NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
MidlawMyth
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:48 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby MidlawMyth » Sun May 01, 2011 1:53 am

Desert Fox wrote:
glitched wrote:yeah i read this today too. interesting article.

i thought this comment was interesting:
"I actually went to Chicago-Kent several years ago. I was awarded a full merit scholarship with the provision that I maintain a 3.0 to keep the scholarship. The school divided the 1L's into three sections - A, B and C. I was in section A. I noticed over the course of the first month and a half of law school that there seemed to be many more people in section A who were the recipients of merit scholarships than in sections B and C. I clearly remember telling some classmates that it seemed to me that the school had a financial incentive to group more merit scholarship recipients together. Because of the grading curve (which was based on your section), some people were certainly going to lose their scholarship money. They thought I was too cynical, but I thought it seemed like a tactic that could really help the school's bottom line." Giddified Washington, D.C. April 30th, 2011 8:36 pm

if that's true, daayyaamm - there are some smart criminals deans out there.



and wait... T13 is still safe right?


There are reasons to doubt claims like this. You tend to know people in your section better, and you find out gossip like who is on scholarship.

And it probably doesn't even make sense to section stack. Since merit scholarships are given for just be slightly higher in GPA/LSAT there isn't a significant difference in quality of student. If there isn't a signicant difference in student quality, it doesn't matter if you put them in the same section or not.
Isn't curving done by section? How can you curve different sections together when they have different exams?

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7664
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby worldtraveler » Sun May 01, 2011 2:02 am

Although I think law schools should be truthful in employment prospects and I think it's shitty that they intentionally try and fool people into thinking everyone at a T4 has a shot at 160k, I have trouble feeling sorry for people who don't see the scholarship thing coming. Any scholarship you get lays out the criteria for keeping it. Nobody should be assuming they will do well in law school and thinking you will automatically be in the top 50% or even the top 30% is a terrible idea.
Deciding to go to law school and spend any amount in tuition is a huge decision and I don't really pity people who don't take the time to really consider if what they're doing is a good idea or read the fine print. I went to UG to an out of state school on a scholarship with a GPA stipulation. I thought it over for about 2 months before committing because had I dropped below the threshold, I would have been paying out of state tuition. To me, not thinking about this is the equivalent of buying a house without knowing whether you'll be able to make the payments.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby 09042014 » Sun May 01, 2011 2:04 am

MidlawMyth wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
glitched wrote:yeah i read this today too. interesting article.

i thought this comment was interesting:
"I actually went to Chicago-Kent several years ago. I was awarded a full merit scholarship with the provision that I maintain a 3.0 to keep the scholarship. The school divided the 1L's into three sections - A, B and C. I was in section A. I noticed over the course of the first month and a half of law school that there seemed to be many more people in section A who were the recipients of merit scholarships than in sections B and C. I clearly remember telling some classmates that it seemed to me that the school had a financial incentive to group more merit scholarship recipients together. Because of the grading curve (which was based on your section), some people were certainly going to lose their scholarship money. They thought I was too cynical, but I thought it seemed like a tactic that could really help the school's bottom line." Giddified Washington, D.C. April 30th, 2011 8:36 pm

if that's true, daayyaamm - there are some smart criminals deans out there.



and wait... T13 is still safe right?


There are reasons to doubt claims like this. You tend to know people in your section better, and you find out gossip like who is on scholarship.

And it probably doesn't even make sense to section stack. Since merit scholarships are given for just be slightly higher in GPA/LSAT there isn't a significant difference in quality of student. If there isn't a signicant difference in student quality, it doesn't matter if you put them in the same section or not.
Isn't curving done by section? How can you curve different sections together when they have different exams?


What I'm saying is throwing all the scholarship winners into one section won't make that curve significantly harder. At most schools the difference between zero dollars and fullride is 2 LSAT/.2 GPA. The people who finish at the bottom of a stacked section would finish at the bottom of a regular section. There'd be some difference but it'd be something as little as 5% or something like that.

MidlawMyth
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:48 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby MidlawMyth » Sun May 01, 2011 2:05 am

worldtraveler wrote:Although I think law schools should be truthful in employment prospects and I think it's shitty that they intentionally try and fool people into thinking everyone at a T4 has a shot at 160k, I have trouble feeling sorry for people who don't see the scholarship thing coming. Any scholarship you get lays out the criteria for keeping it. Nobody should be assuming they will do well in law school and thinking you will automatically be in the top 50% or even the top 30% is a terrible idea.
Deciding to go to law school and spend any amount in tuition is a huge decision and I don't really pity people who don't take the time to really consider if what they're doing is a good idea or read the fine print. I went to UG to an out of state school on a scholarship with a GPA stipulation. I thought it over for about 2 months before committing because had I dropped below the threshold, I would have been paying out of state tuition. To me, not thinking about this is the equivalent of buying a house without knowing whether you'll be able to make the payments.
Do you think there shouldn't be regulation of predatory payday loans? Because this is the same concept, except with much bigger numbers and with taxpayers left holding the bag instead of a private company when they can't pay.

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7664
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby worldtraveler » Sun May 01, 2011 2:09 am

MidlawMyth wrote:
worldtraveler wrote:Although I think law schools should be truthful in employment prospects and I think it's shitty that they intentionally try and fool people into thinking everyone at a T4 has a shot at 160k, I have trouble feeling sorry for people who don't see the scholarship thing coming. Any scholarship you get lays out the criteria for keeping it. Nobody should be assuming they will do well in law school and thinking you will automatically be in the top 50% or even the top 30% is a terrible idea.
Deciding to go to law school and spend any amount in tuition is a huge decision and I don't really pity people who don't take the time to really consider if what they're doing is a good idea or read the fine print. I went to UG to an out of state school on a scholarship with a GPA stipulation. I thought it over for about 2 months before committing because had I dropped below the threshold, I would have been paying out of state tuition. To me, not thinking about this is the equivalent of buying a house without knowing whether you'll be able to make the payments.
Do you think there shouldn't be regulation of predatory payday loans? Because this is the same concept, except with much bigger numbers and with taxpayers left holding the bag instead of a private company when they can't pay.


I never said there shouldn't be regulation. You're twisting the topic. Whether or not there is regulation is not what what I'm discussing. I'm saying that if you want to go to law school, do your damn homework and figure out if it's a good idea. It's 3 years of your life, thousands of dollars, and will have a huge impact on your future career prospects.

User avatar
glitched
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 9:50 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby glitched » Sun May 01, 2011 2:23 am

Desert Fox wrote:
MidlawMyth wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
glitched wrote:yeah i read this today too. interesting article.

i thought this comment was interesting:
"I actually went to Chicago-Kent several years ago. I was awarded a full merit scholarship with the provision that I maintain a 3.0 to keep the scholarship. The school divided the 1L's into three sections - A, B and C. I was in section A. I noticed over the course of the first month and a half of law school that there seemed to be many more people in section A who were the recipients of merit scholarships than in sections B and C. I clearly remember telling some classmates that it seemed to me that the school had a financial incentive to group more merit scholarship recipients together. Because of the grading curve (which was based on your section), some people were certainly going to lose their scholarship money. They thought I was too cynical, but I thought it seemed like a tactic that could really help the school's bottom line." Giddified Washington, D.C. April 30th, 2011 8:36 pm

if that's true, daayyaamm - there are some smart criminals deans out there.



and wait... T13 is still safe right?


There are reasons to doubt claims like this. You tend to know people in your section better, and you find out gossip like who is on scholarship.

And it probably doesn't even make sense to section stack. Since merit scholarships are given for just be slightly higher in GPA/LSAT there isn't a significant difference in quality of student. If there isn't a signicant difference in student quality, it doesn't matter if you put them in the same section or not.
Isn't curving done by section? How can you curve different sections together when they have different exams?


What I'm saying is throwing all the scholarship winners into one section won't make that curve significantly harder. At most schools the difference between zero dollars and fullride is 2 LSAT/.2 GPA. The people who finish at the bottom of a stacked section would finish at the bottom of a regular section. There'd be some difference but it'd be something as little as 5% or something like that.


it's not that it's harder. it's that it will be guaranteed that a % of their merit scholarship will be gone.

User avatar
Rock Chalk
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:11 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Rock Chalk » Sun May 01, 2011 2:24 am

.
Last edited by Rock Chalk on Wed May 16, 2012 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
powerlawyer06
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:20 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby powerlawyer06 » Sun May 01, 2011 2:25 am

worldtraveler wrote:I never said there shouldn't be regulation. You're twisting the topic. Whether or not there is regulation is not what what I'm discussing. I'm saying that if you want to go to law school, do your damn homework and figure out if it's a good idea. It's 3 years of your life, thousands of dollars, and will have a huge impact on your future career prospects.


Worldtraveler, we have had this discussion before but I find it predatory that some schools say that financial aid is renewable each year for three years but fully intend to take it away after the first year. At least scholarships with stipulations clearly lay out the terms of the agreement but certain schools (the one you currently attend and that I will be at next year) lead students to believe that financial aid is basically guaranteed for three years. I think there should be some regulation in this area.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18410
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby bk1 » Sun May 01, 2011 2:26 am

Rock Chalk wrote:Not saying it happens or that it's okay, but who hasn't been warned of conditional offers?


The vast majority of law school applicants people think of themselves as unique snowflakes and overestimate their chances of success.

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7664
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby worldtraveler » Sun May 01, 2011 2:41 am

powerlawyer06 wrote:
worldtraveler wrote:I never said there shouldn't be regulation. You're twisting the topic. Whether or not there is regulation is not what what I'm discussing. I'm saying that if you want to go to law school, do your damn homework and figure out if it's a good idea. It's 3 years of your life, thousands of dollars, and will have a huge impact on your future career prospects.


Worldtraveler, we have had this discussion before but I find it predatory that some schools say that financial aid is renewable each year for three years but fully intend to take it away after the first year. At least scholarships with stipulations clearly lay out the terms of the agreement but certain schools (the one you currently attend and that I will be at next year) lead students to believe that financial aid is basically guaranteed for three years. I think there should be some regulation in this area.


I don't find it predatory. It is renewable, but it's not guaranteed. You get a need based financial aid package for one year and then you apply again each year, which they tell you up front. People shouldn't take that as a guarantee.

User avatar
powerlawyer06
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:20 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby powerlawyer06 » Sun May 01, 2011 2:48 am

worldtraveler wrote:
powerlawyer06 wrote:
worldtraveler wrote:I never said there shouldn't be regulation. You're twisting the topic. Whether or not there is regulation is not what what I'm discussing. I'm saying that if you want to go to law school, do your damn homework and figure out if it's a good idea. It's 3 years of your life, thousands of dollars, and will have a huge impact on your future career prospects.


Worldtraveler, we have had this discussion before but I find it predatory that some schools say that financial aid is renewable each year for three years but fully intend to take it away after the first year. At least scholarships with stipulations clearly lay out the terms of the agreement but certain schools (the one you currently attend and that I will be at next year) lead students to believe that financial aid is basically guaranteed for three years. I think there should be some regulation in this area.


I don't find it predatory. It is renewable, but it's not guaranteed. You get a need based financial aid package for one year and then you apply again each year, which they tell you up front. People shouldn't take that as a guarantee.


Well I never got anything in writing but the fin-aid office orally told me that the amount would not change unless my income went up significantly, my residency status changed, or the school ran out of money. I specifically asked two different people in the Financial Aid office. However, after talking to you and several other current students (even some IRL) it appears that most people get fin-aid taken away without any of the criteria listed above. How is this not dishonest and at least slightly predatory?

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby jenesaislaw » Sun May 01, 2011 3:25 am

See Law School Transparency's proposal to the ABA on this issue, released a few hours ago to coincide with the NYTimes piece: http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/20 ... formation/

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby whymeohgodno » Sun May 01, 2011 3:58 am

Desert Fox wrote:Top third is fucking rough.

:::Goes to school on full w/ top 30%
:::Gets top 10% in 5 classes
:::Misses equal protection claim and gets a B-
:::Poverty


Would one B- really drop you below top 30% if you have all A's?!?

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby flcath » Sun May 01, 2011 4:52 am

whymeohgodno wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Top third is fucking rough.

:::Goes to school on full w/ top 30%
:::Gets top 10% in 5 classes
:::Misses equal protection claim and gets a B-
:::Poverty


Would one B- really drop you below top 30% if you have all A's?!?

Don't stop him, he's on a roll.

rose711
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:57 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby rose711 » Sun May 01, 2011 7:17 am

worldtraveler wrote:Although I think law schools should be truthful in employment prospects and I think it's shitty that they intentionally try and fool people into thinking everyone at a T4 has a shot at 160k, I have trouble feeling sorry for people who don't see the scholarship thing coming. Any scholarship you get lays out the criteria for keeping it. Nobody should be assuming they will do well in law school and thinking you will automatically be in the top 50% or even the top 30% is a terrible idea.
Deciding to go to law school and spend any amount in tuition is a huge decision and I don't really pity people who don't take the time to really consider if what they're doing is a good idea or read the fine print. I went to UG to an out of state school on a scholarship with a GPA stipulation. I thought it over for about 2 months before committing because had I dropped below the threshold, I would have been paying out of state tuition. To me, not thinking about this is the equivalent of buying a house without knowing whether you'll be able to make the payments.


I agree that no one should be assuming that they will be in the top percentage of their class. But there are posts on here almost everyday by some 0L either asking about what they need to transfer (as they assume they can get those grades) or assuming that going to a school where they are above median on LSAT and GPA means they will be more competitive, and more likely to be top 20% or Law Review, than the other students in their class. It seems very difficult to dissuade people from these assumptions.

I think that (almost) everyone assumes they will be at least top 20% - even though there is no way this can be true. Most of the students going to most law schools were one of the smartest people in their class or school and have had A's their whole life, they fully expect to do the same in law school.

The only way to get people to think about the stipulations is to at least provide numbers as to how competitive it will be to retain the scholarships.

There are also people who don't realize how difficult it will be to keep their scholarships, and what a game it can be for the school, who are emotionally devastated and feel like failures by losing the scholarship, even if they had a good chance of losing it before they went in the door. I think the numbers would help those people cope. For these people not having a scholarship at all would be less painful than losing it.

User avatar
Rurik
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Rurik » Sun May 01, 2011 7:45 am

rose711 wrote:
worldtraveler wrote:Although I think law schools should be truthful in employment prospects and I think it's shitty that they intentionally try and fool people into thinking everyone at a T4 has a shot at 160k, I have trouble feeling sorry for people who don't see the scholarship thing coming. Any scholarship you get lays out the criteria for keeping it. Nobody should be assuming they will do well in law school and thinking you will automatically be in the top 50% or even the top 30% is a terrible idea.
Deciding to go to law school and spend any amount in tuition is a huge decision and I don't really pity people who don't take the time to really consider if what they're doing is a good idea or read the fine print. I went to UG to an out of state school on a scholarship with a GPA stipulation. I thought it over for about 2 months before committing because had I dropped below the threshold, I would have been paying out of state tuition. To me, not thinking about this is the equivalent of buying a house without knowing whether you'll be able to make the payments.


I agree that no one should be assuming that they will be in the top percentage of their class. But there are posts on here almost everyday by some 0L either asking about what they need to transfer (as they assume they can get those grades) or assuming that going to a school where they are above median on LSAT and GPA means they will be more competitive, and more likely to be top 20% or Law Review, than the other students in their class. It seems very difficult to dissuade people from these assumptions.

I think that (almost) everyone assumes they will be at least top 20% - even though there is no way this can be true. Most of the students going to most law schools were one of the smartest people in their class or school and have had A's their whole life, they fully expect to do the same in law school.

The only way to get people to think about the stipulations is to at least provide numbers as to how competitive it will be to retain the scholarships.

There are also people who don't realize how difficult it will be to keep their scholarships, and what a game it can be for the school, who are emotionally devastated and feel like failures by losing the scholarship, even if they had a good chance of losing it before they went in the door. I think the numbers would help those people cope. For these people not having a scholarship at all would be less painful than losing it.


Yeah, but then it seems to make sense that if you tell people, "50% of our scholarship recipients lose their scholarship due to an inadequate GPA," the entering students will just think, "pssshhh, I'm certainly not going to be in that 50%, I will do well, people tell me I'm special all the time and what a hard worker I am."

I hate the way that some law schools take advantage of people, but if you're stupid enough to go to Golden Gate Law School while being fully aware of a GPA stipulation, you have made your own bed, and you should have to sleep in it. A lot of students going in are willfully blind, and willing to gamble a hell of a lot of money on the chance that they'll "make it." I'm not sure simply giving incoming law students more information is going to solve anything. And these GPA stipulations are not some fine print, hidden in a 120 page law school contract. As far as I know, it's always completely clear in the award letter that you have to do X, if you want to keep your scholarship. If you don't put any legwork into finding out how many people do X or how difficult it is to do X, well...

I agree with worldtraveler. I'm allowed to hate the law schools for taking advantage of stupid people, but that doesn't mean I have to feel sorry for the stupid people.

User avatar
Rurik
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Rurik » Sun May 01, 2011 7:57 am

This has been fun, but I should probably get back to studying, so I don't curve out and miss the stip.

SHarry3666
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:13 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby SHarry3666 » Sun May 01, 2011 9:25 am

It's pretty stunning how the policies differ among law schools (see block quotes below from several law school deans interviews below):

HLS DEAN INTERVIEW (LinkRemoved)
AD Many other law schools out there use merit scholarships as a way to improve their LSAT and GPA numbers and, by extension, their rankings. Harvard Law doesn’t offer merit scholarships; instead, according to the Class of 2012 fact sheet, 40% of your entering class received need-based scholarships. I think it’s phenomenal that you are providing financial aid to qualified candidates who cannot otherwise afford to attend. What are your thoughts about law schools that offer only merit scholarships and not need-based scholarships?

JR I’m not enough of an expert on financial aid to really say anything insightful about the program at any other school. Our need-based policy is based on two central goals: first, to make a legal education accessible to every student admitted to the JD program and second, to preserve the broadest range of career options for graduates, through our need-based loan repayment assistance program (LIPP).

Practically speaking, I’m a little bit relieved that we maintain separation between admissions decisions and financial aid ones. The applicants that make it through our process are almost all superstars so I’m not sure I’d want the task of choosing who was offered aid and who wasn’t.

AD I personally know a student who transferred to HLS after a very successful 1L year at University of Florida. I was really surprised to learn that he, too, qualified for, and received, need-based financial aid as a transfer student. In an era when so many schools use transfer students as a way to either protect their LSAT/GPA numbers, or pad their bank accounts by refusing to offer them financial aid, Harvard has really raised the bar by extending need-based scholarships to transfers. I guess that’s less of a question than a commentary on Harvard’s generosity, which I feel needs to be commended -- especially in these difficult economic times when so many schools are seeking to do everything to maximize profits. Ok, so here’s a question: What are your thoughts on the transfer “game” that has become such a large part of law school admissions at many schools these days?

JR I guess I feel fortunate to be somewhere where we have the freedom to use our transfer program solely to add to our class with talented students we may have missed the first time around.



UGA LAW DEAN INTERVIEW
AD Is the scholarship something you can lose based on your performance after the first year?

PR Yes, if you have less than a 2.7 GPA you could lose your scholarship.

AD And what's your curve at Georgia?

PR A GPA of a 2.7 is right around the bottom 25% of the class.

AD Oh, so they would have to do very poorly.

PR Yes. It's very rare for someone to lose their scholarship.



UNC LAW INTERVIEW
AD In terms of the partial and full scholarships, does UNC place any conditions on those? Does an applicant have to maintain a certain GPA or else risk losing their scholarship?

MS No. Although some schools may do that, we do not. If you are awarded a scholarship, you can count on that scholarship being there all three years so long as you remain in academic and behavioral good standing at UNC.



USC SCHOOL OF LAW DEAN INTERVIEW

AD Are there any conditions placed on Rothman Scholarship recipients to maintain certain academic standing during their three years at USC?
CR Rothman scholars are treated no differently than other scholarship recipients of the law school. Our scholarship program does not place an academic standing requirement on any student. We find that for the most part students will work hard academically out of a sense of duty, obligation and gratitude toward their Trojan donors.


NYLS DEAN INTERVIEW
AD Okay, according to the most recently published ABA data, approximately 34% of NYLS’s full-time students (and 23% of part-time students) received some sort of scholarship or grant. How does an applicant get considered for a scholarship and what factors do you look at when determining an award?

WP I’m not going to lie, our decisions about who gets a scholarship usually hinges on the applicant’s LSAT score. Applicants with LSAT scores above our median -- particularly those around and above our 75th percentile -- can expect to receive a scholarship offer. The amount of that scholarship may be moderated by the applicant’s GPA. So, an applicant that has an LSAT score in the 158 range but a lower GPA might not receive a scholarship -- or will receive a reduced award when compared with someone with that same LSAT score but with a GPA that also falls around our 75th percentile.

That’s basically how our scholarship process works. We offer scholarships in order to encourage applicants with higher LSAT scores to attend NYLS. It’s what the other law schools do.

AD Is your scholarship guaranteed for all three years or does it depend upon the recipient maintaining a certain GPA?

WP It is guaranteed for the first year and a student gets to keep it all -- or a portion of it -- depending upon their final (cumulative) first-year GPA that is calculated at end of the spring semester. If the recipient’s GPA falls below a 3.1 then he or she will be ineligible for a scholarship during the second and third years.

AD And what is the grading curve at New York Law School?

WP It’s a 3.1.

AD So your scholarship recipients only need to maintain a GPA that will put them in the top 50% of our class -- that is definitely a lot more fair than some of the “bait and switch” scholarships offered by other law schools. Those schools often require recipients to maintain a rank in the top 25% or higher.

WP There are schools that have a lower renewal requirement, but most are probably higher. That’s why I’ve been saying that NYLS is not like a lot of other law schools out there.

User avatar
Aberzombie1892
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:56 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Sun May 01, 2011 9:29 am

I believe that content scholarship letters should come with a detailed explanation for the curve at a school.

This explanation should include, but not be limited to:
1. Grade distributions (X% get A+, Y% get A, etc.)
2. The percentage of the 1L's that have their full scholarship retained for 2L
3. The percentage of people that graduate without losing any of their scholarship
4. The percentage of the 1L's that have a portion of the scholarship retained for 2L
5. The percentage of students who lose part/all of their scholarship after 1L, but regain it for 3L.
6. The curve. The actual average and median GPA of the 1L class for the prior 3 years (individually, not averaged)
7. The average and median debt load of people who graduate from the law school.
8. The average and median salary of the entire class (private sector/government/PI/etc.), and the percentage of the entire class that that salary data represents.

I believe that with the above information, even the most hardheaded 0Ls with have a realistic understanding of what they are getting themselves into. Law schools would fight to the death to not share this information, and would claim that prospective students are "sophisticated consumers" (here, it would mean educated individuals with capability of understanding what they are doing). In theory, they are right as a college degree is required to be accepted to law school in the U.S. However, in reality, it's not true as many prospective law students are a sophisticated as high school students (re: not very sophisticated at all).

User avatar
handlesthetruth
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:42 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby handlesthetruth » Sun May 01, 2011 10:15 am

glitched wrote:it's not that it's harder. it's that it will be guaranteed that a % of their merit scholarship will be gone.


This. Jesus people it's not complicated

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby 09042014 » Sun May 01, 2011 11:17 am

whymeohgodno wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Top third is fucking rough.

:::Goes to school on full w/ top 30%
:::Gets top 10% in 5 classes
:::Misses equal protection claim and gets a B-
:::Poverty


Would one B- really drop you below top 30% if you have all A's?!?


Depends on a curve. On a B+ curve that's two grades below median.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby 09042014 » Sun May 01, 2011 11:19 am

handlesthetruth wrote:
glitched wrote:it's not that it's harder. it's that it will be guaranteed that a % of their merit scholarship will be gone.


This. Jesus people it's not complicated


ITT people don't understand probability and statistics. If there is negligible difference in student quality, then 2/3 of them are very likely to lose it anyway.

Emma1
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Emma1 » Sun May 01, 2011 12:34 pm

How many schools use the "good standing" stipulation
(beside T14). Vanderbilt's scholarship offers are also good standing. Maybe we should make a list of some of the stips we are getting pertaining to different schools.
Last edited by Emma1 on Sun May 01, 2011 1:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

xyzbca
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 2:36 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby xyzbca » Sun May 01, 2011 12:35 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Top third is fucking rough.

:::Goes to school on full w/ top 30%
:::Gets top 10% in 5 classes
:::Misses equal protection claim and gets a B-
:::Poverty


Would one B- really drop you below top 30% if you have all A's?!?


Depends on a curve. On a B+ curve that's two grades below median.


I'm guessing most schools on a B+ curve are using a 4.3 scale?

Assuming a 16 credit hour semester and the B- is in a 3 hour class.

((13 X 4)+(3 X 2.67))/16 = 3.750.

On a ~3.3 curve should easily be good enough for top 30%.

Whyme, I'm also guessing that a school with a B+ curve grading is on a 4.3 scale. The 5 A's are impressive but not the top grades a student could make.

User avatar
thexfactor
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:40 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby thexfactor » Sun May 01, 2011 12:52 pm

just curious, if you section stack, couldn't you argue that it violates good faith?
You make it impossible that everyone can perform and keep their scholarship.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], packerboy31489 and 6 guests