In an effort to keep from annoying Greg and to be ‘fair’ I’ve pieced together this conversation into one post – Any comments that are left – I will update into this post for ease of reading.ORIGINAL POST - Money Pitt? ANDREW – 10/17/05So - I'm going to totally bitch about two things that law students bitch about a lot - Money & Grades.
So let me paint you a picture of some of the events surrounding my arrival at Pitt Law in the fall of 2004:
I applied to a bunch of law schools for matriculation in the Fall of 2003 - I was accepted at several of them, including Pitt. Pitt also offered me a generous scholarship - $12,000 a year for 3 years as long as I maintained a 3.0 - this was apparently based upon my LSAT score. Regardless - I wasn't sure that I wanted to start law school in 2003 - so I inquired as to the ramifications of deferral, specifically w/r/to the scholarship. The response was a "We can't guarantee anything" (Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge) but you can expect the same next year. Whatever, so when I sent out my 2004 Apps, I sent a letter to Pitt re-activating my admissions status. Long story short - NO MONEY FOR ME. Apparently their [Pitt Law] application pool's AVG LSAT score increased a point or two placing me outside the range for free money. Whatever.
But I still decided to go to Pitt b/c I liked the school/city/program....and because they told me that if I did well that I would be eligible for Cash during my second year. Promises, promises......b/c I did fairly well my first year - and yet still NO money.
Whatever - I had accepted this....until today, when a certain letter was deposited into our student mailboxes which has fanned my waning flames of discontent.
The letter was from the Dean and it related to Bar Exam passage rates. Apparently if you are in the Top 30% of your class you have a 98% chance of passing the bar, whereas if you are in the Bottom 30% of your class you only have a 50/50 chance of passing. How does this relate to my aforementioned rant......well because apparently those who have a 3.04 GPA or below are in the Bottom 30% or our class, and all those people who received scholarships based solely on their LSAT scores only need to maintain a 3.0 in order to keep their scholarships (and I'm told that this is sometimes flexible).
So here is the practical import of this information - you can be getting a 5 figure scholarship from the university based on your score on a Standardized test and maintain this scholarship as long as you don't fall below the 28th/29th percentile (tough threshold for tens of thousands of dollars in free money) OR you can be me who is above the 70th percentile in the class and yet I get no money b/c my LSAT score was a 162 as opposed to a 163.....What kind of fucked up arrangement is this.
Now of course I don't begrudge anyone who is receiving a scholarship, the benefit of that scholarship - but you have to admit (as Throck noted on her blog) that its pretty fucked up that one can be a "Scholarship Student" and be nowhere near the top of the class - I mean really, the policy is just a touch inequitable. And it really fucking disadvantages me!
GREG’S COMMENTS – 10/17/05Think about it this way. The policy makes complete sense when you think about the motivation for giving the scholarships. That motivation is primarily, and I would submit, completely, to attract students with higher qualifications to attend the law school, regardless of what the school determines those qualifications to be. Why is this their motivation you ask? because a major factor in determining law school rankings is the LSAT scores and undergrad GPA's of incoming 1L's. Therefore, I would submit, a more sensical policy would be to get rid of any GPA mainenance requirement whatsoever. It was an exchange relationship... the law school already got what it wanted when it got a student who had at least a 163LSAT score to enroll, the student get what was promised regardless of subsequent GPA (assuming ability to actually stay in school)
ADDENDUM in Response to Alabaster Underwear.ANDREW – 10/18/05Actually - Selectivity (comprised of GPA and LSAT score) only makes up 23% of the ranking. Placement Success (comprised of Employment Rates at Graduation & Bar Passage Rates) make up a comparable 20% of the ranking.
As today's letter indicated - Performance relative to ones classmates seems to have some correlation to Bar Passage, and I'm willing to wager that grades also have a correlation to employment at graduation.
Accordingly - I would submit that at are probably a wash when it comes to 'the ranking'.
Further - do you honestly think that the maintenance requirement should be eliminated.....what kind of perverse incentive structure would that create - Talk about no motivation to even put in the bare minimum - If someone is getting the cash regardless...who cares.
I'm not saying that Free Money shouldn't be awarded on the basis of LSAT scores - I'm just saying that it should also be awarded on how one performs once they're in the door - it seems like a pretty equitable principle to me. This isn't "The Program", it's not Big Ten athletics - and nobody at Pitt Law is such a prized possession that the Law School needs to have them. Such that they need to 'make it happen' by giving tens of thousands of dollars for an LSAT score - 'no questions asked' - That's just plain preposterous!
A response to a response
(from alabasterunderwear.blogspot.com)GREG – 10/18/05First of all it is annoying that Andrew had to amend his original post to respond to my comments thereby circumventing the process of argument, response, rebuttal, rebuttal of rebuttal etc.
It would be much more fair to keep responses in the comment box so that one may read the progression of the conversation instead of just getting one side of the story first, or in many cases, just getting one side of the story period. (empirical evidence shows that comments on blogs are read only 39% of the time)
So I felt the need to respond here to make my point of view just as visible.
Andrew's points are in quotes because this fucking piece of crap blogging software won't let me italicize right now.
Andrew: "Actually - Selectivity (comprised of GPA and LSAT score) only makes up 23% of the ranking. Placement Success (comprised of Employment Rates at Graduation & Bar Passage Rates) make up a comparable 20% of the ranking."
Thank you for making my point Andrew... as I said "a major factor in determining law school rankings is the LSAT scores and undergrad GPA's of incoming 1L's"
If you disagree with me that 23% is a "major factor" then you are just plain silly. That placement success makes up "a comparable 20% of the ranking" detracts in no way from that statement.
Andrew: "As today's letter indicated - Performance relative to ones classmates seems to have some correlation to Bar Passage, and I'm willing to wager that grades also have a correlation to employment at graduation.
Accordingly - I would submit that at are probably a wash when it comes to 'the ranking'."
Yeah... so? My point was the law school has made a choice that it will make an effort to raise or maintain it's status/ranking by trying to raise the LSAT scores of incoming 1L's. Again, that placement/bar passage is also a factor in rankings in no way suggests that the primary reason for giving scholarships BASED ON LSAT SCORES is to try to increase their competetiveness in that area of law school rankings.
In addition, since law school grades are heavily curved and placement is based very much on that status of the school to begin with, The "placement" factor seems even less meaningful. It creates a cyclical situation... placement rates based on status/ranking of the school based on placement rates based on status based on placement rates etc. If we had a rankings system based only on placement rates there would never be any mobility amongst schools. I guess what I am getting at is the law school can more directly control the LSAT scores of its students by offering scholarship money than it can placement rates.
Andrew: "Further - do you honestly think that the maintenance requirement should be eliminated.....what kind of perverse incentive structure would that create - Talk about no motivation to even put in the bare minimum - If someone is getting the cash regardless...who cares."
Yes I do. "who cares", you ask? you shouldn't be in law school if you only want to make the bare minimum to maintain your scholarship. Competition and the desire to get the job of your choosing post-graduation should be all the motivation a scholarship, or any other, law student needs.
Andrew: "I'm not saying that Free Money shouldn't be awarded on the basis of LSAT scores - I'm just saying that it should also be awarded on how one performs once they're in the door - it seems like a pretty equitable principle to me. This isn't "The Program", it's not Big Ten athletics - and nobody at Pitt Law is such a prized possession that the Law School needs to have them. Such that they need to 'make it happen' by giving tens of thousands of dollars for an LSAT score - 'no questions asked' - That's just plain preposterous!"
I certainly agree to some extent that law school cashola should also be awarded on how one performs once they are in the door. It is my understanding that, at one time, Pitt did just that, granting new merit scholarships to those who performed well their first year. However if they want to improve their status, I maintain that pre-admission awards do more to attain that goal than post-admission awards. This is due in large part to the curve. while it is not exact, for the most part, the cut off GPA lines for those who are at 30%, 50% etc. of their class ranking is pretty much pre determined. If Bob doesn't get the 3rd A in legal process, chances are pretty good someone else will.
I don't know how much of the above makes sense, because I'm so tired I'm barely conscious, but it makes sense to me and my mommy says that's all that matters.
GRANT’S COMMENTS – 10/18/05Your math is screwy. The 3.04 number is for the class of 2005, a class that has had two years of non-curved grades in order to lift their gpa from first year forced curve grades. The 30 percentile gpa for class of 2006 was a 2.95. Extrapolating these numbers backward, and forward, it says to me that the 30 percentile number is a 2.8 for our class. Which definitely wouldn't qualify for scholarship renewal. Don't get too overwrought. Your emotions are getting in the way of your reason.
BARE MINIMA AND FUZZY MATHANDREW – 10/18/05Fuzzy Math:I’m going to respond to Grant first, because I want to….and it’s my blog and I can do what I want.
I don’t really care about the math – it doesn’t need to be exact to make my point. I didn’t have the letter in front of me when I drafted the post b/c it doesn’t matter all that much? It is clear that regardless of any extrapolation, the 3.0 – ‘I get to keep my scholarship’ - number isn’t in the top half of the class. So the irony of the situation, that the majority of your classmates do better in school and yet you still receive a scholarship, still exists.
BTW the ‘you’ that I’m using is a general ‘you’ – not specifically directed at anyone.
Also – as per extrapolating backwards – is there any reason to think that we should extrapolate backwards???? And with only two previous data points, is it wise to assume a linear relationship?? I’m not saying that it doesn’t, I’m just curious.
And yes – I’m a touch pissed about the situation, but just because I am [angry, happy, sad, etc.] and my math is a little fuzzy, it doesn’t follow that my reason is flawed.
Bare Minima:Onto Greg.
I hope this ‘combined’ post satisfies your visibility concerns – the reason that I updated my post was that I hate commenting on my own blog and then getting that annoying e-mail notification from myself – I wasn’t attempted to silence your voice.
As per LSAT scores – My point wasn’t that they didn’t matter when computed into the Law School Rankings; my point was simply that they weren’t the ONLY factor (by themselves they only comprise 12.5% of the ranking). I most certainly agree with you that the law school gives scholarships to get higher-qualified applicants to matriculate. I was only saying that it is a non-sensical policy such that the law school is giving away a shitload of money based on a Test Score (which does impact their ranking) and continuing to fund that stream of cash flow based on minimal relative performance criteria. Whereas, people who perform well it law school, who don’t necessarily have the 163, also greatly contribute to the law schools ranking….employment at graduation, near certain bar passage, journal activities (which impact the 40% peer assessment criteria), etc.
I’m only saying that there are plenty of people who don’t have the 163, who may be contributing to ‘the ranking’ more so than the 163ers – and they don’t see a goddamn dime from the law school.
I’m simply making a fairness argument – if the school is going to utilize is MONEY to affect it’s ‘ranking’ (and I’m not so sure that is the best academic use of funds, but whatever) I think that they do so in a very inequitable manner.
And though, you may be right such that during the application phase the law school won’t be able to predict performance or placement, and thus may be forced to rely on LSAT – that doesn’t mean that the Law School is powerless to adjust its funding during a class’s respective second and third year. Certainly a base proposition of ‘better than average’ isn’t out of line in order to keep getting your ten grand.
And as per your last point that “you shouldn’t be in law school if you only want to make the bare minimum….” I agree with you entirely – but just because that statement is correct in the abstract doesn’t mean that it translates into reality. This is seriously almost identical to something I said earlier about healthcare…”We all know what we should do, but often we don’t do it” – I think that has some relevance here – because you’re absolutely right – Everyone in law school should be working to do their absolute best, but how many times have you or I or any of us said “Eh, fuck the reading, let’s go have a drink.”
I would submit that LSAT Money recipients who would be tempted to say “Fuck the reading” might do so less if there were higher maintenance requirements. This is just my hunch, but it seems logical – taking into account human nature, etc. – But of course, this isn’t something that I’m really willing to go do an outright sociological study to prove….so feel free to disagree – but I still think I’m right.
Lastly, as I said in my first post – I’m happy for everyone on the PittLaw Dole, but I just feel like I’ve been continually fucked over by the Law School Money Department. And ranking’s aside – It still seems a little unfair to me that I’m above the 70th percentile and get no money, yet people hanging out at the 30th percentile are raking in ten grand a year.
Whatever, such is life.
Note: all math is estimated to the best of my rudimentary ability.
