Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=227514
merit scholars will tend to be more intelligent and from tonier zip codes
I love the implication that more intelligent people come from richer backgroundspoorer, less well-educated students ... richer, better-educated students
That's not what the author is saying, you idiot. He is saying that people from richer backgrounds have access to higher quality education (which is true).guano wrote:merit scholars will tend to be more intelligent and from tonier zip codesI love the implication that more intelligent people come from richer backgroundspoorer, less well-educated students ... richer, better-educated students
Ron Mexico wrote:That's not what the author is saying, you idiot. He is saying that people from richer backgrounds have access to higher quality education (which is true).guano wrote:merit scholars will tend to be more intelligent and from tonier zip codesI love the implication that more intelligent people come from richer backgroundspoorer, less well-educated students ... richer, better-educated students
So, you believe that the financial aid practices of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford are "incredibly stupid" and, with respect to them, "the system [is not] worthwhile"?PrideandGlory1776 wrote:No - merit scholarships are what makes the system worthwhile - everyone getting the same scholarship or getting no scholarship sounds about as American as a one party government controlling all the means of production, labor and private property - wonderfully communist and incredibly stupid.
sublime wrote:The 'Murica and "meritocracy" shit is entertaining and sad.
The most reasonable alternative would be need based aid only.
I think the alternative was need based aid not everyone getting the same scholarship, FYI. But this is 'merica not communist Russia works too...PrideandGlory1776 wrote:No - merit scholarships are what makes the system worthwhile - everyone getting the same scholarship or getting no scholarship sounds about as American as a one party government controlling all the means of production, labor and private property - wonderfully communist and incredibly stupid.
The financial aid policy of Harvard, Yale and Stanford make sense for those schools because they are the elite of the elite. If schools ranked lower than HYS were to adopt the same policy, how could they expect to attract students of HYS caliber? It seems like they would have to be content with attracting a lower caliber of students. The students it would graduate would, overall, be less successful, reducing the desirability of the institution both to future students and employers.LexLeon wrote:So, you believe that the financial aid practices of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford are "incredibly stupid" and, with respect to them, "the system [is not] worthwhile"?PrideandGlory1776 wrote:No - merit scholarships are what makes the system worthwhile - everyone getting the same scholarship or getting no scholarship sounds about as American as a one party government controlling all the means of production, labor and private property - wonderfully communist and incredibly stupid.
I'm unsure whether you understood an implication of my first post. If all the relevant schools switched to providing only need-based aid, all students would inevitably not receive the the same amount of aid.
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.Desert Fox wrote: 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.
Cutting merit scholarships does not mean you can't have PI-based scholarships. Apples and oranges.Cinderella wrote: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.
Exactly. Need based aid is stupid for professional schools. There's no reason a middle class student should end up with six figures of non-dischargeable debt to subsidize the legal education of another student. Tuition could be reduced for everyone if schools just stopped giving all forms of scholarships.Desert Fox wrote: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.
The fact that they do this by using Federal PLUS loan money should be, but isn't currently, criminal.
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.
The cost of legal education is so damn high than only really wealthy students can really get significant aid from their family.
EXACTLY. Who's to say who truly needs aid more than others? If my parents make an average income and I'm being compared to someone whose parents make below average income, but neither of us are receiving help from our parents to mitigate the cost of LS, then why should that person graduate with less debt than I do? Just because my parents might be better suited to take me in once I'm jobless and suicidal and another student's aren't?Desert Fox wrote: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.
The fact that they do this by using Federal PLUS loan money should be, but isn't currently, criminal.
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.
The cost of legal education is so damn high than only really wealthy students can really get significant aid from their family.
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.SFrost wrote: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.Desert Fox wrote: 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.
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.
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.SFrost wrote:Cutting merit scholarships does not mean you can't have PI-based scholarships. Apples and oranges.Cinderella wrote: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.
Schools already have ridiculously generous LRAP programs.Cinderella wrote: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.SFrost wrote:Cutting merit scholarships does not mean you can't have PI-based scholarships. Apples and oranges.Cinderella wrote: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.