NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
Ignatius Reilly
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:47 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Ignatius Reilly » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:43 pm

overunderachiever wrote:As the article pointed out, its a damn shame that need-based aid dropped while merit scholarships skyrocketed...just another case of the have's vs. the have-not's



That has nothing to do with the have's and the have-not's.....it has to do with those who earned money and those who did not. The have's dont get mertit aid, unless they deserve it.

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Hannibal » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:44 pm

Ignatius Reilly wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:As the article pointed out, its a damn shame that need-based aid dropped while merit scholarships skyrocketed...just another case of the have's vs. the have-not's



That has nothing to do with the have's and the have-not's.....it has to do with those who earned money and those who did not. The have's dont get mertit aid, unless they deserve it.


...No.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Patriot1208 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:46 pm

overunderachiever wrote:As the article pointed out, its a damn shame that need-based aid dropped while merit scholarships skyrocketed...just another case of the have's vs. the have-not's

No it's not. This isn't undergrad, virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition. Very few of those going to law school can afford it without significant debt. This is why graduate programs focus on merit based

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby northwood » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:52 pm

While most people on TLS know that law school has a grading curve- and if you were offered a scholarship that had a gpa stip- it would be imperitive that you did some research before accepting the award. However-im sure the vast majority of applicants are either unaware of this- or assume that they will keep the scholarship.You also have to acknowledge that its pretty hard to predict law school success.
Basically- you have to remember that this is a financial investment and a business decision for you. Just as you should research each school on your list- you should research the cost and requirements to maintain any awards you were granted.

Also- i think the fact that you can only work 20 hours a week at most for 1L makes a vast majority of applicants qualify for need based aid.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Bildungsroman » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:59 pm

Ignatius Reilly wrote:I was under the impression that most of the top schools gave their scholarships without stipulations....is this not the case?

AFAIK all the top 20 schools only have something like "academic good standing" as a requirement, which is usually a 2.5 or a 2.0.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby prezidentv8 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:59 pm

northwood wrote:its pretty hard to predict law school success.

this.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby romothesavior » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:00 pm

While there's no doubt that this kind of thing royally sucks for those who lose their scholarships, I think most people who fall below the GPA-cutoff for scholly stips at T2s and T3s would be better served by dropping out anyways. Below median or below top 1/3 or something at an expensive T2/T3? You probably were screwed before they took your scholly.

overunderachiever
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:47 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby overunderachiever » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:11 pm

Patriot1208 wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:As the article pointed out, its a damn shame that need-based aid dropped while merit scholarships skyrocketed...just another case of the have's vs. the have-not's

No it's not. This isn't undergrad, virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition. Very few of those going to law school can afford it without significant debt. This is why graduate programs focus on merit based


If virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition than there would be no need-based aid at all. While it may be true that many graduates will come out with significant debt, I think more money should go to those who will have the most trouble paying off that debt and not to those graduates who will work for daddy's firm.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby prezidentv8 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:13 pm

overunderachiever wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:As the article pointed out, its a damn shame that need-based aid dropped while merit scholarships skyrocketed...just another case of the have's vs. the have-not's

No it's not. This isn't undergrad, virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition. Very few of those going to law school can afford it without significant debt. This is why graduate programs focus on merit based


If virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition than there would be no need-based aid at all. While it may be true that many graduates will come out with significant debt, I think more money should go to those who will have the most trouble paying off that debt and not to those graduates who will work for daddy's firm.

To my knowledge, there really isn't a whole lot of these. Although there are more people who have help paying for school than I thought.

Ignatius Reilly
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:47 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Ignatius Reilly » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:13 pm

overunderachiever wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:As the article pointed out, its a damn shame that need-based aid dropped while merit scholarships skyrocketed...just another case of the have's vs. the have-not's

No it's not. This isn't undergrad, virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition. Very few of those going to law school can afford it without significant debt. This is why graduate programs focus on merit based


If virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition than there would be no need-based aid at all. While it may be true that many graduates will come out with significant debt, I think more money should go to those who will have the most trouble paying off that debt and not to those graduates who will work for daddy's firm.


So basically money should go to those who are below median? That's reverse merit aid

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby romothesavior » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:14 pm

overunderachiever wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:As the article pointed out, its a damn shame that need-based aid dropped while merit scholarships skyrocketed...just another case of the have's vs. the have-not's

No it's not. This isn't undergrad, virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition. Very few of those going to law school can afford it without significant debt. This is why graduate programs focus on merit based


If virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition than there would be no need-based aid at all. While it may be true that many graduates will come out with significant debt, I think more money should go to those who will have the most trouble paying off that debt and not to those graduates who will work for daddy's firm.

Straw man is straw.

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Hannibal » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:15 pm

Ignatius Reilly wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:If virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition than there would be no need-based aid at all. While it may be true that many graduates will come out with significant debt, I think more money should go to those who will have the most trouble paying off that debt and not to those graduates who will work for daddy's firm.


So basically money should go to those who are below median? That's reverse merit aid


Both of these posts are terrible.

overunderachiever
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:47 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby overunderachiever » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:15 pm

romothesavior wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:As the article pointed out, its a damn shame that need-based aid dropped while merit scholarships skyrocketed...just another case of the have's vs. the have-not's

No it's not. This isn't undergrad, virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition. Very few of those going to law school can afford it without significant debt. This is why graduate programs focus on merit based


If virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition than there would be no need-based aid at all. While it may be true that many graduates will come out with significant debt, I think more money should go to those who will have the most trouble paying off that debt and not to those graduates who will work for daddy's firm.

Straw man is straw.


Haha, well played.

User avatar
Zabini
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:45 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Zabini » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:15 pm

Hannibal wrote: The closest others come to that is fundraising for their UG, which most grad programs are in the first place.


Exactly. If the law school is being used primarily as a profit center to fund the university's other activities, then it is for most intents and purposes the same as a for-profit school.

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

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby 09042014 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:16 pm

Patriot1208 wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:As the article pointed out, its a damn shame that need-based aid dropped while merit scholarships skyrocketed...just another case of the have's vs. the have-not's

No it's not. This isn't undergrad, virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition. Very few of those going to law school can afford it without significant debt. This is why graduate programs focus on merit based


Merit aid is horrible too. A 3.9/172 is worth giving 150K to attend over a 3.9/168. REALLY? No. That's fucking retarded.

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

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby whymeohgodno » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:18 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:As the article pointed out, its a damn shame that need-based aid dropped while merit scholarships skyrocketed...just another case of the have's vs. the have-not's

No it's not. This isn't undergrad, virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition. Very few of those going to law school can afford it without significant debt. This is why graduate programs focus on merit based


Merit aid is horrible too. A 3.9/172 is worth giving 150K to attend over a 3.9/168. REALLY? No. That's fucking retarded.


+1

Combination of merit/need is probably the best.

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

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby 09042014 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:23 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:As the article pointed out, its a damn shame that need-based aid dropped while merit scholarships skyrocketed...just another case of the have's vs. the have-not's

No it's not. This isn't undergrad, virtually everyone is in the same need for tuition. Very few of those going to law school can afford it without significant debt. This is why graduate programs focus on merit based


Merit aid is horrible too. A 3.9/172 is worth giving 150K to attend over a 3.9/168. REALLY? No. That's fucking retarded.


+1

Combination of merit/need is probably the best.


How about just charging a lesser tuition rate.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby prezidentv8 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:24 pm

Desert Fox wrote:How about just charging a lesser tuition rate.

User avatar
drdolittle
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:15 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby drdolittle » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:25 pm

prezidentv8 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:How about just charging a lesser tuition rate.

:shock:

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby northwood » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:33 pm

Desert Fox wrote:How about just charging a lesser tuition rate.



that would be both too easy and too sensible

User avatar
joemoviebuff
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:51 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby joemoviebuff » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:37 pm

prezidentv8 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:How about just charging a lesser tuition rate.


What a novel idea.

overunderachiever
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:47 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby overunderachiever » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:45 pm

How about just charging a lesser tuition rate.[/quote]

If we totally got rid of scholarships, then that could happen!

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

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby 09042014 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:45 pm

overunderachiever wrote:
How about just charging a lesser tuition rate.


If we totally got rid of scholarships, then that could happen!


Yea that's pretty much my point.

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

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby whymeohgodno » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:47 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:
How about just charging a lesser tuition rate.


If we totally got rid of scholarships, then that could happen!


Yea that's pretty much my point.


But then schools will have a harder time raising/maintaining medians.

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

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby 09042014 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:49 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:
How about just charging a lesser tuition rate.


If we totally got rid of scholarships, then that could happen!


Yea that's pretty much my point.


But then schools will have a harder time raising/maintaining medians.


Michigan has a 167 LSAT median instead of 168? OH the HUMANITY!




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests