Jonathan, if not having grades means employers focus on the "meat" a little bit earlier and longer than they otherwise would have, isn't that making Elvira's point? Scripted conversations, tailored resumes and overly complementary references bring their own problems, but the answer there is to have less scripted interviews, and greater scrutiny over resume claims and references, not to give up on actually trying to get to know people as human beings. The biggest risk, in my opinion, of having grades in an interview is that they are the easiest of all the various components to directly and quantifiably measure people against each other, and as such will function as the default triage mechanism before any meaningful attempt is made to actually get to know each person.

Also, I'm a little worried that after everything we've talked about this semester in class and outside, you still say grades are "truly objective metrics" - objective in what sense? How often do we receive an exam back with comments and an accompanying grading metric? Do we ever get given lists of expected outcomes and performance indicators, sample answers from varying bands of performance or comparisons of raw performance scores to weighted rankings - a.k.a. grades? What about statistics on the average grades received by women vs. men, minorities vs. non-minorities, direct-from-undergraduate vs. non-direct, or different undergraduate majors? Without such information available to analyze, it's extremely difficult to assess the extent to which this grading system is even "objective" within its own educational paradigm, and that's before getting into everything we've talked about in class about the inherently political nature of testing "mastery" of a substantive area of law using a time-limited, research-exclusive, non-collaborative format based around hypothetical issue spotters or a true-false/multiple choice questions. Although my academic and professional education background is limited to the pre-k, elementary and secondary levels, I've also attended seven other tertiary institutions in various capacities prior to CLS, and can say quite confidently that the curriculum and assessment system at law school is the most opaque I've ever come across. We didn't even get a syllabus for Contracts last semester! Another professor emailed me prior to the release of grades to let me know that despite my (undeniably) poor exam performance, they thought I was one of the better students in the class and had bumped my final grade up as far as they could without being unfair to other students. Now, while I personally appreciate the fact that professor realized that exams aren't the be all and end all, I can't see how such a system, or indeed one in which Eben is able to tinker with grades over summer, should ever be considered "truly objective."

I'm also not sure I understand what you mean by "impeccable resumes, interviewing skills and references." Can you elaborate? No two people have identical life experiences, personalities or intellects, so I don't see how you can evaluate two resumes as both being "10/10". Isn't that type of reductive and dehumanizing "apples-to-apples" approach far more likely to occur with a grading system in which there are only five commonly used grade levels (A to B-)?

-- RohanGrey - 28 May 2012