seaguy2010 wrote: glewz wrote: seaguy2010 wrote:
glewz wrote:Did you not consider the scenario in which 90% are given a significant scholarship, in which all these students are required to maintain top 1/3? Is that fair? If it is, you should Definitely go to Pacific.
I think it's completely fair in that the school is acting in its own self-interest. Explicit deception is a different story.
(1) You aren't answering my question.
(2) If someone needs to explicitly deceive you in order to deceive you, you are gonna have a tough time lawyering.
1) Obviously we have different conceptions of "fairness," and the inherent subjectivity makes me hesitant to give such a black and white answer.
The scholarship is used as an enticement by the schools to attract students of a higher caliber. Students have the ability to do independent research and find out more about these scholarships before accepting the offer. From the perspective of a student who did extremely poorly in terms of GPA during my undergrad years and then went on for 3 more years to bust my ass and become successfull at my job, and then compensate for my GPA with a high LSAT score, I think it is completely fair that more students are given scholarships than might actually keep them. As the "little guy," I would welcome the opportunity to be given a scholarship and then illustrate that I've earned it through scholastic achievement. Perhaps the solution is to lose the sense of entitlement. The business world is dirty, grimy, and not always "fair" in the conventional sense. Schools, particularly private schools, fall within this realm. People will, and generally should, act in their own self-interest, and it comes down to the person to take control and do their homework before making any kind of decision.
2) I wasn't referring to myself being deceived, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
You said very clearly "I think it's completey
fair that stipulations are placed on scholarship money." And then I asked that question. You still have yet to tell me whether it is fair that a 90% scholarship 1L class be required to be in top 30% in order to maintain their scholarships.
The lottery has their odds very clearly publicized - those who buy it understand that they have no shot in hell. The point of the article is to point out that the odds are not publicized, and therefore, it is unfair that stipulations are made in the manner that they are. This runs counter to your initial claim, and probably a few points within your slowly evolving argument.
(2) I was pointing to general people being deceived. But in this case, you are one of them. Hence, this is why you have 90% of the posts within this thread (the other 10% is you, of course) telling you repeatedly: Loyola > 1/3 stips Pacific $$...you fool (I didn't say that last part, but many have)
Anyways, I'm vacating this thread. I've tried, and so has everyone else. If you srsly choose Pacific, I don't think anyone cares to convince you otherwise any longer.