LetsGoMets wrote:scone wrote:I've only skimmed the thread (forgive me), so this has probably already been said -- if someone's set on PI, wouldn't H be the obvious choice given their LRAP equivalent? That would be even better than 0 tuition at CLS -- it would be 0 tuition and 0 living costs (and, after 10 years, 0 debt).
What others have said, plus being "set on PI" as a 0L is not a good way to make a $300,000 decision, because interests and goals can and do change during school. LRAP is a wonderful tool for students who didn't get money from other schools during the admissions process, and end up going into PI on graduation. Turning down a full-tuition scholarship before beginning school because of presumed access to LRAP for 10 years after graduating from a higher-ranked school is a vastly different calculation, and a poor choice.
There are a lot of different ways that students are "set on PI." I was in the PI community at my school, and it was pretty immediately obvious who was actually set on PI and who was "set on PI." I'd bet that >90% of those who were actually set on PI as 1Ls at my school ultimately went into PI, and I can't think of a single person I know who went into PI and isn't still in PI. I think most folks know, as a 0L, which category they fall into--it just requires some honest introspection, because there is a real difference between preferring to go into PI if things shake out right, and knowing that you are definitely going into PI no matter what.
For those who are truly set on PI--a group comprising a minority of those who express interest in PI pre-law school--I do think that turning down a full-tuition scholarship because of presumed access to LRAP can be a good decision. (But that's going to depend on what two schools we're talking about and what sort of PI you're interested in.)