$75K Total Scholarship at UVA - Worth It? Forum

[usa1492]

Hi - As the title suggests, UVA has awarded me a $75K scholarship, $25K per year. UVA is the highest ranked school that's accepted me this cycle, though I am on the waitlist at Penn and Columbia, two of the worst waitlists to be on. I have about $40K worth of undergraduate debt. I'm expecting the total COA at UVA to be about $180K. My numbers are 4.0/157/K-JD/URM. I think I'd be able to get a lot more money with about 5 or so more points on the LSAT but, of course, cannot predict whether I'd actually increase my score by that much if I were to retake. All things considered, do you think I should accept UVA's offer and attend, or should I retake in, say, September and reapply?

[GFox345]

Absolutely retake. Time is definitely not of the essence for attending law school, and cracking the 160s (or ideally higher) could get you absurd amounts of money. Take a year (or even two) off. Get some work experience and pay down some of your UG debt. Treat LSAT prep like it's a job and absolutely max out your score. Blanket the T14. And even in the unlikely event that you do not manage to raise your score, you will be a more well-rounded and hireable candidate in general come OCI with some work experience and perspective.

I really cannot emphasize enough how many times I've seen people rush into law school leaving tons of points on the LSAT on the table. They are wasting literally hundreds of thousands of dollars and seriously compromising their career options. It sounds like a long time now, but you will thank yourself a thousand times over if you really ensure that you have the best outcome you can achieve before you take the plunge into law school.

Hope this helps. Good luck.

[BansheeScream]

I'm not going to vote because I think there's some nuance to this question but I had a very similar financial situation to yours so I'll make the best effort to give you a breakdown of how it worked out for me.

I had around $30k worth of undergrad debt, and got the same amount to Duke (which I think is pretty comparable to UVA in terms of costs and job outcomes) as you did to UVA. My LSAT score was relatively low and I considered sitting out for a cycle and retaking but ultimately decided to matriculate. I want to preface this by saying that I got good grades, law review, good firm offer in a competitive market, but in hindsight I still probably would've taken two years off to work and retake.

A couple of reasons why:
-It seems like OCI is substantially easier for students with work experience. As a K-JD, I defintiely did not outperform my grades where it seemed like the older students did.
-$75k discount seems like a lot but unless you're getting money from somewhere else (parents schoalrship) financing the rest of your educaiton throuhg loans will result in $250kish in debt after interest (not including undergrad loans). May not seem terrible but it essentially ties you to big law. A retake or two and you're competitive for alot more money.
-Law school is not going anywhere and the experience of taking a year or two off could help you learn about the profession more. I thought my whole life I wanted to be a litigator, went to law school, figured out I hate legal writing and don't want to be a litigator. I'm going to a firm for regulatory/policy work but if I had a paralegaled for two years I could've figured out earlier that I didn't want to be a litigator and likely avoided law school for a more policy foccused career.

In your situation, I think it matters:
-How many times you've taken your LSAT and how long you studied (if that was your first take with minimal studying I would sit out and retake. If you you've studied for a year, taken it 4 times, and plateued at your current score, I would lean less towards retaking).
-How much you want to be a lawyer/how much exposure do you have to the actual practice of law. Do you know you want to be a lawyer because $250k in debt for a career you hate is a ton of money.
-What could you do in the meantime? Could you paralegal? Work in a field related to your major making good money?

The first one is the most important. A few more points you're looking at way more money, 10 more points and you're competitive at HLS.

Hope this helps.

[UVA2B]

Retake. This is easy.

[Npret]

Just retake and don’t waste your GPA and go needlessly into debt.

General question/rant:

Do 0Ls not understand number that law school admissions are numbers driven? I don’t understand someone with a 4.0 not retaking and in another thread a 3.8 not retaking.

I’ve been here a long time and maybe 0Ls remain as ignorant as ever about admissions? Or worse?

Studying for a standardized test is absurdly easy. You know the question types, the format and have plenty of practice exams as well as study materials and guides. You can only improve your chances of law school admissions. Thanks to a rule change a few years ago, you have unlimited retakes. Even if in some unlikely event you study correctly and do worse, your higher score will still remain.

You’re not going to have all these resources in law school exams to prepare for the single test defining your grade. At best you will have practice exams and model answers. It’s much smarter to put your best effort into the LSAT and get into the best school for you at the best price.

[usa1492]

I'm not going to vote because I think there's some nuance to this question but I had a very similar financial situation to yours so I'll make the best effort to give you a breakdown of how it worked out for me.

I had around $30k worth of undergrad debt, and got the same amount to Duke (which I think is pretty comparable to UVA in terms of costs and job outcomes) as you did to UVA. My LSAT score was relatively low and I considered sitting out for a cycle and retaking but ultimately decided to matriculate. I want to preface this by saying that I got good grades, law review, good firm offer in a competitive market, but in hindsight I still probably would've taken two years off to work and retake.

A couple of reasons why:
-It seems like OCI is substantially easier for students with work experience. As a K-JD, I defintiely did not outperform my grades where it seemed like the older students did.
-$75k discount seems like a lot but unless you're getting money from somewhere else (parents schoalrship) financing the rest of your educaiton throuhg loans will result in $250kish in debt after interest (not including undergrad loans). May not seem terrible but it essentially ties you to big law. A retake or two and you're competitive for alot more money.
-Law school is not going anywhere and the experience of taking a year or two off could help you learn about the profession more. I thought my whole life I wanted to be a litigator, went to law school, figured out I hate legal writing and don't want to be a litigator. I'm going to a firm for regulatory/policy work but if I had a paralegaled for two years I could've figured out earlier that I didn't want to be a litigator and likely avoided law school for a more policy foccused career.

In your situation, I think it matters:
-How many times you've taken your LSAT and how long you studied (if that was your first take with minimal studying I would sit out and retake. If you you've studied for a year, taken it 4 times, and plateued at your current score, I would lean less towards retaking).
-How much you want to be a lawyer/how much exposure do you have to the actual practice of law. Do you know you want to be a lawyer because $250k in debt for a career you hate is a ton of money.
-What could you do in the meantime? Could you paralegal? Work in a field related to your major making good money?

The first one is the most important. A few more points you're looking at way more money, 10 more points and you're competitive at HLS.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the insightful response. I took the LSAT once and had studied for about 4 hours per day for five months. I was PTing in the 160 to 163 range but screwed up on the games as they threw a curve ball on the July '18 exam (no standard sequencing game and a bizarre cyclical game, the likes of which I had not seen).

I've wanted to be a lawyer for as long as I could remember. I don't have any exposure to the actual practice of law, though. If I were to take a year off, I'm not sure what I'd do (aside from study, of course). I might be able to find a job as a paralegal, but that's not a safe assumption, as I've never had a "formal" job before. I've only ever worked in retail and things of that nature. I could likely find a job related to my major and make okay money, but I'm a business major at a "non-target" school and have subpar work experience, so the money likely wouldn't be that much.

[BansheeScream]

Yeah like the above responses state, I would definitely retake. The no formal job experience, plus the fact that you've only taken the LSAT once, are strong indicators that you should 100% take time off to work and retake. Especially if you were scoring 3-6 points higher before test day. Take a pre class, use a different book, etc. Whatever you need to do to maximize your potential on the LSAT.

Finding a job for a business major should not be that hard. You have a good GPA and 3 months until graduation. Leverage any connections you have, find something to do for a year or two, and study/retake.

[albanach]

As a UVA grad, I'd say your COA would in my opinion absolutely make UVA worth attending.

However, based on your stats, it would be a mistake not to retake. School will still be there in a year, and you're literally leaving a couple of hundred thousand on the table. There will be few things in life you can do that offer a better return on investment than retaking the LSAT.

[LSATWiz.com]

I agree it's a good offer to have but with that GPA and URM status, those thirteen points would effectively get you any school in the country.

[Npret]

OP I know I sound harsh or frustrated. Please understand that I and the other posters are here to help you get your best result for your career.

With a retake, you have the chance of going to UVA for a significant scholarship or going any other T14 school. No one here wants you to ruin your best opportunity to save significant money and start your career with little debt to repay.

Good luck.

[objctnyrhnr]

I think the following is worth saying, here:

Retaking is the right play, because it is the better option out of the two you presented.

That said, TLS is full of applicants in immensely worse positions than the one in which you find yourself. UVA with that scholly is an amazing option (even if it’s probably the worse of the two). Given URM status from that school, I bet you get a biglaw SA 2L and maybe even 1L as long as you do not perform horribly.

So I’m just posting this to 1. Yes I echo the overwhelming sentiment on this thread that a URM 4.0 is a horrible thing to waste and your options would increase a ton with even a 90th percentile Lsat score and it’s a super-learnable test, but also to say 2. UVA with a significant scholly as a URM is still a very very very good option.

That’s all. CongrTs on the gpa and good luck with whatever you decide.

[albanach]

I've wanted to be a lawyer for as long as I could remember. I don't have any exposure to the actual practice of law, though. If I were to take a year off, I'm not sure what I'd do (aside from study, of course). I might be able to find a job as a paralegal, but that's not a safe assumption, as I've never had a "formal" job before. I've only ever worked in retail and things of that nature. I could likely find a job related to my major and make okay money, but I'm a business major at a "non-target" school and have subpar work experience, so the money likely wouldn't be that much.

Please understand that you can work as a bartender or barista for a year and it will not in any way dent your law school options. Ideally you want a job that pays your rent and bills and allows you time outside to study. Once you have the LSAT score you need, use the extra time to rest.

If you are really set on law school and do take the advice to retake, don't go looking for a high level job that comes with overtime, as you'll get little or no benefit from that in admissions and if it reduces your ability to study for the LSAT it will cost you more than any salary bump it might offer.

[jsnow212]

As a UVA grad, I'd say your COA would in my opinion absolutely make UVA worth attending.

However, based on your stats, it would be a mistake not to retake. School will still be there in a year, and you're literally leaving a couple of hundred thousand on the table. There will be few things in life you can do that offer a better return on investment than retaking the LSAT.

Spend 300 hours studying for the LSAT, increase score by 5 points, get an extra 120k post tax(180 pre-tax). Excluding future interest, you are easily being paid $600+/hr to study for the LSAT.

[cavalier1138]

I've wanted to be a lawyer for as long as I could remember. I don't have any exposure to the actual practice of law, though.

Everyone else has adequately explained why you need to retake, so I'm going to focus on this part.

How do you know you want to be a lawyer if you have no idea what being a lawyer means? You said that you're not sure what you'd do with a year "off" except study for the LSAT. But what's stopping you from being a paralegal, investigator, etc. attached to an office you're interested in? That would give you some exposure to legal practice, and you'd maybe get a better idea of whether you actually want to be a lawyer (and what kind you'd like to be).

[usa1492]

I've wanted to be a lawyer for as long as I could remember. I don't have any exposure to the actual practice of law, though.

Everyone else has adequately explained why you need to retake, so I'm going to focus on this part.

How do you know you want to be a lawyer if you have no idea what being a lawyer means? You said that you're not sure what you'd do with a year "off" except study for the LSAT. But what's stopping you from being a paralegal, investigator, etc. attached to an office you're interested in? That would give you some exposure to legal practice, and you'd maybe get a better idea of whether you actually want to be a lawyer (and what kind you'd like to be).

Nothing at all. I just don't know how likely it'd be to find employment as a paralegal, investigator, etc. with no relevant experience. I could always build relevant experience, though.

[BaronBarrister]

OP, the other posters on this thread mean well, but the notion that you should turn down an incredible offer from a top 10 law school to retake the LSAT and work a year is just dreadful, terrible advice. I hope that you have not/are not basing your decision on the advice of strangers online who don't know your situation and may be projecting onto you their own regrets/ideas about what they would have done.

I will be very honest with you: you have an eimpressive GPA, but you were extremely lucky to crack the T14 with a 157 LSAT. The LSAT score is generally regarded as the most important piece of your law school application. Let me just give you some perspective on what LSAT medians are like at the T14: Georgetown, ranked at the end of the t14, has a median LSAT of 167. The median at UVA is about a 169. To be competitive for a school that's ranked higher than UVA (there are only 7, UVA is right at the T14 midpoint), you would have to score at LEAST a 168 (Penn, the next on the list, has the same median as UVA).

In addition, the fact that you studied for the LSAT for five months, four hours a day, tells me there may only be limited possibility for improvement. You would have to score at least TWELVE points higher to have a shot at something better.

So the risks are:

1) You fail to improve your LSAT score or hit your target score.
2) You don't find meaningful employment in the meantime (softs DO matter, including your resume - do not let anyone tell you that working as a waiter will not matter. There's nothing wrong with being a waiter, but it will make you look less impressive than an applicant with a year working at an investment bank, consulting firm, or well-known government agency.)
3) You end up with a worse cycle next year.

The possible benefits:

1) IF you improve your LSAT score, you would have slightly better options. This is very difficult to do.
2) More money in scholarships at the same or a similarly ranked school.

Even if everything works out perfectly, there are still drawbacks:

1) Opportunity of delaying acceptance at a top law school where graduates make a median of $180k.
2) Driving yourself insane studying for the LSAT for another year.
3) Having to worry about employment/finding a job/stresses of building your resume (the pressure will be even greater because you will want to find a job that will IMPROVE your chances from this cycle.)

All in all, I really see a lot of risk and very little upside to giving up an offer at UVA, with scholarship money, to try and achieve what other posters are suggesting. It isn't so easy like these other posters suggest, and you have a terrific option on the table.

Best of luck with your decision, and please feel free to PM!

[objctnyrhnr]

OP, the other posters on this thread mean well, but the notion that you should turn down an incredible offer from a top 10 law school to retake the LSAT and work a year is just dreadful, terrible advice. I hope that you have not/are not basing your decision on the advice of strangers online who don't know your situation and may be projecting onto you their own regrets/ideas about what they would have done.

I will be very honest with you: you have an eimpressive GPA, but you were extremely lucky to crack the T14 with a 157 LSAT. The LSAT score is generally regarded as the most important piece of your law school application. Let me just give you some perspective on what LSAT medians are like at the T14: Georgetown, ranked at the end of the t14, has a median LSAT of 167. The median at UVA is about a 169. To be competitive for a school that's ranked higher than UVA (there are only 7, UVA is right at the T14 midpoint), you would have to score at LEAST a 168 (Penn, the next on the list, has the same median as UVA).

In addition, the fact that you studied for the LSAT for five months, four hours a day, tells me there may only be limited possibility for improvement. You would have to score at least TWELVE points higher to have a shot at something better.

So the risks are:

1) You fail to improve your LSAT score or hit your target score.
2) You don't find meaningful employment in the meantime (softs DO matter, including your resume - do not let anyone tell you that working as a waiter will not matter. There's nothing wrong with being a waiter, but it will make you look less impressive than an applicant with a year working at an investment bank, consulting firm, or well-known government agency.)
3) You end up with a worse cycle next year.

The possible benefits:

1) IF you improve your LSAT score, you would have slightly better options. This is very difficult to do.
2) More money in scholarships at the same or a similarly ranked school.

Even if everything works out perfectly, there are still drawbacks:

1) Opportunity of delaying acceptance at a top law school where graduates make a median of $180k.
2) Driving yourself insane studying for the LSAT for another year.
3) Having to worry about employment/finding a job/stresses of building your resume (the pressure will be even greater because you will want to find a job that will IMPROVE your chances from this cycle.)

All in all, I really see a lot of risk and very little upside to giving up an offer at UVA, with scholarship money, to try and achieve what other posters are suggesting. It isn't so easy like these other posters suggest, and you have a terrific option on the table.

Best of luck with your decision, and please feel free to PM!

Subtle anti-Affirmative action trolling?

Anyway, I do think that this point is valid. Although I would not wholeheartedly endorse it, I note that I am the one poster on this thread thus far who expressed something somewhat similar (albeit considerably less emphatically).

Without touching on the merits of affirmative action (and I want to be very clear on that—if you take this comment to start a debate on the topic in this thread, I will at least warn you), the way that it is dealt with within LS admissions seems a bit of a black box; for example, it seems possible that there are certain specific quotas that directly correlate to merit aid. The reason this is important is because, as the prior poster brought up, you cannot necessarily predict that you will have as good a result at this school in a subsequent cycle of you happen to be unable to improve your Lsat. Even as a non-URM, you can’t guarantee the same or a similar result but it’s a lot more likely.

In sum, even though retaking and improving if there is room to do so is objectively the correct call, I think that some posters here may have been a bit quick to assume that you will necessarily be able to do that. To this end, I think the poster I quoted has a bit of a good point...now this is not necessarily a point that should carry the day, but it is nevertheless a point to consider.

[nixy]

I can see the argument that this isn’t a terrible outcome for the OP. I don’t agree with almost anything else BaronBarrister says, in part bc we don’t know anything about how the OP studied except how many hours a day. There’s lots of potentially unproductive hours in there. It’s possible the OP has hit their max score, but we just can’t tell from the current info. In fact, they were PTing at a higher range, so chances are actually good that they could still improve.

Also the final 3 drawbacks are basically irrelevant. No one is guaranteed a $180k job on graduation, not even UVA grads. One year to end up with less debt going in makes up for the opportunity cost of an entirely hypothetical future salary.

Also, the OP has never had a real job. I am positive that going out into the world and working (ideally at something that will actually get the OP exposure to the practice of law) will make the OP a better applicant for jobs in the future, even if the work they do now isn’t impressive, because they will have had some experience/practice actually applying for jobs and working, as opposed to none. I don’t think KJDs quite realize how big an adjustment this is. The value of this experience outweighs any “stress” or “pressure” from looking for a job.

Finally, if studying for the LSAT for a year “drives someone insane” I don’t know how they’re going to handle the stress of law school or actual practice.

Again, it’s not that the current option is terrible. If the OP had a high LSAT and terrible GPA the responses would probably be different. But it appears that better options are very plausible here.

[carsondalywashere]

I'm not going to vote because I think there's some nuance to this question but I had a very similar financial situation to yours so I'll make the best effort to give you a breakdown of how it worked out for me.

I had around $30k worth of undergrad debt, and got the same amount to Duke (which I think is pretty comparable to UVA in terms of costs and job outcomes) as you did to UVA. My LSAT score was relatively low and I considered sitting out for a cycle and retaking but ultimately decided to matriculate. I want to preface this by saying that I got good grades, law review, good firm offer in a competitive market, but in hindsight I still probably would've taken two years off to work and retake.

A couple of reasons why:
-It seems like OCI is substantially easier for students with work experience. As a K-JD, I defintiely did not outperform my grades where it seemed like the older students did.
-$75k discount seems like a lot but unless you're getting money from somewhere else (parents schoalrship) financing the rest of your educaiton throuhg loans will result in $250kish in debt after interest (not including undergrad loans). May not seem terrible but it essentially ties you to big law. A retake or two and you're competitive for alot more money.
-Law school is not going anywhere and the experience of taking a year or two off could help you learn about the profession more. I thought my whole life I wanted to be a litigator, went to law school, figured out I hate legal writing and don't want to be a litigator. I'm going to a firm for regulatory/policy work but if I had a paralegaled for two years I could've figured out earlier that I didn't want to be a litigator and likely avoided law school for a more policy foccused career.

In your situation, I think it matters:
-How many times you've taken your LSAT and how long you studied (if that was your first take with minimal studying I would sit out and retake. If you you've studied for a year, taken it 4 times, and plateued at your current score, I would lean less towards retaking).
-How much you want to be a lawyer/how much exposure do you have to the actual practice of law. Do you know you want to be a lawyer because $250k in debt for a career you hate is a ton of money.
-What could you do in the meantime? Could you paralegal? Work in a field related to your major making good money?

The first one is the most important. A few more points you're looking at way more money, 10 more points and you're competitive at HLS.

Hope this helps.

TCR

[carsondalywashere]

In addition, the fact that you studied for the LSAT for five months, four hours a day, tells me there may only be limited possibility for improvement. You would have to score at least TWELVE points higher to have a shot at something better.

Not true at all. It took me about six months of studying at a slightly higher volume to even crack 160, one year to get to 170. The key is what they are doing with their study time.

OP, feel free to PM to talk about the LSAT. I went from a 146 to a 172.

[BaronBarrister]

Subtle anti-Affirmative action trolling?

Excuse me, where did you see anything in my post that was remotely "anti-affirmative action?" I think unfounded accusations and assumptions of bad faith qualify as trolling far more than trying to advise a poster soliciting feedback on a very important decision.

The poster has indicated URM status and is clearly aware that confers a benefit, but no one on this noticeboard can quantify exactly how much of a benefit it will be. Therefore, it is utterly irresponsible to tell OP, or anyone, that s/he will be guaranteed admission at any school if he is below the LSAT median. The admissions chances may be very good, but it is ALWAYS a toss up when you aren't at that magical median.

Equally irresponsible are all of the posters telling OP that improving 10-15 points on the LSAT is "easy" or "no problem." There is a reason that only 1% of test takers score a 170 or above, and that's because it's an extremely difficult test. If this were all hypothetical and OP had not applied, retaking would be a very good move - but OP already has an offer of admission with $$ at a top 10 school. If OP had asked before applying whether to retake, then I think the response would have been a unanimous yes to get into a school like UVA. OP may well be able to score a 170, but from a 157, that would take an enormous amount of hard work WHILE trying to find a full-time job and earn a paycheck, something difficult to pull off, and risky because it would mean sacrificing an offer of admission from a top school.

Overall, I see very high risk and little benefit to OP to delay the offer and retake. If OP truly believes they can score a 170+ and is strongly committed to the whole prestige factor and wants HYS, that could be in reach with the GPA, particularly Harvard/Columbia which are very numbers-driven. However, there is also a strong chance it could not work out, and OP could sacrifice a top-10 LS seat and end up with a worse cycle next year. There are positives and negatives to both side, but a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.

[Bingo_Bongo]

Prior to reading this thread, I had no idea anybody could get into a T13 with a 157 LSAT score. I had no idea just how big of a factor that underrepresented trigger weighed. Granted, I've avoided that forum since I don't have any knowledge on the subject. Not commenting on anything. Just a little shocked.

[objctnyrhnr]

Subtle anti-Affirmative action trolling?

Excuse me, where did you see anything in my post that was remotely "anti-affirmative action?" I think unfounded accusations and assumptions of bad faith qualify as trolling far more than trying to advise a poster soliciting feedback on a very important decision.

The poster has indicated URM status and is clearly aware that confers a benefit, but no one on this noticeboard can quantify exactly how much of a benefit it will be. Therefore, it is utterly irresponsible to tell OP, or anyone, that s/he will be guaranteed admission at any school if he is below the LSAT median. The admissions chances may be very good, but it is ALWAYS a toss up when you aren't at that magical median.

Equally irresponsible are all of the posters telling OP that improving 10-15 points on the LSAT is "easy" or "no problem." There is a reason that only 1% of test takers score a 170 or above, and that's because it's an extremely difficult test. If this were all hypothetical and OP had not applied, retaking would be a very good move - but OP already has an offer of admission with $$ at a top 10 school. If OP had asked before applying whether to retake, then I think the response would have been a unanimous yes to get into a school like UVA. OP may well be able to score a 170, but from a 157, that would take an enormous amount of hard work WHILE trying to find a full-time job and earn a paycheck, something difficult to pull off, and risky because it would mean sacrificing an offer of admission from a top school.

Overall, I see very high risk and little benefit to OP to delay the offer and retake. If OP truly believes they can score a 170+ and is strongly committed to the whole prestige factor and wants HYS, that could be in reach with the GPA, particularly Harvard/Columbia which are very numbers-driven. However, there is also a strong chance it could not work out, and OP could sacrifice a top-10 LS seat and end up with a worse cycle next year. There are positives and negatives to both side, but a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.

Chill out. I’m the only person on this thread who agreed with you.

[nixy]

It's true that URM cycles can be upredictable, but pretty sure that the OP doesn't have to hit 170+ to get an improved outcome, and they were PTing higher than they scored.

[jsnow212]

It's true that URM cycles can be upredictable, but pretty sure that the OP doesn't have to hit 170+ to get an improved outcome, and they were PTing higher than they scored.

Yeah, the above discussion is moot. OP got $$ to a T-10 with a 157. All their non-LSAT boxes are clearly ticked.No way UVA is going to look at OP with +5 LSAT points and say "nah, we accepted you last time with money 10 point below our median but we won't do it again 5 points below."

OP's outcomes will clearly improve with each additional LSAT point.