Scholarships and GPA stips with curved grading Forum

[bobbypin]

Other than asking the law school how many 2Ls keep their scholarships, how do you determine how difficult it is to keep the scholarship offered to get students to attend?

[Nova]

the difficulty is based on what class rank is necessary to achieve renewal. One should never expect to do better than their peers because they scored a few points higher on the LSAT/have an above average GPA.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=189178

[vanwinkle]

the difficulty is based on what class rank is necessary to achieve renewal. One should never expect youll do better than your peers because you have they scored a few points higher on the LSAT/have an above average GPA.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=189178

This. If it requires median-or-better grades then you have a 50% chance of keeping it after 1L. If it requires top-third grades then you only have a 33% chance of keeping it. Etc. It's that simple.

Also, Nova, great job on that listing. That's a useful resource.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

the difficulty is based on what class rank is necessary to achieve renewal. One should never expect youll do better than your peers because you have they scored a few points higher on the LSAT/have an above average GPA.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=189178

This. If it requires median-or-better grades then you have a 50% chance of keeping it after 1L. If it requires top-third grades then you only have a 33% chance of keeping it. Etc. It's that simple.

Also, Nova, great job on that listing. That's a useful resource.

This really isn't true. As a full scholarship student you have better than 1/2 chance of top 50% grades. However, I wouldn't want to attend law school with a gpa stip.

[albanach]

This really isn't true. As a full scholarship student you have better than 1/2 chance of top 50% grades. However, I wouldn't want to attend law school with a gpa stip.

Are you presuming the scholarship is being awarded for academic reasons? What about URM, military service, and then the students that have done incredible things.

I think a lot of full scholarships - at least at higher ranked schools - are awarded because the school wants that person, not that person's numbers which are probably available from some other candidate.

[2014]

Don't forget section stacking. A median requirement with all scholarship recipients dumped in one section is a 25% retention not 50.

Your best stat is like you said the historical average of students who kept it.

[vanwinkle]

As a full scholarship student you have better than 1/2 chance of top 50% grades.

This is completely and totally wrong. Anyone who believes this is wrong.

[PickledPanda]

As a full scholarship student you have better than 1/2 chance of top 50% grades.

This is completely and totally wrong. Anyone who believes this is wrong.

[sinfiery]

As a full scholarship student you have better than 1/2 chance of top 50% grades.

This is completely and totally wrong. Anyone who believes this is wrong.

So at what point is it worth betting on a 180/4.0 getting above 50% in his class rank as a 1L with a reward of $199 and a cost of $100 to bet?

NYU? UVA? Cornell? UWashington? UAlabama? TTT? Never?

[albanach]

As a full scholarship student you have better than 1/2 chance of top 50% grades.

This is completely and totally wrong. Anyone who believes this is wrong.

So at what point is it worth betting on a 180/4.0 getting above 50% in his class rank as a 1L with a reward of $199 and a cost of $100 to bet?

NYU? UVA? Cornell? UWashington? UAlabama? TTT? Never?

Never. Until you've taken a law school exam you have little idea if you'll be any good at them.

That said, a 180/4.0 should be able to get a very good scholarship or free ride from the T14 without a GPA stipulation.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

As a full scholarship student you have better than 1/2 chance of top 50% grades.

This is completely and totally wrong. Anyone who believes this is wrong.

Anyone who believes this really has a screw loose. If you take a school like GW, and consider the median student (3.5/164 or something) against the type of person with a full ride(+) scholarship (maybe 3.6/3.7 169-171). If you don't think the latter person has a better likelihood of being top 50% than the first person, you really have to just be smoking crack. It doesn't mean it will happen. The first person may be a better writer, a better issue spotter, a harder worker, who knows. But all things being equal, yes if you attend on a full scholarship you have a leg up in terms of your likelihood of being top 50%/top 25%/top 10%, or whatever you want to consider.

[NewLobo]

As a full scholarship student you have better than 1/2 chance of top 50% grades.

This is completely and totally wrong. Anyone who believes this is wrong.

Anyone who believes this really has a screw loose. If you take a school like GW, and consider the median student (3.5/164 or something) against the type of person with a full ride(+) scholarship (maybe 3.6/3.7 169-171). If you don't think the latter person has a better likelihood of being top 50% than the first person, you really have to just be smoking crack. It doesn't mean it will happen. The first person may be a better writer, a better issue spotter, a harder worker, who knows. But all things being equal, yes if you attend on a full scholarship you have a leg up in terms of your likelihood of being top 50%/top 25%/top 10%, or whatever you want to consider.

I'm pretty sure you answered your question.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

As a full scholarship student you have better than 1/2 chance of top 50% grades.

This is completely and totally wrong. Anyone who believes this is wrong.

Anyone who believes this really has a screw loose. If you take a school like GW, and consider the median student (3.5/164 or something) against the type of person with a full ride(+) scholarship (maybe 3.6/3.7 169-171). If you don't think the latter person has a better likelihood of being top 50% than the first person, you really have to just be smoking crack. It doesn't mean it will happen. The first person may be a better writer, a better issue spotter, a harder worker, who knows. But all things being equal, yes if you attend on a full scholarship you have a leg up in terms of your likelihood of being top 50%/top 25%/top 10%, or whatever you want to consider.

I'm pretty sure you answered your question.

you may want to visit dictionary.com. I've made the word bigger so you know what to type in.

[2014]

Statistically speaking he's right, their would be zero correlation between LSAT/GPA and LS GPA if it was completely and totally random. Since you would expect one to have above median numbers if they got a large scholarship, they will on average perform better than those with lower numbers.

An average is an average though, it's obviously not even close to guaranteed. All he is saying is percentage wise by being above medians you necessarily have a better than 50% chance at being above median.

[albanach]

An average is an average though, it's obviously not even close to guaranteed. All he is saying is percentage wise by being above medians you necessarily have a better than 50% chance at being above median.

Being above the medians you are in a group that is statistically more likely to do better than those below. As for the individual student, who knows? And they probably won't know until they get their first set of grades.

At some schools the correlation between gpa + lsat is already as low as .3. For an individual within that group, it could easily be very close to zero.

[sinfiery]

An average is an average though, it's obviously not even close to guaranteed. All he is saying is percentage wise by being above medians you necessarily have a better than 50% chance at being above median.

Being above the medians you are in a group that is statistically more likely to do better than those below. As for the individual student, who knows? And they probably won't know until they get their first set of grades.

At some schools the correlation between gpa + lsat is already as low as .3. For an individual within that group, it could easily be very close to zero.

No one is claiming absolute knowledge. We are discussing probabilities. It is downright foolish to believe Law School Exams are so radically different from the skills needed to obtain a high UG GPA/LSAT skills that there is absolutely no correlation between the two.

[dingbat]

I think a lot of full scholarships - at least at higher ranked schools - are awarded because the school wants that person, not that person's numbers which are probably available from some other candidate.

I've been told by the dean of financial aid of a highly ranked school that scholarships are predominantly used to buy higher numbers

[vanwinkle]

No one is claiming absolute knowledge. We are discussing probabilities. It is downright foolish to believe Law School Exams are so radically different from the skills needed to obtain a high UG GPA/LSAT skills that there is absolutely no correlation between the two.

It is a fact that the combination and balance of skills necessary to succeed on law school exams is radically different from those needed for high UG GPA or LSAT.

Schools use GPA/LSAT because they're helpful aggregate predictors. They can help schools predict with some reliability what percentage of students will ultimately pass the bar exam. But they are useless for pinpointing which students in that group will do great or poorly. Schools don't mind that it doesn't, either. They still get their tuition money, even from the ones that drop out or fail the bar or can't find a job because of their dismal grades. And these days, grades don't have to be that dismal to kill you.

Also, there's clear evidence that GPA/LSAT aren't painting a sufficient picture. If they did, then you'd statistically expect that if you repeatedly took the top-performing students from lower-ranked schools and moved them up to higher-ranked schools, their performance would drop agsinst a student body with higher GPA/LSATs. Their top performance at a "weak" student body shouldn't consistently hold up when faced with a "stronger" student body... Yet it does. Consistently every year, the top students at lower-ranked T1s and T2s transfer up into the T14, outperform the student body there, and graduate with honors.

There are variables that GPA/LSAT don't adequately consider that determine law school success. As a 0L, you cannot account for these variables and cannot predict your individual success with any meaningful accuracy. Because that's true, you cannot rely as a 0L on anything but random odds, since you can't predict more accurately than that.

If a scholly stip is top 1/2, and you assume better than 50% odds of keeping it, you are an idiot.

[sinfiery]

It is a fact that the combination and balance of skills necessary to succeed on law school exams is radically different from those needed for high UG GPA or LSAT.

I have no empirical or personal evidence to backup my claim but you do. I guess I must concede.

Schools use GPA/LSAT because they're helpful aggregate predictors. They can help schools predict with some reliability what percentage of students will ultimately pass the bar exam. But they are useless for pinpointing which students in that group will do great or poorly. Schools don't mind that it doesn't, either. They still get their tuition money, even from the ones that drop out or fail the bar or can't find a job because of their dismal grades. And these days, grades don't have to be that dismal to kill you.

So the skills used to get a good LSAT/UGPA are correlated with the skills needed to pass the bar to some degree. And that along with rankings is why schools look to recruit those with high statistics. But have no correlation with the skills needed to do well in law school?
Then do the skills needed to do well in Law School correlate well with the skills needed to pass the bar?

Also, there's clear evidence that GPA/LSAT aren't painting a sufficient picture. If they did, then you'd statistically expect that if you repeatedly took the top-performing students from lower-ranked schools and moved them up to higher-ranked schools, their performance would drop agsinst a student body with higher GPA/LSATs. Their top performance at a "weak" student body shouldn't consistently hold up when faced with a "stronger" student body... Yet it does. Consistently every year, the top students at lower-ranked T1s and T2s transfer up into the T14, outperform the student body there, and graduate with honors.

The only argument made is that their is some correlation. That doesn't imply their could be other factors out there that couldn't completely overturn this correlation. Ones that would probably exist in students ranked near the top of their class at pretty decent schools.
One thing I've noticed is that even if everyone may strive to do their best in law school, they definintely don't strive to do their best when in UG or when studying for the LSAT. It may be better to argue for the potential LSAT score and potential UGPA of the applicant and it's correlation to 1L grades.
There are many other factors that could explain this phenomenon. And there is no scenario in which it directly counters the point made by some, including me, within this topic.

There are variables that GPA/LSAT don't adequately consider that determine law school success. As a 0L, you cannot account for these variables and cannot predict your individual success with any meaningful accuracy. Because that's true, you cannot rely as a 0L on anything but random odds, since you can't predict more accurately than that.

If a scholly stip is top 1/2, and you assume better than 50% odds of keeping it, you are an idiot.

I would probably advise one to go in considering those as the odds to keeping your scholly, but I am almost sure that if we looked at a data set, that wouldn't be the case.

[vanwinkle]

So the skills used to get a good LSAT/UGPA are correlated with the skills needed to pass the bar to some degree. And that along with rankings is why schools look to recruit those with high statistics. But have no correlation with the skills needed to do well in law school?
Then do the skills needed to do well in Law School correlate well with the skills needed to pass the bar?

Lol, not really. Law school exams involve a lot more deep analysis, and typically have no one "right" answer; your analysis, not your outcome, is what matters. I have trouble saying what, exactly, in UG or the LSAT this exactly relates to. It's a unique beast.

In stark contrast, the bar exam is designed specifically so there is one "right" answer they're looking for. A significant portion of the bar exam involves multiple-choice sections, and even the essay sections are looking for fairly straightforward recitations as answers. The multiple-choice part is similar in skill set to the LSAT and the straightforward essays are in a way akin to the kind of undergrad-level papers you could churn out without too much deep thought.

I would probably advise one to go in considering those as the odds to keeping your scholly, but I am almost sure that if we looked at a data set, that wouldn't be the case.

Part of the problem is that the data set you'd need doesn't even exist. You'd need grades from a large number of individual students, and a way to compensate for variables such as the different student profile of their class/year. I'm not even sure how you'd go about building that data set. You'd also want to track additional variables such as age, to test whether UG GPA predicts the same things for older and younger applicants. Good luck getting your hands on that.

[sinfiery]

Lol, not really. Law school exams involve a lot more deep analysis, and typically have no one "right" answer; your analysis, not your outcome, is what matters. I have trouble saying what, exactly, in UG or the LSAT this exactly relates to. It's a unique beast.

In stark contrast, the bar exam is designed specifically so there is one "right" answer they're looking for. A significant portion of the bar exam involves multiple-choice sections, and even the essay sections are looking for fairly straightforward recitations as answers. The multiple-choice part is similar in skill set to the LSAT and the straightforward essays are in a way akin to the kind of undergrad-level papers you could churn out without too much deep thought.

Hah, I had no idea. That makes me look forward to Lawschool but you can't help but be a bit perplexed by the realization. I wonder if TTTs teach more towards the BAR and other schools teach more towards the deep analysis you mentioned.

Part of the problem is that the data set you'd need doesn't even exist. You'd need grades from a large number of individual students, and a way to compensate for variables such as the different student profile of their class/year. I'm not even sure how you'd go about building that data set. You'd also want to track additional variables such as age, to test whether UG GPA predicts the same things for older and younger applicants. Good luck getting your hands on that.

Well, that got complicated real fast.
Sure hope I end up paying sticker so I don't have to deal with that paranoia. (wait wut?)

[cinephile]

I feel like most of this thread is discussing the odds of keeping a scholarship. But the thing is that at decent law schools there normally isn't any stipulation on keeping your scholarship. So though you want to do your best, you really wouldn't have to worry about losing the scholly.

[dingbat]

I feel like most of this thread is discussing the odds of keeping a scholarship. But the thing is that at decent law schools there normally isn't any stipulation on keeping your scholarship. So though you want to do your best, you really wouldn't have to worry about losing the scholly.

I agree with this (thankfully), but when I see a school attach a top 80% stip, I actually think it's better policy (for merit, not need based)
section stacking aside, of course)

As an aside, schools will tell you that there is a correlation between LSAT and grades. The problem is that most schools' students are within a narrow band of each other and the difference between those getting a scholly and those at sticker is statistically minimal. Put simply, it's exceedingly rare to get a Yale quality student at a TTT. If the student were that much smarter, they'd have a free ride to a much better school.

Second aside: at my school, I've learned that the students with schollys generally do somewhat better than sticker students. That doesn't mean each scholly student does better, nor does it imply there's a big difference.