I really like my law school, and one of the reasons I like it is that a professor that drastically curves grades is seldom to be found. I suspect some may do a bit of curving, but not to the point that I notice. There is only one I am aware of who curves very strictly.
I don't like curving, and I think it is actually harmful. I think adhering to a strict curve actually removes incentive for students to really work hard for their grades. In the particular class I have, the grades are curved drastically, but I think the reasoning applies to both that situation and a single-exam-based grade.
For example, I have received good scores on the assignments in this class prior to the final. Does this mean anything? No. This grade will probably be curved to such an extent that it is unlikely I will get a grade consistent with my assignment grades. Sure, for some people, getting good grades on the assignments leading up to the final means they have a shot at the single A that will be awarded in the class. The problem, though, is that we all know that there will only be one A. The chance of any one of us receiving that A is pretty slim. Given the cost-benefit analysis of how much work we would put in to receive that A, who in their right mind would do it? I know I didn't. I figure I could kill myself to <i>stand a chance</i> of getting that A, or I could do a lot less work and probably have a good shot at an A- or something. Considering my priorities lie with the quality of life rather than the quality of my grades, I know which I will choose.
Then there is the other side of the equation. What if I haven't done all that well? Maybe I have some disappointing grades. In that case, it is likely, with this extreme curve, that I'll end up with a B or variation thereof. What incentive do I have to increase my knowledge of the subject so I can get a higher grade? None, because I will never get a higher grade with the insane curve. Basically, since the curve pulls everyone to the middle, most people are guaranteed some kind of B regardless of what they do.
Overall, it ends up removing incentive. The high up students have a pretty drastic diminishing return on any investment of time, and the lower down students (for the most part) only have to put in minimal effort to get a decent grade. If grades were "what you get is what you get," things would be different. Anyone who could get an A would work hard to increase their knowledge, while those of us on the lower end would maybe work hard to bring it up as much as we could.
To all law professors: You may not think so, but students will probably work harder and genuinely learn the material more when their grades are independent of their classmates than with a sharp curve. Take it for what it's worth.
Good point. I've never understood curves, but I know I often felt the same sort of apathy about the relationship btwn effort and final grade as you desribe here. My theory is that the curve is the easiest way to make sure students are ranked so that the big firms can skim the very very top from the class w/out much effort. The system is designed to feed big law and viewed from that perspective, it works well. If viewed from another perspective (e.g., law school is about learning), the system hardly works at all.
I tend to agree that's why the curve is so popular, but to me it's a cop-out. Professors choose to curve rather than write a complicated exam with layers of easy-to-difficult issues. If it truly is important to rank the students, a good professor is the one that at least does it according to how well they know the material.