Is offering the Hamilton morally wrong? Forum

[manu6926]

...

[Cinderella]

Cutting merit scholarships could disincentivize doing public interest work. If you go into law school knowing you want to do PI, you can take a scholarship at a lower ranked school. If you don't have that option, you'll go to the highest ranked school, and then probably pursue biglaw to service the debt.

Cutting merit scholarships does not mean you can't have PI-based scholarships. Apples and oranges.

How do you decide who gets a PI scholarship? Everyone who wants one? If not, then it still disincentivizes PI for those who don't get one, and possibly becomes a de-facto merit scholarship.

Schools already have ridiculously generous LRAP programs.

Hell just the public interest debt forgiveness is all the encouragement PI folks need.

I disagree. Especially given the risk of not finding a PI job before you have to start paying, or being laid off before the debt is forgiven, or getting a raise that, while not all that generous, would disqualify you for LRAP, or marrying someone who makes too much for you to qualify, or a million other things that can go wrong with the current set up.

It's also a preference thing, if you don't want to pay any percentage of your salary towards loans, or have debt hanging over your head for any amount of time, when you didn't go to law school for the money and don't look at it as a financial investment.

[sublime]

..

[manu6926]

...

[UnicornHunter]

Merit scholarships are a huge waste of money. Schools throw huge money at students barely more qualified than their average student just to game USNEWs. It's stupid.

"It is far from irrational for USNWR to use median LSAT and GPA to rank schools. Student LSAT and GPA scores are, unsurprisingly, significantly correlated with law school performance. So it’s meaningful to say that the student body at a higher ranked school tends to be “better” than the student body at a lower-ranked school. Employers can use school rank as a proxy in making employment decisions – schools are a convenient aggregation of students of a given talent level."

Law schools wish to fill their entering class with students that are most likely to do well in law school and thus to have a student body most attractive to employers.

With forced curves, any given class is going to have the same distribution of grades no matter what, so the correlation of LSAT and GPA to law school performance has nothing to do with how employers see the student body.

That being said, there is obviously a very compelling reason for law schools to want the "smartest" students possible, so it does make sense to compete for high LSATs/GPAs. Your conclusion is right, but your reasoning is wrong.

[09042014]

Merit scholarships are a huge waste of money. Schools throw huge money at students barely more qualified than their average student just to game USNEWs. It's stupid.

"It is far from irrational for USNWR to use median LSAT and GPA to rank schools. Student LSAT and GPA scores are, unsurprisingly, significantly correlated with law school performance. So it’s meaningful to say that the student body at a higher ranked school tends to be “better” than the student body at a lower-ranked school. Employers can use school rank as a proxy in making employment decisions – schools are a convenient aggregation of students of a given talent level."

Law schools wish to fill their entering class with students that are most likely to do well in law school and thus to have a student body most attractive to employers.

1) Law schools grade on curves. You can't have a classes that do better in law school. Average GPA is the same no matter what.

2) The correlation between Law grades and on-the-job performance is pretty low.

3) The correlation between UGPA/LSAT and law grades is somewhat low.

4) Combining 2 and 3, the correlation between UGPA/LSAT and on the job performance is low.

5) The difference between UGPA/LSAT between someone paying full price at a school and someone getting a full ride is basically within the margin of error.

6) Schools select mostly for pure numbers gaming purposes. 168/3.7's pay full price, 167/3.7's don't even get in, and 169/3.4's get half rides despite being the worst UGA/LSAT combo of the three.

7) Combine 5 and 6 to see that schools are barely getting better students.

Combine 7 with 4, and the result is de minimis benefit from merit scholarships.

Finally, the proof is in the pudding. Stanford has had CCN level student quality for a decade and nobody gives a shit. Boalt has had sub T14 and nobody gives a shit.

[SFrost]

However, need aid is pointless for the professional level. Everyone has a college degree. That puts them at an equal footing, especially since families don't typically pay grad school tuition. A person whose mom is poor as fuck has just as much need as someone whose parents make 150k and live in Northern Virginia. Probably 75%+ of students aren't getting any help from family, at all. So need aid just doesn't make sense.

You completely miss the point of need-based aid. Someone who never met their father and has a disabled, unemployed mother assumes more risk going in debt than someone with a huge fall-back system in the form of family.

Even if your family doesn't intend to help with law school, if you come from an upper middle class background (which a large portion of law students do) then you assume less risk than someone with no support system.

Not with the federal loan repayment options based on income (IBR and PAYE). That eliminates people from getting their wages garnished and from not being able to afford basics.

That depends on how you define risk. Going into 25 years of IBR is not a rosey outcome.

In my experience, anecdotally, people from privileged backgrounds rarely appreciate just how privileged they are. Not receiving pure cash for tuition does not mean a large portion of law students don't receive significant support, including in the alleviation of risk.

[sublime]

..

[SFrost]

What is the evidence that LSAT and uGPA don't correlate to law school performance? Since law schools typically admit a narrow range of combinations (or holistically-equalized numbers) and since you can't easily compare between law schools, how do you arrive at this conclusion?

For example: Cooley admits very low LSAT/GPA and therefore has to fail much of its 1L class.

[sublime]

..

[SFrost]

What is the evidence that LSAT and uGPA don't correlate to law school performance? Since law schools typically admit a narrow range of combinations (or holistically-equalized numbers) and since you can't easily compare between law schools, how do you arrive at this conclusion?

For example: Cooley admits very low LSAT/GPA and therefore has to fail much of its 1L class.

The studies/data is somewhere on lsac.

I recall seeing something like that. However, that was within the same school I believe. Meaning, if a school admits similar quality candidates (regardless of LSAT/GPA) that doesn't mean LSAT and GPA don't predict performance, it means schools admit people with lower LSAT/GPAs who have other evidence of their performance. Across all LSAT/GPA I would predict a strong correlation.

[09042014]

However, need aid is pointless for the professional level. Everyone has a college degree. That puts them at an equal footing, especially since families don't typically pay grad school tuition. A person whose mom is poor as fuck has just as much need as someone whose parents make 150k and live in Northern Virginia. Probably 75%+ of students aren't getting any help from family, at all. So need aid just doesn't make sense.

You completely miss the point of need-based aid. Someone who never met their father and has a disabled, unemployed mother assumes more risk going in debt than someone with a huge fall-back system in the form of family.

Even if your family doesn't intend to help with law school, if you come from an upper middle class background (which a large portion of law students do) then you assume less risk than someone with no support system.

Not with the federal loan repayment options based on income (IBR and PAYE). That eliminates people from getting their wages garnished and from not being able to afford basics.

That depends on how you define risk. Going into 25 years of IBR is not a rosey outcome.

In my experience, anecdotally, people from privileged backgrounds rarely appreciate just how privileged they are. Not receiving pure cash for tuition does not mean a large portion of law students don't receive significant support, including in the alleviation of risk.

But the vast majority of law students aren't privileged. I'm not arguing that people with rich parents don't see benefits.

But the average law student is really only getting minimal support or risk alleviation. Your parents who make 150k in Northern Virginia aren't going to be able to afford to help pay the loans. Maybe they'll buy you a ticket home for spring break, but big fucking deal.

[Balthy]

Merit scholarships are a huge waste of money. Schools throw huge money at students barely more qualified than their average student just to game USNEWs. It's stupid.

"It is far from irrational for USNWR to use median LSAT and GPA to rank schools. Student LSAT and GPA scores are, unsurprisingly, significantly correlated with law school performance. So it’s meaningful to say that the student body at a higher ranked school tends to be “better” than the student body at a lower-ranked school. Employers can use school rank as a proxy in making employment decisions – schools are a convenient aggregation of students of a given talent level."

Law schools wish to fill their entering class with students that are most likely to do well in law school and thus to have a student body most attractive to employers.

1) Law schools grade on curves. You can't have a classes that do better in law school. Average GPA is the same no matter what.

2) The correlation between Law grades and on-the-job performance is pretty low.

3) The correlation between UGPA/LSAT and law grades is somewhat low.

4) Combining 2 and 3, the correlation between UGPA/LSAT and on the job performance is low.

5) The difference between UGPA/LSAT between someone paying full price at a school and someone getting a full ride is basically within the margin of error.

6) Schools select mostly for pure numbers gaming purposes. 168/3.7's pay full price, 167/3.7's don't even get in, and 169/3.4's get half rides despite being the worst UGA/LSAT combo of the three.

7) Combine 5 and 6 to see that schools are barely getting better students.

Combine 7 with 4, and the result is de minimis benefit from merit scholarships.

Finally, the proof is in the pudding. Stanford has had CCN level student quality for a decade and nobody gives a shit. Boalt has had sub T14 and nobody gives a shit.

Solid post.

[SFrost]

But the vast majority of law students aren't privileged. I'm not arguing that people with rich parents don't see benefits.

But the average law student is really only getting minimal support or risk alleviation. Your parents who make 150k in Northern Virginia aren't going to be able to afford to help pay the loans. Maybe they'll buy you a ticket home for spring break, but big fucking deal.

The really sad/funny part here is that you don't consider a family making 150k phenomenally privileged.

And there was a link here recently that showed law students came from the most privileged backgrounds, on average, among professional students. Popular opinion and perception certainly support that notion.

Your attitude is certainly one I got used to during my college days. "Oh I couldn't afford my cell bill this month, but dad got it". "If I can't make rent this month I'll have to ask my parents". etc. etc. etc. Ask any of them, though, and they 'put themselves' through college

[A. Nony Mouse]

What is the evidence that LSAT and uGPA don't correlate to law school performance? Since law schools typically admit a narrow range of combinations (or holistically-equalized numbers) and since you can't easily compare between law schools, how do you arrive at this conclusion?

For example: Cooley admits very low LSAT/GPA and therefore has to fail much of its 1L class.

Cooley doesn't have to fail much of its 1L class. It chooses to fail much of its 1L class because it has chosen to grade on a fixed curve that mandates that in each class, a certain percentage of students fail. If that curve was imposed at CCN then the same percentage of students there would fail, too.

(I mean, I get that Cooley stats are really low and many of the students who fail aren't very good at academic stuff and would have a hard time passing the bar. But it's not like there's an objective judge in the sky mandating that Cooley has to fail them; Cooley has decided to grade in such a way to fail them.)

[arklaw13]

Need-only aid is what most of the top UG's do now anyway right? I don't see what the big deal in switching to that would be.

[Pneumonia]

But the vast majority of law students aren't privileged. I'm not arguing that people with rich parents don't see benefits.

But the average law student is really only getting minimal support or risk alleviation. Your parents who make 150k in Northern Virginia aren't going to be able to afford to help pay the loans. Maybe they'll buy you a ticket home for spring break, but big fucking deal.

The really sad/funny part here is that you don't consider a family making 150k phenomenally privileged.

And there was a link here recently that showed law students came from the most privileged backgrounds, on average, among professional students. Popular opinion and perception certainly support that notion.

Your attitude is certainly one I got used to during my college days. "Oh I couldn't afford my cell bill this month, but dad got it". "If I can't make rent this month I'll have to ask my parents". etc. etc. etc. Ask any of them, though, and they 'put themselves' through college

Yeah everyone hates that attitude and DF isn't advocating it of failing to recognize that it exists. The point is that whether your parents make 30k or 100k, if they can't afford to help with your tuition or choose not to do so then "need" aid doesn't make sense. Almost all law students considered by themselves have the same level of "need," and since most law students don't receive parental help it doesn't make sense to treat them as though the do.

[beepboopbeep]

But the vast majority of law students aren't privileged. I'm not arguing that people with rich parents don't see benefits.

But the average law student is really only getting minimal support or risk alleviation. Your parents who make 150k in Northern Virginia aren't going to be able to afford to help pay the loans. Maybe they'll buy you a ticket home for spring break, but big fucking deal.

The really sad/funny part here is that you don't consider a family making 150k phenomenally privileged.

And there was a link here recently that showed law students came from the most privileged backgrounds, on average, among professional students. Popular opinion and perception certainly support that notion.

Your attitude is certainly one I got used to during my college days. "Oh I couldn't afford my cell bill this month, but dad got it". "If I can't make rent this month I'll have to ask my parents". etc. etc. etc. Ask any of them, though, and they 'put themselves' through college

+1.

Merit-only aid is what most of the top UG's do now anyway right? I don't see what the big deal in switching to that would be.

No. Had full need-based grants at UofC undergrad. Most top UGs have incredibly generous need-based aid, often promising no loans for students whose parents make under a certain threshold.

[beepboopbeep]

Yeah everyone hates that attitude and DF isn't advocating it of failing to recognize that it exists. The point is that whether your parents make 30k or 100k, if they can't afford to help with your tuition or choose not to do so then "need" aid doesn't make sense. Almost all law students considered by themselves have the same level of "need," and since most law students don't receive parental help it doesn't make sense to treat them as though the do.

There's a big difference between a family making 30k vs 100k in terms of ability to help a student with loan payments, fill in gaps that loans don't cover, help a struggling student get a job, etc. I say this as someone whose parents made <30k throughout undergrad but now make >100k.

Please don't quote that last bit, btw.

[arklaw13]

Merit-only aid is what most of the top UG's do now anyway right? I don't see what the big deal in switching to that would be.

No. Had full need-based grants at UofC undergrad. Most top UGs have incredibly generous need-based aid, often promising no loans for students whose parents make under a certain threshold.

meant need-only aid. my bad

[Pneumonia]

Yeah I totally agree bbb but "ability" does not mean "willingness." This is even more true in grad school than it is in UG.

[jbagelboy]

It's actually shocking how many people, by virtue of their comments in this thread, either clearly didn't read the article, or were wholly unable to appreciate the nuance of the author's argument. Those who blindly repeated the antithesis of the first paragraph on meritocracy need to improve their reading comprehension before starting law school.

Also re: title, I don't think the scholarship at schools like Columbia and UChicago are the target of the author's concern. Another mischaracterization.

[jbagelboy]

The primary criticism I'd have of the article is that the author either omits or is unaware of the aggressive affirmative action policies pursued by the vast majority of ABA law schools, and that these policies extend to "merit" aid as well as admission. So the merit scholarships themselves internally counteract some of the indirect discriminatory effect.

[bleakchimera2]

.

[09042014]

But the vast majority of law students aren't privileged. I'm not arguing that people with rich parents don't see benefits.

But the average law student is really only getting minimal support or risk alleviation. Your parents who make 150k in Northern Virginia aren't going to be able to afford to help pay the loans. Maybe they'll buy you a ticket home for spring break, but big fucking deal.

The really sad/funny part here is that you don't consider a family making 150k phenomenally privileged.

And there was a link here recently that showed law students came from the most privileged backgrounds, on average, among professional students. Popular opinion and perception certainly support that notion.

Your attitude is certainly one I got used to during my college days. "Oh I couldn't afford my cell bill this month, but dad got it". "If I can't make rent this month I'll have to ask my parents". etc. etc. etc. Ask any of them, though, and they 'put themselves' through college

150k a year isn't phenomenally privileged in Northern Virginia. They sure as fuck aren't struggling, but their kids got to public schools, they all work for a living, and they definitely cannot afford to just pay off their kids loans.

My point was even someone who makes a really good living can't just put their kid though law school.

Your attitude is certainly one I got used to during my college days. "Oh I couldn't afford my cell bill this month, but dad got it". "If I can't make rent this month I'll have to ask my parents". etc. etc. etc. Ask any of them, though, and they 'put themselves' through college

The difference is the everyone is taking out loans for the most part. Middle class families don't tend to put their kids though law school like they do undergrad. I'm not arguing that we should stop need aid at the UG level, but everyone at law school is a full on 100% adult. One who has already been privileged to get a UG degree.

Being able to borrow small amounts of money from your parents is an advantage but it's not a large one. If you want to set up some sort of free loan program for people with no net, sure thats a great idea. But charging middle class people more money just so the poorer gets half tuiton when the average middle person is facing 100% of the debt? That's stupid.

Also, measuring need aid before a professional degree that qualifies you for the upper middle class is plain old retarded. Give them need based aid so they don't have loans while they work at Cadwalader? Instead of doing this you can C=======3 me off