Of the readers who responded to an unscientific poll on my column's blog, 61 percent believe that it was wrong for Loyola Law School to raise its recent graduates' grades retroactively, even if other law schools grade less rigorously, while 39 percent consider it OK to raise the grades.
"Law firms would be aware that a school was more rigorous in its grading policies, and would be able to weigh candidates with that criteria in mind," writes Madilyn Bruening of Salt Lake City, Utah. "Isn't that the reason some schools are more prestigious than others, because they have a more difficult curriculum?"
William Jacobson of Cypress, Calif., considers such post-grade inflation to be an act of fraud.
"The retroactive raising of GPAs by the law school, with the sole purpose of making their students `look more attractive' to outside employers, would appear to be ... a false misrepresentation of fact done specifically to deceive said employers into considering students who otherwise might not be considered ... Despite the popular misconception, lawyers are held to high ethical standards ... so should the law schools be."
Check out other opinions here, or post your own by clicking on "Comments" or "Post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to email@example.com.
Thanks Jeffrey! A well edited summation of my position. :)
Post a Comment