What's considered a "tough" stipulation for schollys? Forum

[jbagelboy]

Actually, I think the stips are fair from these schools. If you found yourself in the bottom half of the class at any of them, you would have to drop out IMMEDIATELY anyway. So whether or not you'd lose the scholarship after 1L is an afterthought, since you'd no longer be enrolled.

[KatyMarie]

all the elitist assholes in this thread ignoring the obvious fact that OP has a bomb strapped to her that will explode if she doesn't enroll in law school this year.

IMO, the big problem isn't that people are suggesting that retaking would be a good option, it's that people act condescending, and immediately rude to people who are just coming here looking for advice. If people suggested retaking politely and tried to be helpful, things would be different, but the tendency is to make fun of the person with a lower LSAT score and to make jokes at their defense. Of course you're going to goad people into reacting defensively...

It just all seems unnecessary to me, and only serves to scare people away from posting/seeking advice from TLS, which is a shame because this is the absolute best online resource I've found to help me navigate through this process. You guys know a LOT about this, but it doesn't mean you have treat other people who might not know as much about it abrasively automatically.

Plus, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar! If real goal is to get people to change their views on their options when going to law school, then make an attempt to understand what the situation is first. Being a jerk to someone upfront is really unlikely to change their opinion on anything, even if retaking is the best option or even the only good option.

Seen a lot of these kinds of threads, and just wanted to add my 2 cents on that situation.

[patogordo]

lol please. no one was condescending in this thread, several people answered the OP's questions, and she led the discussion off with a categorical rejection of retaking. and then when people tried to convince her otherwise her response was "ANSWER MY QUESTIONS OR FUCK OFF."

[objctnyrhnr]

do you people (those that have issues with the retake retake thing) not think that maybe there's a REASON that this large collection of, in the aggregate, good/experienced legal minds all have the same philosophy? you guys act like it's just a forum for elitist pricks to make fun of random people that they will never meet or interact with again. does that really make any sense?

I applied during the law school boom a few years ago, so my regional powerhouse targets ended up waitlisting me and the best thing I had going was a weaker t30 in a city that I did not love. because of TLS, I took a year, did americorps (not something I wanted to do, and not something I enjoyed doing), and spent every waking moment doing even better at the LSAT. my original score was quite/very good, many would say, but I gained another bunch of points and now I am going to one of those aforementioned targets almost for free.

so to conclude, thank you TLS. and the rest of you are exactly as short-sighted as the general TLS population says you are.

[KatyMarie]

do you people (those that have issues with the retake retake thing) not think that maybe there's a REASON that this large collection of, in the aggregate, good/experienced legal minds all have the same philosophy? you guys act like it's just a forum for elitist pricks to make fun of random people that they will never meet or interact with again. does that really make any sense?

I applied during the law school boom a few years ago, so my regional powerhouse targets ended up waitlisting me and the best thing I had going was a weaker t30 in a city that I did not love. because of TLS, I took a year, did americorps (not something I wanted to do, and not something I enjoyed doing), and spent every waking moment doing even better at the LSAT. my original score was quite/very good, many would say, but I gained another bunch of points and now I am going to one of those aforementioned targets almost for free.

so to conclude, thank you TLS. and the rest of you are exactly as short-sighted as the general TLS population says you are.

I think re-taking is absolutely the right thing to do for a lot of people, especially for people in the situation that you're describing. I'm not arguing with that whatsoever....retaking is almost certainly the right solution for the original poster of this thread as it was for you in your case. I just don't think that taking easy jabs at people on the internet is the way to get someone to see that retaking would be the best option for them, all that does is piss people off and get them defensive. I'm not saying the advice is wrong, I'm saying the approach is all wrong, and so it doesn't actually accomplish anything.

[Nova]

Minnesota's is a 2.5. That doesn't seem bad. But maybe?

That is essentially good acedemic standing

B- is typically the bottom of the curve

[ManoftheHour]

Actually, I think the stips are fair from these schools. If you found yourself in the bottom half of the class at any of them, you would have to drop out IMMEDIATELY anyway. So whether or not you'd lose the scholarship after 1L is an afterthought, since you'd no longer be enrolled.

This. If I am out of retakes and if law is what I really want to pursue and had no other legitimate options, I would attend whichever school that gave me the most $$$. If I found myself below median at Loyola/Pepperdine, I'd drop out. Wasted a year, but at least I'm not in debt.

[bananatopia]

deleted

[ManoftheHour]

Actually, I think the stips are fair from these schools. If you found yourself in the bottom half of the class at any of them, you would have to drop out IMMEDIATELY anyway. So whether or not you'd lose the scholarship after 1L is an afterthought, since you'd no longer be enrolled.

This. If I am out of retakes and if law is what I really want to pursue and had no other legitimate options, I would attend whichever school that gave me the most $$$. If I found myself below median at Loyola/Pepperdine, I'd drop out. Wasted a year, but at least I'm not in debt.

This strategy has a couple of problems. First, until you've maxed out on retakes, you have a clearly better option. Conditional full rides at poorly placing micro-regional schools aren't in short supply, and they'll be available next year. If you go to law school only to lose your scholarship and drop out, you've wasted much more than one year. You've wasted your only chance at law school because you could have gone to a school that would still be worth attending below median.

Secondly, you have to be extremely cold-blooded in order to pull it off. If you can't sit out a single year to retake (which is objectively the superior option as long as retakes are on the table), you clearly don't bring the degree of passionless objectivity to your major life choices that will allow you to fully commit to this strategy.

Um....what? "until you maxed out on retakes, you clearly have a better option?" Clearly if you can retake, it is TCR. Did you read my post at all? I bolded it just in case. lol, I'm not suggesting it as a strategy that a lot of people should take up. What I meant was IF you were out of retakes and this is the only thing you want to do with your life. Obviously if I were personally in this position where I took 3 times and Loyola and Pepperdine were my only law school options, I'd just go and be a cop or a teacher or some shit.

[Cellar-door]

Thank you for your input everyone! As of right now I have three scholly offers out my four acceptances thus far and the stipulation for all three is to be in the top 50%. Many of you are saying that this stipulation is unacceptable, but is there anything I can do to change it? How should this factor in my decision making process? Isn't a stipulated scholarship better than no scholarship? I'm not too concerned about not making it into the top 50% of the class, but of course I've never attended law school before so anything can happen. Do any of you have advice on how to proceed?

Which schools?

I've received big scholarship offers from Pepperdine, USD, and LMU. I'm still waiting on my UC Hastaings offer. I'm also waiting to hear back from UCLA and USC, however with my LSAT and GPA these are my "reach" schools. I want to eventually work here in southern California.

Is is possible to contact the office of financial aid and ask them to change the stipulation to good standing or remove it all together? Have any of you personally or know of someone who has successfully done so?

And I understand that there is the option to retake and reapply again next cycle. For the purpose of this thread, let's please discount that as an option. I will be going to attend law school this fall. It's only a matter of where.

As expected.
None of these schools is a good idea even without stips on the scholarship unless you had someone else paying rent, food, etc.
Re-take and apply to a school where you have a good chance of getting a job to pay off the debt you'll take on from COL. UCLA, USC, even Irvine I guess.
People aren't being elitist, it has nothing to do with prestige. For example if you were from North Dakota and wanted to stay there UND is a good choice because it gives you a decent shot at a job and is cheap, it's not prestigious in the least. In California, the COL is high and the employment coming out of the schools you listed is abysmal.

[rickgrimes69]

Actually, I think the stips are fair from these schools. If you found yourself in the bottom half of the class at any of them, you would have to drop out IMMEDIATELY anyway. So whether or not you'd lose the scholarship after 1L is an afterthought, since you'd no longer be enrolled.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Remember that the type of jobs OP will be targeting from these schools are generally less grade-conscious than the Biglaw/AIII jobs the T14 grads gun for. Assuming OP doesn't end up in the margins (top/bottom ~15%), seems to me that getting a job will be much more about hustle than whether OP grades above median.

Also, OP, don't attend any of these schools for less than free, and definitely drop out if you lose your scholly.

[Caesar Salad]

Plus, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar!

http://xkcd.com/357/

[bananatopia]

deleted

[BigZuck]

Actually, I think the stips are fair from these schools. If you found yourself in the bottom half of the class at any of them, you would have to drop out IMMEDIATELY anyway. So whether or not you'd lose the scholarship after 1L is an afterthought, since you'd no longer be enrolled.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Remember that the type of jobs OP will be targeting from these schools are generally less grade-conscious than the Biglaw/AIII jobs the T14 grads gun for. Assuming OP doesn't end up in the margins (top/bottom ~15%), seems to me that getting a job will be much more about hustle than whether OP grades above median.

Also, OP, don't attend any of these schools for less than free, and definitely drop out if you lose your scholly.

I tend to agree with this. I don't know if there is a meaningful difference between being in the top 40% of the class and the bottom 30% of the class at a school like Pepperdine. Either way you have got to hustle. Maybe small firms care, but from what I understand with PI hiring (like, say a prosecutor's office) they don't even really consider grades at all. I assume small firms would be the same in general, but maybe a lot do stipulate "Top 50%?"

As for the OP- retake. I don't go to a T14 so I'm not being an elitist when I say that.

I really don't get when people bitch about TLS being elitist or T14 or bust. The usual cast of characters saying retake never mention prestige (only job prospects) and a good number of them don't go to T14s. When people complain about this stuff they're complaining out of their ass. It's annoying.

Also, TLS is brimming with snark but at least in the on topics, you're not going to be met with any sort of meanness unless you bring it upon yourself, IMO. If people come with genuine questions, have an open mind, and seem genuinely chill and sociable then that chill sociability will be shot right back at them. If you come at other posters with "SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU ELITIST FUCKS" or just general irrationality ("I know I could have good job prospects but that's not what I'm interested in, stupid) then, well...

[jbagelboy]

Ill admit I was being somewhat facetious when I said the stips didnt matter. Point is, I wouldn't find myself dead in the water as a 2L below median at any of the schools Op is considering regardless of goals. Clearly, retaking the LSAT is the best way to become a practicing attorney, and any stips beyond good standing (with very limited exceptions, like UMN at 2.7 is okay) are to be avoided.

[BankruptMe]

It would suck to go to one of those schools and fail the California bar...which a lot of people do

[timbs4339]

I agree with the retake advocates.

all the elitist assholes in this thread ignoring the obvious fact that OP has a bomb strapped to her that will explode if she doesn't enroll in law school this year.

IMO, the big problem isn't that people are suggesting that retaking would be a good option, it's that people act condescending, and immediately rude to people who are just coming here looking for advice. If people suggested retaking politely and tried to be helpful, things would be different, but the tendency is to make fun of the person with a lower LSAT score and to make jokes at their defense. Of course you're going to goad people into reacting defensively...

It just all seems unnecessary to me, and only serves to scare people away from posting/seeking advice from TLS, which is a shame because this is the absolute best online resource I've found to help me navigate through this process. You guys know a LOT about this, but it doesn't mean you have treat other people who might not know as much about it abrasively automatically.

Plus, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar! If real goal is to get people to change their views on their options when going to law school, then make an attempt to understand what the situation is first. Being a jerk to someone upfront is really unlikely to change their opinion on anything, even if retaking is the best option or even the only good option.

Seen a lot of these kinds of threads, and just wanted to add my 2 cents on that situation.

I'm curious what you would have us do when someone doesn't want to retake and does not provide a good reason for being unable to retake upfront, implying that they don't have a good reason and they know it. I'm not trying to be condescending; I think most people here really do want to educate people in the most effective way possible, and would consider any specific advice you have.