Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Bait & Switch or Forgot to Read the Fine Print?

Recently, there has been yet another revelation brought to light by students who are pursuing the guild of higher education.  This one however focuses on law schools that present merit-based scholarships to worthy students in hopes of luring said students to attend their institution.  The catch being, the student must maintain certain academic standards in order to keep the scholarship for subsequent years of attendance.  Not surprising, as a merit scholarship is by very definition one that should not be given arbitrarily and certain conditions should be satisfied in order to maintain that merit.
Another caveat presented to these students is that they may be passing up higher ranked institutions in exchange for the free tuition, a decision which may prove to be quite deflating should they lose the scholarship.  At certain law institutions, there is a mandatory curve presented during the first year which has no resemblance to its undergraduate precursor. It is this curve that many students allege is the switch, as this curve makes it nearly impossible to maintain the required GPA to continue receiving the scholarship.  So, by the end of their first year, some first years will not only lose their scholarship…they will now be paying full sticker for an institution that was not their first choice and may hinder employment opportunities down the road.  The criticism is heavily being drawn on the fact that schools (and not just law schools) award merit based scholarships with the intention of only paying out a limited proportion of their total sum. 
I must say that this is the first I have heard of this practice.  However, it only serves to reinforce how I feel about the entire higher education system at the present.  Though, I do have to wonder…why are these prospective law students not catching on to this practice?  If these students plan on forging a career which requires them to analyze the substance and ambiguity of situations…shouldn’t they also be responsible for their own financial wellbeing?  Hard to say, but I have a feeling that this practice will only continue.