I spent the early weeks of my first year of law school talking to my classmates about their future goals. Since our alma mater was not ranked in the top 200, most of them wanted to transfer to a higher-ranked school. Ultimately, they wanted to work for a prestigious firm, or be the first in our school to obtain a SCOTUS clerkship. Looking back, I have to admire their ambition and idealism.

A year later, I spent the early weeks of my second year of law school talking to my classmates about their future goals. A few still had their visions of grandeur. But many others were realistic. Some wanted to do public service work, others were contemplating starting solo practices, while others were looking at LL.M. programs. At our school, except for the top students who didn’t transfer, most of us had C averages, in the 2.0 – 2.9 range. This disqualified us from many jobs advertised online or at OCI, which required GPAs of 3.0 or higher to even be considered. At the top law schools in my state, the average GPA was around 3.2.

I wondered why my law school gave out Cs to the majority of its students while the top schools were more liberal about awarding As and Bs. It turns out that my school was not the only one doing this.

The grading curves for most U.S. law schools can be found here. At many lower-ranked schools, the GPA of the 50% rank is between 2.0 – 2.9. Also, the GPA curve is lower for first-year students. At mid-ranked schools, the 50% GPA is around 3.0. Top schools have a 50% GPA of 3.3. Also, most low-ranked law schools are very stingy about giving As and Bs (or their equivalents).

Why do low-ranking law schools have such low GPA ranges? Employers take law school GPAs very seriously. So shouldn’t these schools adjust their grading policy to match their higher-ranked competitors?

I suspect that low-ranked law schools have to grade this way to stay in business. They publicly justify their low GPA curves to motivate their students to work hard and to make their top students attractive to prestigious firms. But there are also two covert reasons for doing this. One is to make it difficult for students to transfer elsewhere. Keeping the average GPA low automatically disqualifies students from schools that have a minimum GPA requirement for transfers. Others will be so demoralized by their low GPAs that they will not even bother to apply. The second reason schools do this is to ensure that students lose any scholarships if they do not meet the minimum GPA requirement. Look, these tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) entities won’t stay profitable for long if they continue to give out tuition discounts like candy. The most notorious way schools do this is by putting all of the scholarship students in the same section, forcing them to compete against each other.

Unfortunately, this harsh grading system will make it very difficult for these students to find jobs, both during and after law school. Not only will they have to suffer the stigma of attending a low-ranked law school, their low GPAs will put them at a disadvantage compared to higher-ranked schools that give higher GPA distributions. Some employers and résumé-sifting machines will only consider candidates with a minimum GPA of 3.0.

In the second and third years of law school, things are different. You can choose your classes, although in most lower-ranked schools, you are still required to take certain courses in order to graduate. The professors are no longer the anal-retentive, psychotic dictators they were in your 1L classes. Also, the grading curve is different. Non-1L classes have easier curves. Classes with a small number of students have even more lenient curves or have no curves at all.

Some students might think that if they can choose their classes wisely, stay away from the gunners, and study hard, they can get straight As and sneak back into the top of the class. The problem is that the top students will do whatever it takes protect their precious GPA and class rank. They also have an unfair advantage because they have resources that are not available to everyone else. For example, they can take law review or moot court, extern for judges, and be T.A.s for pass/fail credit, which will not affect their GPA.

Another problem is that if you want to take advantage of the easier grading curve, you might have to take some really boring classes. Do you really want to take a semester-long seminar on “The Historical Development of Nonobviousness in Patent Law” or suffer through “Advanced Partnership Tax II”? There’s a reason why few students sign up for these classes. If you think you won’t enjoy the class or understand the class material, chances are you won’t receive a good grade. This defeats the purpose of signing up for the class in the first place.

Finally, trying to get good grades might be counterproductive in the long run. Last year, I advised 2Ls and 3Ls with average grades to focus more on getting professional work experience and go to class only two to three days per week. If you are going to take the “easy” classes to boost your GPA, you may have to be in school four to five days per week, which may hinder your ability to get a job. If you are ranked in the lower half of your class, I doubt that getting good grades will help you.

I don’t condone grade inflation, even in low-ranked schools. If a student performs poorly during the semester, she deserves a poor grade. But if employers and recruiters are reading this (and I know you are), please understand the struggles we have to face in the job market. I think that some law schools, and especially the low-ranked schools, maintain low GPA averages more for their own business reasons. Therefore the GPA is not reliable as an evaluation of a student’s intellectual aptitude and work ethic.

Shannon Achimalbe was a former solo practitioner for five years before deciding to sell out and get back on the corporate ladder. Shannon can be reached at sachimalbe@excite.com.