Top Law Schools

i wonder if they still hv that policy bc the blog is a lil dated
but thats irrelvant because

i think ppl shld be negotiating even if ur award ltr says they dont entertain other offers. like ppl shld keep in mind schools make exceptions to that rule; they take into account individual circumstances

i dont think that "negotiation is something you should try only in special circumstances" is misleading. ppl r just straight up dumb if they dont try to negotiate even at these schools. they shld really b arguing their case no matter what. and it kind of worries me if they become licensed attys, if opposing counsel makes a settlement offer and they say no no no this is my final offer, are they going to take it without negotiating

eta can i offer u a ship to get out of that "moral island" that u spoke of?

Dipper wrote:
Ah, here we have to distinguish between something that may be "misleading" and something that is outright "providing false information." I think that distinction is pretty clear.

This is absolutely spot-on Dipper. As applicants we can certainly mislead with reckless abandon. I can tell Princeton Law that it is a school that I deeply admire and would absolutely enroll at with a sufficient amount of financial barriers removed and then turn right around and use their offer to get NYU up to where I need them, deposit there and keep it moving. Can't report me to LSAC because I can argue that "a sufficient amount of financial barriers" is not specific enough to make me a lie or a cheat and that Princeton interpreted what I said in a way that I did not intend.

It's really when you start saying that $80 is $120 or that I have an admissions letter to XYZ that I don't have that you're in deep doo doo.

LawsRUs wrote:i wonder if they still hv that policy bc the blog is a lil dated
but thats irrelvant because

i think ppl shld be negotiating even if ur award ltr says they dont entertain other offers. like ppl shld keep in mind schools make exceptions to that rule; they take into account individual circumstances

i dont think that "negotiation is something you should try only in special circumstances" is misleading. ppl r just straight up dumb if they dont try to negotiate even at these schools. they shld really b arguing their case no matter what. and it kind of worries me if they become licensed attys, if opposing counsel makes a settlement offer and they say no no no this is my final offer, are they going to take it without negotiating

eta can i offer u a ship to get out of that "moral island" that u spoke of?

I too would like to chip in to get skool off the moral island. Sounds cold and dangerous.

You're right, students should always negotiate, but negotiation itself is something that people really only become comfortable with through experience. It's why car dealerships are at such an advantage--they haggle over cars all day every day and you as a consumer only do it once every 4-5 years...you're scared and intimidated and they use it to their advantage. Now, the TLSer, who has more information than your typical student, will be more comfortable negotiating, but your non-TLSer (what, 70% of the pool) might be a little further out of their depth.

Dipper wrote:

Skool wrote:I understand the question to be asking: how is Michigan's approach to scholarships ("considering certain individuals' circumstances") comparable to the lying applicant's
approach.

My answer: it isn't clear how "considering certain individuals circumstances" is substantively different from only negotiating with people with competitive bargaining positions. In short: their special consideration seems like its just negotiation.

Making applicants think that negotiation is really something you should only try in special individual circumstances is potentially misleading (having a chilling effect on some people's willingness to negotiate for a deal within their reach, to borrow CC's term) and tilts the board even more in the school's favor.

Thus, the Dean and the Kid's approaches compare by both being misleading in the context of scholarship negotiation, which is apparently an LSAC conduct violation.

Ah, here we have to distinguish between something that may be "misleading" and something that is outright "providing false information." I think that distinction is pretty clear.

Additionally, from the UMich FAQ: "While the University of Michigan Law School devotes many of its financial aid funds to applicants who have demonstrated financial need, we also offer merit awards. The Admissions Office administers our two merit aid programs: Darrow Scholarships, which cover as much as full tuition plus a stipend, are awarded to a handful of exceptional students in each entering class selected by the faculty in reflection of the recipient's outstanding scholastic achievements, as well as the sense that they will one day go on to a remarkable career; we also offer Dean's Scholarships, which vary in size, and are offered to those whose academic achievements and demonstrated leadership promise significant contributions to both the Law School and the legal profession. All admitted applicants will be considered for merit-based aid, and no separate application is required. If you have additional questions about merit aid, please contact the Admissions Office... In cases where no merit aid has been offered, the Financial Aid Office is occasionally able to take financial aid offers from competing schools into account."

I don't know when/if the policy changed from when the initial blog post was written, but I think this FAQ establishes that an individual can still negotiate.

So I looked through the 2017 thread and I couldn't find a single definitive instance of someone successfully negotiating (please share if you have evidence) after having been offered money initially. Maybe Michigan truly does hold to that policy and I'm wrong about them misleading applicants. Still, I can't help but be suspicious about them asking students to send the list of offers so that they can consider "individual circumstances." I just can't imagine what kind of special circumstance is so special for them to reconsider based on another offer.

Dipper wrote:i dont think that "negotiation is something you should try only in special circumstances" is misleading. ppl r just straight up dumb if they dont try to negotiate even at these schools. they shld really b arguing their case no matter what. and it kind of worries me if they become licensed attys, if opposing counsel makes a settlement offer and they say no no no this is my final offer, are they going to take it without negotiating

How is it dumb to expect people to adhere to their stated policies and practice, especially when you don't have much experience with what's common practice because you've only been negotiating with law schools for a few weeks? This is the power imbalance thing and the essence of why its unethical to mislead in this context.

And I'd also say this regarding "distinguishing between something that may be "misleading" and something that is outright "providing false information." If the intention is to mislead in order to place yourself at a strategic advantage, I don't see much cash value in making this distniction.

But again, maybe I'm wrong and Michigan really is a super ethical office and they really do only negotiate in special cases. I guess we'll see how this cycle's negotiations play out.

cc78 wrote:

Dipper wrote:
Ah, here we have to distinguish between something that may be "misleading" and something that is outright "providing false information." I think that distinction is pretty clear.

This is absolutely spot-on Dipper. As applicants we can certainly mislead with reckless abandon. I can tell Princeton Law that it is a school that I deeply admire and would absolutely enroll at with a sufficient amount of financial barriers removed and then turn right around and use their offer to get NYU up to where I need them, deposit there and keep it moving. Can't report me to LSAC because I can argue that "a sufficient amount of financial barriers" is not specific enough to make me a lie or a cheat and that Princeton interpreted what I said in a way that I did not intend.

It's really when you start saying that $80 is $120 or that I have an admissions letter to XYZ that I don't have that you're in deep doo doo.

Sure, but earlier in the week we established that double depositing when you've affirmed that you've withdrawn from other schools, that's apparently Kosher and no one was concerned about "providing false information" .

Really, you're in deep doo doo whenever law schools say you're in deep doo doo. That's the problem.

Skool wrote: Really, you're in deep doo doo whenever law schools say you're in deep doo doo. That's the problem.

Can't fight you there...we definitely are playing their game. They always win, we sometimes win.

im in class rn n im on my phone so i hv limited technology to address the many diff great issues that skool is bringing up

i guess there are two diff ways to look at this
1. read the schools language literally. no negotiation. period.
2. read into ambiguity contained in the language of "individual special circumstances" and try to take advantage of that ambiguity
two different reads. both equally valid. but one is obviously advantageous to applicants. btw in playing their game power dynamics shift dramatically once we r admitted

also these schools' such policies can be challenged on the groumds that they are not serving their originary goal and intent for putting them in the first place. if their intent was that they had limited funding so they are not entertaining other offers and they wanted to save money by not negotiating with most applicants. howver if these highly qualified applicants are being turned off by this policy and r flocking to a rival school and t his school then hv to throw even more money to ppl at or above medians, thus losing more money than if they had negotiated in the first place. i dont hv access to their books so i cant speak with certainty on this matter.

also the bit about double depo when u hv no intention of attending one of the schools is a separate matter n im setting aside that issue for now

eta: skool is a textualist

I emailed a school last week to asking about aid, and haven't heard back. Did I send it to the wrong person? Is it weird to email someone else about it again?! This is a negotiation tactic I haven't encountered before, not sure how to handle.....

This is a dumb question and I'm sure it's been answered before, but when we send an email to negotiate a scholarship, does that go to the financial aid office or office of admissions?

Drowninmyowntears wrote:This is a dumb question and I'm sure it's been answered before, but when we send an email to negotiate a scholarship, does that go to the financial aid office or office of admissions?

What I've heard is admissions office, since they're most interested in closing the deal on you.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 22&t=79373

is this helpful to someone?

Is it reasonable to ask Columbia for additional funding (after initial Butler offer) if in light of full tuition from NYU? If so, when/how should I broach this topic?

radcaster wrote:Is it reasonable to ask Columbia for additional funding (after initial Butler offer) if in light of full tuition from NYU? If so, when/how should I broach this topic?

Yes they are peer schools. Talk to fin aid office

In your experience, how long does it take duke to respond to a negotiation email with an increased offer (or that you aren't getting anything else)?

.

I have a question.

Most schools want to make a competitive offer based on money offered from peer schools. i.e. GW might offer more money to match or exceed an offer from GT.

My question is can I negotiate for a higher scholarship based on rank/prestige alone? i.e. Can I negotiate for a full ride from the lower ranked ND, UW, Alabama (schools which offered a near full ride) based only on the fact that I got into much higher ranked Duke, Mich., Cornell (which won't offer much $).

I am unsure how to handle this situation. It might seem strange for me to send an email to ND, UW, etc. asking for $150,000 when the offer I am leveraging from Duke, Mich., etc. is for $25,000. How would that email even go?

Dear Admissions,
I would really like to attend you school, but there are financial barriers. Your offer of $125,000 is very generous, but MUCH HIGHER RANKED SCHOOL has offered me $25,000. Is there anything you can do? Please keep that I might chose to spend way more money getting an education there. Please excuse this obvious contradiction.
Sincerely,
Broke ass 0L who might chose the worse financial option

UOI4430 wrote:I have a question.

Most schools want to make a competitive offer based on money offered from peer schools. i.e. GW might offer more money to match or exceed an offer from GT.

My question is can I negotiate for a higher scholarship based on rank/prestige alone? i.e. Can I negotiate for a full ride from the lower ranked ND, UW, Alabama (schools which offered a near full ride) based only on the fact that I got into much higher ranked Duke, Mich., Cornell (which won't offer much $).

I am unsure how to handle this situation. It might seem strange for me to send an email to ND, UW, etc. asking for $150,000 when the offer I am leveraging from Duke, Mich., etc. is for $25,000. How would that email even go?

Dear Admissions,
I would really like to attend you school, but there are financial barriers. Your offer of $125,000 is very generous, but MUCH HIGHER RANKED SCHOOL has offered me $25,000. Is there anything you can do? Please keep that I might chose to spend way more money getting an education there. Please excuse this obvious contradiction.
Sincerely,
Broke ass 0L who might chose the worse financial option

Dear Admissions Officer,

Thank you for your generous scholarship offer. I am very interested in [ND, UW, etc.]; however, even with your offer, financing law school will be difficult. I have received scholarship offers from a number of other law schools, including [Duke] and [Michigan]. Is there any way you could provide some further financial assistance?

Sincerely,
0L

They might push back and ask for specific numbers, and it's probably not very likely that they would increase the scholarship amount to compete against a significantly lower offer, even from a higher-ranked school. But it's still worth a shot. You've nothing to lose by trying.

@UOI: You can certainly do that but a better stategy might be
- waging a bidding war btwn schools that are giving you near full rides
- at the same time going to "much higher ranked schools" and saying that you hv near full or full rides from XYX, and you are only willing to take on $XYZ in LS debt for XYZ reasons. how these full rides are meeting your needs but they arent. What can they do. If they give you a bump-->go back to near full rides schools and negotiate up. repeat the process as necessary but try to minimize the number of times going back and forth
- I wld also incl. how much you wld love to attend their school for ABC specific reasons if at the right price
-----------
@hunt: i wld wait until you hear back frm more schools. i hv an offer at minny also and am planning on negotiating with them early march-ish. i cant wait until i start talking with them in negotiations.

good luck to you both !!!

I guess a question that I have for the group is
Do schools (particularly GW or Fordham) lower your merit-aid if you switch frm FT to PT prgm?

Has anyone had success negotiating with GW? I was offered a much higher scholly from Emory, but GW is definitely my first choice. Also, if you have had success, would you be willing to share how you approached the issue at hand?

Thanks so much in advance!

I just found out ND specifically forbids double-deposits.

Has anyone heard back from SMU wrt scholly reconsideration?

Anyone know if I would be able to use an offer from UT to negotiate with GULC?

Moneytrees wrote:I just found out ND specifically forbids double-deposits.

USC does too according to scholarship letter received today.

Would Emory and GW negotiate with each other?