Obtaining a full-ride scholarship from a US school

[dillhim]

Hello! I just graduated with a 3.7CGPA (3.9 in final two years) and will complete my LSAT in the upcoming months. My interests are in international law, human rights, child law, and family law. However, I am still open to working in adjacent fields as I'm not fully committed to being a lawyer. However, I recognize the value of obtaining a JD, and in my case, I graduated with little to no debt thanks to grants and the extra money I saved up during COVID. My undergrad is useful, but I definitely want to explore new career paths, and I find that it restricts my capability to enter a new field that offers suitable wages for people without experience. 

The Canadian schools I narrowed down are U of T, Osgoode, UBC, and my home campus. With my experience and hopefully a good LSAT, I think I can get into each school, but I've heard that more US schools offer full-ride scholarships that can pay for housing and other expenses, too. My question is, how likely, with my grades, could I obtain a full ride from a good law school (work and volunteer experience is good but not eye-popping) so should I focus on my LSAT and try to win some grants and scholarships from a Canadian school and avoid the uncertainty in living in a new country for the first time? 

I heard from some people that the US has more scholarships available, but the quality of schools falls off after the top 20 programs. Obviously, not one school is for all, but I am curious to see what other people think of this.

[enpassant]

Oh to have the naiveté and hubris of an applicant who is not yet "fully committed to being a lawyer"  and has yet to write the LSAT thinking they can get in to the some of the most competitive schools in the country! In all seriousness, I am unfamiliar with the US process, but am quite sure that getting a full-ride to any school worth going to is probably difficult. Moreover, the LSAT is usually a pretty big determining factor in granting these scholarships-- a test you have not even written yet. Temper your expectations a little bit, focus on the LSAT, and apply broadly would be my advice. Also, international law and human rights law are such vague determinations as to be entirely meaningless for most applicants/law students; these aren't jobs you chance into immediately after graduating.

Edited May 21 by enpassant

[chaboywb]

Agreed with above. Your grades are strong but there is no point continuing the discussion until you have an LSAT score.

[MyWifesBoyfriend]

43 minutes ago, chaboywb said:

Your grades are strong but there is no point continuing the discussion until you have an LSAT score.

I wouldn’t even concede this. A 3.7 cGPA sits at or below median for T20 schools. 
 

OP you’ll need to be looking at high 160s to low 170s if you want some good scholarship money  for US T-20s and good chances at UBC/U of T. This is a difficult feat for a lot of people.

Edited May 21 by MyWifesBoyfriend

[Yogurt Baron]

1 hour ago, enpassant said:

an applicant who is not yet "fully committed to being a lawyer"

 

I agree with the bulk of your post - OP, your grades aren't that good by the standards of these things, and coming in with the ambition you have, the grades you have, and no LSAT, is like saying, "Hey, I'm 6'4", can I play in the NBA?" without telling us if you have any athletic ability at all.

But re: the quoted---I actually give the OP credit for that. Applicants who are "fully committed to being a lawyer" are generally more obnoxious than those who aren't. If you're some kid who hasn't written the LSAT yet, you really shouldn't be "fully committed to being a lawyer" - it would be ridiculous. Full points to anyone who's mature enough to know that there are other things out there they might want to do.

[CleanHands]

3 hours ago, Yogurt Baron said:

But re: the quoted---I actually give the OP credit for that. Applicants who are "fully committed to being a lawyer" are generally more obnoxious than those who aren't. If you're some kid who hasn't written the LSAT yet, you really shouldn't be "fully committed to being a lawyer" - it would be ridiculous. Full points to anyone who's mature enough to know that there are other things out there they might want to do.

I agree with your general sentiment about this being a perfectly reasonable statement at the applicant stage.

However, I would add this caveat for the OP (and anyone else in the same boat): do not go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer, unless you have a very specific path in mind where a JD is necessary or clearly adds enough value to make sense. JDs are broadly perceived by people outside the legal profession as being versatile "wild card" degrees and that really isn't accurate.

[Yogurt Baron]

7 hours ago, CleanHands said:

I agree with your general sentiment about this being a perfectly reasonable statement at the applicant stage.

However, I would add this caveat for the OP (and anyone else in the same boat): do not go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer, unless you have a very specific path in mind where a JD is necessary or clearly adds enough value to make sense. JDs are broadly perceived by people outside the legal profession as being versatile "wild card" degrees and that really isn't accurate.

Yeah, we're on the same page. I've just seen too many applicants over the years who are uncompetitive but really really really really really really really want to be a lawyer, and who think that seventh "really" is what's going to seal the deal for them, and I'd much rather see someone at the applicant stage seem capable of keeping their options open a little more.

 

[dillhim]

16 hours ago, CleanHands said:

I agree with your general sentiment about this being a perfectly reasonable statement at the applicant stage.

However, I would add this caveat for the OP (and anyone else in the same boat): do not go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer, unless you have a very specific path in mind where a JD is necessary or clearly adds enough value to make sense. JDs are broadly perceived by people outside the legal profession as being versatile "wild card" degrees and that really isn't accurate.

Thanks, and I wanted to add that I am looking into completing a dual degree where I would get my masters in other fields I have looked at along with my JD. I really find no value in my undergrad and believe that if I don't find what I am looking for in law, other opportunities will open up for me in the future with my experiences in other fields and having a JD/masters along with it. 

TLDR - I want to keep my options open, and thankfully, I am at a place where I am not financially hindered by my degree. I have worked with lawyers before, and it is a field that I am open to pursuing, but I want to ensure that if things change in my life, I'm not obligated to law. The last thing I want to be is someone in their mid-30s wondering why they wasted their young adulthood and working a job they absolutely despise (which would be my really if I stick to my current degree).

[CleanHands]

46 minutes ago, dillhim said:

Thanks, and I wanted to add that I am looking into completing a dual degree where I would get my masters in other fields I have looked at along with my JD. I really find no value in my undergrad and believe that if I don't find what I am looking for in law, other opportunities will open up for me in the future with my experiences in other fields and having a JD/masters along with it. 

This does not change my feedback at all and in fact tells me I need to be more emphatic.

Don't do a dual JD/masters program to "open up other opportunities" when you aren't sure if you want to be a lawyer. Figure out what you want to do first and then apply to the relevant program.

Your plan right now is virtually guaranteed to involve completely unnecessary actual and opportunity cost to you.

If you find yourself unsatisfied as a mid-career lawyer, you can get a relevant master's then after having a better sense of what you want to do and what is in demand at that relevant time and actually having confirmation that is necessary. It makes no sense to take on this time and expense up front just in case and also lock yourself into a backup path a decade before a potential career switch when both you and the world will have changed by then.

Edited May 22 by CleanHands

[Yogurt Baron]

42 minutes ago, dillhim said:

I really find no value in my undergrad and believe that if I don't find what I am looking for in law, other opportunities will open up for me in the future with my experiences in other fields and having a JD/masters along with it. 

OK, CH was right here---I had read your post as "I haven't even written the LSAT yet, I'm not sure if I want to go to law school", while he read it more as you saying "I'm not sure if I want to be a lawyer after I go to law school."

Agreed with him that a JD does not, actually, open up other opportunities in the way you're hoping. 

There's really not much value in any undergrad - that's why it's an undergrad.

ETA: There are people who hold JDs and get interesting non-law or law-adjacent jobs with them, yes...but in my experience, that's because those people are talented and/or capable in some way. I know a bunch of JD-holding non-lawyers (or non-practicing lawyers) who've done interesting stuff. Every one of them could have done the same stuff with a BA in philosophy. When you're hearing about these non-lawyers who've parlayed a law degree into a policy job or something, in most cases, that person could've gotten that job without that degree. Are there some stupid employers who'll hire a law grad to do something they wouldn't hire a non-law-grad to do? Probably. Are those the high-quality "other opportunities" you're envisioning? Probably not.

Edited May 22 by Yogurt Baron
I had more things to say

[Turtles]

17 hours ago, CleanHands said:

I agree with your general sentiment about this being a perfectly reasonable statement at the applicant stage.

However, I would add this caveat for the OP (and anyone else in the same boat): do not go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer, unless you have a very specific path in mind where a JD is necessary or clearly adds enough value to make sense. JDs are broadly perceived by people outside the legal profession as being versatile "wild card" degrees and that really isn't accurate.

Hard disagree. JDs are incredibly versatile. All you gotta do is rearrange the letters and you'll find yourself qualified to work in any of the top nightclubs. No other degree can do that.