Seton Hall vs. Rutgers Newark Forum

[gwuorbust]

His response just strengthens mine. If schools want you to boost their rank, it's because you have better credentials. They don't ask unqualified people to attend to boost their rank. That doesn't even make sense. Of course they want to improve their rank, but they do so by offering scholarships to those with higher numbers obviously. And, it would make sense that those with higher numbers should easily fall in the top 50%.

you are right in that most people who are given a scholarship with stips of top half usually keep the scholarship. they tend to be stronger candidates and perform better AS A WHOLE. Note, however, that predicting any one candidates outcome based on LSAT/GPA is not possible. Just don't get the impression that they are giving out scholarships to "help the people who will be in the top half." If anything, if schools were smart they would be giving out scholarships to ppl who will likely be in the bottom half because the people in the top half are probably not going to be as screwed by employment prospects.

[kapital98]

His response just strengthens mine. If schools want you to boost their rank, it's because you have better credentials. They don't ask unqualified people to attend to boost their rank. That doesn't even make sense. Of course they want to improve their rank, but they do so by offering scholarships to those with higher numbers obviously. And, it would make sense that those with higher numbers should easily fall in the top 50%.

No. They have a financial incentive to take away scholarships. By mandating such a harsh curve at the bottom of the bell curve this puts students in serious peril. You could get a A,B+,B,F and not make their GPA stipulation. An A,B+,B,C would allow you to keep that $35,000! You can rearrange the numbers as much as you want but the point remains the same. A harsh curve just makes it tougher to maintain that GPA stipulation.

It's not about making everyone lose their scholarship. It's about making a few people lose their scholarship and saving $100,000's!!!

You don't even want to be close to that. Just because you're confident in your ability does not mean that you will be a lock for keeping the scholarship. It can happen to anybody. You never know what can happen during finals.

P.S. They also have an incentive to low-ball you with the initial scholarship offer. The offer just enough money to be competitive but not more. Due to imperfect information most students will not ask for the "market" offer (what you're really worth).

[kapital98]

His response just strengthens mine. If schools want you to boost their rank, it's because you have better credentials. They don't ask unqualified people to attend to boost their rank. That doesn't even make sense. Of course they want to improve their rank, but they do so by offering scholarships to those with higher numbers obviously. And, it would make sense that those with higher numbers should easily fall in the top 50%.

you are right in that most people who are given a scholarship with stips of top half usually keep the scholarship. they tend to be stronger candidates and perform better AS A WHOLE. Note, however, that predicting any one candidates outcome based on LSAT/GPA is not possible. Just don't get the impression that they are giving out scholarships to "help the people who will be in the top half." If anything, if schools were smart they would be giving out scholarships to ppl who will likely be in the bottom half because the people in the top half are probably not going to be as screwed by employment prospects.

+1

[AmericaninManchuria]

Those numbers are the total costs of attendance, not tuition, so they are correct and more realistic to be honest. The first total they put assumes they keep the scholarship and the second assumes they lose it after the first year. I am seriously considering Seton Hall on the same scholarship and am not terrified of being in the top 50%... I plan on doing that well on my own already because if not, your job prospects decrease significantly.

I just recalculated that the savings is actually a little over $7,000 each year, so my total debt at Seton Hall would be almost $28,000 and total debt at Rutgers would be almost $51,000. That's a savings of $23,000, so that pretty much makes my decision Seton Hall..I'm doubting the Rutgers name is worth an extra 23k

What are the scholarship stipulations on both? Bear in mind that many students end up losing theirs.

Here are some numbers:
Seton Hall (three years of the same scholarship): $67,800-$35,000=$32,800x3=$98,400 COA
Seton Hall (losing scholarship after first year): $67,800-$35,000=$32,800+$67,800+$67,800=$168,400 COA

Rutgers-Newark (three years of same scholarship): $45,730-$8,000=$37,730x3=$113,190 COA
Rutgers-Newark (losing scholarship after first year): $45,730-$8,000=$37,730+$45,730+$45,730=$129,190 COA

Now, I dont know about you, but $39,210 would be a lot of money and associated stress on my shoulders. Do you really want to go to Seton Hall knowing that you face those consequences if you fail to meet the scholarship stipulations?

Also, the Seton Hall curve is the most terrifying thing I have ever seen (we are potentially adopting a mandatory curve at my school, and they laid out the curves of all of the area schools; the Seton Hall one was BY FAR the worst). The median is like a B- and they have mandatory D-F grades. IMO, for any school with stips, you need to take in mind the COA if you lose your scholarship.

I luckily have my parents in a short driving commute and they see minimizing debt as a team effort, so bless their souls- they will helping me out (providing) with everything besides tuition and fees- even gas and books. So for me, its $51,000 total debt at Rutgers $27,000 total debt at SHU (including scholarships)

[AmericaninManchuria]

His response just strengthens mine. If schools want you to boost their rank, it's because you have better credentials. They don't ask unqualified people to attend to boost their rank. That doesn't even make sense. Of course they want to improve their rank, but they do so by offering scholarships to those with higher numbers obviously. And, it would make sense that those with higher numbers should easily fall in the top 50%.

you are right in that most people who are given a scholarship with stips of top half usually keep the scholarship. they tend to be stronger candidates and perform better AS A WHOLE. Note, however, that predicting any one candidates outcome based on LSAT/GPA is not possible. Just don't get the impression that they are giving out scholarships to "help the people who will be in the top half." If anything, if schools were smart they would be giving out scholarships to ppl who will likely be in the bottom half because the people in the top half are probably not going to be as screwed by employment prospects.

I don't think he/she meant they are trying to "help" them, just attract them. And for those with lower credentials, and acceptance alone can be attractive. Also once you start hearing back from law schools, you have the upper hand, and schools offer scholarships not to necessarily "help" you, but to compete for you against your other options.

Schools do have a finacial incentive to give scholarships to those who will boost their rankings, because it draws more people willing to pay sticker to attend.

[gwuorbust]

His response just strengthens mine. If schools want you to boost their rank, it's because you have better credentials. They don't ask unqualified people to attend to boost their rank. That doesn't even make sense. Of course they want to improve their rank, but they do so by offering scholarships to those with higher numbers obviously. And, it would make sense that those with higher numbers should easily fall in the top 50%.

you are right in that most people who are given a scholarship with stips of top half usually keep the scholarship. they tend to be stronger candidates and perform better AS A WHOLE. Note, however, that predicting any one candidates outcome based on LSAT/GPA is not possible. Just don't get the impression that they are giving out scholarships to "help the people who will be in the top half." If anything, if schools were smart they would be giving out scholarships to ppl who will likely be in the bottom half because the people in the top half are probably not going to be as screwed by employment prospects.

I don't think he/she meant they are trying to "help" them, just attract them. And for those with lower credentials, and acceptance alone can be attractive. Also once you start hearing back from law schools, you have the upper hand, and schools offer scholarships not to necessarily "help" you, but to compete for you against your other options.

Schools do have a finacial incentive to give scholarships to those who will boost their rankings, because it draws more people willing to pay sticker to attend.

We aren't in any way in disagreement. The system that has been created, however, is extremely perverse to what is best for the graduates. The people who have the highest score tend to be those who will probably have the highest income potential. Those with the most debt tend to be those with the lowest income prospects. This system is perverse to the graduates and the school. Tis one of the many reasons USNWR needs to be abolished.

[bport hopeful]

I havnt read through this thread at all, but FWIW, Seton Hall dominates NJ and places better in the City. Also the school is quite nice and the profs are extremely energetic.

I went to ASD and really enjoyed it, but dont think Ill be attending, so no real bias.

The only reason I would maybe pick Rutgers is because if you arent above median, then Rutgers is cheaper.

[king3780]

I havnt read through this thread at all, but FWIW, Seton Hall dominates NJ and places better in the City. Also the school is quite nice and the profs are extremely energetic.

I went to ASD and really enjoyed it, but dont think Ill be attending, so no real bias.

The only reason I would maybe pick Rutgers is because if you arent above median, then Rutgers is cheaper.

Wait, what? Since when is the bolded true? Where are you getting your info from?

[Wholigan]

I havnt read through this thread at all, but FWIW, Seton Hall dominates NJ and places better in the City. Also the school is quite nice and the profs are extremely energetic.

I went to ASD and really enjoyed it, but dont think Ill be attending, so no real bias.

The only reason I would maybe pick Rutgers is because if you arent above median, then Rutgers is cheaper.

Wait, what? Since when is the bolded true? Where are you getting your info from?

It's not true in any way, shape or form. Maybe that's what they tell people at the ASD.

[thrillhouse]

I havnt read through this thread at all, but FWIW, Seton Hall dominates NJ and places better in the City. Also the school is quite nice and the profs are extremely energetic.

I went to ASD and really enjoyed it, but dont think Ill be attending, so no real bias.

The only reason I would maybe pick Rutgers is because if you arent above median, then Rutgers is cheaper.

I'll echo the others that say this isn't true. If you interchanged Rutgers and Seton Hall in the first sentence, you'd be dead on.

For what it's worth, I had this same decision with a little more money at each. I chose neither, but if those were my only two options I'd pick Rutgers every day and twice on Sunday. If I had any desire to practice law in any decent job (firm, PD, DA, Public Interest), I wouldn't go to Seton Hall at all.

[inSouthAmerica]

the idea that seton hall dominates nj over rutgers is farce.