When the Critical Legal Studies movement was still vibrant during the 1980s, Harvard Law Professor Duncan Kennedy frequently argued that, beyond exploring the cases and rules, legal education offered training in hierarchy.  Students (and many professors as well) came to appreciate the steps on our social ladders and how to climb or, at least, remain balanced on those steps.  Recent developments involving law schools’ use of merit scholarships with stipulations (“stips,” as some students call them) teach lessons in hierarchy in ways Kennedy never imagined.

The New York Times reported on May 1, 2011, that 80 percent of law schools are now awarding merit scholarships with stipulations and that these scholarships are gradually replacing conventional need-based scholarships.  The University of Florida Law School, for example, requires students to maintain a 3.2 grade-point average to keep their merit scholarships, as does Wayne State University Law School.  At Chicago-Kent Law School, merit scholarship recipients have a choice: They can receive $9000 annually for three years with no stipulations or $15,000 annually if they maintain a 3.25 or higher.  Ninety percent opt for the latter, perhaps unaware that most students earn nothing near a 3.25.