Subscribe via RSS Feed

The law school scholarship game

[ 18 ] January 2, 2012 |

One of the most significant developments in the law school world over the past few years has been the explosion in so-called “merit scholarships.” The definition of a scholarship can be tricky: traditionally the term was used to describe money generated by endowed funds given to a school for the purpose of offsetting attendance costs, but now it tends to be used more generally to mean any discount off the advertised price of attendance, from whatever source. In fact at present the vast majority of “merit scholarships” offered to prospective law students don’t come from endowment income, but rather from tuition cross-subsidization. (Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, who are in the unique position of not really competing with other law schools for students, claim all their financial aid is need-based. Need-based financial aid at other law schools ranges from skimpy to non-existent. I’m not going to discuss in this post the dubious practice of handing out “merit scholarships” that come with continued eligibility requirements that, because of law school grading practices, guarantee that many recipients will lose those scholarships after their first year).

It works like this: Suppose a school nominally charges $40,000 per year in tuition, and admits 200 students per class. In theory each class pays eight million dollars per year in tuition, but in fact it only pays $6.4 million. This is because the school uses the tuition money it receives from the class to distribute “merit scholarships” equivalent to 20% of nominal tuition to each class. The majority of students pay $40,000 per year, and the vast majority pay more than the “average” (mean) tuition of $32,000. What this means, of course, is that the students who are paying full tuition are subsidizing students who are paying less. Essentially, schools are charging some students to pay some or all of the costs of buying the attendance of other students.

This system, like so many other aspects of contemporary American legal education, has arisen as a consequence of the ratings game. The entrance qualifications of each class, in terms of LSAT and GPA numbers, make up 22% of the USNWR ratings formula, and so schools invest resources in buying students who would otherwise go to higher ranked schools. Unfortunately, the bulk of those resources are extracted quite directly from other students (Merit scholarships in the traditional sense of endowed funds exist, of course, especially at higher ranked schools, but most “scholarships” are simply tuition cross-subsidization).

Since on average a student’s combined LSAT and GPA numbers to some extent predict how well the student will do in law school (with many individual exceptions of course) the upshot of all this is that the students who are the most likely to get good legal jobs, or any legal jobs at all, are those who are paying significantly less, on average, for their law degrees than their classmates who are getting worse jobs, or no jobs at all — and indeed the latter group is paying for much of the legal educational costs of the former.

While this arrangement is no doubt pleasing to Ayn Rand, wherever she may be currently located in plus soul time or minus space time, those of an even mildly egalitarian political bent ought to find it quite troubling.

Another interesting question raised by this system is the extent to which the scholarship game is an efficient market. In other words, to what extent are students who choose to go to School A over School B because School A is much cheaper as a consequence of tuition cross subsidization making decisions that are likely to benefit them in cost-benefit terms? Because of the wonders of the internet, it’s now possible for prospective students to get an excellent sense of how much money they’re likely to be offered in “scholarships,” and to play schools off each other in the application process. Consider this site, which provides 0Ls with an amazing amount of information regarding exactly what schools they can expect to get into, and exactly how much money they can expect those schools to offer them.

Let’s take a look at an applicant from last year’s admissions cycle to see how this game works. Vegenator sported excellent LSAT and GPA numbers — high enough to get her admitted to one T6 school and wait listed at two others, although she was rejected by the top three. She was accepted by most of the rest of the T14 to which she applied, as well by every non T-14 school to which she sent her application.

Eventually, Vegenator had to decide whether to:

(a) Attend Chicago at sticker, meaning she would end up paying around $150K in tuition.

(b) Attend Michigan for $15,000 per year off listed tuition, meaning she would end up paying around $100K in tuition.

(c) Attend Duke for $19,000 per year off listed tuition, meaning she would end up paying $85K in tuition

(d) Attend Texas for $25,333 per year off listed tuition, meaning she would end up paying around $40K in tuition.

(e) Go to WUSL, Illinois, Iowa, or Indiana, pay no tuition, and have most or all of her living expenses during law school covered as well.

(I am omitting a host of various other options she had, as they were by comparison non-starters).

Now, in order to make this decision in a reasonably rational (and therefore “efficient”) manner, what this applicant had to do was to calculate the probable differences on ROI from a law degree from these various institutions. In order to do this, of course, she needed to have reasonably transparent employment and salary data available to her at the time she made her decision, which, given that she made it a year ago, she for the most part did not.

If she were making her decision today, her situation would be somewhat better, but still very far from optimal. As more and more prospective law students get savvier about the fact that they have the choice of either being subsidized by their fellow classmates, or subsidizing them, the pressure on law schools to disgorge the information 0Ls need to make these decisions rationally will build. And that’s all to the good.

Whether the current system of tuition cross-subsidization is defensible in moral and political terms is of course a wholly different question.

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. wengler says:

    I never was going to law school, but this series has made me really, really not want to go to law school.

    • (the other) Davis says:

      It’s not a bad gig if you get into one of the top schools — if you go to Yale or Harvard, you’re still nearly guaranteed a high-paying job if you want one, and each of those schools (and maybe one or two others?) provides low-income debt repayment assistance for graduates who go into relatively low-paying public service legal jobs.

      It’s also not a bad gig if you have an engineering or advanced science degree and manage to get into a fairly good law school, so long as you’re willing to go into patent litigation. That’s one of the few areas of law that is still demonstrating substantial growth.

      However, outside these two narrow exceptions, you’re absolutely correct. When any of my friends or family mention an interest in law school, I simply tell them they’d be insane to do it if they’re not going to fall into one of these two categories. (I’m the oddball case that falls into both categories, and so I have no regrets about my decision to attend.)

  2. Losgatosca says:

    I knew that as soon as the lawyers got involved in the Sandusky case Penn Srare’s defense would go to hell.

    The evidence: giving up 227 passing yards in the 1st quarter of the hugely important Ticket City bowl.

    Oh, the humanity.

    • Losgatosca says:

      Keenum has thrown 33 passes in less than 20 minutes of play. That would work out to over 100 passes and over 700 yards passing.

      The Nittany Lion is dying’.

      • Losgatosca says:

        No stay of execution granted. 380 passing yards at the half for Houston, but only a 17 point lead.

        Plenty of time for Penn State to get a reversal on appeal in the second half.

  3. tony in san diego says:

    well, the average income of California attorneys is somewhat less than $40,000. So take that into consideration when making your investment decisions. Student loans ruined my life.

    • L2P says:

      Where’d you get that number?

      I wouldn’t recommend lawyering as a career, but you can work half-time doing contract work and still make $30k. There’s no way that the median salary is $40k. The lowest figure I’ve heard for meidan salary in California is in the $80k range.

  4. Wrye says:

    It’s stupid that this never smacked me in the face before, but I just had this thought: I’m glad (from what I can tell), that law schools in Canada are not nearly as messed up as this and I have a friend who seems to be doing all right. But then it suddenly occurs to me: Legal education, uniquely, is a field in which the option of going abroad would be pretty much non-existent. Americans who want to get a Science, Engineering, or Theatre degree can come to Canada and get a perfectly fine degree for a competitive, and often cheaper, net cost; but even that option doesn’t exist in the field of law. An American literature degree from York or McGill or UBC? Sure, why not. But US law schools would have an international monopoly on a US-recognized legal education.

    Wouldn’t they?

    • Tcaalaw says:

      But US law schools would have an international monopoly on a US-recognized legal education. Wouldn’t they?

      Generally, yes, but I think at least a handful of states let licensed foreign attorneys sit for their bar exams so long as they get some sort of “American Law” LLM that I think only takes a yesr or three semesters to complete. I’m fuzzy on the details, but I met a Chinese attorney some years ago who was in the states for a corporate training program who was planning to do that.

  5. LosGatosCA says:

    Cross-subsidization happens all over the academic environment and shifts over time as well. Many undergraduate state schools were allotting more places for out-of-state students since the tuition differential was greater than the state subsidy. That’s one that comes to mind. I remember decades ago (it seems) that some graduate program set aside a series of slots to be auctioned to the highest donor. ‘Give us $100G’s or the kid’s application swims with the fishes.’

  6. Frankly says:

    OK, I guess we can assume if you graduate from one of those top 3 schools you are pretty much assured of a big law gig & eventual partnership. But how big a difference is there as you go down the ladder? The University of Minnesota is rated as the #20 law school, how much less would you expect (in terms of offers & income) than if you went to one of 5 through 19? How big a difference if you dropped down 10 to #30?

    • DK says:

      Nobody is guaranteed partnership at a big firm; it’s extremely unlikely for anyone no matter what school they attend.

      There are various stats sheets to look up, but if you are looking to get big law, do not go to Minnesota.

    • Paul Campos says:

      As DK notes partnership at top firm is an unusual outcome within any reasonably-sized cohort of law grads, including HYS grads.

      The odds of getting an entry level associate position with a big law firm currently run from around 70% to 80% at HYS, to 40% to 50% at places like Michigan and Duke, to a lot less than that quite quickly. (Minnesota placed slightly less than 12% of its grads in AMLAW 250 firms last year).

      • (the other) Davis says:

        The odds of getting an entry level associate position with a big law firm currently run from around 70% to 80% at HYS, to 40% to 50% at places like Michigan and Duke…

        Just curious, but are those percentages out of students who go looking for big law jobs, or are they out of all grads? (I ask because I’ve only heard of one student in my HLS cohort who tried and failed to get a big law job, and I would assume similar rates at Stanford and Yale.)

        • Paul Campos says:

          What year did you graduate? My research indicates that while five years ago essentially everybody at HYS who wanted a big law entry level job got one, this is no longer the case. It is certainly NOT the case, at all, at Columbia, Chicago, NYU, and while I don’t doubt that HYS placement is still better than CCN, I doubt the gap is particularly huge. This is especially true for HLS, since it’s such a big class.

  7. Chanel Bags says:

    sterling silver components having a footed bottom level. This will cost you

  8. Someone necessarily help to make significantly
    articles I might state. This is the very first time I frequented your web page and up to now?
    I amazed with the analysis you made to create this particular submit incredible.

    Excellent process!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site