NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

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

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


169 actually. :D

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

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby overunderachiever » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:50 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.


and HYS will have 100% yield rates!

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

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby 09042014 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:54 pm

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


169 actually. :D


Actually I'm not even sure it would impact their medians much. That ten percent of Michigan who could go to Uchi but don't for money, would go to Uchi. And then the bottom ten % of admits at Uchi would just go to Michigan because they couldn't get Uchi anymore.

User avatar
mpj_3050
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby mpj_3050 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:56 pm

Arkansas-Fayetteville gives out a shit ton of scholarships every year with a top 20% stipulation. But at least tuition is 11k, the area is cheap, and they tell you up front it requires top 20% or you lose it.

User avatar
dr123
Posts: 3503
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:38 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby dr123 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:02 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.


GPA/LSAT medians dont mean shit. Schools just obsess over them because of the US News rankings

User avatar
Knock
Posts: 5152
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Knock » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:04 pm

dr123 wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
overunderachiever wrote:
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.


GPA/LSAT medians dont mean shit. Schools just obsess over them because of the US News rankings


Schools would still obsess over them even without USN&WR.

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby gwuorbust » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:14 pm

I think the solution to the lawl school problem is:

1. get rid of USNWR; AND/OR
2. eliminate merit aid; AND/OR
3. shut down bottom 50 schools OR Quota system

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby scammedhard » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:19 pm

gwuorbust wrote:I think the solution to the lawl school problem is:

1. get rid of USNWR; AND/OR
2. eliminate merit aid; AND/OR
3. shut down bottom 50 schools OR Quota system

Or the ABA, instead of resting on its laurels, could enforce the dissemination of "basic consumer information" that is accurate and transparent.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Veyron » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:19 pm

Just do T-14 bro.

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby gwuorbust » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:31 pm

scammedhard wrote:
gwuorbust wrote:I think the solution to the lawl school problem is:

1. get rid of USNWR; AND/OR
2. eliminate merit aid; AND/OR
3. shut down bottom 50 schools OR Quota system

Or the ABA, instead of resting on its laurels, could enforce the dissemination of "basic consumer information" that is accurate and transparent.


I do not think that data transparency alone will get rid of the TTTT lawl schools. all those schools care about is filling their class. so if there was a sudden drop off caused by info dissemination, I could easily see Cooley, GGU, et. al. advertising on night TV shows getting people to take the LSAT and then enroll. for-profit and sketch technical schools do this all the time. but to believe that the GGUs of this world will go away without a fight is simply naive thinking.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18426
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby bk1 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:35 pm

gwuorbust wrote:I do not think that data transparency alone will get rid of the TTTT lawl schools. all those schools care about is filling their class. so if there was a sudden drop off caused by info dissemination, I could easily see Cooley, GGU, et. al. advertising on night TV shows getting people to take the LSAT and then enroll. for-profit and sketch technical schools do this all the time. but to believe that the GGUs of this world will go away without a fight is simply naive thinking.


I already see T1/T2 schools advertising their law programs on public transit.

User avatar
Lawlcat
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:33 am

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Lawlcat » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:39 pm

gwuorbust wrote:I think the solution to the lawl school problem is:

1. get rid of USNWR; AND/OR
2. eliminate merit aid; AND/OR
3. shut down bottom 50 schools OR Quota system



scammedhard wrote:I do not think that data transparency alone will get rid of the TTTT lawl schools. all those schools care about is filling their class. so if there was a sudden drop off caused by info dissemination, I could easily see Cooley, GGU, et. al. advertising on night TV shows getting people to take the LSAT and then enroll. for-profit and sketch technical schools do this all the time. but to believe that the GGUs of this world will go away without a fight is simply naive thinking.


I am disturbed by the pejorative use of "lawl".

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby Grizz » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:40 pm

gwuorbust wrote:
scammedhard wrote:
gwuorbust wrote:I think the solution to the lawl school problem is:

1. get rid of USNWR; AND/OR
2. eliminate merit aid; AND/OR
3. shut down bottom 50 schools OR Quota system

Or the ABA, instead of resting on its laurels, could enforce the dissemination of "basic consumer information" that is accurate and transparent.


I do not think that data transparency alone will get rid of the TTTT lawl schools. all those schools care about is filling their class. so if there was a sudden drop off caused by info dissemination, I could easily see Cooley, GGU, et. al. advertising on night TV shows getting people to take the LSAT and then enroll. for-profit and sketch technical schools do this all the time. but to believe that the GGUs of this world will go away without a fight is simply naive thinking.


Except if there are easily accessible terrible statistics out there, I don't give a rat's ass what stupid people do with their money.

Oh yeah, also reform federal lending.

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby gwuorbust » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:41 pm

Lawlcat wrote:
gwuorbust wrote:I think the solution to the lawl school problem is:

1. get rid of USNWR; AND/OR
2. eliminate merit aid; AND/OR
3. shut down bottom 50 schools OR Quota system



scammedhard wrote:I do not think that data transparency alone will get rid of the TTTT lawl schools. all those schools care about is filling their class. so if there was a sudden drop off caused by info dissemination, I could easily see Cooley, GGU, et. al. advertising on night TV shows getting people to take the LSAT and then enroll. for-profit and sketch technical schools do this all the time. but to believe that the GGUs of this world will go away without a fight is simply naive thinking.


I am disturbed by the pejorative use of "lawl".


welcome to TLS

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby 071816 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:55 pm

This is the response i was given when I sent an email to Loyola LA asking specific questions about retaining merit scholarships:

Dear Mr. X:

All of our scholarships have the same renewal criteria. I don't have any solid data on what percentage of the scholarship recipients renew their scholarship under this criteria because this is the first year we have used the top 30% as a criteria. I estimated based on previous data that about 40% of scholarship recipients will renew their scholarships. I also estimate that we will have somewhere around a 130 to 140 recipients.

If you do not renew after your first year the scholarship is lost for the remaining two years. We do have other privately donated scholarships that you could qualify for, but they are in small amounts and are fairly competitive.

Our 1L sections are divided evenly based on academic factors (primarily LSAT and GPA). In addition, we divide them out evenly based on gender and diversity.

I think I answered your questions, but if you have others please feel free to contact me.

*Also, don't forgot about our scholarship reception on April 14 at the City Club in downtown LA and the preview day on April 15 here on campus.

Thanks,

  John Hoyt
  Dean for Enrollment Management

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 11:57 pm

That's a surprisingly open answer I think.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby scammedhard » Sun May 01, 2011 12:01 am

Hannibal wrote:That's a surprisingly open answer I think.

Agree. So much honesty coming from a law school dean is very suspicious. Maybe there is some fine print...
Last edited by scammedhard on Sun May 01, 2011 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
beachbum
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby beachbum » Sun May 01, 2011 12:08 am

Hannibal wrote:That's a surprisingly open answer I think.


+1, that was fantastic. And honestly, I think there's a lot of truth to Robert Morse's "read the fine print" line in the article. Part of me feels bad for the kids who lose their scholarship and get hit with a ton of debt from a (likely) weak school in a terrible economy; the other half of me realizes that research is a big part of being a lawyer, and if these kids can't be bothered to investigate their scholarship/financial situation (let alone the job market), then they can deal with the consequences. It seriously amazes me how ignorant many 0Ls are about just what it is they're getting into.

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

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby 09042014 » Sun May 01, 2011 12:18 am

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

User avatar
rocon7383
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby rocon7383 » Sun May 01, 2011 12:52 am

i actually have a specific question. Cardozo's scholarship is retainable by keeping a 2.950, which they say is "roughly top 80% of the class".... This doesn't seem right. Are they being misleading? or generous to prevent intense competition?

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby gwuorbust » Sun May 01, 2011 1:03 am

rocon7383 wrote:i actually have a specific question. Cardozo's scholarship is retainable by keeping a 2.950, which they say is "roughly top 80% of the class".... This doesn't seem right. Are they being misleading? or generous to prevent intense competition?


not all schools medians are at 3.0. a lot have 3.3 or 3.4 median. you should probably look into that.

User avatar
rocon7383
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby rocon7383 » Sun May 01, 2011 1:17 am

gwuorbust wrote:
rocon7383 wrote:i actually have a specific question. Cardozo's scholarship is retainable by keeping a 2.950, which they say is "roughly top 80% of the class".... This doesn't seem right. Are they being misleading? or generous to prevent intense competition?


not all schools medians are at 3.0. a lot have 3.3 or 3.4 median. you should probably look into that.


Well the median is about 3.15 last I checked, so i know the numbers make sense to me. Its just that it seems oddly generous of them. I guess the predatory nature of a lot of other offers i have gotten has made me skeptical of their offer.

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 1:31 am

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?

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

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby MidlawMyth » Sun May 01, 2011 1:39 am

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.
That's pretty communist, bro. And people with cush jobs waiting for them at their family's firm do not take out loans.

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

Re: NYTimes Article About Law School Scholarships

Postby 09042014 » Sun May 01, 2011 1:52 am

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.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest