Applying
to
law
school
is
bad
enough.
Throwing
your
future
into
the
hands
of
administrators
applying
bespoke
black
box
methodologies
to
weigh
your
life’s
work
and
a
4-hour
test.
Prospective
students
shouldn’t
have
to
deal
with
exploding
offers
of
financial
assistance
while
waiting
on
a
final
decision
from
the
10
other
schools
on
the
list.
An
ominous
thread
on
r/lawschooladmissions,
suggests
that
at
least
one
school
has
started
playing
games
with
student
finances
as
a
means
of
controlling
its
student
population.
That’s
a
full-tuition
scholarship
offer
reduced
to
$15,680
less
than
a
week
later.
And,
as
the
quoted
passage
indicates,
the
school
made
this
cut
based
on
who
hadn’t
yet
submitted
a
seat
deposit.
The
deposit
isn’t
even
due
for
three
weeks!
What
the
school
calls
“an
unanticipated
level
of
interest”
should
properly
be
called
“an
entirely
expected
level
of
interest.”
Roughly,
oh,
8
years
ago
we
went
through
all
this
already.
That’s
when
Donald
Trump
first
ascended
to
the
Oval
Office
and
students
flocked
to
law
schools
to
defend
the
rule
of
law.
In
retrospect,
the
assault
on
the
sanctity
of
the
Constitution
in
2017
seems
quaint
by
comparison.
Say
what
you
will
about
obstructing
justice
we
weren’t
actively
disappearing
people
to
slave
camps
yet.
Would
law
schools
see
another
“Trump
bump”
in
applications
after
November?
OBVIOUSLY!
And
that’s
before
adding
the
historical
jump
in
admissions
during
times
of
economic
uncertainty
—
the
sort
of
uptick
that
might
materialize
when
the
White
House
decides
to
model
its
economic
policy
around
replaying
the
Great
Depression’s
greatest
hits.
Every
law
school
should’ve
been
able
to
see
this
coming
since
right
around
11
p.m.
Eastern,
November
5,
2024.
Moreover,
a
school
just
can’t
fire
off
an
email
a
few
days
after
awarding
a
scholarship
to
say,
“Oopsie.”
It
undermines
trust
in
the
admissions
process
and
can
have
long-term
repercussions,
affecting
the
school’s
reputation
and
its
ability
to
attract
top
talent
in
the
future.
Remember
the
black
eye
one
school
took
for
threatening
to
revoke
scholarships
if
students
put
down
deposits
at
other
schools
while
going
through
the
process.
There
are
so
many
better
alternatives
if
a
school
finds
itself
a
victim
of
poor
planning.
For
instance,
the
school
could
have:
-
Secured
additional
funding
to
honor
the
original
scholarship
commitments,
recognizing
that
scholarship
discounts
are
often
more
about
accounting
than
actual
expenditures. -
Offered
incentives
for
deferral,
such
as
guaranteed
scholarships
for
the
following
year
or
unique
internship
opportunities,
to
manage
class
size
without
reneging
on
promises. -
Provided
clearer
communication
from
the
start
regarding
the
conditional
nature
of
scholarship
offers,
ensuring
transparency
from
the
outset.
In
the
competitive
realm
of
legal
education,
maintaining
integrity
in
admissions
practices
is
paramount.
Arizona
Law’s
recent
actions
serve
as
a
cautionary
tale
for
institutions
nationwide.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.