IOWA 2012 Forum

[Trojan228]

in via status checker this AM!

Congrats! When did you apply/go complete/under review?? (I don't know if you posted earlier in the thread, but I don't want to sift through the drink vs don't drink BS).

The LSAC completed and processed my order on 10/21, then I got the status checker email on 10/26. Then I'm not sure if it was in-review right away though. Thanks for the congratulations, I am excited to officially become a Hawkeye!

[sebastian0622]

There was a discussion earlier in this thread about the decision to attend Iowa and about contingent scholarships (e.g. have to finish in top 1/3rd or whatever to maintain it). As a current student, I'm a believer that people who get contingent scholarship offers at Iowa are better off going elsewhere. Now might be a good time, as folks are starting to get acceptances, to check out the discussion if you haven't already. It starts around post 55 of this thread, or right about here:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&start=50

[chrisbru]

There was a discussion earlier in this thread about the decision to attend Iowa and about contingent scholarships (e.g. have to finish in top 1/3rd or whatever to maintain it). As a current student, I'm a believer that people who get contingent scholarship offers at Iowa are better off going elsewhere. Now might be a good time, as folks are starting to get acceptances, to check out the discussion if you haven't already. It starts around post 55 of this thread, or right about here:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&start=50

This isn't completely sound advice. It depends on your other options. For instance, in-state to Iowa may still be the same as a decent scholarship from WUSTL with no stipulations (Like, $18k a year scholarship or something to WUSTL is the same as in-state tuition at Iowa with no scholarship). If you get any money your first year, it's worth the risk to come to Iowa over WUSTL, because you at least get the first year money guaranteed, with the chance to keep it for 2nd and 3rd years.

[Trojan228]

There was a discussion earlier in this thread about the decision to attend Iowa and about contingent scholarships (e.g. have to finish in top 1/3rd or whatever to maintain it). As a current student, I'm a believer that people who get contingent scholarship offers at Iowa are better off going elsewhere. Now might be a good time, as folks are starting to get acceptances, to check out the discussion if you haven't already. It starts around post 55 of this thread, or right about here:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&start=50

This isn't completely sound advice. It depends on your other options. For instance, in-state to Iowa may still be the same as a decent scholarship from WUSTL with no stipulations (Like, $18k a year scholarship or something to WUSTL is the same as in-state tuition at Iowa with no scholarship). If you get any money your first year, it's worth the risk to come to Iowa over WUSTL, because you at least get the first year money guaranteed, with the chance to keep it for 2nd and 3rd years.

I'd agree. I was offered a contingent scholarship in my undergraduate degree at Arizona, and it really helped make the out of state tuition affordable for me. Furthermore, it was another motivation to get and keep good grades.

[sebastian0622]

There was a discussion earlier in this thread about the decision to attend Iowa and about contingent scholarships (e.g. have to finish in top 1/3rd or whatever to maintain it). As a current student, I'm a believer that people who get contingent scholarship offers at Iowa are better off going elsewhere. Now might be a good time, as folks are starting to get acceptances, to check out the discussion if you haven't already. It starts around post 55 of this thread, or right about here:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&start=50

This isn't completely sound advice. It depends on your other options. For instance, in-state to Iowa may still be the same as a decent scholarship from WUSTL with no stipulations (Like, $18k a year scholarship or something to WUSTL is the same as in-state tuition at Iowa with no scholarship). If you get any money your first year, it's worth the risk to come to Iowa over WUSTL, because you at least get the first year money guaranteed, with the chance to keep it for 2nd and 3rd years.

But at that point, you're talking a $20k - $50k difference in tuition paid, depending on the details. That's small potatoes when you look at placement, opportunities, and pay coming out of each school. This is kind of a moot comparison, however: if you have the numbers to get a full ride at Iowa and half-ride at WUSTL, most students (particularly those wanting biglaw) should just take the admit to Vandy, Texas, USC, or Cornell and be done with it. A median student at Vandy gets biglaw and will make up the difference in tuition paid within two years. A median student at Iowa gets...well...usually shit.

[sebastian0622]

There was a discussion earlier in this thread about the decision to attend Iowa and about contingent scholarships (e.g. have to finish in top 1/3rd or whatever to maintain it). As a current student, I'm a believer that people who get contingent scholarship offers at Iowa are better off going elsewhere. Now might be a good time, as folks are starting to get acceptances, to check out the discussion if you haven't already. It starts around post 55 of this thread, or right about here:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&start=50

This isn't completely sound advice. It depends on your other options. For instance, in-state to Iowa may still be the same as a decent scholarship from WUSTL with no stipulations (Like, $18k a year scholarship or something to WUSTL is the same as in-state tuition at Iowa with no scholarship). If you get any money your first year, it's worth the risk to come to Iowa over WUSTL, because you at least get the first year money guaranteed, with the chance to keep it for 2nd and 3rd years.

I'd agree. I was offered a contingent scholarship in my undergraduate degree at Arizona, and it really helped make the out of state tuition affordable for me. Furthermore, it was another motivation to get and keep good grades.

But everyone is motivated to get good grades in law school. Any given semester in undergrad, an intelligent student knows how much effort it takes to get a certain GPA. In law school, you can do everything you can and STILL finish below median. Put it this way: everyone at Iowa Law is smart enough to have gotten an undergraduate scholarship. Incoming students have no idea where they will fall on the curve. Thinking that scholarship = you're smart = will finish near top of class is the worst perspective you could possibly have.

[Trojan228]

There was a discussion earlier in this thread about the decision to attend Iowa and about contingent scholarships (e.g. have to finish in top 1/3rd or whatever to maintain it). As a current student, I'm a believer that people who get contingent scholarship offers at Iowa are better off going elsewhere. Now might be a good time, as folks are starting to get acceptances, to check out the discussion if you haven't already. It starts around post 55 of this thread, or right about here:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&start=50

This isn't completely sound advice. It depends on your other options. For instance, in-state to Iowa may still be the same as a decent scholarship from WUSTL with no stipulations (Like, $18k a year scholarship or something to WUSTL is the same as in-state tuition at Iowa with no scholarship). If you get any money your first year, it's worth the risk to come to Iowa over WUSTL, because you at least get the first year money guaranteed, with the chance to keep it for 2nd and 3rd years.

I'd agree. I was offered a contingent scholarship in my undergraduate degree at Arizona, and it really helped make the out of state tuition affordable for me. Furthermore, it was another motivation to get and keep good grades.

But everyone is motivated to get good grades in law school. Any given semester in undergrad, an intelligent student knows how much effort it takes to get a certain GPA. In law school, you can do everything you can and STILL finish below median. Put it this way: everyone at Iowa Law is smart enough to have gotten an undergraduate scholarship. Incoming students have no idea where they will fall on the curve. Thinking that scholarship = you're smart = will finish near top of class is the worst perspective you could possibly have.

All I said is that it helped me stay motivated. Aren't we talking about contingent scholarships? Meaning you wont even keep the scholarship unless you graduate above the median. I really dont think that it would be wise for, a person like me, to pass up such an opportunity. Keep in mind that Iowa is probably the best law school I could get into and afford. I wouldn't be accepted at Vandy, or WUSTL, or Texas....

I would jump for joy at the opportunity for a contingent scholarship, and it WOULD help me stay motivated.

[sebastian0622]

Unfortunately, if you wouldn't get in to WUSTL, then you won't be in the running for aid at Iowa, and you're not really who the post is aimed at. I think Iowa residents need a 166-167 ish, probably 3.4+ to be competitive for aid at Iowa, numbers that would get you into WUSTL and several other better schools.

[shredderrrrrr]

But at that point, you're talking a $20k - $50k difference in tuition paid, depending on the details. That's small potatoes when you look at placement, opportunities, and pay coming out of each school. This is kind of a moot comparison, however: if you have the numbers to get a full ride at Iowa and half-ride at WUSTL, most students (particularly those wanting biglaw) should just take the admit to Vandy, Texas, USC, or Cornell and be done with it. A median student at Vandy gets biglaw and will make up the difference in tuition paid within two years. A median student at Iowa gets...well...usually shit.

First of all, I didn't know non-contingent scholarships even existed. Is there such a thing as a guaranteed 3 year full ride scholarship?

And I think your notion that anyone who could get a full-ride to Iowa should just attend Vandy, Texas, USC, or Cornell (presumably at sticker) is pretty rash. What about those who want to stay in the area? Why would someone go to a slightly better school across the country, pay an exorbitant amount, and then return only to practice at a firm that they likely could've gotten from a local school? It makes sense for biglaw (because you wouldn't be staying in Iowa anyways), but tons of people don't want biglaw. I think you're basing this comment off of the typical TLS assumption that everyone wants T14 and biglaw.

[nickjive]

First of all, I didn't know non-contingent scholarships even existed. Is there such a thing as a guaranteed 3 year full ride scholarship?

And I think your notion that anyone who could get a full-ride to Iowa should just attend Vandy, Texas, USC, or Cornell (presumably at sticker) is pretty rash. What about those who want to stay in the area? Why would someone go to a slightly better school across the country, pay an exorbitant amount, and then return only to practice at a firm that they likely could've gotten from a local school? It makes sense for biglaw (because you wouldn't be staying in Iowa anyways), but tons of people don't want biglaw. I think you're basing this comment off of the typical TLS assumption that everyone wants T14 and biglaw.

Word. If you have a pocket full of big law dreams, why even bother looking at Iowa?

[sebastian0622]

And I think your notion that anyone who could get a full-ride to Iowa should just attend Vandy, Texas, USC, or Cornell (presumably at sticker) is pretty rash.

I specifically said "most" students. You'll have to work on the reading comprehension to make it through law school.

[sebastian0622]

First of all, I didn't know non-contingent scholarships even existed. Is there such a thing as a guaranteed 3 year full ride scholarship?

And I think your notion that anyone who could get a full-ride to Iowa should just attend Vandy, Texas, USC, or Cornell (presumably at sticker) is pretty rash. What about those who want to stay in the area? Why would someone go to a slightly better school across the country, pay an exorbitant amount, and then return only to practice at a firm that they likely could've gotten from a local school? It makes sense for biglaw (because you wouldn't be staying in Iowa anyways), but tons of people don't want biglaw. I think you're basing this comment off of the typical TLS assumption that everyone wants T14 and biglaw.

Word. If you have a pocket full of big law dreams, why even bother looking at Iowa?

Exactly. But you'd be amazed how many people here want biglaw. But part of it isn't just biglaw, it's placement in general. There aren't a lot of law jobs in Iowa just in general, so if you strike out at biglaw, you're gonna be struggling. There is no legitimate "home market" here. Hell, the biggest city in the state (Des Moines) draws more from Drake than from Iowa. So Iowa is kind of a bastard child to Chicago, Minneapolis, and Kansas City. It's odd that people in the legal profession, in general, seem to respect the school, but that doesn't translate to job offers.

[shredderrrrrr]

And I think your notion that anyone who could get a full-ride to Iowa should just attend Vandy, Texas, USC, or Cornell (presumably at sticker) is pretty rash.

I specifically said "most" students. You'll have to work on the reading comprehension to make it through law school.

You're correct. Guess I need to get used to splitting hairs, even in social forums.

But just change my first sentence to "I think your notion that most people who could get a full-ride to Iowa should just attend Vandy, Texas, USC, or Cornell (presumably at sticker) is pretty rash." The rest of my comment stands. Whether it was my mistaken interpretation of you saying anyone (100%) or your actual assertion of most people (maybe around 80%), I still think it is too broad. To assume that most people attending Iowa for free would've been better off taking enormous debt at a slightly better school is still pretty drastic.

[sebastian0622]

And I think your notion that anyone who could get a full-ride to Iowa should just attend Vandy, Texas, USC, or Cornell (presumably at sticker) is pretty rash.

I specifically said "most" students. You'll have to work on the reading comprehension to make it through law school.

You're correct. Guess I need to get used to splitting hairs, even in social forums.

But just change my first sentence to "I think your notion that most people who could get a full-ride to Iowa should just attend Vandy, Texas, USC, or Cornell (presumably at sticker) is pretty rash." The rest of my comment stands. Whether it was my mistaken interpretation of you saying anyone (100%) or your actual assertion of most people (maybe around 80%), I still think it is too broad. To assume that most people attending Iowa for free would've been better off taking enormous debt at a slightly better school is still pretty drastic.

It's not splitting hairs when you're taking something said as a general rule and trying to extend it to an absolute rule. That's a big shift in characterizing what was said.

Anyway, Vandy/Cornell/etc. are not "slightly" better schools than Iowa when discussing job placement. They place 2-3x as many people, proportionate to class size, into the high-paying legal jobs that many desire, and even the portions of their classes that don't go to biglaw are in significantly better positions than those from Iowa due to markets that draw from them (NYC for Cornell; Atlanta and others from Vandy).

In addition, many who take contingent scholarships at Iowa will still be in "enormous debt" due to losing the scholarship plus living expenses. This was discussed in some of the posts earlier in the thread, not sure if you read the earlier discussion. So they're not really attending Iowa for free. Tuition is only half the battle when it comes to expenses.

[shredderrrrrr]

Exactly. But you'd be amazed how many people here want biglaw. But part of it isn't just biglaw, it's placement in general. There aren't a lot of law jobs in Iowa just in general, so if you strike out at biglaw, you're gonna be struggling. There is no legitimate "home market" here. Hell, the biggest city in the state (Des Moines) draws more from Drake than from Iowa. So Iowa is kind of a bastard child to Chicago, Minneapolis, and Kansas City. It's odd that people in the legal profession, in general, seem to respect the school, but that doesn't translate to job offers.

As far as biglaw is concerned, I think you're right. Anyone wanting a strong job in the major markets (NY, DC, Chicago, etc...) shouldn't really be looking at Iowa in the first place.

With that being said, I feel like you are overemphasizing job prospects and underemphasizing FREE education. While T20 schools will offer better job prospects, does the marginal advantage outweigh the $150,000 (much more if you consider interest) of saved money?

[Ernert]

In via status checker!

[sebastian0622]

With that being said, I feel like you are overemphasizing job prospects and underemphasizing FREE education. While T20 schools will offer better job prospects, does the marginal advantage outweigh the $150,000 (much more if you consider interest) of saved money?

You may be overstating the difference in tuition, especially if you calculate the risk assessment of losing the scholarship at Iowa. The actual average difference between a contingent scholarship graduate at Iowa and someone who paid sticker at one of the earlier-mentioned schools is probably more like $70k-$100k. The point is you're going to have debt at either place. Would you rather be paying back $60k in debt making $55k-75k per year or be paying back $140k in debt making $145k-$170k per year? From a purely financial perspective, the latter person is in a better spot to pay off the debt in a shorter period of time. The former person will have little disposable income. A median student at Vandy has a decent chance of making that $145k. A median student at Iowa is damned lucky to make $55k - $75k. And someone at Iowa who loses the contingent scholarship is going to approach six-figure debt.

[shredderrrrrr]

It's not splitting hairs when you're taking something said as a general rule and trying to extend it to an absolute rule. That's a big shift in characterizing what was said.

Anyway, Vandy/Cornell/etc. are not "slightly" better schools than Iowa when discussing job placement. They place 2-3x as many people, proportionate to class size, into the high-paying legal jobs that many desire, and even the portions of their classes that don't go to biglaw are in significantly better positions than those from Iowa due to markets that draw from them (NYC for Cornell; Atlanta and others from Vandy).

In addition, many who take contingent scholarships at Iowa will still be in "enormous debt" due to losing the scholarship plus living expenses. This was discussed in some of the posts earlier in the thread, not sure if you read the earlier discussion. So they're not really attending Iowa for free. Tuition is only half the battle when it comes to expenses.

In regards to placing people into the high-paying jobs that people desire, where do you get this information? I'll grant you that more people from Cornell get high-paying jobs than from Iowa, but is it unreasonable to assume that more people want those jobs at Cornell? I assume that much fewer people want these jobs at Iowa simply because they went to Iowa. You can't stress the strength of Cornell's placement by saying a larger proportion of the class has high-paying jobs, because we have no idea the actual proportion of people that are aiming for these jobs. While Cornell may place 2-3x more people in the high-paying jobs, they also may have 2-3x as many people trying to get these jobs (which would obviously mitigate your argument). I think the only true indicator of employment success is the rate of bar-required occupation.

And I'm not arguing about the students who lose their scholarships. That is a completely different situation. You're going to be in a tough situation regardless not being in the top third of Iowa, scholarship money aside. I'm only addressing the students who actually maintain their scholarships.

Your earlier argument in regards to living expenses was flawed though. Here was what you said:

B

ut keep in mind that law school isn't free outside of tuition. Even with a full ride at Iowa, you're going to end up in significant debt by the time you pay room and board, living expenses, books, parking (parking is atrociously inflated at Iowa considering that you're in a small city), transportation, and for some, day care. So you're not comparing $120k+ in debt from a higher ranked school to zero in debt at Iowa. You're comparing $120k+ debt from a higher ranked school to $40-$60k in debt from Iowa or more if you have daycare or other circumstances.

You take the free cost of Iowa ($0) and the full price of another school ($120k+), emphasize the cost of living expenses, and then add them only to Iowa ($40k-$60k vs. $120k+). It should've been $40k-$60k vs. $160k+-$180k+.

I can't help but feel like the cost of living is a moot point when comparing school prices simply because it exists for all schools. When you compare the prices of two laptops, do you factor in the cost of tax? No, because no matter what computer you get, it will have tax. It's unavoidable. So for this situation, it would be free tuition at Iowa vs. $150,000 at Cornell. There's no way the cost of living is higher in Iowa City than NY, so the price difference isn't going to shrink.

And besides, some people (myself included) have significant others with full-time jobs who can cover living expenses.

[sebastian0622]

You can't meaningfully talk about "only the students who maintain their scholarships" within the context of the law school matriculation decision, because that is entirely unknown. That you acknowledge people who aren't in the top third at Iowa are screwed is exactly my point, and nobody knows if that will be them. Two-thirds of people who think that won't be them will be wrong.

[sebastian0622]

You take the free cost of Iowa ($0) and the full price of another school ($120k+), emphasize the cost of living expenses, and then add them only to Iowa ($40k-$60k vs. $120k+). It should've been $40k-$60k vs. $160k+-$180k+.

No, actually it was accounting for the risk assessment of losing the scholarship. Anyone who is making this decision has to account for that. I'm sure Iowa is mum on what percentage of students lose their scholarship, but given the complete scattershot nature of law school grades relative to admission criteria, it has got to be a significant number. If scholarship recipients have to stay in the top third, then I'd wager nearly half of scholarship recipients lose their aid for at least a portion of their time in law school.

[sebastian0622]

In regards to placing people into the high-paying jobs that people desire, where do you get this information? I'll grant you that more people from Cornell get high-paying jobs than from Iowa, but is it unreasonable to assume that more people want those jobs at Cornell? I assume that much fewer people want these jobs at Iowa simply because they went to Iowa. You can't stress the strength of Cornell's placement by saying a larger proportion of the class has high-paying jobs, because we have no idea the actual proportion of people that are aiming for these jobs. While Cornell may place 2-3x more people in the high-paying jobs, they also may have 2-3x as many people trying to get these jobs (which would obviously mitigate your argument). I think the only true indicator of employment success is the rate of bar-required occupation.

Trust me, biglaw firms that come to Iowa OCI aren't complaining about a lack of applicants who want to interview with them and potentially work for them. There could be twice as many firms doing OCI here and offering twice as many positions, and they'd easily be filled.

[nickjive]

In via status checker!

Congrats! Did you apply before November?

[shredderrrrrr]

You can't meaningfully talk about "only the students who maintain their scholarships" within the context of the law school matriculation decision, because that is entirely unknown. That you acknowledge people who aren't in the top third at Iowa are screwed is exactly my point, and nobody knows if that will be them. Two-thirds of people who think that won't be them will be wrong.

Ok, so your argument is that sticker for 3 years at a place like Cornell is better than sticker at somewhere like Iowa for 2 years. It's pretty hard to argue that. But are you arguing that because of this you shouldn't accept a contingent full-ride at somewhere like Iowa? While it is a risk, I think the potential reward (free education) outweighs it. If you're arguing that anyone who receives a contingent scholarship should assume they won't maintain it, you'll probably have a tough time.

[shredderrrrrr]

No, actually it was accounting for the risk assessment of losing the scholarship. Anyone who is making this decision has to account for that. I'm sure Iowa is mum on what percentage of students lose their scholarship, but given the complete scattershot nature of law school grades relative to admission criteria, it has got to be a significant number. If scholarship recipients have to stay in the top third, then I'd wager nearly half of scholarship recipients lose their aid for at least a portion of their time in law school.

Ugh. I'm arguing for those that DO keep their scholarship. You're arguing for those that DON'T keep them. I think we're both right. I don't really have much interest in debating the situation of applicants who lose scholarships.

[sebastian0622]

You can't meaningfully talk about "only the students who maintain their scholarships" within the context of the law school matriculation decision, because that is entirely unknown. That you acknowledge people who aren't in the top third at Iowa are screwed is exactly my point, and nobody knows if that will be them. Two-thirds of people who think that won't be them will be wrong.

Ok, so your argument is that sticker for 3 years at a place like Cornell is better than sticker at somewhere like Iowa for 2 years. It's pretty hard to argue that. But are you arguing that because of this you shouldn't accept a contingent full-ride at somewhere like Iowa? While it is a risk, I think the potential reward (free education) outweighs it. If you're arguing that anyone who receives a contingent scholarship should assume they won't maintain it, you'll probably have a tough time.

I think you're trying too hard to simplify a lot of factors so as to make me put a stamp on an argument that is easier to discount (e.g. I say that a lot of people lose contingent scholarships, you ask me to claim that everyone should assume they'll lose them; in reality, it's enough for a person to understand the risk and weigh that risk accordingly without resorting to a binary analysis). I've laid out the relevant factors with, hopefully, some clarity up to this point, so I don't plan to repeat all of them. Suffice it to say that there is a world of difference in job placement between Iowa and schools like Vandy/Cornell/Texas/USC, and whatever difference in tuition there would exist due to aid differences at the schools would be entirely mitigated, in the case of most students, by the better job prospects at the better school.