Top Law Schools

I'm trying to decdide between Loyola (LA), at sticker vs. University of Pacific with a renewable 12K per year scholarship plus books (contingent on top 3rd of class).

I would like to live in Southern CA, so I was planning on Loyola, but I'd like to hear any other input.

top 1/3 stipulation is absolutely ridiculous & is common practice among law schools, as detailed in this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/busin ... rants.html.

take loyola and run.

if you have to decide between the 2, it's loyola. Not only is that stip horrendous, I don't think you'd stand a chance at socal employment with a degree from mcgeorge.

glewz wrote:top 1/3 stipulation is absolutely ridiculous & is common practice among law schools, as detailed in this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/busin ... rants.html.

take loyola and run.

I read the article and I really don't understand why the stipulation is that big of a deal. It seems pretty reasonable to me that if you don't perform, the money should transfer to a student who has. I think actual performance is the best representation of a person's drive and ability, and this is obviously going to be the case after a student leaves law school, so what's the problem with using this as the measure from the beginning?

i thought the issue was that these schools were offering too many scholarships than all of their students being able to retain them, and they know this. Even if they were able to give exactly 1/3 of the entering class scholarships with stips to remain in the top 1/3, honestly what are the chances this 1/3 will be the top 1/3? In fact, I think the article even calls out schools who even OVERbook it (on purpose/accident, who knows) and that essentially GUARANTEES that some students won't be retaining their scholarships.

Like that chicago kent 3.25 stip scholly, it seems like everyone and their grandmothers received it from what I gather in their thread. It just so happens that the school curves to the top 1/4 being able to receive a 3.25 or higher. I would guess they probably offered that deal to essentially the majority of the entering class and quite possibly even hopes that they would accept that deal over the guaranteed scholarship

seaguy2010 wrote:

glewz wrote:top 1/3 stipulation is absolutely ridiculous & is common practice among law schools, as detailed in this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/busin ... rants.html.

take loyola and run.

I read the article and I really don't understand why the stipulation is that big of a deal. It seems pretty reasonable to me that if you don't perform, the money should transfer to a student who has. I think actual performance is the best representation of a person's drive and ability, and this is obviously going to be the case after a student leaves law school, so what's the problem with using this as the measure from the beginning?

the money isn't going anywhere except their pocketbooks so that they can throw it at other over-qualified students, who they can then take it away from after 1L year. Don't be naive. They don't give a shit about rewarding good performance; they just want to boost their numbers. Once you're in, they've already boosted their #s, so they have no reason to reward you any longer. This is common practice at low brow diploma mills.

Go to Loyola. Even if you did keep the scholly, 36k isn't enough to make a difference in the long haul, and Loyola gives you a much better shot at gainful employment (esp. in SoCal)

I would never take Loyola at sticker.

A student's performance is directly related to the school's rankings and prestige. I think it's completey fair that stipulations are placed on scholarship money. In the article, one of the students mentioned that she didn't initially know that law school is a "business." Isn't it kind of obvious it's a business? The school is providing a service (education) and the student is paying for this service. Clearly (and rightfully so) a law school is going to do what is in their best interest from a financial perspective. I think it's a big naive for a student to simply think that they've been granted this huge chunk of money and then get all pissy when they find out it was "hard" to keep this huge chunk of money. As a professional entering into the legal field, isn't it reasonable that you should be rewarded based on your output?

In my opinion, it's a great thing that as many students as possible are given a chance to retain their scholarship money by illustrating their ability on a merit-based system. I think students should view this as more of an opportunity rather than some trick that law schools are using to obtain higher rankings.

dpk711 wrote:I would never take Loyola at sticker.

Why?

seaguy2010 wrote:

dpk711 wrote:I would never take Loyola at sticker.

Why?

It's not worth it.

dpk711 wrote:I would never take Loyola at sticker.

Loyola at full-price is not even an option.

dpk711 wrote:

seaguy2010 wrote:

dpk711 wrote:I would never take Loyola at sticker.

Why?

It's not worth it.

Worth is highly subjective, so what are you referring to? Quite a number of successful professionals have risen the ranks from Loyola, so I'm interested in understanding your reasons.

seaguy2010 wrote:

dpk711 wrote:

seaguy2010 wrote:

dpk711 wrote:I would never take Loyola at sticker.

Why?

It's not worth it.

Worth is highly subjective, so what are you referring to? Quite a number of successful professionals have risen the ranks from Loyola, so I'm interested in understanding your reasons.

You ask us for our opinions on this forum then you ignore what you don't want to hear?

The loan payments on Loyola at sticker are going to be through the fucking roof. Those people you are talking about graduated in another time when tuition was a fraction of what it is now, and the economy wasn't a giant shit storm.

dpk711 wrote:You ask us for our opinions on this forum then you ignore what you don't want to hear?

The question I asked was choosing between Loyola and Pacific. Your first post simply stated that you wouldn't go to Loyola at sticker price. Then when I asked you to elaborate on your reasons for why you wouldn't go to Loyola at sticker price, you simply replied that it's not worth it, which I could have inferred from your first post. Now you're saying I ignored something that I don't want to hear. What exactly is it that I've ignored?

seaguy2010 wrote:

dpk711 wrote:You ask us for our opinions on this forum then you ignore what you don't want to hear?

The question I asked was choosing between Loyola and Pacific. Your first post simply stated that you wouldn't go to Loyola at sticker price. Then when I asked you to elaborate on your reasons for why you wouldn't go to Loyola at sticker price, you simply replied that it's not worth it, which I could have inferred from your first post. Now you're saying I ignored something that I don't want to hear. What exactly is it that I've ignored?

That it wasn't worth it.

While the top 1/3 stips sucks, you'll probably have better employment prospects in Sacramento vs LA

seaguy2010 wrote:A student's performance is directly related to the school's rankings and prestige. I think it's completey fair that stipulations are placed on scholarship money. In the article, one of the students mentioned that she didn't initially know that law school is a "business." Isn't it kind of obvious it's a business? The school is providing a service (education) and the student is paying for this service. Clearly (and rightfully so) a law school is going to do what is in their best interest from a financial perspective. I think it's a big naive for a student to simply think that they've been granted this huge chunk of money and then get all pissy when they find out it was "hard" to keep this huge chunk of money. As a professional entering into the legal field, isn't it reasonable that you should be rewarded based on your output?

In my opinion, it's a great thing that as many students as possible are given a chance to retain their scholarship money by illustrating their ability on a merit-based system. I think students should view this as more of an opportunity rather than some trick that law schools are using to obtain higher rankings.

Did you not consider the scenario in which 90% are given a significant scholarship, in which all these students are required to maintain top 1/3? Is that fair? If it is, you should Definitely go to Pacific.

dpk711 wrote:

seaguy2010 wrote:

dpk711 wrote:You ask us for our opinions on this forum then you ignore what you don't want to hear?

The question I asked was choosing between Loyola and Pacific. Your first post simply stated that you wouldn't go to Loyola at sticker price. Then when I asked you to elaborate on your reasons for why you wouldn't go to Loyola at sticker price, you simply replied that it's not worth it, which I could have inferred from your first post. Now you're saying I ignored something that I don't want to hear. What exactly is it that I've ignored?

That it wasn't worth it.

I ackowledged that your opinion is that it's not worth it to attend Loyola sticker. Then, I asked you why you consider it not to be worth it. How could I meaninfully ask your reasoning on an opinion while ignoring your opinion, unless I simply don't understand your opinion?

both are good schools, especially loyola, go with sticker, it's worth it

red_alertz wrote:both are good schools, especially loyola, go with sticker, it's worth it

red_alertz is in da house!

seaguy2010 wrote: I ackowledged that your opinion is that it's not worth it to attend Loyola sticker.

No you didn't. In fact you were implying that it was worth it, despite friendly warnings by me, by saying this:

seaguy2010 wrote: Worth is highly subjective, so what are you referring to? Quite a number of successful professionals have risen the ranks from Loyola

Lolz...

Neither. These are both awful offers that are likely to leave you unemployed or underemployed.

The credited thing to do is retake/reapply.

OP, start a poll with your 2 options and also include a "None of the above" option.
Personally, I think your best option is Loyola, but it is not a very good option. It is too expensive for the job prospects you are likely to face when you graduate, making repayment of your loan extremely difficult. My vote is "None of the above."

scammedhard wrote:OP, start a poll with your 2 options and also include a "None of the above" option.
Personally, I think your best option is Loyola, but it is not a very good option. It is too expensive for the job prospects you are likely to face when you graduate, making repayment of your loan extremely difficult. My vote is "None of the above."

I don't think it would matter -- looks like OP has his mind made up regardless of what wisdom TLS has to offer him.