Top Law Schools

Scholarship Amount

Chapman: Full tuition (good academic standing)
UCI: 75,000 (2.5 Stip)
Loyola: 120,000 (2.8 )
Pepperdine: 150,000 (top 55%)

I live in LA county. So I will be commuting from home. I am still waiting for UCLA, USC, UCD, and UC Hastings.
Big law hopeful but would not mind for government/PI.
UCLA/USC will proabably be out of my league and with very minimal scholarship amount.
I am also planning to request for more money from UCI once I get UCD and UC Hastings acceptance/money offer. (Or can I ask now?)

Gracias!

The GPA requirement itself is arbitrary and meaningless. Most law students would have 4.0's if grading worked how it worked in college given how hard the average student works. You need to know the curve, and these types of schools may intentionally mislead applicants about how easy it is to keep scholarships.

While many people advocate against taking an offer with stipulations, I don't have an issue with it, because being under median at schools like these puts you in a difficult position. What I do have an issue with and would urge you to research are allegations of section stacking at any or all of these schools as this creates a situation where every student, even those who maintain their scholarships are harmed as 9 times out of 10 they would have better grades if they weren't victims of section stacking. I think section stacking tends to diminish the value of a school's ranking relative to other schools, because your performance 1L carries similar weight to school reputation.

middleawkward123 wrote:Scholarship Amount

Chapman: Full tuition (2.8 stipulation)
UCI: 75,000 (2.5 Stip)
Loyola: 120,000 (2.8 )
Pepperdine: 150,000 (top 55%)

I live in LA county. So I will be commuting from home. I am still waiting for UCLA, USC, UCD, and UC Hastings.
Big law hopeful but would not mind for government/PI.
UCLA/USC will proabably be out of my league and with very minimal scholarship amount.
I am also planning to request for more money from UCI once I get UCD and UC Hastings acceptance/money offer. (Or can I ask now?)

Gracias!

Would not attend any of these schools. Maybe if stips were dropped, but even then, you're giving up three years of your life for a coinflip shot at any legal job. Big law/Gov/Most PI is almost assuredly not happening.

you absolutely have to make them drop these stipulations. negotiate

Given the choice, would take UCLA over all of those.

middleawkward123 wrote:Scholarship Amount

Chapman: Full tuition (2.8 stipulation)
UCI: 75,000 (2.5 Stip)
Loyola: 120,000 (2.8 )
Pepperdine: 150,000 (top 55%)

I live in LA county. So I will be commuting from home. I am still waiting for UCLA, USC, UCD, and UC Hastings.
Big law hopeful but would not mind for government/PI.
UCLA/USC will proabably be out of my league and with very minimal scholarship amount.
I am also planning to request for more money from UCI once I get UCD and UC Hastings acceptance/money offer. (Or can I ask now?)

Gracias!

If you are a big law hopeful none of these schools make sense. Government/PI would also be hard from them. Maybe if you got a full ride or close to it, UCI would be ok. The other three are probably a no go no matter what, especially with those stips.

Retake the LSAT and try to get into UCLA/USC with $$$

How would you negotiate stipulation? Do you just ask them to drop it?
I am definitely willing to work hard; is it difficult to maintain 2.5 GPA?
Advice appreciated!

Retake. Don't want to be harsh, but retake is the absolute right answer here, OP.

I am surprised because I was pretty happy with these offers.

I don't want to be the one "retake is not my option" but if I am able to get close to 90K scholarship from UCI (if I can after negotiation), I definitely would not mind attending...

I mentioned big law just because at the current firm that I am working at, there are couple Loyolas with Harvard/Northwestern graduates (I know, it's odd and really anecdotal) and a firm above our floor (a huge law firm that covers multiple floors) have like 70% Loyola graduates. So I thought I had chances! But honestly (don't cringe) I am eager to pursue law school and study hard. Working at a small firm is worth it too as long as I am not debt-ridden... My priority is just not going in debt.

I did not know that these stipulations were traps...I thought they were pretty fair! Please share how unrealistic it is to keep 2.5-2.8 GPA.

middleawkward123 wrote:I am surprised because I was pretty happy with these offers.

I don't want to be the one "retake is not my option" but if I am able to get close to 90K scholarship from UCI (if I can after negotiation), I definitely would not mind attending...

I mentioned big law just because at the current firm that I am working at, there are couple Loyolas with Harvard/Northwestern graduates (I know, it's odd and really anecdotal) and a firm above our floor (a huge law firm that covers multiple floors) have like 70% Loyola graduates. So I thought I had chances! But honestly (don't cringe) I am eager to pursue law school and study hard. Working at a small firm is worth it too as long as I am not debt-ridden... My priority is just not going in debt.

I did not know that these stipulations were traps...I thought they were pretty fair! Please share how unrealistic it is to keep 2.5-2.8 GPA.

Thankfully, you don't need anecdotes - look at LST. At best, you're look at UCI, which has about a ~25% biglaw + fed clerk placement (an the clerk #'s will surely come down).

If you're cool with working for small/mid law, you will likely be alright. But are you sure you want to?

^ Yes!! I am. I don't know if this will make you guys SMH but seeing people at my firm working crazy hours isn't something that I would want anyways (family etc.). I want to be able to support myself without any debt. People suggest don't go to law school and do something more worthwhile for 3 years. But I ask myself, what can I really do in those 3 years without a professional degree... I am a paralegal and am the youngest in my firm (been the youngest with any firm that I work for) It's really hard to move up the ladder when there are so many experienced and older paralegals. So I feel like I will be stuck in my position for a while without any professional or intellectual development and then finally, I guess, in 10 years become a senior paralegal.

My worries right now are the difficulties of keeping up with those stipulations. (I did not even think about the huge gaps in the grading system of law schools compared to undergrads).

middleawkward123 wrote:^ Yes!! I am. I don't know if this will make you guys SMH but seeing people at my firm working crazy hours isn't something that I would want anyways (family etc.). I want to be able to support myself without any debt. People suggest don't go to law school and do something more worthwhile for 3 years. But I ask myself, what can I really do in those 3 years without a professional degree... I am a paralegal and am the youngest in my firm (been the youngest with any firm that I work for) It's really hard to move up the ladder when there are so many experienced and older paralegals. So I feel like I will be stuck in my position for a while without any professional or intellectual development and then finally, I guess, in 10 years become a senior paralegal.

My worries right now are the difficulties of keeping up with those stipulations. (I did not even think about the huge gaps in the grading system of law schools compared to undergrads).

I think your attitude is great hope you succeed in whatever you do. I will say, however, that small law still generally has pretty bad hours, just for much less pay.

middleawkward123 wrote:I am surprised because I was pretty happy with these offers.

I don't want to be the one "retake is not my option" but if I am able to get close to 90K scholarship from UCI (if I can after negotiation), I definitely would not mind attending...

I mentioned big law just because at the current firm that I am working at, there are couple Loyolas with Harvard/Northwestern graduates (I know, it's odd and really anecdotal) and a firm above our floor (a huge law firm that covers multiple floors) have like 70% Loyola graduates. So I thought I had chances! But honestly (don't cringe) I am eager to pursue law school and study hard. Working at a small firm is worth it too as long as I am not debt-ridden... My priority is just not going in debt.

I did not know that these stipulations were traps...I thought they were pretty fair! Please share how unrealistic it is to keep 2.5-2.8 GPA.

You're graded on a curve in law school, so you're fighting with your classmates for your grades. Some (most? all? idk) schools that give scholarship stipulations like the ones given to you will place all such students in one section (known as section stacking) so that all the high scholarship + stipulation students are competing directly with one another for grades, meaning that some of those students necessarily lose their scholarships because someone has to end up below median. This makes it more likely that they will not have to keep paying off tuition for those students.

I don't know which schools do this, but I would encourage you to research to make sure that none of the ones you listed/plan to go to do. This is why everyone is encouraging you to negotiate away the stipulations. Traditionally, schools that aren't being shitty merely want you to remain "in good academic standing" in order to keep your scholarship.

You need to post all of the information in the pinned post if you want help. Gpa lsat?

Clearly wrote:You need to post all of the information in the pinned post if you want help. Gpa lsat?

I'll take a stab at it:

3.93/155

Those are good offers. The default "T14 of bust" TLS advice notwithstanding, I don't think you should retake and wait. See what you get from UCLA and USC, or take one of those offers. You can go to UCI, Loyola, or Pepperdine and become a good lawyer (Chapman I would avoid).

Wait a year and you're facing higher tuition and delays in starting a family, purchasing a home, etc... Take the money (e.g. Pepperdine), don't become fixated on the stipulations (the LST stats show that the vast majority, i.e. 75%+, keep their merit awards at all those schools), and work hard to network and interview well.

There are still many, many people out there who would be very jealous of the offers you've received. They're just not on TLS.

Full disclosure: 0L from LA county with a full-ride T14 offer.

To add to my post above, I would say the Loyola option is best out of your current offers, assuming you want to stay in LA. Maintain some of your current networks and you're set. Try negotiating a bit more out of them based on your Pepperdine offer (though it's nice that Loyola has a lower stipulation). Their bar passage rate has become quite impressive too.

philawsopher wrote:Those are good offers. The default "T14 of bust" TLS advice notwithstanding, I don't think you should retake and wait. See what you get from UCLA and USC, or take one of those offers. You can go to UCI, Loyola, or Pepperdine and become a good lawyer (Chapman I would avoid).

Wait a year and you're facing higher tuition and delays in starting a family, purchasing a home, etc... Take the money (e.g. Pepperdine), don't become fixated on the stipulations (the LST stats show that the vast majority, i.e. 75%+, keep their merit awards at all those schools), and work hard to network and interview well.

There are still many, many people out there who would be very jealous of the offers you've received. They're just not on TLS.

Full disclosure: 0L from LA county with a full-ride T14 offer.

lol at basing a decision that will affect you for the next 30+ years on the idea that it might delay you from starting a family for 1 year (not to mention that not re-taking may delay you from starting a family even longer considering you generally want to be in the right economic position before making that type of commitment)...and purchasing a home is a lot more dependent on income than it is on time. Making 160k a year will let you purchase the same home significantly earlier than making 40k a year, even if you start making that money one year later.

Full disclosure: Waiting a few years and retaking was the single best decision I have ever made.

Effingham wrote:Full disclosure: Waiting a few years and retaking was the single best decision I have ever made.

I'm just curious, what were your highest offers the first time around, compared to your most recent (or current) cycle? What was your score increase?

(took the LSAT 3 times...SMH)

I am leaning toward Loyola and UCI (I literally live in middle of Loyola and UCI so the commute is about the same).

Current student at UCI and Loyola advised that it's actually hard to see people who are around 2.5 GPA unless they missed the final or something. So that's good to hear!

Do UCI and Loyola even offer scholarships without stipulations? I haven't seen anybody without such restriction.

*I am actually surprised by how many people voted for Pepperdine > Loyola... I thought TLS usually suggests to stay away from Chapman and Pepperdine*

Hey, 0L here also considering UC Irvine. Their stipulation is easy as pie. Last year they had two students in their whole class not meet the requirement. it's really not a stipulation so much as its a "stay off probation."

middleawkward123 wrote:GPA: 3.8 LSAT: 163. (took the LSAT 3 times...SMH)

I am leaning toward Loyola and UCI (I literally live in middle of Loyola and UCI so the commute is about the same).

Current student at UCI and Loyola advised that it's actually hard to see people who are around 2.5 GPA unless they missed the final or something. So that's good to hear!

Do UCI and Loyola even offer scholarships without stipulations? I haven't seen anybody without such restriction.

*I am actually surprised by how many people voted for Pepperdine > Loyola... I thought TLS usually suggests to stay away from Chapman and Pepperdine*

Probably 0Ls who like the thought of Malibu. Yes, you should probably stay away from Pepperdine. Loyola isn't a terrible decision if you get a full ride with no stips. UCI with close to a full ride is not bad.

But you have a solid GPA that could get you into any school in the country. I would have killed for your GPA. When can you take the LSAT again? If you only need to wait a year or so, it would be worth it to study and get in the high 160s. Then Berkeley is in play and you'll get a lot of $$$ from UCLA/USC

philawsopher wrote:Those are good offers. The default "T14 of bust" TLS advice notwithstanding, I don't think you should retake and wait. See what you get from UCLA and USC, or take one of those offers. You can go to UCI, Loyola, or Pepperdine and become a good lawyer (Chapman I would avoid).

Wait a year and you're facing higher tuition and delays in starting a family, purchasing a home, etc... Take the money (e.g. Pepperdine), don't become fixated on the stipulations (the LST stats show that the vast majority, i.e. 75%+, keep their merit awards at all those schools), and work hard to network and interview well.

There are still many, many people out there who would be very jealous of the offers you've received. They're just not on TLS.

Full disclosure: 0L from LA county with a full-ride T14 offer.

There is no default "T14 or bust" TLS advice. You made that up, and now you are starting your post off as a liar, which is not a good look. And then it's all downhill from there.

The possibility of becoming a good lawyer at any of those schools literally doesn't matter. Anything is possible. Even at Chapman. You have to deal in probabilities, not possibilities.

Slightly higher tuition and one year life delays make next to no difference in the context of a 30+ year career, especially if taking that year off puts you on a significantly better life trajectory. There's the money considerations such as the 160K vs 40K thing mentioned, but going to a top school vs a meh school can impact your career in many more ways than simply monetarily. Also, the one year shouldn't really impact starting a family, especially for someone in their early 20s.

25ish% losing their scholarship is horrible.

Working hard to network and interview well oftentimes is necessary but not sufficient for getting a job. Plus, it's hard for people to accurately assess how good they are at those things.

There are many people who would vote for Donald Trump. Doesn't mean that their opinion matters at all. When it comes to anything. Lots of people are impressed by anything related to law school. That isn't going to help the OP get a job in any way, shape, or form.

Full disclosure: You really shouldn't be giving people advice on choosing a law school if this is what you come up with.

BigZuck wrote:You have to deal in probabilities, not possibilities...

25ish% losing their scholarship is horrible...

I'm not denying that it's horrible. But if we're talking about probabilities not possibilities, it's twice as likely that someone in the 160's will retake the LSAT without improving (.34 probability) than lose a merit scholarship at Loyola (.17) or UCI (<.05). Besides, it's now clear that the OP already tried the retake route.

Sorry, I admit I'm not the expert here, and I apologize if my advice is misguided. Just trying to provide some balance.

philawsopher wrote:

BigZuck wrote:You have to deal in probabilities, not possibilities...

25ish% losing their scholarship is horrible...

I'm not denying that it's horrible. But if we're talking about probabilities not possibilities, it's twice as likely that someone in the 160's will retake the LSAT without improving (.34 probability) than lose a merit scholarship at Loyola (.17) or UCI (<.05). Besides, it's now clear that the OP already tried the retake route.

Sorry, I admit I'm not the expert here, and I apologize if my advice is misguided. Just trying to provide some balance.

I'm not particularly worried about section staking or the OP losing their scholarship. But it's not an apples to apples comparison. You don't improve on the LSAT, you're in the same spot that you were. It's a freeroll, and oftentimes just one point can make a difference. And you don't even necessarily have to put off law school or anything when you retake (depending on when you do it). If you go to law school and lose your scholarship, you're screwed. Way, way, way different. You should be much more risk averse about losing your scholarship than not improving on the LSAT. One has no risk with no downside, the other has a ton of risk with a ton of downside.

Balance is fine if you have something to add. But making stuff up and throwing up bad advice just for the sake of saying something different is silliness.