The present Law School grading system was termed "as workable as any that has been devised" in a majority report of the Advisory Committee on the Grading System released last week.

A minority report charged, however, that Committee members had obtained their information on the workability of various grading systems from Professor Warren A. Seavey '08, himself a Committee member. "If we (the Committee) had asked other members of the faculty for opinions, we might have found that there was another system possible," the report stated.

At present, the Law School grades are made on a highly competitive numerical basis. Many Law School students feel that grade distinctions--especially between 62 and 70--are largely artificial, and that a one point difference often leads to an unjustified difference in class standing.

Ranking Can't Be Avoided

The eight-man Committee was appointed by the Dormitory Council early this year to "study the present grading system and to propose a more equitable grading system, if one could be found." The Committee was composed of two faculty members, Seavey and Assistant Law School Dean Louis A. Toepfer, and six Law School students. Michael J. McNulty 2L acted as chairman. The minority report was written by Charles H. W. Talbot 3L.

While the majority report stated that "any grading system has elements of unfairness," it did not see how the ranking of men from top to bottom can be avoided." The report added that "it is fairer to be very accurate in giving marks

than to place students in large categories, such as A men or B men or C men."

Ranking is important for scholastic honors, scholarships, and honor organizations, and also important to prospective employers and for draft deferments, the report said.

The dissenting paper declared that while the majority report claimed that one-point distinctions were meaningful, it did not indicate why they should be made. This report claimed that ranking requested by draft boards and prospective employees is "quite gross." "A system of ranking in quarters, or decides, should satisfy interested out-of-school persons," Talbot's report said.

If the school is interested only in knowing whether a student should obtain a degree or not, there should be only two grades, Pass and Fail, the minority report argued. If it were further necessary to distinguish those with exceptionally high marks for honor positions, these distinctions should also be made, i.e. Law Review, Board of Student Advisors, Legal Aid Bureau, Pass and Fail.

The importance of grades has been exaggerated by Law Students, as they view the placement picture with a limited perspective, the majority report contended. While the largest law offices in the largest metropolitan areas place a premium on scholastic achievement other law offices are less concerned with grades. The large offices, however, take steps to hire students in advance to fill their needs, while the other firms only hire men already graduated.

Also, many law offices which reject students for personal considerations cite law school marks as the reason for refusal in order to avoid a "rather delicate and embarrassing alternative," the report said