@welschmeyer300 said:

Depends on what your definition of "very low ranked" is, but Davis sounds quite good.

It's a rank not published school, located in Northern California as well.

@jennamaree1835 said:

What would you like to do with your law degree and where would you like to do it?

Congrats!

Thank you! I am hoping to work in the San Francisco Bay Area in the private sector (not big law) doing employment or education law.

@ohnoeshalpme804 said:

@ohnoeshalpme804 said:

@ohnoeshalpme804 said:

This is all still assuming that you have control over where you place on the curve. The evidence is mostly the other way. Most law school students seem to study close to as hard as they can and some do poorly against each other on the curve anyway. This is due to ability which you probably have to take a law school exam to measure. There isn't an incentive no matter how powerful which will help you if success is not within your control.

Is there a reason to assume that @jennamaree1835 wouldn't find unemployment with some debt a strong enough incentive to study? If there is and Jemmar does have influence over his or her grades, the stipulation is still a bad thing. He/she could create the same effect if they wanted by making a 50,000 or 100,000 dollar one way bet with a family member on their law school grades where they paid their family member if they didn't get good enough grades if they were convinced they needed the incentive. At least then the personal tragedy would harm one person in the family while helping another.

If you want to talk "evidence" then take into consideration the fact that @jennamaree1835 is above the 75th percentile for both GPA and LSAT. The latter of which is the most predictive factor for law school success. In such an instance, it would certainly seem that @jennamaree1835 will have considerable control over where they will place on the curve.

To your second point, I agree, it would have a similar effect. You're merely defining what a negative incentive is here. But you still haven't made a compelling argument for why or how such an incentive will have a negative impact. In part, this is because incentives are subjective; as I have stated previously, no incentive is equivalent for all people under all circumstances.

Saying that "if she fails then it's bad" isn't productive. You're just defining one of the negative payoffs in the matrix. Not whether a decision itself is good or bad.

The idea that she will place well because she is above the 75ths or because she works hard because of some incentive is not true. I can see why you would think it would be true. It would be if we were talking about having a really good SAT or ACT and working hard in most undergrad majors, but it's not true in law school because law school exams are fundamentally different and new. LSAT and GPA together explain about 25% of the variation in law school grades. That's not enough to count on doing well because you are above the 75ths. And knowing that before taking a scholarship with stips is not fruitless. It is pivotal to @jennamaree1835 making a good decision. She shouldn't be under the delusion that she will be able to mantain the scholarship simply by trying hard.

She should try hard(whatever the incentives), but she can't know until she already is in law school whether that and her law school exam taking ability(which she has very little information about) will enable her to do well enough to keep the scholarship. That is why it is incredibly risky to take a scholarship with stipulations. I probably wouldn't do it unless I was willing to go even if I lost the scholarship.

I also have the option of going to a "Rank Not Published" school for full tuition with no stipulations. So tempting and it's near the area I want to live and practice. I would have virtually zero debt due to my family paying cost of living. Same employment stats as the school with scholarship stipulations and about the same bar pass rate (same as CA state average)......thoughts?

@ar660 said:

Have you asked to have the stipulations removed? I have heard of people doing that as a negotiating tactic (and succeeding). The worst thing they could say is no...

Just a thought.

I tried asking for more money and they replied that they don't negotiate any of their scholarships, so kinda scared to ask again lol

@welschmeyer300 said:

@jennamaree1835 said:

Have to maintain a 3.0 GPA at the end of each year to keep the scholarship. I feel like I could do this though (have at or above the 75% LSAT and GPA at SC)

Is Santa Clara one of those law schools that place all of their scholarship students into designated sections? I can't recall what the term is called, but I heard that's a quite common policy among certain schools (particularly lower-ranked ones).

If it is, Hastings might be the better choice.

They aren't! I asked one of the admissions officers and they said they create sections based on a randomized generator that mixes students based on LSAT/GPA scores so each section has high and low students.

@lucykelly459 said:

Is the scholarship conditional? If so, what are the conditions? Here's hoping for a UC-Davis acceptance soon.

Have to maintain a 3.0 GPA at the end of each year to keep the scholarship. I feel like I could do this though (have at or above the 75% LSAT and GPA at SC)

@jennamaree1835 said:

We are talking about two law schools where there is a real possibility you will not be able to find a legal job or not be able to find a PSLF qualifying job so you can pay back any debt you aquire.

If you can keep cost of living fairly low(live cheaply with roommates) then I would go with McGeorge because if things go badly they won't leave you with as crippling a debt load. Definitely try to negotiate both scholarships up though.

Finally, if you don't like McGeorge and don't want to take the risk of being significantly in debt at a school with Santa Clara's employment numbers, then wait a cycle, consider retaking, and reapply.

]

@rileymajeunefagan676 my PT average was a 157. the week before the test I did two PT's and got a 153 (my lowest score ever) and 160 (my highest score ever) and I was consistently BR'ing in the mid-high 160s. My goal is to be in high 150's/low 160's

@rileymajeunefagan676 said:

My response from a similar thread:

There are virtually no advantages to cancelling.

No schools average [LSAT scores]. Some people claim that Yale does, but there is no evidence for this. There is in fact evidence that they do not. Schools only care about the highest.

My advice: do not cancel.

Google "Do Law Schools View Multiple LSAT Attempts as a Negative?" for a blog post by [former admissions officer Mike] Spivey. You should not care about a lower score on your record.

I'm thinking worst case scenario here though. Even if my score was in the 140s, I should keep it? I feel like that would just look horrible...

Yes I hit the low end of my goal score range on my 6th PT. My worry with postponing is that January will be too late to submit applications. I'm also worried that I'll underperform on the December LSAT and screw myself out of applying for the Fall 2018 cycle. If I take the September test, I'll at least have a decent score in case anything happens that causes December to go wrong and won't have to take a year off school. Thoughts???