LSSSE: Law School Merit Scholarship Policies — Engines Of Inequity

Law School Survey of Student Engagement, Law School Scholarship Policies: Engines of Inequity
Frank H. Wu (Former Dean, UC-Hastings), Foreword:

The scholarship policies described in this Report ought to be exposed for what they are: sales gimmicks in the form of tuition discounts. Despite their name, “merit scholarships” are neither based on actual merit nor true scholarships. Law schools could reduce the price of attendance across-the-board for the benefit of students, with the same aggregate budgetary effect on institutions. But they have not done so. The reason is that consumers respond to sales; they want deals. Law students are no different; their enrollment decisions often depend on which school offers the biggest “merit scholarship.” 

As this Report highlights convincingly, these selective tuition breaks flow most generously to privileged students. These trends betray our shared ideals of ensuring access to higher education – the engine of the American Dream.

Everyone is on the side of merit. There are no advocates for mediocrity. But socalled merit scholarships are less about students’ merit than they are about our own sense of elitism. The formulas for allocating the scholarships usually blend LSAT and UGPA. Responsible decisionmakers, including those who design standardized tests, warn that these instruments are merely predictors of performance. They should not be confused with merit itself.

If law schools wished to reward merit in good faith, they could do so through scholarships to high-performing continuing students – those who have law school records to judge. But the utilitarian calculation which treats students as means to an end suggests that money is better spent on entering students. The latter, not the former, “count” for rankings purposes. The point of the game is to lure new students with credentials that would reflect well in the rankings away from competitors – using tactics similar to the provider of any commodity, such as cell phone service.

If law schools wished to reward merit in good faith, they could do so through scholarships to high-performing continuing students – those who have law school records to judge. But the utilitarian calculation which treats students as means to an end suggests that money is better spent on entering students. The latter, not the former, “count” for rankings purposes. The point of the game is to lure new students with credentials that would reflect well in the rankings away from competitors – using tactics similar to the provider of any commodity, such as cell phone service.

Merit scholarships exacerbate entitlement culture. Students understandably believe that they have earned the largesse through a test. Some even think they have done their schools a favor by enrolling. The mindset frames how they engage with their teachers, the administrators, and each other. It likely will influence how they conceive of their role as service professionals who represent others.

Modest reforms have occurred. The American Bar Association has taken action against conditional merit scholarships that were peddled as if guaranteed for the full course of study. Prospective students were being sold on scholarships they were not likely to keep beyond the first year unbeknownst to them. Consumer data protections now give them accurate information to assess these offers.

Yet we still have a system that does not well serve students who are qualified albeit disadvantaged. Over the years at an accelerating pace, American higher education has departed from need-based financial aid. Among law schools, the unprecedented decrease in applicants has hastened this trend. The result has been a “reverse Robin Hood” revenue model in which the poorest students are being forced to subsidize their wealthier peers. Real scholarships are funded by donors, endowments, and sources other than the student seated next to the recipient.

Instead of identifying talented individuals who lack resources – the “strivers” we claim to admire – we are reinforcing economic hierarchy. We are sending the message that those who already have so much, deserve so much more.

We must do better. The soul of legal education is at stake.

• ABA Journal, Affluent Students Get Law School Merit Scholarships While Others Foot the Bill, Study Finds
• National Law Journal, Minority Law Students Subsidize Scholarships, Study Finds