And then you go and dig yourself deeper.
legallyblonde27 wrote:Seeing as everyone in the class would have a 100% chance of being in the top of the class before any grades are even recorded, the logic actually does make sense.
Yes, everyone is at the top of the class before any grades are issued
. Therefore, a student who has been issued a scholarship has a 100% chance of keeping that scholarship until grades are issued
. That was never in dispute, nor is it relevant.
However, once grades are issued, only those students whose grades are in (what last year was) the top 15% of the class get to keep their scholarships. Therefore, by definition
, a previously untested (in terms of law school exams) student has a 15% chance of keeping his/her scholarship.
It's an unknown number, to which no one even has a clue what it might be.
Do you understand what probabilities are? Their entire purpose is to assign levels of chance to unknown events. It doesn't matter that you
are convinced that you are going to excel. You know nothing about your prospective classmates. For that matter, you haven't even taken the LSAT or been accepted for admission. To claim that you have an 85% chance of keeping a prospective scholarship to an institution to which you haven't even applied is both wishful thinking and ignorance.
Frankly, I wouldn't have said anything if not for your defensiveness. Rad law is right. Akron is ripping its students off. It is providing a large number of scholarships to incoming 1L's while putting conditions on the money that absolutely guarantee that most of those students will lose those scholarships one-sixth of the way through law school. Once they've lost those scholarships, those students two options: pay sticker or pack it in. Knowing that most students won't do so, particularly if their grades are, say, above median, the school stands to rake in tuition money from a bunch of students that likely wouldn't have chosen to attend if they knew that they'd have to pay sticker for five semesters.