades in a traditional first year course should be an A- or higher.” Id. The combination of these policies implies that B- grades are recommended. See id. Notably, Lawyering Skills I and II are listed as traditional first year courses. Id.

C+ Grade: Required (6 Schools)

Six law school policies result in a C+ grade as the lowest required grade in their distribution scheme.

• Wayne State University Law School, ranked 55, uses grade caps and requires that a “[m]aximum of 90% of students enrolled in the course may receive an A+, A, A-, B+, B or B- grade.” Wayne St. Univ. L. Sch., Grading Policy. Therefore, at least 10% of student grades must be a C+ or a below. See id. The policy sets a cap of 35% for C+, C or C- grades, a cap of 10% for D+ or D grades, and a cap of 5% for F grades. Id.

• Belmont University College of Law, ranked 91, has a grade policy that requires average course grades for each required first-year course to be between 2.90 and 3.10. Belmont Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 7–8. Additionally, 10–20% of grades must be a C+ and below. Id.

• University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, ranked 127, has a grade policy that applies to all required courses in which 10–25% of grades must be a C+ and below. Univ. of Haw. Richardson Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 28.

• Santa Clara University School of Law, ranked 158, applies a specific grade distribution policy to first-year Legal Research and Writing that requires 20–25% of course grades to be C+ and below. Santa Clara Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

• Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law, ranked 165, applies a different distribution to first and second semester grades in the first year of law school. LMU Duncan Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 91–92. In the fall, the law school requires Legal Communication I course grades to fall within the mean range of 2.600 and 2.800. Id. at 91. In addition, the law school caps A, A-, B+, B, and B- grades at no more than 55%. Id. Therefore, 45% of each class must receive a grade of C+ or below. See id. In the spring, the law school requires that Legal Communication II course grades fall within the mean range of 2.700 and 2.900. Id. In addition, the law school caps A, A-, B+, and B grades at no more than 55%. Id. Therefore, 45% of each class must receive a grade of B- or below. See id.

• Western New England University School of Law, ranked 178–96, requires a median grade of B in all courses. W. New. Eng. Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 17. Additionally, a maximum of 85% of course grades are permitted to be B- and above. Therefore, at least 15% of grades must be C+ and below. See id.

C+ Grade: Advisory (3 Schools)

Three schools identify a C+ as the lowest advised grade in their distribution scheme.

• The University of Illinois College of Law (Urbana-Champaign), ranked 36, has a “recommended curve” that states: “For all first-year courses: a mean course GPA for J.D. students of 3.20, with no more than 20% of the J.D. students receiving a grade of A- or higher. At least 10% of grades must fall at C+ or below.” Univ. of Ill. Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 15-16.

• Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, ranked 61, has established a mandatory mean range of 3.10–3.33. Benjamin Cardozo Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 65. In addition, it requests that faculty, “where possible,” conform their course grades to a grade distribution that includes 5–10% of C+ grades and below. Id.

• West Virginia University College of Law, ranked 117, has a mandatory mean range between 2.95 and 3.05. W. Va. Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy. In addition, it advises that 15–25% of course grades should be a C+ or below. Id.

C Grade: Required (6 Schools)

Six schools identify a C as the lowest required grade in their distribution scheme.

• Florida International University College of Law, ranked 68, requires that 10—15% of grades are a C in foundation curriculum courses. FIU Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 14.

• The University of San Diego School of Law, ranked 68, mandates that the average grade in each first-year course is between a 3.15 and 3.25. Univ. of San Diego Sch. of L., Grading Policy. Additionally, it requires 8-12% of grades to be a 2.0 or below. Id.

• The University of Cincinnati College of Law, ranked 78, has a mandatory distribution specifying that 5–10% of students must receive a C grade Univ. of Cinn. Coll. of L., Grading Policy.

• Syracuse University College of Law, ranked 120, requires that 10% of grades in “Required Lower-Division Courses” be a C or lower. Syracuse Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 43.

• DePaul University College of Law, ranked 134, requires all first-year course grades to comply with a mean range of 2.95–3.15 and to follow a mandatory grade distribution where 10–15% of course grades are a C and below. DePaul Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy.

• Appalachian School of Law, ranked 178–196, mandates that required courses have a mean grade that does not exceed 3.0000. Appalachian Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 12. Additionally, it specifies that in courses with enrollment of fifteen students or more, at least 15% of the students enrolled in the course must receive a grade of C or lower. Id.

C Grade: Advisory (2 Schools)

Two school policies identify a C as the lowest advised grade in their distribution scheme.

• Liberty University School of Law, ranked 140, has a separate grading policy for the first-year fall and spring semesters. Liberty Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 36. The advisory mean range for first-semester courses is between 2.50–2.65, and it is 2.50–2.75 for second semester courses. Id. In addition, the policy suggests that 35–55% of grades should be in the “C range.” Id.

• Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law, ranked 178–196, expects that 35–45% of grades in Lawyering Process I and II should be “C.” Tx. S. Univ. Thurgood Marshall Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 15.

C- Grade: Required (8 Schools)

Eight schools require some percentage of students in first-year legal writing courses to receive a C- (or below).

• University of Kansas School of Law, ranked 46—the highest ranked law school requiring a C- grade—has a mandatory course mean range of 2.8–3.0, and requires that 7% of grades are a C- or lower in all first-year courses. Univ. of KS Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

• The University of Miami School of Law, ranked 82, requires that 5–15% of grades are a C- or below. Miami Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

• Chapman University Fowler School of Law, ranked 108, requires all first-year required courses to have a maximum median of 2.8. Chapman Univ. Fowler Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 11. In addition, at least 10% of grades must be in the 0.0–1.9 range. Id.

• The University of San Francisco School of Law, ranked 165, requires that 8–12% of grades are C- and below. Univ. S.F. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 18.

• Widener University Commonwealth Law School, ranked 165, has a different policy for first and second semester grades in the first year of law school. Widener Univ. Comm. L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 57. In the first semester, course means must fall within the 2.3000 to 2.750 range, and at least 10% of grades must be C- or below. Id. In the second semester, course means must fall with the 2.5000 to 2.850 range and there is no specified distribution of C- and below grades. Id.

• Widener University Delaware Law School, ranked 178–196, requires course means to fall within the 2.3000 to 2.750 range, and at least 10% of grades must be C- or below. Widener Univ. Delaware L. Sch., Grade Policy, at 65.

• Golden Gate University School of Law, ranked 178–196, requires that 10–20% of grades must be a C- or below. Golden Gate Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

• California Western School of Law, ranked 178–196, requires that faculty distribute grades in Legal Skills I and II so that 5–15% of students earn a 69–73, which translates to a C- grade. Cal. W. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 19, 21.

C- Grade: Advisory (3 Schools)

Three schools identify a C- as the lowest advised grade in their distribution scheme.

• The grade policy for Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, ranked 98, recommends a grade mean range of 2.9–3.1 and suggests that 5% of grades should be C- and below. Ind. Univ. Robert H. McKinney Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

• University of Baltimore School of Law, ranked 140, has a mandatory mean range between 2.67–3.00. Univ. of Baltimore Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 107. In addition, it recommends that 7–14% of grades are C- or below. Id.

• University of North Texas Dallas College of Law, ranked 172, has a required mean range of 2.6–2.8. UNT Dallas Coll. of L., Grading Policy. In addition, it suggests that 8–12% of grades be C- or below, with a target of 10%. Id.

D+ Grade: Required (3 Schools)

Three schools identify a D+ as the lowest required grade in their distribution scheme.

• Elon University School of Law, ranked 148, requires the median grade to be a 2.67 or 3.0 and 5% of grades to be D+ or below. Elon Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 52.

• Ave Maria School of Law, ranked 161, requires a B- median grade and states that 5% of grades must be below C-. Ave Maria Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 12.

• Southern Illinois University School of Law, ranked 172, has a required mean range of 2.7–2.9. S. Ill. Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 10–11. In addition, it requires that 2–6% of grades be a D+ with a suggested target of 4%. Id.

D+ Grade: Advisory (2 Schools)

Two schools identify a D+ as the lowest advised grade in their distribution scheme.

• Texas Tech University School of Law, ranked 82, suggests course grades meet a 2.95 mean, a B median, and that 5% of student grades fall in the D+, D, F range. Tex. Tech. Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

• The Southern University Law Center, ranked 178–196, advises that 15–25% of course grades fall within the D range. S. Univ. L. Ctr., Grading Policy, at 2.

D Grade: Required (1 School)

One school’s policy results in a D grade as the lowest required grade in its distribution scheme.

• Howard University School of Law, ranked 130, uses a numeric scale and requires the arithmetic mean range of 81.00–83.00 for all grades. Howard Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 31. In addition, it requires that 10–20% of grades be in the 60–69 range. Id. at 33. The grading policy specifies that numeric grades between 60–69 have the equivalent letter grade of D. Id. at 31, 33.

D Grade: Advisory (4 Schools)

Four schools identify a D+ as the lowest advised grade in their distribution scheme.

• Penn State Law (University Park), ranked 68, suggests that all required courses have B median, a mean range of 2.9–3.1, and that 3–7% of grades are D and below. Penn. St. L., Grading Policy.

• Duquesne University Thomas R. Kline School of Law, ranked 94, suggests that 0–3% of course grades are a D with a target of 2%. Duquesne Univ. Thomas R. Kline Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 14.

• Cleveland State University College of Law, ranked 103, has advisory “Grading Guidelines” that serve as “prima facie evidence of what constitutes a reasonable distribution of grades” in “other law courses.” Cleveland St. Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 19. These guidelines specify that 0–5% of students can receive F grades, although the “standard %” is zero. Id.

• Florida A&M University College of Law, ranked 176–198, expects that 5–12% of grades will be D to F. Fl. A&M Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 59.

E/F Grade: Advisory (1 School)

One school identifies an E grade as the lowest advisory grade in its distribution scheme.

• Capital University Law School, ranked 178-196, advises that the mean for all first-year courses should fall within a range of 2.6 to 2.75. Cap. Univ. L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 26. Additionally, course grades should meet a specified distribution. Id. Although the policy has a “1L Range” indicating that 0-5% of grades should be an E (with a point value of 0.0), it also indicates a “1L Average” of 3% for this grade. Id.

---

1. Leslie M. Rose’s two-word sentence “Grades matter” cannot be overstated. Leslie Rose, Norm-Referenced Grading in the Age of Carnegie: Why Criteria-Referenced Grading Is More Consistent with Current Trends in Legal Education and How Legal Writing Can Lead the Way, 17 Legal Writing 123, 123 (2011). She published her article at a time when many legal education reformers hoped that anticipated ABA changes would spur curricular innovation and that “learning outcomes” and “assessment” would be more than mere buzzwords. This article is both a hat tip to and amplifier of her important work.

2. Throughout this article the terms “grades” and “grading” refer “to the symbols assigned to individual pieces of student work or to composite measures of student performance[.]” Susan M. Brookhart, Thomas R. Guskey, Alex J. Bowers, James H. McMillan, Jeffrey K. Smith, Lisa F. Smith, Michael T. Stevens & Megan E. Welsh, A Century of Grading Research: Meaning and Value in the Most Common Educational Measure, 86 Rev. Educ. Rsch. 803, 804 (2016).

3. See Adam Chilton, Peter Joy, Kyle Rozema & James Thomas, Improving the Signal Quality of Grades, 40 J. Law, Econ. & Org. 820, 821 (2023) (noting it is well documented that in law schools “early grades determine important academic and professional opportunities”); Heather S. Woodson, Evaluation in Hiring, 65 UMKC L. Rev. 931, 932 (1997) (reporting how one employer described a good academic record as a “door opener” for job interviews); Richard Sander & Jane Bambauer, The Secret of My Success: How Status, Eliteness, and School Performance Shape Legal Careers, 9 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 893, 895 (2012) (evaluating data from six databases about law students and lawyers and concluding that “performance in law school—as measured by law school grades—is the most important predictor of career success.”). A note of caution: The Sander & Bambauer article does not define “career success.” See also Emily Zimmerman, Do Grades Matter?, 35 Seattle U. L. Rev. 305, 332, 345 (2012) (summarizing data from her three-year study of incoming law students and finding that survey respondents believed that getting good grades in the first year of law school was important).

4. Throughout this article, I use the phrase “legal writing courses” to refer to the required first-year legal writing course. Law schools now use various names for this course.

5. See Rose, supra note 1, at 123 (“Grades are used to dole out rewards such as scholarships, law review positions, and access to prestigious clerkships.”); Peggy Cooper Davis, Slay the Three-Headed Demon! Radical Proposals to Reform Legal Pedagogy, 43 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 619, 622 (2008) (stating that normalized grades set “students on rank ordered tracks” and describing how a student’s ranking has positive and negative effects).

6. See Elizabeth Ruiz Frost, Failure Begets Failure: An Examination of the Psychology of Failure and How Law Schools Ought to Respond, 48 Stetson L. Rev. 33, 47–48 (2018) (describing results from a survey of remediation practices for students who fail their first-year legal writing course and noting that 40% of the 113 responding schools require mandatory academic support for students whose GPA or class rank falls below a certain threshold). Many schools have policies requiring courses for students who receive certain grades in specified classes. See, e.g., St. Louis Univ. Sch. of L., Student Handbook 65 (Aug. 2023), https://www.slu.edu/law/academics/pdfs/student-handbook-23-24.pdf [https://perma.cc/5ZNW-Y8FX] (requiring students in the bottom 25% of their class after 1L spring to enroll in Advanced Legal Methodology in the fall of their 2L year).

7. Thomas Doniger, Grades: Review of Academic Evaluations in Law Schools, 11 Pac. L. J. 743, 745 (1980) (noting that student grades are a factor in determining financial assistance). The number of financial aid awards conditioned on maintaining a particular grade point average is decreasing. However, in 2022–2023, 5.9% of 1Ls nationally lost their scholarships. See Law Hub, Cost of Attendance https://www.lawhub.org/trends/scholarships [https://perma.cc/LP8A-YCW9].

8. See Rose, supra note 1, at 123. For an overview of academic dismissal rates for 2023, see Enjuris, Law School Attrition Rates (2023) https://www.enjuris.com/students/law-school-attrition-rates/ [https://perma.cc/8LHM-G4N2]. For law school specific academic rates, see Am. Bar Ass’n, ABA Standard Disclosures, https://www.abarequireddisclosures.org/requiredDisclosure [https://perma.cc/FP6F-LCM8].

9. Am. Bar Ass’n, Report to the House of Delegates, Resolution (Aug. 7–8, 2023), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/directories/policy/annual-2023/523-annual-2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/DZX7-N2E4].

10. The most recent and thorough treatment of general law school grading practices appeared in two empirical articles published in the 1990s: Professor Nancy Kaufman’s 1994 article, A Survey of Law School Grading Practices, 44 J. Legal Educ. 415 (1994), and Professors Robert C. Downs & Nancy Levit’s 1997 article, If It Can’t Be Lake Woebegone . . . A Nationwide Survey of Law School Grading and Grade Normalization Practices, 65 UMKC L. Rev. 819 (1997). Responding in part to the 1994 Kaufman article, Stacy Brustin and David Chavkin published Testing the Grades: Evaluating Grading Models in Clinical Legal Education, 3 Clinical L. Rev. 299 (1997), which reported on a one-semester grading experiment at Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law’s in-house clinics that evaluated the impact of grading in clinics. There have also been a handful of more recent empirical articles on grading. See, e.g., Chilton et al., supra note 3 (investigating the signal quality of grades in law school and the negative impact of awarding early opportunities to students who do not earn grades in the top 10% of their class in their first year of law school); David Chambers, Law School Grades and Their Effects: The University of Michigan Law School Alumni Survey (2019), https://repository.law.umich.edu/alumni_survey_scholarship/36 [https://perma.cc/5LMF-FUMW] (discussing alumni survey results); Zimmerman, supra note 3 (reporting on a three-year study of law students’ perspectives on grading); David Sandomierski, John Bliss & Tayzia Collesso, Pass for Some, Fail for Others: Law School Grading Changes in the Early Covid-19 Pandemic, 56 UBC L. Rev. 607 (2023) (reporting on a pass/fail grading experiment related to COVID-19 and exploring how historically under-represented groups experience grading in law school); John Bliss & David Sandomierski, Learning without Grade Anxiety: Lessons from the Pass/Fail Experiment in North American J.D. Programs, 48 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 555 (2021) (reporting on an empirical study of pass/fail grading at law schools during COVID-19 and concluding that pass/fail grading greatly alleviates student anxiety). Finally, there are articles discussing grading theory, process, and practice, as opposed to assessment. See, e.g., Barbara Glesner Fines, Competition and the Curve, 65 UMKC L. Rev. 879 (1997); Deborah Waire Post, Power and the Morality of Grading—A Case Study and a Few Critical Thoughts on Grade Normalization, 65 UMKC L. Rev. 777 (1997); Jeffrey Evans Stake, Making the Grade: Some Principles of Comparative Grading, 52 J. Legal Educ. 583 (2002); Charles B. Sheppard, The Grading Process: Taking a Multidimensional, “Non-Curved” Approach to the Measurement of a First-Year Law Student’s Level of Proficiency, 30 W. St. U. L. Rev. 177 (2002–2003); Joshua M. Silverstein, In Defense of Mandatory Curves, 34 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 253 (2012) [hereinafter Silverstein, Mandatory Curves]; Joshua M. Silverstein, A Case for Grade Inflation in Legal Education, 47 U.S.F. L. Rev. 487 (2013) [hereinafter Silverstein, Grade Inflation]; DeShun Harris, Let’s Talk About Grading, Maybe: Using Transparency About the Grading Process to Aid in Student Learning, 45 Seattle U. L. Rev. 805 (2022).

11. See infra Section I.

12. I use the phrase “casebook colleagues” to denote law faculty who teach “casebook courses,” courses in which students learn the law through reading abridged appellate legal opinions on particular topics like torts and criminal law. For over 100 years, these courses have largely been taught using some form of Socratic method, and students’ learning has been assessed primarily through a final exam. See L. Danielle Tully, What Law Schools Should Leave Behind, 2022(4) Utah L. Rev. 837, 847–48, 848 n.56 (describing the hierarchical law school faculty structure and explaining why the modifier “doctrinal” is underinclusive when applied only to faculty who teach casebook courses).

13. Clinical legal education experienced similar marginalization. See generally, Marjorie Anne McDiarmid What’s Going on Down There in the Basement: In-House Clinics Expand Their Breachhead, 35 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 239, 241 (1990) (discussing results from a 1987 survey of 175 law schools conducted by the Clinical Section of the Association of American Law Schools about the progress and challenges for in-house clinics and concluding that the “status of clinical faculty in the eyes of other law school teachers” was a challenge that still needed to be confronted). There is also evidence that clinical educators advocated for grading clinics as one method to seek status improvement for legal education and the faculty who taught those courses. See Brustin & Chavkin, supra note 10, at 327–28 & n.71 (“Finally, in a law school environment in which grades are the commodity of success and in which traditional law classes are graded, there are strong political reasons why grading should also be applied in clinical courses. To the extent that clinicians still possess a second-class status at many law schools, the inability to comparably grade students in clinical courses represents just one more reflection of this status.”); Am. Bar Ass’n & Ass’n of Am. Law Schs., Clinical Legal Education: Report of the Association of American Law Schools/American Bar Association Committee on Guidelines for Clinical Legal Education 103–04 (1980).

14. L. Danielle Tully, 2022 Legal Writing Grade Policy Survey (unpublished survey) (on file with author) [hereinafter 2022 Survey]; L. Danielle Tully, 2024 Law School Grading Policy Study, (unpublished spreadsheet) (on file with author) [hereinafter 2024 Study]. Full citations for the grading policies I collected as part of the 2024 Study are listed alphabetically in Appendix A. For clarity and concision in this article’s footnotes, I use the following short form citation convention: [Law School], Grading Policy, at [page number where applicable].

15. See infra Section III.

16. See Silverstein, Grade Inflation, supra note 10, at 523–24. Silverstein describes the first “bump” as a “prestige bump.” Id. at 523 (“employers treat numerically equivalent grades differently depending on whether they are received at a high-ranking or a low-ranking school, on the assumption that students at the former institution are better.”). Silverstein calls the second “bump” the “absolute grade bump,” noting that “many employers grant significant weight to absolute grades.” Id. at 524.

17. See id. at 546–47. Silverstein focuses on unfairness in the labor market when students are competing for jobs. He argues that giving a double-bump to students with higher grades from higher ranked schools effectively affords them with “two benefits from the same accomplishment.” Id. at 524.

18. The roots of modern grading in the United States stretch back to England. As early as the sixteenth century, Cambridge University employed a three-tier grading system. There, 25% of students fell into the top tier, 50% fell into the middle, and 25% fell into the bottom. Brookhart et al., supra note 2, at 831. For a summary of grading in the United States, see Harris, supra note 10, at 810–13.

19. See Joe Feldman, Grading for Equity: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How It Can Transform Schools and Classrooms 18–20 (2018) (summarizing societal changes that impacted schooling at the turn of the twentieth century including: the rise of manufacturing, increasing migration and immigration, intelligence testing, and the emergence of psychological theories about human intelligence and behavior).

20. Luz Bay & Terry Ackerman, Early Efforts, in The History of Educational Measurement: Key Advancements in Theory, Policy, and Practice 3, 4–5 (Brian E. Clauser & Michael R. Bunch eds., 2021) [hereinafter The History of Educational Measurement].

21. Id. at 5; Jack Schneider & Ethan Hutt, Making the Grade: A History of the A–F Marking Scheme, 46 J. Curriculum Stud. 201, 202 (2014).

22. Schneider & Hutt, supra note 21, at 206.

23. Id.

24. See Feldman, supra note 19, at 18–19 (describing how factory owners advocated for schools to prepare future employees and progressive educators pressed for universal education that would “integrate[] students from all backgrounds” and provide avenues for social and economic mobility). In 1874, seventy-seven people, including college presidents and city and school superintendents, signed a document saying that schools should emphasize “(1) punctuality, (2) regularity, (3) attention, and (4) silence, as habits necessary through life for successful combination with one’s fellow-men in an industrial and commercial civilization.” Id. at 21.

25. Schneider & Hutt, supra note 21, at 207–08.

26. Id. at 210–11.

27. Id. at 212–13; see also Kurt Geisinger, The History of Norm- and Criterion-Referenced Testing, in The History of Educational Measurement, supra note 20, at 42 (summarizing the history of intelligence testing); Rebecca Zwick, A Century of Testing Controversies, in The History of Educational Measurement, supra note 20, at 136 (discussing objections to “native intelligence” testing).

28. Psychometrics is the field of research dedicated to measuring intellectual capacities.

29. See Brookhart et al., supra note 2, at 831–32; see also Feldman, supra note 19, at 19 (noting that intelligence tests expanded dramatically and the “[s]cores on these tests soon became viewed as a reliable description of one’s intellectual capacity.”).

30. The Board of Trustees of Teachers College, Columbia University named a building after Thorndike in 1970. Fifty years later, it voted unanimously to remove Thorndike’s name. The notice to the community from then-President Thomas Bailey and Chairman William D. Rueckert stated: “While Thorndike’s work was hugely influential on modern educational ideas and practices, he was also a proponent of eugenics, and held racist, sexist, and antisemitic ideas.” Letter from Thomas Bailey, President, Teachers College & William D. Rueckert, Chair, Teachers College Board of Trustees, Columbia University, to Members of the Teachers College Community (July 15, 2020) https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2020/july/important-announcement-from-the-president--chair-of-the-board-of-trustees/ [https://perma.cc/3CEP-7ZF9].

31. See Stephen Tomlinson, Edward Lee Thorndike and John Dewey on the Science of Education, 23 Oxford Rev. Educ. 365, 372 (1997).

32. Edward L. Thorndike, The New Psychology Sheds Light on Man; How His Mind Works in Health, in Disease and in Dreams Has Been Illuminated Within a Generation—Some of the Problems That Await Further Investigation, N.Y. Times, Aug. 21, 1927, at X18, https://nyti.ms/43O8IZF (last visited Mar. 17, 2025).

33. See Feldman, supra note 19, at 20–21.

34. Id. For a chronology of standardized testing in American schools, see Nat’l. Educ. Ass’n, History of Standardized Testing in the United States (June 25, 2025), https://www.nea.org/professional-excellence/student-engagement/tools-tips/history-standardized-testing-united-states [https://perma.cc/TD2P-CF7K].

35. Schneider & Hutt, supra note 21, at 215.

36. See Feldman, supra note 19, at 3; Brookhart et al., supra note 2, at 832 (noting that grading on a curve remained popular until at least the 1960s); see also Ohmer Milton, Howard R. Pollop & James A. Eison, Making Sense of College Grades: Why the Grading System Does Not Work and What Can Be Done About It 8 (1986) (noting that a 1966 study of 400 schools by the American College Testing Program revealed that “distributions of final course grades were found to be essentially the same throughout the range of institution, from those admitting all the applicants to those admitting only top students.”).

37. See Steve Sheppard, An Informal History of How Law Schools Evaluate Students, with a Predictable Emphasis on Law School Final Exams, 65 UMKC L. Rev. 657, 667 (1997) [hereinafter Sheppard, An Informal History]. The Litchfield Law School, founded by Judge Tapping Reeve sometime between 1774 and 1784, included weekly oral exams as part of its fourteen-month curriculum. See Steve Sheppard, Casebooks, Commentaries, and Curmudgeons: An Introductory History of Law in the Lecture Hall, 82 Iowa L. Rev. 547, 564–65 (1997). Other law schools adopted various types of oral and written examinations. For example, the University of Virginia Law School implemented final examinations in the late 1820s. Students were required to pass these exams to receive their degree. Sheppard, An Informal History, supra at 666–67. In comparison, Harvard Law School required written examinations and, for a time, students were required to complete a final examination in the form of “set dissertations.” Id. at 666. However, between 1829 and 1871, Harvard Law School did not have any “formal examination of student performance that could bar a student from the degree.” Id. Later, Harvard Law School’s first dean, Christopher Columbus Langdell, required students to pass exams at the end of each year to continue with their legal studies. Id. at 667.

38. 2 Charles Warren, History of the Harvard Law School and of Early Legal Conditions in America 395–96 (1908).

39. See Joan W. Howarth, Shaping the Bar: The Future of Attorney Licensing 23 (2023).

40. Id. at 27.

41. Sheppard, An Informal History, supra note 37, at 667. Langdell’s successor at Harvard Law School, James Barr Ames, is credited with modifying final exams by developing more detailed hypotheses and asking students to step into the role of the lawyer. Id. at 673. Importantly, his essay-style exams not only determined whether students could continue in their law study but also were graded. Id. at 674. Other law schools soon followed. Id. at 677.

42. See, e.g., Ben D. Wood, The Measurement of Law School Work, 24 Colum. L. Rev. 224 (1924) [hereinafter Wood, Measurement I]; Ben D. Wood, The Measurement of Law School Work II, 25 Colum. L. Rev. 316 (1925) [hereinafter Wood, Measurement II]; Ben D. Wood, The Measurement of Law School Work III, 27 Colum. L. Rev. 784 (1927) [hereinafter Wood, Measurement III]; John L. Grant, The Single Standard in Grading, 29 Colum. L. Rev. 920 (1929); see also Albert Kocourek, Objective Law Examinations, 16 Ill. L.R./NW. U. 304 (1921); Alfred Zantzinger Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law: Historical Development and Principal Contemporary Problems of Legal Education in the United States, with Some Account of Conditions in England and Canada 10 (1921) (summarizing data from surveying “nineteen of the most prominent law schools in [the United States] and report[ing] in 1901 that two schools had no fixed standards and relied entirely on professors to determine whether a student had attained sufficient knowledge and skills” while the other seventeen had required final exam scores ranging from a low score of 55% to a high score of 83%).

43. See, e.g., Wood, Measurement I, supra note 42; Wood, Measurement II, supra note 42; Wood, Measurement III, supra note 42.

44. Wood, Measurement I, supra note 42, at 224.

45. Id. at 235.

46. Id. at 236.

47. Id. at 238.

48. See id. at 239 (“Apparently the conclusion is inescapable that the instructors in these six courses maintained significantly different standards of excellence . . . .”). For questionnaire answers related to what law professors value in student exams, see id. at 231–35. Almost 90 years later, Professor Joshua Silverstein reported on similar grade discrepancies at the University of Arkansas-Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law and argued that institution-level mandatory grading policies were necessary to produce not perfect but more fair grading in law school. Silverstein, Mandatory Curves, supra note 10.

49. Wood, Measurement I, supra note 42, at 242.

50. Id.

51. Id. at 243.

52. Id. at 245.

53. Grant, supra note 42. Grant returned to the topics of standards and grading after twenty years in practice and renewed his critique, noting that not much had changed. See John L. Grant, Justice in Grading, 9 J. Legal Educ. 186, 186–87 (1956).

54. Grant, supra note 42, at 942–43.

55. Id. at 920.

56. Id. Grant took his calculations one step further than the base distribution he proposed. He created a standard scale that would allow schools to establish a “standard scale for first year law courses” by apportioning grades to each Thorndike sub-group score. He expected that the standard scale would be re-calculated each year based on the Thorndike scores of enrolled students. Id. at 946–48.

57. Id.

58. Id at 945.

59. Grant, supra note 53, at 207 (describing the use of LSAT and Thorndike scores to create a “valid and reliable measure to estimate the grades a group would merit”).

60. See Ass’n of Am. Law Sch., Preliminary Draft Law Teacher’s Manual on Testing and Grading 18 (Michael S. Josephson ed., 1984) (summarizing psychometric literature on scoring essays and calling such scoring “usually ‘extremely unreliable’”); Brookhart et al., supra note 2, at 806–07 (summarizing studies that evaluate the reliability of teachers’ grades in various educational settings and reporting that “great variation exists in the grades teachers assign to students’ work”).

61. See Brookhart et al., supra note 2, at 819–20 (summarizing studies).

62. Ass’n of Am. Law Sch., supra note 60, at 26 (discussing four factors that contribute to grading inconsistency: fatigue; frame of reference; essay strength relative to the essays graded just prior; and time of day). But see Stephen P. Klein & Frederick M. Hart, Chance and Systematic Factors Affecting Essay Grades, 5 J. Educ. Measurement, 197, 199–201 (1968) (reporting on a study in which seventeen Contracts professors graded eighty papers from a common set arranged in different orders and finding no evidence that the placement of the exam in the set impacted the grade).

63. See, e.g., George P. Costigan, Jr., Objective Law Examinations, 20 Mich. L. Rev. 514 (1922); Kocourek, supra note 42; Wood, Measurement III, supra note 42.

64. Dan S. Schector & David C. Tunick, For Whom the Bell Curves: A Brief Discussion of the Reasons For and Against Law School Grade Normalization, and A Comparison of Some Normalization Methods, in Learning and Evaluation in Law Schools Vol. 1 504, 504 (Michael S. Josephson ed., 1984).

65. See Steve H. Nickles, Examining and Grading in American Law Schools, 30 Ark. L. Rev. 411, 425 & n.31 (1976) (reporting that 58% of the ninety-six responding schools had no required grading “policy”).

66. Id. at 426. Question 7 asked: “Does your law school establish a fixed distribution of grades in its courses?” 5% of respondents selected “YES, for ALL courses,” 4% of respondents selected “YES, for SOME classes,” and 91% selected “NO.” Id. at 426 n.35.

67. Schector & Tunick, supra note 64, at 502 n.32.

68. See infra Section II.B (demonstrating that the trend toward adopting grade normalization in law schools began in the 1990s). However, in the late 1960s and early 1970s other educational institutions were beginning to turn away from grade normalization. Both criterion-referenced assessment and mastery learning specifically challenged norm-referenced grades by proffering that the proper assessment referent was a person’s mastery of the subject they were studying. See Brookhart et al., supra note 2, at 832. In addition, the context of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War brought “into this mix a national reexamination of status and equity” and of “grading and learning in general.” Id. at 833.

69. Certainly, some law schools began even earlier, as indicated by the Nickles study. See Nickles, supra note 65, at 425 n.31 (indicating that of the ninety-six responding law schools, 42% had “established standards to which all teachers must adhere for assigning grades” by 1975). For example, the University of Southern California Law Center was an early adopter of norm-referenced grading. For a discussion of the grade reforms initiated at that law school in the early 1970s, see Richard A. Epstein, Grade Normalization, 44 S. Cal. L. Rev. 707 (1971). Further, Deborah Waire Post chronicled the evolution of Touro Law’s grading practices between 1984 and 1996. Post, supra note 10. She described how the Academic Policy Committee debated a proposal for a “suggested grading pattern” and put the proposal to a vote, which tied 3-3, in 1985. Id. at 795. The school later adopted the “Second Chance Option” in 1990, which allowed upper-level students to drop one grade from their GPA calculation. Id. This controversial option was later scrapped and, after extensive institution-wide debate, the faculty adopted a provisional grade normalization policy in 1993. Id. at 797–98. The faculty took up the grade policy question again in 1995–96. Id. Addressing student concerns about grading policies and their impact on job competition from regional schools, Touro retained its suggested C+ curve, while also increasing the number of As and the number of lower grades that could be given. Id. at 798–99.

70. See Kaufman, supra note 10. At that time, there were 175 ABA-approved law schools. Kaufman received 120 survey responses. Id. at 415.

71. Id. at 422 (reporting that forty-four schools had changed their grading policies).

72. Id. at 416 (reporting that twenty-six of forty-four schools “had altered their policies with respect to curves.”).

73. Id. at 422 (reporting that six law schools did not describe the substance of the changes they made to their grading policies).

74. Id. at 417–18.

75. Id. at 417. For first-year courses, 21% of the 119 schools responding to this question reported having a mandatory 1L curve policy; 17.7% reported having a generally mandatory 1L curve policy; and 27.7% reported having a voluntary curve policy. Id. at 418 tbl.2. Kaufman noted that voluntary curves were used in first-year courses at thirty-three to thirty-five law schools. Id. at 419. She explained in a footnote that this range resulted from survey responses that did not clarify whether certain types of classes were present in the first-year curriculum that would be voluntarily curved. Id. at 419 n.11. For upper-level courses, 13.5% reported having a mandatory 1L curve policy; 16.7% reported having a generally mandatory 1L curve policy; and 31.1% reported having a voluntary curve policy. Id. at 418, tbl.2.

76. See Downs & Levit, supra note 10, at 859 app. A (indicating the return date for this survey was July 15, 1996). Much like Kaufman’s study, Downs and Levit sent their survey to ABA-approved law schools. Of the 179 schools, 116 law schools returned the survey. Id. at 835. Neither the Kaufman nor the Downs & Levit surveys identified the responding law schools; therefore, it is not clear whether the data collected in these studies came from the same schools.

77. Id. at 836, 859. The data in Appendix B reflects that ninety-six schools answered the question posed by either marking it Yes, Yes+formal, or Yes+informal. Id. at 864–77 app. B. The school with School ID #88 does not have an answer in this box; however, there is data suggesting that the school required grade normalization including the use of standard deviations, id. at 867, means, id. at 869, and medians, id. at 871. Such required policies also indicate that this school had a formal grade normalization policy in place.

78. Id. at 836, 872–73 app. B (reflecting responses from sixty-four law schools).

79. Id. at 872–73 app. B (reflecting responses from sixty-four law schools, six had adopted the grading policy in 1995 and one had adopted the grading policy in 1995).

80. Id. at 872–73 app. B (reflecting responses from fifty-one law schools, three revised their grading policy in 1994, sixteen revised their grading policy in 1995, and ten revised their grading policy in 1996).

81. Nickles, supra note 65, at 426 nn.34–35 (Questions 6 and 7). Downs and Levit noted that according to the Nickles study, 9% of law schools responding to his survey had adopted grade normalization policies. Downs & Levit, supra note 10, at 836. Their figure, however, only encompasses schools with mandatory distributions and excludes those that reported adjusting course grades to a common mean. Id. at 820.

82. See Downs & Levit, supra note 10, 864–77 app. B. I calculated this number by first identifying the forty-nine schools that required some type of normalization practice in their grade policy. Within that set, I added the schools that applied required grade normalization in all courses to the law schools that required grade normalization in first-year courses. I excluded schools that said they had a grade normalization policy but did not specify whether the policy was optional or required.

83. See id.

84. See id.

85. Kaufman, supra note 10, at 418 & tbl.2 (21% out of 119 responding schools reported a mandatory curve for first-year courses).

86. Downs & Levit, supra note 10, at 843. The Downs & Levit survey asked law schools to answer this question: “What circumstances prompted the adoption of grade normalization policies?” Id. at 861. Less than half of the responding law schools answered this question. Of those that did, thirty-six mentioned a “fairness”-related argument and twelve mentioned grade inflation. Id. at 844. Other responses included increasing student credentials, the “prevailing market norms” for grades, and grade-based mandatory attrition policies. Id.

87. Id. at 837.

88. Id. at 839.

89. Id.

90. Id.

91. Id.

92. Id. at 821.

93. Id. at 854. Others echoed these fairness concerns. For example, acknowledging the role of law schools in sorting students for the legal marketplace, Professor Glesner Fines wrote in 1997: “Both hard graders and easy graders distort the competitive process. . . . Indeed, it is unfair if a student’s chance of being chosen for Law Review or for an interview with the elite corporate firm is based on the chance of being assigned to one particular professor rather than on merit.” Glesner Fines, supra note 10, at 892.

94. Other factors such as the changing enrollment and employment landscapes likely influenced the adoption of norm-referenced grading policies. However, an exploration of those forces is beyond the scope of this article.

95. Andy Mroch, Law School Grading Curves, Memorandum from Ass’n of Am. Law Schs. 2 (Mar. 30, 2005) (on file with author).

96. Id. at 3.

97. Id. Schools responded to the request from AALS in many formats. Based on the variety of responses, the report classifies the information provided by schools into various inexact categories. Additionally, the report summarizes data for each school. Id.

98. Id. at 4.

99. Id. at 3–4 (reporting that seventy-two of 114 schools, or 63%, established a grade distribution).

100. Id. at 4 (reporting that fifty-two out of 114 schools, or 46%, established a mean).

101. Mroch, supra note 95, at 7.

102. See infra Section II.B.

103. See id.

104. For a thorough and engaging history of Legal Writing’s roots in the modern law school, see Jeffrey Jackson & David Cleveland, Legal Writing: A History from the End of the Civil War to 1930, 24 Legal Writing 81 (2020) [hereinafter Jackson & Cleveland, Civil War to 1930] and Jeffrey D. Jackson & David R. Cleveland, Legal Writing: A History from the Colonial Era to the End of the Civil War, 19 Legal Writing, 191 (2014) [hereinafter Jackson & Cleveland, Colonial Era to Civil War].

105. See Marjorie Dick Rombauer, First-Year Legal Research and Writing: Then and Now, 25 J. Legal Educ. 538, 540 (1973) (discussing the inclusion of legal methods and moot court courses); Jackson & Cleveland, Civil War to 1930, supra note 104, at 82–83 (demonstrating that early law schools used moot court and practice courts to teach legal writing and stating that this practice lasted to the 1930s).

106. Jackson & Cleveland, Civil War to 1930, supra note 104, at 94.

107. Id.

108. Id. at 95–96 (describing various articles published between 1902 and 1907 in the American Law School Review that captured the concerns of members of the boards of bar examiners from various states, state and federal judges, and law faculty that law graduates were unprepared to practice law upon graduation).

109. For a detailed history, see Robert Stevens, Law School: Legal Education in America from the 1850s to the 1980s 155–204 (1983) (covering rehabilitation of the profession and the institutionalization movement that advocated for exclusionary admissions through higher standards).

110. Jackson & Cleveland, Civil War to 1930, supra note 104, at 100–04, 106–07.

111. Id. at 104–05.

112. Rombauer, supra note 105, at 542.

113. See Jackson & Cleveland, Civil War to 1930, supra note 104, at 122–24 (describing curricula from thirty-six law schools in the 1930s, which included schools that maintained practice courts while offering either mandatory or elective writing courses).

114. David S. Romantz, The Truth About Cats and Dogs: Legal Writing Courses and the Law School Curriculum, 525 U. Kan. L. Rev. 105, 129 (2003–2004).

115. Harry Kalven, Jr., Law School Training in Research and Exposition: The University of Chicago Program, 1 J. Legal Educ. 107, 110 (1948).

116. Id. The assignments included “five legal memoranda, a précis, a radical condensation of a prior memorandum, two editorials, a preliminary question list, a preliminary definition of a field of research, and a book review.” Id.

117. Romantz, supra note 114, at 129; see also Rombauer, supra note 105, at 542 (distinguishing the University of Chicago’s program from others that focused on “basic remedial elements”).

118. Rombauer, supra note 105, at 540–41 (noting that the AALS’ Directory of Teachers in Member Schools first recognized the category “Legal Writing” in its 1947 publication).

119. Id. at 544.

120. Id.

121. Id. at 550–51 (describing survey results on the “Characteristics and Objectives of Legal Research and Writing Courses” and concluding that “[m]ost research and writing courses appeared to have a strong practical orientation”).

122. Melissa H. Weresh, The History of ABA Standard 405(b), 24 Legal Writing 126, 127 (2020).

123. The first edition of The Sourcebook on Legal Writing Programs published in 1997 by the ABA’s Communication Skills Committee of the Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar identified the goals of first-year legal writing courses as follows: 1) to teach about the American legal system; 2) to teach legal research skills; 3) to provide hands-on experience in using legal analysis, legal reasoning and legal advocacy to solve sophisticated legal problems; 4) to inculcate in students principles of clear and correct expression; 5) to provide experience in drafting the major forms of legal writing students will be called upon to draft as lawyers; 6) to help teach professional ethics; and 7) to help students learn how to educate themselves and become self-dependent. Am. Bar Ass’n, Sourcebook on Legal Writing Programs 7–8 (Ralph Brill ed. 1997) [hereinafter Sourcebook 1st ed.].

124. Jill J. Ramsfield, Legal Writing in the Twenty-First Century: The First Images Survey of Legal Research and Writing Programs, 1 Legal Writing 123, 124 n.3 (1991).

125. Id. at 123–24.

126. Id. at 123 app. C.

127. Id. at 127–29.

128. Id.

129. For a summary of well-accepted learning outcomes for first-year legal writing courses, see Am. Bar. Ass’n, Sourcebook on Legal Writing Programs 63–76 (J. Lyn Entrikin ed., 3d ed. 2020) [hereinafter Sourcebook 3d ed.]. For instructional content and teaching approaches, see id. at 77–132. For a summary of pedagogical methods, see id. at 189–206.

130. An active learning cycle may include the following steps: 1) getting instruction by learning from a professor, peers, books, or other materials; 2) practicing a skill or task; 3) receiving expert feedback; 4) reflecting on feedback by analyzing strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities to improve; and 5) repeat/revise with deeper understanding. To learn more about learning cycles like the one described here, see Susan A. Ambrose, Michael Bridges, Michele DiPietro, Marsha C. Lovett & Marie K. Norman, How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching (2010).

131. Carol S. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success 6 (2006). Dweck calls the opposite a “fixed mindset.” Id.

132. Jill J. Ramsfield, Legal Writing in the Twenty-First Century: A Sharper Image, 2 Legal Writing 1, 3 (1996).

133. ABA Sec. of Leg. Educ. & Admis. to the Bar, Standards for Approval of Law Schools and Interpretations, Standard 302(a)(3), at 30 (1996), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/misc/legal_education/Standards/standardsarchive/1996_standards.pdf [https://perma.cc/M3U5-S2SK].

134. Id. at 43 (establishing Standard 405(D)).

135. See Weresh, supra note 122, at 135–36 (discussing the recodification of ABA Standards in 1996 that permitted law schools to count non-tenure track full-time faculty who taught legal writing when determining their student/faculty ratio, but only as .7 of a faculty member); J. Lyn Entrikin, Lucy Jewel, Susie Salmon, Craig T. Smith, Kristen K. Tiscione & Melissa H. Weresh, Treating Professionals Professionally: Requiring Security of Position for All Skills-Focused Faculty Under ABA Accreditation Standard 405(c) and Eliminating 405(d), 98 Or. L. Rev. 1, 15–18 (2020) (summarizing efforts to amend Standard 405 during the 2008–2014 review process and concluding that the decision to leave 405 unchanged further entrenched faculty hierarchies); Ruth Anne Robbins, Kristen K. Tiscione & Melissa H. Weresh, Persistent Structural Barriers to Gender Equity in the Legal Academy and the Efforts of Two Legal Writing Organizations to Break Them Down, 65 Vill. L. Rev. 1155, 1161–62 (2020) (detailing persistent institutional barriers to equality and integration of law faculty teaching skills-focused courses).

136. See, e.g., Mary Beth Beazley, Shouting into the Wind: How the ABA Standards Promote Inequality in Legal Education, and What Law Students and Faculty Should Do About It, 65 Vill. L. Rev. 1037, 1039 (2020) (discussing status trends for skills faculty); Kathryn M. Stanchi & Jan M. Levine, Gender and Legal Writing: Law Schools’ Dirty Little Secrets, 16 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 3 (2001) (documenting discrepancy in pay and job security for the largely female faculty who teach legal research and writing).

137. See Rose, supra note 1, at 132 (acknowledging the progress made by the field of legal writing and noting that while most legal writing course grades were included in student GPAs, the legal writing discipline had yet to be fully accepted by the academic community).

138. See id. at 133 (“Equal grading policies have been one of the benchmarks in evaluating the progress of the field of legal writing and the seriousness with which it is treated by both students and other faculty.”); Jo Ann Durako, A Snapshot of Legal Writing Programs at the Millennium, 6 Legal Writing 95, 114 (2000) (“While not a direct measure of the status of LRW professionals, grading policies for LRW courses reflect the status and value placed on the field.”).

139. Ramsfield, supra note 124, at 162.

140. Id.

141. Id. at 157 tbl.10.2 – Grading Schedule by School Type Results as of November 7, 1990.

142. Id. The 1994 Survey captured responses from 132 schools. At that time, “approximately 73% of [responding] law schools graded first-year legal writing courses similarly to other first-year courses, and factored legal writing grades into each student’s grade point average.” Sourcebook 1st ed., supra note 123, at 53.

143. Kaufman reports that nearly two-thirds of the law schools responding to her survey provided grades in legal writing courses, but the survey did not inquire about grade normalization for legal writing courses in particular. See Kaufman, supra note 10, at 417.

144. Question 10 on the 1992 Survey and Question 11 on the 1994 Survey used the same question as the 1990 survey, which merely asked: “How is LRW graded?” See Ramsfield, supra note 132, at 29 (1990 Survey), 52 (1992 Survey).

145. For simplicity, full citations to the ALWD/LWI Surveys are listed in Appendix B. Citations in the footnotes use the short form: [Year] ALWD/LWI Survey, at [page number].

146. 2000 ALWD/LWI Survey, at 5 (Q 16). Respondents could choose from the following options: a. Yes, it’s graded the same way as all first-year courses; b. Yes, it’s graded on a curve specifically for LRW; c. Yes, it’s graded on some other curve; d. No.

147. Id.

148. 2015 ALWD/LWI Survey, at 10 (Q 16). In 2015, 116 out of 194 respondents (60%) reported that first-year required LRW courses were graded the same way as other first-year course. Fifty-three respondents (27%) reported that first-year required LRW courses were graded on a curve or mean “specifically for LRW.” Ten respondents (5%) reported that first-year required LRW courses were graded on “some other curve or mean.” Finally, fifteen respondents (8%) reported “[n]one of the above.” Id.

149. Id.

150. Data extracted from Question 16 on the ALWD/LWI Survey from 2000 to 2015. See Appendix B for full citations.

151. Id.

152. Id.

153. 2015 ALWD/LWI Survey.

154. See Question 16 for the ALWD/LWI Survey from 2001 to 2015. See Appendix B for full citations. The average mean of 2.71 appeared in 2002 for the category “same grade policy.” 2002 ALWD/LWI Survey, at 6. The average mean of 3.30 appeared in 2004 for the category of “other grade policy.” 2004 ALWD/LWI Survey, at 8.

155. Id.

156. Id.

157. 2016-2017 ALWD/LWI Survey. The revamped survey grouped courses into three categories: Required LRW Courses, Blended LRW Courses, and Elective LRW courses. The Survey defined “Blended LRW Courses” as “[a] first-year course in which the teaching of legal research, communication (including both written and oral communication), or any combination of these skills is taught in conjunction with another required 1L substantive law topic (e.g., Torts, Criminal Law, Contracts or any other typical first-year course) and taught by a single professor.” Id. at v. The survey also further distinguished Required LRW Courses by whether the course was a course focused “principally on objective (including predictive) legal analysis and writing,” a course focused “principally on basic persuasive writing,” an “Advanced course focusing principally on persuasive writing,” or a Blended LRW course. Id. at 21.

158. 2000 ALWD/LWI Survey, at 5; 2006 ALWD/LWI Survey, at 9 (Q 16).

159. Downs & Levit, supra note 10, 864–77 app. B (demonstrating that 32% of the 116 responding schools required first-year course grades to be normalized).

160. See Sourcebook 1st ed., supra note 123, at 53 (noting that “approximately 73% of law schools grade first-year legal writing courses similarly to other first-year courses”).

161. Id. at 1.

162. Id. at 53.

163. Id.

164. Id. at 54.

165. Id.

166. Id.

167. Id. (“Without the incentive of grades, especially compared to their other courses, some students will not put in more than minimum efforts.”).

168. Am. Bar. Ass’n, Sourcebook on Legal Writing Programs 75–76 (Eric B. Eason ed., 2d ed. 2006) [hereinafter Sourcebook 2d ed.].

169. See supra notes 95–100 and accompanying text (discussion of Mroch Report).

170. Sourcebook 2d ed., supra note 168, at 75.

171. Id.

172. Id. at 75–76; see also Jessica Clark & Christy DeSanctis, Toward a Unified Grading Vocabulary: Using Grading Rubrics in Legal Writing Courses, 63 J. Legal Educ. 1, 5 (2013) (noting “most legal writing courses are graded on a traditional letter (A to F) scale[,]” which underscores their importance, and reporting that sixteen of the top twenty-five U.S. News ranked schools grade legal writing courses “consistent with other first-year courses”).

173. Sourcebook 2d ed., supra note 168, at 76.

174. Figure 1, supra.

175. Id.

176. See Downs & Levit, supra note 10, at 856 (“The argument in favor of absolute measures of performance makes more sense in a competency-based educational setting, since the focus is on individual student mastery of set criteria rather than on students’ relative performance to one another.”); Rose, supra note 1, at 145 (arguing that legal writing classes are better “suited to criteria-referenced grading because professors already evaluate their students based on explicit criteria . . .”).

177. See Rose, supra note 1, at 145–47 (arguing that most legal writing classes are too small for a curve to be valid); Stake, supra note 10, at 601 (“For a class of thirty students, however, forcing the scores onto a curve will be troublesome because some of the intervals will contain very few students.”).

178. Sourcebook 1st ed., supra note 123, at 50.

179. Sourcebook 2d ed., supra note 168, at 75.

180. Sourcebook 3d ed., supra note 129, 15, 229–30.

181. Id. at 230.

182. Knowledge Steez (July 26, 2019), https://knowledgesteez.wordpress.
     com/2019/07/26/call-for-papers-journal-of-the-legal-writing-institute-submit-by-sept-2-2019 [https://perma.cc/G59B-SBBT].

183. Suzanne E. Rowe, The Rising Tide in the Legal Writing Community: Lifting All Boats or Changing Climate?, 24 Legal Writing 1 (2020); Nancy Soonpaa, From a Gleam to Maturity: The Developmental Stages of a Legal Writing Program, 24 Legal Writing 23 (2020); Ian Gallacher, Here’s Tae Us, Wha’s Like Us: Some Thoughts on the Future of Legal Writing in American Law Schools, 24 Legal Writing 29 (2020); Amy H. Soled, Legal Writing Professors, Salary Disparities, and the Impossibility of “Improved Status,” 24 Legal Writing 47 (2020); Meredith A.G. Stange, Voting Like a Duck: Reflecting on a Year of Legal Writing Voting Rights, 24 Legal Writing 55 (2020).

184. Sourcebook 3d ed., supra note 129, at 206–09.

185. Id. at 206–07.

186. Id. at 207–08.

187. Id. at 206.

188. Id.

189. Id. at 208.

190. Id. at 208–09.

191. In 2022, the Brooklyn Law School faculty approved a change to the grade policy for Gateway to Lawyering I and II, BLS’s required first-year legal writing courses. Now, mean course grades must fall within the mean range of 3.1 to 3.3.

192. See Tully, supra note 12, at 864 & n.153 (referencing earlier study). For that study, I conducted natural language searches of the web using Google and searches on each school’s website. I also relied on Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org) to find older policies that had been previously available on the internet. This approach resulted in collecting current grading policies as well as policies that might not have been current.

193. I received survey responses from 106 law schools. I excluded ten survey responses from the findings; four because they were duplicates and six because they were substantially incomplete.

194. Rutgers Law School submitted a single response for the two campuses.

195. Of the ninety-six law schools included in the 2022 Survey, fifty-three were private law schools and forty-three were public law schools. I used 509 data reported to the American Bar Association for 2022 to verify entering class size. Thirteen law schools had an entering 1L class of 100 students or less. Fifty-one law schools had an entering 1L class between 101–200. Eighteen law schools had an entering 1L class between 201–300. Eight law schools had an entering class between 301–400. Only two law schools had entering 1L classes larger than 400 students. Am. Bar Ass’n, ABA Required Disclosures, Compilations—All Schools Data (2022, First Year Class) https://www.abarequireddisclosures.org/requiredDisclosure (report on file with the author).

196. See 2022 Survey, supra note 14 (recording responses from ninety-five law schools; ninety-two selected “Yes” and three selected “No.”).

197. Id. (recording responses from ninety-one law schools; seventy-three selected “Yes” and eighteen selected “No.”).

198. The options to answer this question were: Concern about grade consistency across LRW sections taught by different professors; Concern about grade consistency across LRW sections taught by the same professor; Desire to make grading policies consistent in all 1L courses; Concern about grade consistency with law schools in your geographic area; Concern about grade consistency with similarly ranked schools; Desire to signal the importance of LRW courses to 1L students; Desire to signal the importance of the LRW course to other faculty members; Increase in credit hours for LRW classes; Change in job status for LRW professors; Other; I don’t know.

199. 2024 Study, supra note 14. I identified a law school as having a current, publicly available grading policy if the law school’s website contained text describing its grading practices or a hyperlink to a document containing the law school’s grading practices. For this survey, a grading practice describes how schools report on student performance for a specific course. During the study period I was unable to locate current, publicly available grading policies for the following law schools: Brooklyn Law School, Cooley Law School, Faulkner University, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, The Ohio State Moritz College of Law, University of Akron School of Law, University of Michigan Law School, University of Minnesota Law School, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, University of Puerto Rico School of Law, and UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law.

200. Initially, I expected to locate only grading policies for the academic years 2023–2024 and 2024–2025. However, some law school websites linked to policies from earlier academic years. For example, on June 13, 2024, the Student Handbook linked from the Washington University School of Law website, which contains its grading policy, was the 2022–2023 Student Handbook. Wash. Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy. Because law schools do change their grading policies, if I could not locate a policy from 2022 or later, I coded the law schools as “Policy Unavailable.” Finally, while most grading policies that were linked to law school websites did identify a date or date range, many grading policies described in text on websites did not include a policy date. Since these policies were all located on current law school websites, and these websites did not indicate that the policies were no longer applicable, I have treated them as current and publicly available for this study.

201. See, e.g., Univ. of Missouri Sch. L., Grading Policy.

202. For example, for the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, I could only locate information about grading on a “Policies” link from the Office of Career Strategy. U. Penn. Carey L. Sch., Policies, https://www.law.upenn.edu/careers/employers/policies.php [https://perma.cc/YD7F-EPW6]. Although this page specifically states: “first-year grading is subject to a mandatory curve[]” I coded this school as not having a publicly available grading policy.

203. See, e.g., U. Mich. L. Sch., Office of Student Records - Information, https://michigan.law.umich.edu/academics/office-student-records [https://perma.cc/TS2Q-BGBC] (access to grading policy requires login).

204. See, e.g., Stanford L. Sch., Law School Grading System, https://bulletin.stanford.edu/academic-polices/grading/law [https://perma.cc/T7TA-36BB]. Stanford posts its general grading practices on the website under academic policies, therefore it has a publicly available policy. However, this policy does not explain whether course grades are curved. The only explanation appears in a document that is linked off an employer-facing recruiting page. Stanford L. Sch., Stanford Law School’s Grading System (July 2021), https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Grading-System-Explanation-FINAL-7-19-21.pdf [https://perma.cc/7C9N-KVRE] (stating that Stanford applies strict limits to Honors grades); Stanford L. Sch., SLS Recruiting Policies 2024-2025, https://law.stanford.edu/i-am-an-employer/recruiting-policies/#slsnav-sls-recruiting-policies-2024-2025 [https://perma.cc/3TE5-4RW4] (landing page for Stanford Law School’s Grading System (July 2021)).

205. See, e.g., Atlanta’s John Marshall L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 34.

206. I recognize that coding language such as “should” and “expected” in the “advisory” category likely undercounts the number of schools with effectively mandatory policies. See Expected, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expect [https://perma.cc/96JL-C7B4] (“to consider probable or certain”; to consider reasonable, due, or necessary"; “to consider bound in duty or obligated”). Even some policies that affirmatively state the grading policy is not mandatory can blur lines. For example, the grading policy for the University of Illinois College of Law states: “The College of Law does not impose a mandatory grading curve on any Law class. The faculty, however, has adopted the following recommended curve for J.D. student grades: a. For all first-year courses: a mean course GPA for J.D. students of 3.20, with no more than 20% of the J.D. students receiving a grade of A- or higher. At least 10% of grades must fall at C+ or below.” U. Ill. Coll. L., Grading Policy, at 15–16 (emphasis added).

207. Additionally, I coded the policy for the University of California College of the Law – San Francisco as “Advisory.” That policy states: “There are no specific normalization requirements for classes with fewer than 30 J.D. students, including Legal Research and Writing I, and Legal Research and Writing II. The Provost & Academic Dean may reject the grade sheet of a class with fewer than 30 J.D. students that does not have a range of grades.” Because the policy suggests that a range of grades (distribution) is recommended, I coded this policy as a “Yes-Advisory” and described the normalization practice as “Distribution.” U.C. Coll. L.-S.F., Grading Policy, at 7–8.

208. Tex. S. Univ. Thurgood Marshall Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 16.

209. Barry Univ. Dwayne O. Andreas Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 43–44.

210. Id.

211. Question 6.10.1 and 6.10.2 from the 2021–2022 ALWD/LWI Survey captured responses about how LRW courses are graded. Question 6.10.1 asked: “For each Required LRW Course, please indicate whether the course is graded. – Course focusing principally on objective (including predictive) legal analysis and writing.” The survey captured 139 responses. Of those, two responses noted the course was pass/fail, four responses noted that the course was enhanced pass/fail, and one response selected “other.” All other responses indicated that the course was graded. 2021–2022 ALWD/LWI Survey, at 30.

212. See ALWD/LWI, 2021–2022 Institutional Survey Data (unpublished spreadsheet on file with author) [hereinafter ALWD/LWI 2021–2022 Spreadsheet].

213. The 2021–2022 ALWD/LWI Survey captured responses about average LRW course size for 138 law schools. From the responses, only five law schools have average course sizes less than fifteen students. See ALWD/LWI 2021–2022 Spreadsheet, supra note 212.

214. Univ. of Arkansas-Little Rock Bowen Sch. of L., Grading Policy (“Mandatory Mean in All Courses with 9 or More Students”).

215. Univ. of Utah S.J. Quinney Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 34, (15 or more); Univ. of N.H. Franklin Pierce Sch. of L., Grading Policy, (“more than 15”); Univ. of Florida Levin Coll. of L., Grading Policy, (“more than 15”).

216. Univ. of Wash. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 35.

217. According to the 2021–2022 ALWD/LWI Institutional Survey data, thirty-three of the 138 responding law schools have legal writing course enrollments of twenty-five or more students; fifteen law schools have courses of more than 30; and only five schools have courses with forty or more. ALWD/LWI 2021–2022 Spreadsheet, supra note 212. As a result, I coded the South Texas College of Law Houston’s policy as “Grading policy doesn’t specify” because that policy only applies to courses with forty or more students. See S. Tex. Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 24. Similarly, I coded Northern Illinois University College of Law as “Grading policy does not specify” because its policy states that it only applies to courses with more than thirty students. See N. Ill. Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 53. I coded the Loyola University Chicago School of Law’s policy in the same way because it only applies to courses with twenty-five or more students. See Loyola Univ. Chi. Sch. of L., Grading Policy. The survey data indicated that seventy of the 138 responding law schools have legal writing course enrollments of twenty or fewer. As a result, I coded the University of Georgia School of Law’s policy and the University of Tulsa College of Law’s policy as “Grading policy does not specify” because both policies state that courses with twenty or fewer are exempt from the policy. See Univ. of Ga. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 25; Univ. of Tulsa Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 10.

218. See, e.g., Villanova Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy (“The policy applies only to classes in which an examination is given and that have an enrollment of 30 or more students.”).

219. Id.

220. See, e.g., Suffolk Univ. L. Sch., Grading Policy (Legal Practice Skills courses exempt from policy); Tulane Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 20 (Legal Research and Writing courses exempt from policy); Am. Univ. Wash. Coll. of L., Grading Policy (first-year Rhetoric courses exempt from policy); Univ. of St. Thomas Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 47 (Lawyering Skills exempt from first-year course grading policy).

221. Of the 186 publicly available law school grading policies, 159 indicate some level of grade normalization. U.S.C. Gould School of Law is included in this number because it has a grading policy that states: “Because our admissions process is so rigorous and our student body so strong academically, USC Gould has adopted a curve that is flexible and that encourages students to take a wide variety of courses based on their interests rather than incentivizing them to try to earn an ‘easy’ grade. This results in our students competing with themselves to achieve their personal best rather than competing with classmates to remain in the program.” Univ. of S. Cal. Gould Sch. of L. Grading Policy. It does not describe its grading practices further; therefore, I coded it as “Yes: Unclear.”

222. See Figure 4, infra. For example, Harvard Law School’s grades are Honors, Pass, Low Pass, and Fail. Harvard L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 28. The Handbook does not specify whether these honorifics are subject to grade normalization. These marks do however convert into a standard GPA. Id. at 31. In addition, the “Deans Scholar Prize” can be awarded in certain classes and this grade counts as 5 when calculated into GPA. Id. at 31. Vanderbilt University Law School reports grades on an A+ to F scale, and it does not rank its law students. Vanderbilt Univ. L. Sch., Grading Policy. The grading policy does not specify whether course grades are subject to grade normalization. Id.

223. The University of Detroit Mercy School of Law explicitly uses criterion-referenced grading for all courses. Univ. of Det. Mercy Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 23. The University of Wyoming College of Law grading scale “is at [the] discretion of the instructor for each course.” Univ. of Wyo. Coll. L., Grading Policy, at 10. Notably, first-year legal writing course grades are required to fit within a mandatory mean range between 2.505 and 2.835. Id.

224. See, e.g., Boston Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 51 (requiring A+ grades for 2-5% students in all first-year doctrinal courses); Univ. of Cal. Irvine Sch. of L., Grading Policy (establishing the minimum and maximum number of required A+ grades based on course size as follows: 1-20 students (0–1); 21–40 students (1–2); 41–60 students (2–3); 61–80 students (3–4); 81–100 students (4–5); 101–120 students (5–6); 121–140 students (6–7)).

225. See, e.g., St. John’s University School of Law: “An A+ is an extraordinary grade that should be awarded sparingly for truly outstanding academic performance. Faculty are not required to award an A+.” St. John’s Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 50.

226. See, e.g., Stetson Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy (reporting 4.0 scale).

227. For example, UCLA School of Law’s 1L grade policy mandates that the median cannot be above a 3.3 and sets the following grade distribution ranges: A or A+ (15 –20%), A- (20–25%), B+ (30–35%), B and below (25–35%). UCLA Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

228. See, e.g., S. Univ. L. Ctr., Grading Policy, at 2 (requiring that 15-25% of students receive course grades of D+, D, or D- in specific first-year and upper-level courses). See also Figure 9, infra and Appendix C (reporting the lowest required grades for first-year legal writing courses for law schools that include the distribution method in their grade normalization policy).

229. In the 2024 Study, I coded forty-eight law schools as having grading policies that did not clearly specify how professors calculate final grades in first-year legal writing courses. 2024 Study, supra note 14. In comparison, twenty-five law schools did not clearly specify how professors calculate final grades in first-year courses generally. Id.

230. 2024 Study, supra note 14 (finding for first-year legal writing courses that ninety-seven law school policies require grade normalization, twenty-one law school policies advise grade normalization, and seventeen law school policies contain a mix of required and advisory language).

231. 2024 Study, supra note 14.

232. 2015 ALWD/LWI Survey, at 10 (reporting that 116 out of 194 responses selected “[g]raded the same way as all first-year courses”).

233. Sixty-one policies are mandatory. For two schools with first-year grade normalization policies, it was not possible to ascertain the relationship between other required first-year courses and first-year legal writing courses. For example, the University of Virginia School of Law grade policy states merely: “Faculty are required to award grades in each course to a mean that will be enforced by the vice dean of the Law School. Instructors should ensure that grades have an adequate distribution around this mean.” Univ. of Va. Sch. of L., Grading Policy. Additionally, the course information for Legal Research and Writing I and II on the law school’s website does not indicate whether students receive a grade in these courses. Univ. of Va. Sch. of L., Courses: Legal Research and Writing I, https://www.law.virginia.edu/courses/legal-research-and-writing-i-124817906 (last visited Mar. 17, 2025); Univ. of Va. Sch. of L., Courses: Legal Research and Writing II, https://www.law.virginia.edu/courses/legal-research-and-writing-ii-yr-125210019 (last visited Mar. 17, 2025). The website for the University of Southern California Gould School of Law states: “USC Gould has adopted a curve that is flexible and that encourages students to take a wide variety of courses . . . .” It does not provide any additional information about that curve. Univ. of S. Cal. Gould Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

234. Bos. Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 51 (making the general policy advisory for first-year legal writing courses); Duquesne Univ. Thomas R. Kline Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 14 (noting Legal Research and Writing should comply with grade tiers “to the greatest extent feasible, with compliance monitored and reported on a program-wide level”); S. Univ. L. Ctr., Grading Policy, at 2 (stating grade distribution advisory for legal writing).

235. 2024 Study, supra note 14 (of the 159 schools with required or advisory grade normalization polices for first-year casebook courses, forty-two schools apply some of the same normalization rules to first-year legal writing courses while changing others, and six schools apply entirely different normalization policies).

236. See, e.g., UCLA Sch. of L., Grading Policy (stating that the mean grade cannot exceed a B+ and establishing a grade distribution scheme but noting that “[d]ue to the smaller class size, faculty teaching Law 108A/B – Legal Research & Writing have the discretion to make modest adjustments to this distribution to assure that grades accurately reflect course performance”).

237. See, e.g., St. Thomas Univ. Crump Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 70, (applying a 2.5–3.0 mean range to first-year legal writing courses, which is higher and wider than the 2.25–2.5 range applied to other required first-year courses).

238. See, e.g., Univ. of Notre Dame L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 12 (applying a wider mean range to first-year legal writing courses and removing the required distribution component that applies to other required first-year courses).

239. See, e.g., Tex. S. Univ. Thurgood Marshall Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 16 (increasing the percentage of A-range grades to 10–13% for Lawyering Process I and Lawyering Process II from 9% for other required first-year courses).

240. See, e.g., Santa Clara Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy (removing the requirement for C- grades from the first-year legal writing grade distribution requirement).

241. Seventy-two policies rely on one method. Fifty-five policies rely on two methods. Only seven policies rely on three methods. 2024 Study, supra note 14.

242. While I coded 135 law school policies as having a mandatory or advisory grade normalization policy, I have excluded the University of California College of the Law – San Francisco from Figure 6 because its policy states that “[t]here are no specific normalization requirements for classes with fewer than 30 J.D. students, including Legal Research and Writing I, and Legal Research and Writing II.” And “[t]he Provost & Academic Dean may reject the grade sheet of a class with fewer than 30 J.D. students that does not have a range of grades[]” Univ. of Cal. Coll. of L.-S.F., Grading Policy, at 8 para. 1003.

243. Wash. Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 12 (defining grade scale).

244. Id.

245. The following five law schools have grade normalization policies that contain either a required or advisory mean or mean range component but have been excluded from these tables because they use a numeric system that does not directly map onto a standard scale: Howard University School of Law, Loyola Marymount University Law School, Mercer University School of Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law, and Washington University School of Law.

246. Compare Wake Forest Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy (for the purposes of calculating course mean all C grades and below are 2.67); with Temple Univ. Beasley Sch. of L, Grading Policy (“The grade of F is included in the calculation of the class mean.”).

247. See, e.g., Univ. of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 9 (A+ has 4.0 number equivalent).

248. Bos. Coll. L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 15.

249. Ind. Univ. Mauer Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

250. This number includes schools that only use a mean and those that use a mean and other normalization methods. Although the grading policy for the University of Virginia School of Law states that “faculty are required to award grades in each course to a mean,” that mean is unspecified in the document. Univ. of Va. Sch. of L., Grading Policy. Therefore, it has been excluded from Figure 7.

251. Brigham Young Univ. J. Reuben Clark L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 28 (ranked 28, with a mean “[n]ot to exceed 3.6”); Southwestern L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 3 (ranked 145, with a “mean of 2.800 (plus or minus 0.05)”).

252. Figure 8 represents course mean data as the letter grades those means would produce. I used the following grade point bands for each letter: A- (3.500–3.790); B+ (3.200–3.490); B (2.900–3.190); B- (2.500–2.890); C+ (2.200–2.490); C (1.900–2.190).

253. The T14, or Top 14, are a relatively stable grouping of law schools that have maintained their placement in national rankings. In the 2024 U.S. News rankings, the T14 are as follows: Stanford (1); Yale Law School (1); University of Chicago Law School (3); University of Virginia School of Law (4); Harvard Law School (4); University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (4); Duke University School of Law (4); Columbia Law School (8); Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law (9); NYU School of Law (9); U.C. Berkeley School of Law (12); UCLA School of Law (13); Cornell Law School (14); and Georgetown University Law Center (14). 2024 Best Law Schools, U.S. News & World Report, https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings (last visited Jan. 29, 2025). College Consensus ranks the T14 based on the composite data sets from four different rankings. Although placement changes, thirteen of the fourteen schools are the same, with only University of Texas School of Law replacing Georgetown. Justin Scranton, 50 Best Law Schools of 2025, Coll. Consensus, https://www.collegeconsensus.com/rankings/best-law-schools/ (last updated Aug. 29, 2024) (last visited Mar. 17, 2025). Throughout this article, all references to institutions’ rankings refer to the U.S. News & World Report’s 2024 Best Law Schools rankings.

254. U.S. News & World Report, supra note 253 (Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, ranked 9; Cornell Law School, ranked 14).

255. Northwestern Univ. Pritzker Sch. of L., Grading Policy (“In Communication and Legal Reasoning (CLR) and Common Law Reasoning courses, the mean will be 3.45, with a permitted range of 3.4–3.5”); Cornell L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 23 (course mean will be “approximate” 3.35 with an “acceptable range” of 3.2–3.5).

256. U.S. News & World Report, supra note 253. Texas A&M Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 20 (ranked 26, with a maximum allowable class mean of 3.40); Univ. Ala. Sch. of L., Grading Policy (ranked 33, with a required first-year mean of 3.2.); Wash. & Lee Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy (ranked 33, with a required first-year course mean of 3.30, plus or minus 0.05); William & Mary L. Sch., Grading Policy (ranked 36, with an advisory target mean for all section of Legal Research & Writing of 3.30 and a mean range of 3.20–3.40); Univ. Ill. Coll. of L. (Urbana-Champaign), Grading Policy, at 15–16 (ranked 36, with a recommended first-year course mean of 3.20); Emory Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 46 (ranked 42, with a mandatory course mean of 3.30 in every non-seminar class); U.C. Davis Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 10 (ranked 55, with an advisory mean of 3.3, plus or minus 0.05, for all first-year sectioned courses); Univ. of Ariz. James E. Rogers Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 23 (ranked 55, with a required target mean of 3.35, and a permissible range of 3.2–3.5); Univ. of Richmond Sch. of L., Grading Policy, (ranked 66, with a required mean of 3.30 plus or minus 0.10 (i.e., 3.20 to 3.40)); St. John’s Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 50 (ranked 68, with a target first-year course mean of 3.25 and permissible range of 3.2–3.3); Lewis & Clark L. Sch., Grading Policy (ranked 82, “Lawyering I is graded Pass/High Pass/Low Pass/No Pass” and Lawyering II has an advisory mean of 3.30, with a maximum mean of 3.50); Case W. Reserve Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 18 (ranked 89, with target mean of 3.20 and a maximum mean of 3.40).

257. U.S. News & World Report, supra note 253. Wake Forest Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy (ranked 25, with a 3.5 mean); Bos. Coll. L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 18 (ranked 28, with a 3.5 mean and a permissible mean range of 3.4–3.7); Brigham Young Univ. J. Reuben Clark L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 28 (ranked 28, with a mean “[n]ot to exceed 3.6”).

258. U.S. News & World Report, supra note 253. Univ. of Tenn. Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 8–9 (ranked 52, with a required course mean of 3.1, plus or minus 0.04); Temple Univ. Beasley Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at (ranked 54, with a target course mean of 3.15, within a required mean range of 3.10-3.20); Marquette Univ. L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 2 (ranked 68, with a target mean grade of 3.00 and an “actual mean” between 2.90–3.10); Tex. Tech. Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy (rank 82, with an advisory course mean of 2.95); Univ. of N.H. Franklin Pierce Sch. of L., Grading Survey (ranked 98, with a course mean no higher than a B); Mich. State Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy (ranked 108, with a required first-year course mean of 3.00 and a variance based on course enrollment); Univ. of Miss. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at (ranked 120, with a target course mean of 3.1, within a required mean range of 3.05–3.15); Univ. of Ark. Little Rock Bowen Sch. of L., Grading Policy (ranked 143, with a recommended course mean of 3.0 and a mandatory mean range of 2.9–3.10); N. Ky. Salmon P. Chase Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 26 (ranked 150, with a required course mean of 3.000 (“B”)); Mitchell Hamline Sch. of L., Grading Policy (rank 165, with required mean of 2.90 for all 1L classes with an allowable deviation of plus or minus 0.24 for courses with fewer than 30 students); Miss. Coll. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 28 (rank 168, with a required course mean not to exceed 2.90); Appalachian Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 12 (ranked 178–196, with a required course mean not to exceed 3.0000).

259. This number includes schools that only use a mean range and those that use a mean and other normalization schemes. In total, eighty law school policies include a mean range. Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University has been omitted because it does not include any details about the required mean range. Antonin Scalia L. Sch. George Mason Univ., Grading Policy, at 32 (“Mean grade ranges for Introduction to Legal Research, Writing, and Analysis, . . . will be established by the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Programming.”). University of Massachusetts School of Law – Dartmouth has been excluded because the required mean range is determined by course size. U. Mass. Sch. of L. Dartmouth, Grading Policy, at 19 (“In all required courses and in courses with an enrollment of 21 or more students, the presumptive average grade should fall between 2.85 and 3.15. In all other courses, the presumptive average grade should fall between 3.15 and 3.45.”). Four other law schools include mean ranges in their grade policies but have been excluded because they use grades that do not convert to a standard scale. See Howard Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 30 (arithmetic mean between 81.00–83.00); Mercer Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 12 (requiring average grade of 84–85, where the grading scale is A (92–99), B (84–91), C (78–83), D (70–77), F (65–69)); Univ. Ok. Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 6 (requiring a mandatory mean of 8.5 with 8.1–8.5 satisfying the standard); Wash. Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 12 (mandatory mean range of 3.49–3.55 on a numeric scale with the following conversion: A+ = 4.30–4.00; A = 3.94–3.76; A- = 3.70–3.58; B+ = 3.52–3.34; B = 3.28–3.16; B- = 3.10–3.04; C+ = 2.98–2.92; C = 2.86–2.80; D = 2.74; F = 2.68–2.50).

260. Here, I calculated the “mean-range span” by subtracting the smaller number in the mean range from the larger number.

261. See, e.g., Wm. & Mary L. Sch., Grade Policy (setting an advisory mean range of 3.20–3.40 with a target of 3.30).

262. See, e.g., Univ. of Ala. Sch. of L., Grading Policy (“Grades in required first-year classes must adhere to a mandatory mean of 3.2. (Any calculated mean between 3.1500 and 3.2500, inclusive, shall be deemed to satisfy this standard.)”).

263. University of Montana Alexander Blewett III School of Law has a mean range between a B- (2.70) and B+ (3.30). Univ. Mont. Alexander Blewett III Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 31.

264. Fordham Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy (“For the first-year Legal Writing and Research class, the curve is a mean of 3.316–3.333 with no required distribution.”).

265. Boston College Law School’s grade policy for its Law Practice course is advisory, and the suggested mean grade is 3.5. Bos. Coll. L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 18. However, the policy states that “[i]f an instructor concludes that the performance of the class being graded does not justify a mean grade of 3.5, the instructor may assign grades with a mean in the range of 3.4 to 3.7.” Id.

266. Atlanta John Marshall’s mandatory grade normalization policy for Legal Writing, Research & Analysis I is 2.15–2.40. Atlanta’s John Marshall L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 34. The policy for Legal Writing, Research & Analysis II is 2.15–2.65. Id.

267. See Figure 1.

268. See supra note 265 (noting that Boston College Law School’s grade policy for its Law Practice course permits a mean range of 3.4–3.7); note 264 (noting that Atlanta John Marshall School of Law’s Grading policy has a mean range of 2.15–2.40 for Legal Writing, Research & Analysis I and a mean range of 2.15–2.65 for Legal Writing, Research & Analysis II).

269. Fifteen law schools ranked in the top 50 by U.S. News include a mean range component in their grading policies. Of these fifteen schools, only the University of Kansas School of Law, ranked 46, has a grading policy with a mean range that includes a mean grade below 3.0. Univ. of Kan. Sch. of L., Grading Policy (“A mandatory curve is used. The average of grades in first-year courses must be 2.8–3.0. Seven percent of students in all first-year courses must receive a C- or lower in each class.”). Twenty-six law schools ranked between 51–100 by U.S. News include a mean range component in their grading policies. Eleven of these law schools, or 42%, have grading policies with a mean range that includes a mean grade below 3.0. University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law, ranked 66, requires the average grade in Legal Research, Analysis and Writing I and II to fall within a range of 2.950–3.150. Univ. of S.C. Joseph F. Rice Sch. of L., Grading Policy. Six other schools have a mean range of 2.90–3.10: Penn State L. Univ. Park, Grading Policy (ranked 68 and requiring in all courses “[m]ean=2.9–3.1”); Penn State Dickinson L., Grading Policy, at 40 (ranked 75, and requiring in all courses “[m]ean= 2.9–3.1”); Ga. St. Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy (ranked 75 and requiring a course mean between 2.90–3.10); Drake Univ. L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 31 (ranked 82 and mandating first-year courses have a mean grade between 2.90–3.10), Belmont Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 7–8 (ranked 91 and mandating that average first-year required course grades fall between 2.90–3.10); Ind. Univ. Robert H. McKinney Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 16 (ranked 98 and recommending average course grades “fall in the range of 2.9–3.1”); and Stetson Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 2 (ranked 98 and requiring all courses to have a mean “between 2.90 and 3.10”). Thirty-three law schools that include mean ranges in their grade normalization policies rank between 100–198. Of these schools, only three have mean ranges of 3.00 and above. Univ. of Ark. Sch. of L., Grading Policy (ranked 114 and requiring that Legal Research and Writing I and II course grades fall within a mean range of 3.0–3.2); Univ. of Miss. Sch. of L., Grading Policy (ranked 120 and requiring 1L course grades, including Legal Research and Writing I and II, to fall within a mean range of 3.05–3.15, with a target of 3.1); Maurice A. Deane Sch. of L. at Hofstra Univ., Grading Policy, at 28 (ranked 130 and requiring that course grades for Legal Analysis, Writing & Research I and II fall within a mean range of 3.1–3.3).

270. The discussion and Figure 9, which reports the lowest advisory and required grades for first-year legal writing courses, rely on grading policies from law schools that use a traditional alphanumeric grading system and law schools that use a numeric system but have either provided a clear conversion table or use a system that mimics a traditional 4.0 or 4.3 scale.

271. Depending on course enrollment, University of California Irvine School of Law may require at least one A+ in the first-year legal writing courses. Univ. of Cal. Irvine Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at VII. E. (stating that courses between 21 and 40 students must give a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2 A+ grades). Georgetown University Law Center, with a U.S. News rank of 14, advises that 0–2% of students receive an A+ in 1L required courses. Georgetown Univ. L. Ctr., Grading Policy, at 13. Additionally, the policy states that “[a]t least one A+ may be awarded per first-year class, regardless of class size.” Id. Boston University School of Law, with a U.S. News rank of 24, requires 2–5% of grades in 1L casebook courses to be A+; however, this requirement is not mandatory for the first-year Lawyering Program. Bos. Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

272. UCLA Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

273. Id.

274. Id.

275. Univ. of Tex. Sch. of L., Grading Policy.

276. Id. (recommending distribution of grades for “Other Courses”).

277. Univ. of Cal. Davis Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 10.

278. Id.

279. Some schools do limit the percentage of F grades. See, e.g., Wayne St. Univ. L. Sch., Grading Policy (specifying that a “[m]aximum of 5% of students enrolled in the course may receive an F grade”).

280. Cap. Univ. L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 26 (stating that 0–5% of grades in each 1L course should be an E, with an average of 3% and 5–9% should be a D, with an average of 7%).

281. Cleveland St. Univ. Coll. of L., Grading Policy, at 19.

282. Id.

283. Id.

284. See Appendix C for information about the data that supports each specified grade in Figure 9.

285. Because of ranking ties, there were fifteen schools ranked in the T14. Three schools with publicly available grading policies did not specify how course grades are calculated. Stanford Law School, ranked 1, uses letter grades, but its policy does not specify whether grade normalization applies to its first-year legal writing courses. Stanford L. Sch., Grading Policy. Harvard Law School, ranked 4, use honorifics rather than letter grades, but does not state whether first-year legal writing courses grades are normalized. Harvard L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 28. Columbia Law School, ranked 8, does not contain specific information in its Academic Rules about grade normalization. Columbia L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 19–26 (discussing letter grades, academic standing, satisfactory progress, and disclosure of grades). Two schools use credit/fail to grade their first-year legal writing courses. Yale Law School, ranked 1, and NYU School of Law, ranked 9, See Yale L. Sch., YLS: Courses – Fall 2024 - Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing, https://courses.law.yale.edu/CourseDetailPage?TermCode=202403&CRN=15593 (last visited Mar. 19, 2025) (indicating course “Grade Mode” is Credit or Fail); NYU Sch. of L., Courses and Academic Resources, https://www.law.nyu.edu/studentaffairs/support-resources/jd-student-handbook/courses [https://perma.cc/7NT2-VJ6C] (“Lawyering is graded on a pass/fail basis only.”). Seven schools in the T14 use an alphanumeric or numeric grading scale and normalize grades. See infra note 286 and accompanying text. The University of California Berkeley School of Law, ranked 12, uses honorifics. U.C. Berkeley Sch. of L., Grading Policy. Up to 10% of students can receive high honors and up to 40% can receive honors. Id.

286. The University of Chicago Law School, ranked 3, requires a 178 median for first-year legal writing courses, which translates into a B. Univ. Chi. L. Sch., Grading Policy. Duke University School of Law, ranked 4, requires that first-year legal writing courses follow the same normalization policy as other first-year courses. Duke Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy. This policy imposes a 3.5 course median and the following grade distribution: 4.1–4.3 (0–5%); 3.7–4.0 (20–40%); 3.4–3.6 (30–50%); 3.0–3.3 (20–40%). Id. Finally, while no student is required to receive a grade below 3.0, up to 5% may receive a 2.1–2.9. Id. The University of Virginia School of Law, ranked 4, states that “[f]aculty are required to award grades in each course to a mean that will be enforced by the vice dean of the Law School. Instructors should ensure that grades have an adequate distribution around this mean.” Univ. Va. Sch. of L., Grading Policy. There is no additional information about how grades are normalized. Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, ranked 9, requires its first-year legal writing course grades to conform to a 3.45 mean with a permitted range of 3.4–3.5. Northwestern Univ. Pritzker Sch. of L., Grading Policy. UCLA School of Law, ranked 13, states that the course median cannot exceed a B+ or 3.3 and further requires the following distribution: A+/A (15%–20%); A- (20–25%); B+ (30%–35%); B and below (25–35%). UCLA Sch. of L., Grading Policy. Cornell Law School, ranked 14, requires first-year legal writing course grades to conform to a 3.35 mean, with a permissible range between 3.2 and 3.5. Cornell L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 23. Finally, Georgetown University Law Center, ranked 14, requires first-year course grades to be distributed across A and B grades as follows: A+ (recommended target 1%, mandatory range 0–2%); A (recommended target 17%, mandatory range 17–19%); A- (recommended target 20%, mandatory range 19–21%); B+ (recommended target 39%, mandatory range 39–43%); B (recommended target 23%, mandatory range 15–25%); B- to F (recommended target 0-5%, mandatory range 0–5%). Georgetown Univ. L. Ctr., Grading Policy, at 13.

287. There are two other law schools located in the Washington D.C. area with publicly available grading policies; however, neither policy explains how or whether course grades are normalized. George Washington L. Sch., Grading Policy (describing grading scale, method of evaluation, participation, and academic recognition without describing grading practices); U.D.C. David A. Clarke Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 31–37 (describing the grading system and grades without describing grading practices).

288. Georgetown Univ. L. Ctr., Grading Policy, at 13 (describing the Mandatory First-Year Course Grading Curve, which applies to “all first-year required courses”).

289. Id.

290. See id.

291. See id.

292. See id.

293. American University Washington College of Law was ranked 45 in 2010. It first dipped down into the 70s in 2015, when it was ranked 72. It then remained in the 70s and 80s and was ranked 73 in 2023 before falling to 98 in 2024. See Top Law School Rankings from US News, 7Sage LSAT, https://7sage.com/top-law-school-rankings [https://perma.cc/7S5G-C6K5] (last visited Apr. 3, 2025) (providing the U.S. News rankings of American law schools between 2010–2024).

294. Am. Univ. Wash. Coll. of L., Grading Policy.

295. Catholic Univ. of Am. Columbus Sch. of L, Grading Policy, at 4.E (setting out “Standards of Grade Distribution”).

296. Catholic’s ranking fluctuated between 2010 and 2014, with a low of 98 in 2011 and a high of 79 in 2012. The school was ranked below 100 in the 2015–2022 U.S. News rankings and was ranked 94 in 2023 and 2024. See Top Law School Rankings from US News, supra note 293. The ranking trajectories of American and Catholic provide additional context for these two schools’ grading policies.

297. Catholic Univ. of Am. Columbus Sch. of L, Grading Policy, at 4.E.

298. Catholic’s policy does not contain any distribution requirement. Instead, the policy states: “the grade distribution shall have a mean falling within a range of 3.00–3.30.” Id.

299. Howard Univ. Sch. of L., Grading Policy, at 31 (stating that “[t]he School of Law uses a numerical grading system with grades ranging from 50 to 100.”).

300. Id. at 33 (“Howard University School of Law has a policy of standardized grading based on approximately a B- curve for the first year. . . . The policy has both arithmetic mean requirements and grade distribution requirements.”).

301. Id. (combining minimum required percentage of C and D grades where at least 20% of grades must be a 70–79 (C) and at least 10% of grades must be a 60–69 (D)).

302. Id.

303. Id. (a minimum of 10% and a maximum of 15% of first year course grades can be 90–100 (A)).

304. Georgetown Univ. L. Ctr., Grading Policy, at 13 (setting target and mandatory range as follows: A+ (1% target/0–2% mandatory range); A (target 17%/mandatory range 17–19%); A- (target 20%/mandatory range 19–21%).

305. See Silverstein, Grade Inflation, supra note 10, at 523–24.

306. See Robbins et al., supra note 135, at 1161–62 (discussing status trends for skills faculty).

307. See 2022 Survey, supra note 14.

308. See Keri Schwab, Bryan Moseley & Daniel Dustin, Grading Grades as a Measure of Student Learning, 33 SCHOLE: J. Leisure Stud. & Recreation Educ., 87, 90 (2018); Sourcebook 1st ed., supra note 123, at 53.

309. Laurie Magid, Awarding Fair Grades in a Process-Oriented Legal Research and Writing Course, 43 Wayne L. Rev. 1657, 1662 (1996); Glesner Fines, supra note 10, at 884 (“[G]rades may be one of the most efficient methods to induce learning behaviors.”).

310. Glesner Fines, supra note 10, at 885.

311. See id. (noting that overemphasizing grades and underemphasizing intrinsic reward undermines long-term, deep learning).

312. Id. at 902–05.

313. See id.; William M. Sullivan, Anne Colber, Judith Welch Wegner, Lloyd Bond & Lee S. Shulman, Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law 31 (2007).

314. See Bliss & Sandomierski, supra note 10, at 556 (noting that the “curved hierarchical grading system used by most law schools may tend to foster among students a chronic and deleterious experience of ‘grade anxiety’”); Rachel Field & Sally Kift, Addressing the High Levels of Psychological Distress in Law Students through Intentional Assessment and Feedback Design in the First Year Law Curriculum, 1 Int. J. First Year Higher Educ. 65, 66–67 (2010).

315. See Sandomierski et al., supra note 10, at 613–14 (summarizing studies that demonstrate women and people of color receive lower grades in law school, even when controlling for incoming credentials).

316. Kristen Holmquist, Marjorie Shultz, Sheldon Zedeck & David Oppenheimer, Measuring Merit: The Shultz-Zedeck Research on Law School Admissions, 4 J. Legal Educ. 565, 566 (2014).

317. Standard 303(b)(3) now requires law schools to “provide substantial opportunities to students for: . . . (3) the development of a professional identity,” and Standard 303(c) now requires law schools to “provide training and education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism.” Am. Bar Ass’n, ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools 2024–2025 Ch. 3, at 20, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/standards/2024-2025/2024-2025-standards-and-rules-for-approval-of-law-schools.pdf [https://perma.cc/FV5P-55T9].

318. For a summary of scholarship related to professional identity formation, see Katya S. Cronin, The Intentional Pursuit of Purpose: Nurturing Students’ Authentic Motivation for Practicing Law, 28 Legal Writing 159, 172–78 (2024). To my knowledge, no empirical research exists examining how grading policies affect metacognitive skill development. However, competitive grading systems—where students compete against each other for limited high grades on a curve—may logically diminish these skills. This seems particularly true for metacognitive regulation skills, which focus on an individual’s ability to monitor and control their own learning. More research should be done on the impact of law school grading policies on student learning.

319. See Figure 1, supra (describing results from ALWD/LWI surveys between 2000–2015); 2024 Study, supra note 14; supra note 231 and accompanying text (noting that the 2024 Study shows approximately 50% of law school grading policies apply the same grade normalization rules to all for first-year courses).

320. See Figure 1, supra (describing results from ALWD/LWI surveys between 2000–2015 and showing that the percentage of law schools applying a course-specific grading policy to first-year legal writing courses increased from 19% in 2000 to 27% in 2015); 2024 Study, supra note 14; supra note 235 and accompanying text (describing results from 2024 Study and showing that approximately 30% of law schools applying course-specific grade normalization policies to first-year legal writing courses).

321. See supra notes 235–240 and accompanying text (explaining how grade policies for first-year legal writing courses permit more flexibility in awarding higher grades).

322. See Figure 5, supra; 2024 Study, supra note 14; supra note 230 and accompanying text (reporting on publicly available grade policies for first-year legal writing courses and indicating that approximately 73% of them use some form of normalized grading).

323. See supra Sections I.B & I.C.

324. See Figure 3, supra (reporting on the reasons for adopting legal writing grading policies and showing that concerns about consistency received the highest number of responses); supra note 198 and accompanying text.

325. Wood, Measurement II, supra note 42, at 348.

326. 2024 Study, supra note 14.

327. See supra Section I.A (describing intelligence testing).

328. Silverstein, Mandatory Curves, supra note 10, at 287, 310. Describing the central limit theorem and its application to norm-referenced grading, Silverstein notes that “in smaller classes, the students’ performances are less likely to organize themselves into a bell shape.” Id. Additionally, he states that “in classes with fewer than thirty members, there is a statistically significant likelihood that the registered students will be above or below average when compared to the student body as a whole.” Id. Data from the 2021–2022 ALWD/LWI Survey reflect that 121 of the 137 law schools that responded to the question about course size indicated that first-year legal writing courses had 30 or fewer students. ALWD/LWI 2021–2022 Spreadsheet, supra note 212.

329. See supra Figure 6 (reflecting that thirty-three schools use a mean range, twenty-two schools use a distribution, eight schools use a mean, eight schools use a median, and one school uses a median range).

330. Silverstein, Mandatory Curves, supra note 10, at 306.

331. See Stake, supra note 10, at 601.

332. Silverstein, Mandatory Curves, supra note 10, at 308.

333. Id. at 309; see, e.g., Cornell L. Sch., Grading Policy, at 23 (“Faculty grading policy calls upon each faculty member to grade a course, including problem courses and seminars, so that the mean grade for J.D. students in the course approximates 3.35 (the acceptable range is 3.2 to 3.5)”).

334. Roy Stuckey & Others, Best Practices for Legal Education: A Vision and a Road Map 182 (2007).

335. For a summary of this argument, see Silverstein, Grade Inflation, supra note 10, at 522–23.

336. Georgetown Univ. L. Ctr., 2024 Standard 509 Information Report 1 (Dec. 16, 2024), https://www.law.georgetown.edu/admissions-aid/wp-content/uploads/sites/57/2024/12/Std509InfoReport-63-12-16-2024-11-16-05.pdf [https://perma.cc/TK4K-PAB2].

337. Id.

338. Catholic Univ. of Am. Columbus Sch. of L., 2024 Standard 509 Information Report 1 (Dec. 16, 2024), https://www.law.edu/_media/aba-info/2024-CatholicLaw-Std509InfoReport.pdf [https://perma.cc/QXB2-SSS8].

339. Howard U. Sch. of L., 2024 Standard 509 Information Report 1 (Dec. 17, 2024), https://law.howard.edu/sites/law.howard.edu/files/202412/Final 2024 509 Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/ES9G-XWZN].

340. Id.

341. Using undergraduate GPAs as a metric for academic achievement and future academic potential is fraught. Scholars have chronicled widespread grade inflation at the undergraduate level for decades. See generally Stuart Rojstaczer, Grade Inflation at American Colleges and Universities (Mar. 29, 2016), GradeInflation.com; Stuart Rojstaczer & Christopher Healey, Where A is Ordinary: The Evolution of American College and University Grading 1940-2009, Tchrs. Coll. Rec., Jul. 2012, at 1. Currently, A grades are the norm at elite institutions. See Amelia Nierenberg, Excellence at Yale Doubted as Nearly Everyone Gets A’s, N.Y. Times, Dec. 6, 2023, at A21.

342. See generally Chilton et al., supra note 3 (investigating the signal quality of grades in law school and concluding that awarding early opportunities to students based on grades negatively impacts students who do not earn grades in the top 10% of their class in their first year of law school).

343. Tully, supra note 12, at 869.

344. Glesner Fines, supra note 10, at 895. She further argues that the choice “to retain symbolic grade reporting systems, to emphasize grades through ranking, and to enforce the use of ranking through normalization efforts has the effect of privileging the values of competition and control. These same choices underprivilege other values: learning, equality, and professionalism.” Id.

345. See supra Section I.C (reporting on the history of law schools adopting grade normalization between 1975 and 2004); 2024 Study, supra note 14 (capturing data from 186 law schools that demonstrate continued use of normalized grades in 2024); see also Rose, supra note 1, at 129–30 (describing the trend toward greater grade normalization and arguing that LRW courses should buck this trend).

346. See Am. Bar Ass’n, supra note 317, at 28 (requiring schools to use both summative and formative assessments). For a history of efforts to adopt ABA Standard 314 (Assessment of Student Learning), see Steven C. Bahls, Adoption of Student Learning Outcomes: Lessons for Systemic Change in Legal Education, 67 J. Legal Educ. 376, 400–02 (2018).

347. 2022 Survey, supra note 14.

348. See Harris, supra note 10, at 820.

349. Rose, supra note 1, at 125–26.

350. Jay M. Feinman, Law School Grading Academic Evaluations Focus, 65 UMKC L. Rev. 647, 649 (1996).

351. Sullivan et al, supra note 313, at 168.

352. See Rose, supra note 1, at 147–50 (discussing criterion-referenced assessment practices in legal writing classes and the use of rubrics to communicate learning goals and mastery levels to students).

353. Sandomierski et al., supra note 10, at 608 n.3.

354. Id. at 625.

355. Id. at 657.

356. Id. at 609.

357. Id. at 608 & n.4.

358. Id. at 658–59.

359. See id. at 660. The authors suggest that Pass/Fail/Honors “may strike a golden mean between the opportunity for distinction and the accommodation of adversity.” Id.

360. After 2015, the ALWD/LWI Survey was revised and stopped providing detailed information about the grade normalization requirements for required first-year legal writing courses. See supra note 157 and accompanying text.

361. In 2020, ALWD and LWI launched the Individual Survey, a new biennial survey of individual professors of legal research and writing. The traditional yearly survey became the biennial Institution Survey.