Bottom 5% at T14 or Top 5% at ~T70? Forum

[PepperJack]

I personally don't think stips should matter. Unless you're hanging a shingle, everyone should drop out if they're not at least top 15 percent at a TTT, and no stips are that restrictive. Even top third - stips or no stips, you should drop out.

[09042014]

Even with a full ride, I'd be extremely hesitant to attend, as their scholarships are conditional upon a high law school GPA, which as you guys have mentioned, there is no way to predict how you will do.

Um, my full ride scholly there is stip-free, so I'd love to know the source of your information...

Yea, most schools in that range have dropped their stips if they had them to begin with. Usually just "good academic standing"

Right. Exactly. I know some people with a "stip," if you can call it that, of remaining in the "top 80%" of the class. IMO, if you can't do that, you shouldn't be in law school.

Guy literally advocating for a 20% fail out rate.

[Tiago Splitter]

Guy literally advocating for a 20% fail out rate.

Would do a lot of people a favor.

[NYstate]

I personally don't think stips should matter. Unless you're hanging a shingle, everyone should drop out if they're not at least top 15 percent at a TTT, and no stips are that restrictive. Even top third - stips or no stips, you should drop out.

But this doesn't happen and schools know that. They give scholarships knowing that students will lose them and then pay full tuition. They plan for it in their budget.

[PepperJack]

If it enables them to give more scholarships, I don't see it as unfair. It's certainly not nearly as unfair as charging 45k per year for a degree that reasonably will not even lead to a 45k per year salary for the vast majority of the class choosing to practice law.

Whether or not most students do something doesn't mean that it shouldn't impact any individual student's decision making.

[NYstate]

If it enables them to give more scholarships, I don't see it as unfair. It's certainly not nearly as unfair as charging 45k per year for a degree that reasonably will not even lead to a 45k per year salary for the vast majority of the class choosing to practice law.

Whether or not most students do something doesn't mean that it shouldn't impact any individual student's decision making.

No, they use it to entice students to attend, knowing that all those students will not keep the scholarships. That is dishonest.

[sd5289]

Guy literally advocating for a 20% fail out rate.

a) Not a guy.

b) Being extremely overly generous.

[PepperJack]

If it enables them to give more scholarships, I don't see it as unfair. It's certainly not nearly as unfair as charging 45k per year for a degree that reasonably will not even lead to a 45k per year salary for the vast majority of the class choosing to practice law.

Whether or not most students do something doesn't mean that it shouldn't impact any individual student's decision making.

No, they use it to entice students to attend, knowing that all those students will not keep the scholarships. That is dishonest.

I disagree. It's in the same font as the amount "30k/year renwable as long as..."

This is much less dishonest than the employment mumbo-jumbo on their brochures where the facts are misleading. In my cycle, I had a t-25 school say they had a 95% employment rate. It was only after asking them that I learned this could include working at McDonalds. That is misleading.

Stips are merely schools having candidates bet on themselves, and an alternative approach to budgeting. Instead of giving 2 million in scholarships, they give 2.5 million with a top third stip, anticipating to only give 2 million. As long as they honor the terms of their agreement, and don't secretly section stack I don't understand why TLS has a big deal with it. It works out better for those who keep a scholarship they wouldn't have even had been offered in the first place had they not used stipulations.