If you're going from a lower tier law school (say, Chicago-Kent) to a top tier law school (say, Northwestern) I would expect this kind of snark. A friend did this transfer back in the day and got all kinds of grief, including a student telling her she wasn't fit to attend Northwestern and only attended Chicago-Kent to save on a year's tuition with a scholarship.

small peepee complex maybe?

no wonder law firm criteria are so ridiculous...its a shame that it's all about your lsat/school

Actually, the reason originals resent transfers is that the transfers come in right before the interviewing process, so they get to take advantage of the interviewing platform offered by their new (better) school while being able to show their transcript from their old (worse) school, with grades presumably inflated from being awarded by the worse school. At least that was the main complaint I heard back when I was in law school. By the middle of your 2L year, everyone will forget who the transfers are anyway.

I think the reason "normal" students at elite schools don't like transfer students--particularly those that do well after they transfer--is that it's just more proof that there's really no difference between the top students at top schools and the top students at lower ranked schools.

Actually, it's the U of C class president that sounds like a d-bag. Snarkiness like this would be looked down upon at Boalt.

Transfers students often stick together, because they don't have the social bonds (usually based on small sections) that regular 2Ls have.

I transferred to UCLA in 2006 and I had no problems with the students, however, I have heard similar sentiments from students at higher ranked schools, especially from the "chosen ones" that attend schools like Harvard. If anything, I personally ran into more backlash during OCI. I actually overheard a recruiter from O'Melveny LA say "I can't stand transfers" through the door right before I walked in to the interview. Yeah...that was comfortable.

10:14 - That's pretty funny (in a horrifying way).

Nothing more humbling than facing someone with a significantly lower LSAT and realizing you're out-smarted, out-classed and of course, out-gunned. Having transfers around shatters the deilcate illusion that you are where you are because of some ineffable gift.

I personally never had a problem with any - some were cool, some weren't, just like the rest of the student body.

agreed, 10:06. the problem with transfers is that they are such gunners that they felt the need to transfer in the first place. it's not the transferring but the ceaseless gunning that's annoying.

The student body president clearly has issues. I mean, as president I hardly think it is your job to isolate a class of students in a derogatory fashion. It would be nice to see this president impeached. It would be a stand by UoC that they don't put up with this feeble childish bickering.

I transferred to Northwestern from a T-30 2 years ago. I didn't think anyone thought negatively of me. In fact, I made a lot of friends there, transfer and non-transfer. I don't think anyone really cares...

I'm at a top 10 and never had any problems with transfers. In fact, two are close friends. Nevertheless, the anecdotes about GULC students hating transfers fit everything I've heard about GULC. I wouldn't be surprised if U of C students and Columbia kids felt the same way. Wingnuts.

What is all this talk about transfer students. Back when I was at the Universitee of Al-a-bama, we had some transfer students. Momma said they were real nice people. Once, I talked to one of them transfers, and you know what, they were real nice. Momma was right.

I think I might transfer myself one day. But you know what, I will avoid the University of Chicago. I met some students from that school once when I was running across the country looking for my Jenny. And you know what, those students from that there particular school were real weird and all. They thought they were economic experts and stuff. But you know what, you couldn't carry on a conversation with those students. They were always talking about some guy named Posner and trying to make themselves feel like they were somehow connected to that Posner fellow. Now I don't know no Posner fellow, but if he is anything like these University of Chicago students, he must have a hard time in the social scene. Nobody wanted to talk to those poor folks. They had what momma calls a certain complex. Something about their mommas not really loving them too much. So, they had no firends and got good grades and all, but then nobody liked them. That is all I have to say about that.

Just like to point out that the "quarterly student newspaper" the poem appeared in is (supposedly) a humor magazine.

I transferred to CLS last year. I felt no animosity from students at all. In fact I was very much accepted. It is true that most of my friends are fellow transfers since most frienships/bonding happens during 1L year. The number of summer positions I was offered was incredible. Most from firms that didn't even recruit at my former school. I also found that I compete very successfully with "original" students. Way too much emphasis on LSATs. Presently summering at a V10 firm that would not have even looked at me at my previous school. My advice is if you are at a lower ranked school as a 1L bust your ass finish in the top 10 of your class and transfer.

I'm surprised anyone would resent transfers because of the interview process. Recruiters are, after all, lawyers who share the prejudices of the legal profession. Transfers may have done well at their original law schools, but they are regarded as unproven qualities until they earn some second year grades. Most transfer students I knew had dismal luck interviewing second year. If they interviewed third year, with a year of good grades under their belts, they did just fine.

The real reason why law students hate transfers is the same reason high school students do - transfers are new and upset the delicately balanced pecking order everyone worked so hard to establish during first year.

Of course, the real fun for transfers is when they interview with people who graduated from the school they transferred out of.

AWK-ward.

My friend, Roger Lou, told me UPenn has an amazing football program and I am considering transferring there---thoughts?

Law student egos are so fragile that even the slightest evidence that they are interchangeable with a random selection of students from other schools mobilizes the testosterone. The Chicago student body president is probably upset that he's not on Law Review (just a guess, on both points - Chi students can help out).

For the most part transfers at my school (top 10) were welcomed and well received. There was some minor resentment that they got to interview with us and use their lower tier school transcripts, but that was mostly from those who didn't get jobs. The rest of us liked them just fine and it's the U of C guy who's the d-bag.

the biggest beef at my (public 35-50) school was that grades were only curved 1L year and transfers came in with a clean slate and were able to easily graduate with grossly inflated GPA/rank by avoiding the curve entirely.

I was a transfer, and since I had to take Con. Law, I made 1L friends plus my transfer friends.

But funny story--during OCI, one transfer buddy had a firm lawyer throw said buddy's resume on the floor (with the name of his/her prior school) and STOMP on it, while saying 'this is trash.' My friend told me this over beers, months later. We were all horrified, and asked if this had been reported to career services, which it hadn't, and by this time my friend just thought it was funny, so we all had a laugh.

To those considering applying out there, realize you don't necessarily have to be in the top 10% to make it--I think I was like 12-13%. Also, don't let one bad grade make you think you won't make it--I had a C+ in Contracts (it would have been a B or B- on the grading scale at the school I transferred to) and I was still accepted to the T10 I attended and a T20. (Of course, the C+ may have been offset by my LSATs, which were good enough for a 1L applicant, or a strong grade in another class.)

Every 1L should request a letter of good standing from their current law school, especially if you have good grades and even if you have no intention of transfering. Be sure to write "For Transfer Application" on the form even if it's not requested. This will invariably make it to the Financial Aid office who will think twice before cutting your financial aid. If you have a good relationship with administrators and they question you about it, make sure you let them know that you heard horror stories about having financial aid cut after first year and you wanted to give yourself options.

10:28 - Wow. What school?

10:08 got it right. I hated the fact that kids from bullshit schools were getting the same interviews I was after having not been through the hell that was my T10 1L year.

I transferred from another D.C. law school to Georgetown. I was treated like a regular student and had no problem making friends and integrating myself. I ended up with slightly better grades at Georgetown and went on to clerk for a circuit judge. I have absolutely no regrets about my decision to transfer. Nor did I have any difficulty interviewing with people who attended the school that I left.

Who cares?

I transfered while in law school. it was hard to tap into the social scene because i was not deeply engrained in the small pods formed during 1L, but i didn't really go to law school for a social scene.

ATL is getting mad shot outs in the Chicago Trib today for reporting the Sonnenschein layoff. they even went as far as to cite them on the Hastings-gate episode a few weeks ago.

10:28 is right, at UCLA it was very hard to get into coif because the first year was curved on a 20-60-20 curve, the second and third year grades are grossly inflated. Then, the school would let in 30-40 transfers who could get into coif on second and third year grades alone. Very irritating. I don't know if this is still how it works. If not for that, I would have no objection at all to transfers. Obviously performance in the first year is a better predictor than LSAT.

Yep, who cares is right. Law school is nothing but a stepping stone to getting a job after school and every person there is doing all they can to put themselves in the best position possible. That is why people transfer. But don't forget that in many places transfer students lose out on certain benefits that many firms think are super important--like opportunities to be on law review. I transferred after my first year and was ineligible for law review, even though I was in the top 10% of my class.

10:42(2) If you transferred to HLS and missed out on law review, consider it a blessing in disguise

I transferred from a T25 to an 11-14 and just graduated cum laude... my decision was largely based on geography and had little to do with improved job prospects. I had a pretty hard time making friends outside of the transfer class, and actually had a few d-bags make derogatory comments directly to me about me being a transfer. I was kind of offput by just how aloof most people were towards me because I am naturally a very affable, social person.

Honestly, If I could go back and do things differently, I probably wouldn't have transferred. fuck this school

The problem isn't about deserving to be there, or how well a transfer does gradewise. The problem is, as the poem points out, that law students are universally total douchebags.

First

This is why normal people dislike transfers.

It is debatable whether top schools actually grant their students a decent legal education. What is not debatable is top schools grant their students status. Normal students trade their great transcripts and great LSATs to law schools (so law schools can “flaunt” this data on USNWR, etc), and in return, the law school grants them status. This the quid pro quo.

Transfer student data is not factored into the “official” data for obvious reasons; it would be dilutive. And law schools like the easy tuition money that these transfers bring. Ever here of a transfer getting a scholarship or financial aid? Didn’t think so.

Law schools get enriched, transfers get status, and normal students get nothing but more people in their class rooms.

So wait a minute, someone can get good grades at a good school and not have an high LSAT? Everything I ever believed in has been shattered.

I transferred to Harvard and experienced no snarkiness, disfavor, whatever. Maybe that's just because the school is big (and thus a lot of "normal" students don't know each other anyway if they weren't in the same 1L section), but I doubt it. I think people just did not care.

10:12 is right: at least initially, transfers stick together because their 1L friends are elsewhere. But by the end of 2L, I no longer felt like anything but a "normal" student.

If you think your career options or happiness will be improved by transferring, don't let petty crap like this discourage you.

I went from a T2 school to a T3 school, and then back to theT2 school for my final year. I can say that (in this situation), transfers do have a harder go at things, but mostly just because of not being there while everyone was going through the newness/grind of the first year. People tend to bond ya' know. My awesome grades at the T2 school, while helpful in getting me into interviews during OCI, could not overcome the general problem with having moved geographic locations (about 700 miles). Firms like to hire stationary, not nomadic, people.

People at both schools were cool when I got there/got back. I never got any snarky-ness, but that's probably due in big part to it being a T2-T3 transition rather than T2-T1 or T1-TopTen etc. transition.

GULC students routinely gang up on Widener students in appalling displays of violent mob mentality.

10:57---Brilliant!

I transferred into a T10 school from a T20 school and now am a COA clerk for an active judge. I sort of followed 10:30's advice (trying to get something out of my 1L school). They didn't give me anything. I didn't like them very much anyway. However, I mainly transferred because the school was very close to my hometown and my grandparents were in declining health.

I gained some marginal prestige. The very top students at my 1L school are also COA clerks on this circuit. I don't know if I would have finished as high as them had I continued there. I did very well at my transfer school, but was not top 2% like many of the COA clerks from my 1L school. I did experience some resentment at my transfer school partly because it is rare for a transfer student to get great clerkships (except for those transferring to Yale), but it seemed to come from lower in the class who were jealous. I will say that making friends was a bit of an issue, but I really did not have great friendships from my 1L year. It is not that I am hard to get along with---I have formed many great friendships with my fellow clerks and have many great friendships with people at my transfer school outside of the law school. I think that law school is just not an ideal place to form friendships.

The bottom line for those considering transferring is this--if you do not want to be in the area where your 1L school is, then transfer to a T10 school. It will probably make it easier to get a job in a different region and make more contacts. However, if you like where you 1L school is located, you are probably better off staying put. There are many federal district and COA judges from schools that are not T10, T14 or whatever ya'll consider are the top law schools.

10:28 and 10:42 hit it - I suspect it's primarily the severe grade inflation during 2L and 3L years that explains the originally-cited poster's comment that transfers do as well as or better with grades. Me at GULC: graduated cum laude with ~ a 3.6, with ~3.4 first year, 3.7+ during 2L and 3L. An acquaintance who transferred from AU: graduated in the high 3.6's - but of course based only on 2L and 3L grades. He got magna, even though I got higher grades during the only years we were compared for class rank purposes. Nothing to lose sleep over, but admittedly irritating.

Two things:

1) Transfers do get scholarships and financial aid. Every transfer student I knew got at least a small scholarship, some got rather large ones.

2) Although judges are different, about 20% of my transfer class got clerkships, mostly with circuit judges.

I just finished my 1L year at GULC and am considering transferring to a different school that I DID get into, and decided not to attend. I really wouldn't mind beind lumped in with the upgraders, though.

Transferred from a T2 regional school near home to a Top 5 school that I had been accepted to out of college. 173 LSAT, top 3 people at my T2.

Everyone at my new school hates me and thinks I don't deserve to be there. Little do they know that I was probably accepted before they were. No I come in and take their good grades and jobs- even though I was taking their jobs at my T2.

They're just pissed because their firm has a $50 cap on lunches and mine doesn't. Losers.

this entire thread is ridiculous. at GULC, all the transfers I knew did well, got the jobs they wanted, and had as many friends as they wanted (which, in law school, was often few).

The schools that accept a lot of transfers are simply manipulating US News statistics, by taking a small initial class that looks exclusive and highly credentialed, which is what counts in US news rankings. Then they let in a lot of schmucks in 2L, and they graduate a lot of schmucks.

Having interviewed SAs ad nauseum and sat in on committee meetings, I don't think transfers garner any advantage in being able to participate in OCI at their new schools. Maybe more firms are available to the transfer. But, your old institution is what we are going to look at. For example, if someone transfers from C-K to Northwestern, we look at that person as a C-K student, not a Northwestern student. And the hiring committee is probably going to apply the GPA cut-off applicable to C-K. Maybe its not fair, but this is what happens.

Junior lateral hires are a different story.

I agree with 10:28 and 10:42. Transfers get to skip the 1L grade competition and swoop in to graduate with honors/coif based on inflated second and third year grades. I was shocked to see transfers' names on the honors/coif list after graduation -- I thought they would be automatically excluded from those awards for this obvious advantage.

It's not so much that current students hate incoming transfers, it's that everyone hates gunners.

Most times, you have to be incredibly annoying with the hand-raising and the professor-fellating to do well enough to transfer up.

After 1L year, everyone is fairly comfortable with the gunners in their class -- nobody likes them, mind you, but everyone is used to them. Then the first day of 2L year comes, and your school dumps 50-100 more of them on you. Even the girls are terrible; everybody knows gunners don't have sex.

To the "transfers are gunners" posters: have you ever attended law school? Since when are gunners the ones who do well?

Anybody who calls a transfer a "gunner" is a douchebag who should get punched in the face. In fact, anybody who calls anybody a "gunner" is a d-bag. Law is a profession where EVERYTHING is based on class rank, quality of school, prestige, etc... not to mention the only people that get decent jobs are the top 5% of the law school world ... and yet you would fault others for striving to better their position? Fuck you. That's what you're supposed to do.

Anybody who uses the term "gunner" is a douchebag who failed at whatever they were trying to accomplish and is now trying to shoot down others for trying to succeed. Even if somebody talks a lot in class or sucks up to professors, thats none of your fucking business. Live your own goddamn life and we'll see who ends up where.

Snarky terribly overstates the quality of the poem.

At what school are people still concerned about LSATs? Once classes start, grades are all that matter. What is humiliating is when people you don't respect have better grades than you.

At what school are people still concerned about LSATs? Once classes start, grades are all that matter. What is humiliating is when people you don't respect have better grades than you.

At what school are people still concerned about LSATs? Once classes start, grades are all that matter. What is humiliating is when people you don't respect have better grades than you.

I once saw a street fight west side story style between GULC students and GW students. Vicious. It only ended when both groups saw a bunch of AU students and collectively went over and beat them up.

11:20 needs to chill out.

Gunning =/= success as a law student or attorney

Gunning = annoying as high hell and performed by the true d-wads who DO think it equates to success as a law student or attorney

God forbid someone gets into a good law school because they actually worked hard, and didn't just spend a few grand at a prep-course figuring out logic games.

Is 11:20 a widely-reviled (former?) gunner? Why all the rage?

Lat, i was at that orientation and the transfers received a warm round of applause not booing. Last year several of the EICs of our journals were transfers and the SBA makes a special point to solicit transfer students opinions and encourage their involvement. GULC is dilligent about being transfer-friendly. Not the other way around. -- GULC3L.

11:20:

Law is actually a profession where the quality of your intellect, the strength of your work ethic, and your reputation for integrity mean everything.

Your philosophy is complicit. Rise up!

11:30 -- it was GULC's EIW orientation in Fall 2006 where the booing happened -- ask anybody a year ahead of you.

I transferred from a crap school to CLS. The funny thing is that it was way more competitive at my old school and the curve was much worse. The average grade was a C when i was a 1L... It was a true curve. At CLS, a B was average. I also certainly did not see my grades go down after transferring, so don't think transfers have it easy during 1L year. It is also more competitive at lower schools because there are fewer jobs to be had.

The only d-bag in this scenario is the one who sent in something that was clearly just meant to be humorous to ATL. It was a submission to a humor paper and was just one of many poems that everyone (transfers included) thought were funny and not meant to be taken seriously.

11:20 here:

I've never been called a gunner but I just don't understand why law students fault other students for trying to succeed. It's amazing that law students at top schools who are like 26 years old still have to act like they don't care about school. I know you're a fucking nerd if you're at H/Y/S/C, stop trying to front like you're too cool to study. We're not in middle school any more, its ok to be a nerd who cares about school and doing well.
Every conversation I have with law students is like "yeah I'm too cool to study, I just get drunk, blah blah blah."

If i'm paying $60,000 a year to go to law school, I'm going to try to get the best of it, even if it means taking it up the ass from my con law professor.

To 11:36/11:20... A. Charney?

11:20/11:36, you found a non-lesbian male con law teacher? Or are you talking about ass-fisting?

At CLS, the "curve" past 1L is more like B+/A-.

Barama llama ding dong.

i'm talking about your mom 11:39

11:44- You get a "A" for originality, or maybe the A stands for something else.

Yeah, the problem here is taking the U of C law student magazine seriously. The cover of the last issue was a big picture of Jesus, with the caption: "Christ to Leave U of C: Son of Man accepts position at HLS."

That is one of the most naive and offensive things I have read. What it is more indicative of (the poem) is the general lack of compassion I've seen generally in law schools' student culture. Which, to me, tends to be filtered down from the attitudes of its faculty and staff.

I ask: what state of mind must an individual have to not only write, but publish, such a mean-spirited piece? Other than its spirit, what can such blatant classification accomplish?

11:20/11:36:

So let me get this straight: Someone who consistently raises his/her hand and makes comments that do not contribute to classroom discussion but make the student feel important for speaking in class is considered mature. Someone who is "like 26" goes to class and contributes sporadically when he/she has something constructive to say and dislikes the people described above is immature. And someone whose retort to someone challenging his/her position on a particular issue is "I'm talking about your mom" is mature.

I think I get it now. Thanks.

I found most transfers (I was one of them) had a hard time getting anything out of OCI. Most of the firms looked down on the transfers. I'm wasn't sure exactly what to make of that at the time (on the one hand, by transferring you've shown you've worked hard enough to swim with the "bigger fish," on the other hand, there's no record of how you fare directly against those bigger fish). The social aspect was hard as well, since the social networks were already made.

What I want to know, is do employers continue to hold the transfer thing over graduates heads down the road? I know everyone requests transcripts it seems even a couple years out - so when firms see that transfer school in the transcript, do they immediately pitch the application based on that LSAT score (though everything else is equal, and some experience separates an applicant from fresh graduates)?

i think people are using two different definitions of gunner: in my book, the gunners (a group of which i quietly consider myself a member) are the ones who work harder and smarter than everyone else and get higher grades as a result. the douchebags who raise their hands every 30 seconds are just douchebags... at least at BU, it's basically a compliment to be considered a gunner. if you're one of the kids that raises their hand all the time, you're called "asshole," not gunner... gunners are the ones that get the highest grades, not the ones that talk the most in class.

as far as transfers: they are definitely treated as equals here. and they tend to do really well...

I transferred from a Top 40 to a Top 5 after my first year and never encountered any anti-transfer animus, but on the other hand it does tend to be the case that transfers make social connections with other transfers more readily. I think that's because everyone else has already made friends in their 1L year, when they have classes with the same small group of people, whereas the first people transfer students meet are other transfers at orientation.

Regarding Georgetown-- their early decision program is highly competitive; I was rejected by G-town but then accepted by a much higher-ranked school in their regular decision over the summer. So don't panic if you've applied to transfer to Georgetown and didn't get in.

I transferred from Rutgers to Columbia and nobody cared one bit. Some of my closest friends now are people I met at Columbia. There were a 2 others from Rutgers that made the transfer with me and they seemed to have had the same experience.

I started law school at Cardozo and transferred to a top 20. Of the 30 or so magna cum laude graduates in my class, 10 were transfer students. Sure enough, you could argue that we benefited from having no 1L year grades to "drag us down." But taking that into account, we still kicked a lot of ass 2L and 3L years. Just about all of us ended up with good biglaw jobs.

In short, the notion that transfers are inferior to "natives" is a crock of shit, IMO. The tack about transfers being gunners is another story...

Lat - I think it would be more than appropriate for you to include in the original post that this poem was in a newspaper published by students as a quarterly "The Onion" type of satirical paper. Chances are high that the student body president didn't even write the piece - they enjoy writing pieces "by" more popular students/faculty just for fun. Seriously, people need to get over themselves.

12:05: that's highly relevant... it definitely makes president seem like less of a douchebag (if it doesn't strip him of douchebag status entirely).

I went to NYU. I got in part of the normal admissions process. I am highly resentful that NYU administrators allow 70 to 80 transfers in a given year. The reason they do it is because Columbia does it, it gives them extra tuition dollars, and it does not effect US News rankings.

However, it is very unfair to NYU students. I was an average student my first year at NYU (B's and B+'s with one A-). I got offers from a number of firms and ended up a T-25 firm. However, if instead of going to NYU I had taken a full ride at Cardozo, I am fairly certain that I could have gotten much higher grades and transferred to NYU for my second and third years of law school.

I would have saved $40,000 and I would have had offers from almost any place I wanted with the exception of Wachtell. Unfortunately, firms see great grades and NYU and don't factor into their decision that the grades were earned at Cardozo. Almost, every transfer I know had at least one t-10 offer and most had multiple offers from t-5 places that wanted them. They also have the advantage when it comes to graduating with honors. Since their 1L year does not count, they have the advtange of having only two years count and because of non-curved seminars and clinics and having LLM's in your curved clases, it is easier to get a higher GPA during your 2nd and 3rd years of law school. For example, to graduate you needed to have 52 credits to graduate in your second and third years. If you took a 14 credit clinic like the Brennan Center where the vast majority of students get either an A or A-, if you are a transfer, you have a very good chance of graduating cum laude with just average grades in other classes.

So, in essence, as a transfer at NYU you will have better job opportunities and a better chance with graduating with honors than an average student. And if you play it right, you graduate with less debt.

Does this seem unfair to anyone else?

Transfers don't compete with the rest of the group in 1L classes, which are the most competitive.

Anyway, law school exam performance does not mean that someone deserved to get into that lawschool. Being accepted as a 1L requires vetting of a lifetime of accomplishments. Transfers only have 7 grades vetted.

About as fair or unfair as anything else about hiring practices. Get over it.

unless you can transfer to a top 10 school, you are better off on Law Review at a Tier 2 school than just another student at a better school - often time transfers struggle at on campus interviews b/c employers are expecting a 2nd year student from that school, not someone with good grades from a school that the employer never hires from

I transferred to GULC and had no problems with the student body. Remember, the school is so large that its hard to delineate between transfers and non-transfers; if a student doesn't recognize you, they will just assume you were in a different section.
As for interviewing, I am pretty sure I had more call-backs and more offers then the average GULC student, so no problems there.

Transfers have an ethical duty to disclose their TTT school on their resumes.

I went to CLS. My friends and I generally felt the way that 12:13 does. We had no problems with the transfers per se but were mad the administration took so many.

I have to agree with 10:28 and the others along that line. I went to a 15-25 school, with a forced curve only for 1Ls. The transfers from the local TTT schools graduated with ridiculously inflated GPAs because our 1L curve is far lower than the grades handed out in 2L and 3L. Schools need to do something to level the playing field here. At the very least, they shouldn't be eligible for honors or order of the coif.

transfers are universally reviled because they do phenomenally well in landing biglaw. they are low risk candidates, having proven themselves by their prior academic record, and now possess a brand-named transcript. unlike organic students, they didn't have to deal with the BS of 1L at their new school, and often attended their old school on the cheap. they also do well at their new school, where curves tend to fall away in 2L &3L classes. but for US News, transfers likely would have had half the spaces in top tier schools occupied by the nitwit whiners commenting. full disclosure: T100 to CLS.

11:20/11:36 Check out the prior ATL thread(s) on gunners back in January. I think you'll understand the sentiments against gunners a bit more.

The transfer racket unfairly discriminates against low-income but talented students who receive merit/need aid during their first year and who are unwilling or unable to pay full tuition at a higher-ranked school.

And yes, echoing the comments of many above, it's irritating that schools consider transfer students when calculating honors at graduation. But for those 1L grades, who WOULDN'T graduate with distinction?

The "quarterly University of Chicago Newspaper" contains no legitimate news in it whatsoever and is purely intended to be humorous. Whoever sent that poem into ATL is a serious douchebag, its a joke, get over it.

I transferred into Chicago and found it to be quite welcoming. You did have to make an effort to find friends outside of your fellow transfer students, but it was pretty easy. I also found relatively little resentment, one person (a friend of mine) did complain about our ability to receive honors/high honors, but since Chicago had a pretty strict curve even for second and third year classes I didn't really hear too much about that issue other than the one comment. I also found people, despite Chicago's reputation, were friendly and open to accepting transfers.

The poem must have appeared in the Phoenix, which is the quarterly humor magazine and (at least when I was a student) was often full of sarcastic articles. They harassed everyone, including professors, with the same vigor, so I don't think shows any animus towards transfers as a whole. It has some truth to it too (at least with respect to me, I'm sure some people rolled their eyes when I was talking), so it's fair game.

Is my school the only T14 that maintained a strict curve through all 3 years? All this bitching about inflated grades for transfers is completely foreign to me

12:13, I get your point. I thought it was odd too that transfers have a better chance of finishing with high honors at my T-10 then those who went through the rigours of 1L year with people who got in the first time. This seems especially odd considering the weight that is placed on 1L classes. At my school, the 1L classes were worth substantially more credits than pretty much any class you could take 2 or 3L year, meaning if you did poorly 1L year, it was extremeley difficult to make it up in your overall class standing.

That being said, I stil don't begrudge the system because the benefit one has in going straight to a T-10 is that one is not subject to the pressure of absolutely having to do well. Sure, you could take the scholarship at Cardozo and finish in the top 2%, but what if you don't make the top 2%? There is always that risk, and not having to face the consequences of that risk, for me, is worth it. So maybe in some way the transfers deserve to come in with a clean slate, because they took a risk that most people with options would be afraid to take, and they succeeded.

Went from tier 2 to doing the WUSTL. Didn't feel any bias from the students because going into 2L a lot of people don't know a lot of other people anyways. School was very supportive. Generally felt that employers discounted us 10-15 percentiles during OCI (i.e., you were top 10% at your old school, you got interviews that wanted top 20-25% at WUSTL). Some got great jobs, some got no jobs about in the same proportion as the rest of the class. No one I know of got a scholly. Generally grades stayed the same or went down 10% or so from the old school. No one went up or down significantly.

I transfered from AU.

Best decision ever.

Most of the transfers to Vandy this year were unbelievable d-bags.

One convinced a clinic professor to make the class write a 20+ page paper (after said professor had told class he had decided to take it off the syllabus). He was also an unbelievable all-around d-bag.

Another has been overheard numerous times stating that he is a "master" painter, horse-back rider, in-line skater, DJ, guitarist, inventor, etc. And, he noted that he fits in equally well in upscale President's Club-type bars, redneck dives, and any gay bar in town. Because that's just the type of guy he is. Ultimate d-bag --> and a gunner to boot.

So, yes, massive resentment of d-bag gunnerish transfers at Vandy. They suck.

Concerning law firm hiring, as noted above, some law firms dislike transfers because they think that the transfers are second-rate students at that top school, and some law firms seem to only care about the GPA even if it was earned at a much lesser law school. But the market is what it is and law firms make hiring decisions that make no sense from a merit-based level. Seriously, does the Brooklyn-NYU transfer with a 3.9 1L GPA suddenly become Cravath/S&C material at NYU but wouldn't have been able to do the work at a V30 firm if he had stayed at Brooklyn? Literally, once that Brooklyn student signs to transfer to NYU, his stature in Biglaw's eyes suddenly skyrockets in the span of that one second. But what can you do? The law firms do what they want and you can't do much about it as a student. Wait until you become the hiring partner and hope that you haven't yourself become a obsessive prestige whore.

However, the concerns about graduating with honors are very valid. There is no doubt that 1L is the most competitive year in law school and top grades are much harder to come by than during 2L/3L. It is very unfair to normal-admission students to have to watch transfers scoop up the graduating honors based solely on 2L/3L grades. I personally would have graduated top 10% at my T-10 school had only my 2L/3L grades counted but ended up with top 30% honors factoring in my 1L grades. Schools are supposed to fair and merit-based (at least theoretically) and they need to change the system so that normal-admission and transfer-admission students have a somewhat similar footing.

I think a fair compromise would be to assign the mean 1L GPA to transfers solely for the purposes of deciding graduating honors. Their overall GPAs could still only consist of 2L/3L grades.

Example: Bob transfers to Columbia (mean 1L GPA 3.0) from Cardozo. Bob gets a 3.6 GPA in his 2L/3L years at Columbia. When Bob graduates:

Bob's GPA = 3.6
Bob's GPA for determining graduating honors = 3.4

12:13--you have it backwards. It's is NYU who is gaming the system in every way. In the class of '05, CLS had ~35 transfer students whereas NYU had 70-80.

Transfers should not be permitted to graduate with honors, except amongst themselves. John Smith, Transfer Magna Cum Laude.

You have to give credit to the time that Ms President and her compatriots (11.35, 12.31, 12.34 etc) are spending trying to undermine the validity of the extremely valid gripe pointed out here. However what they have missed is the simple fact that it is not funny for many students. Obviously the satire of the "poem" (really can you call that poorly written trash a poem?) is not funny for a significant part of the UofC student body, and this dreadful attempt at humor (I say this with skepticism, because really there is some level malice that underlies the writing) has only served to isolate a body of students who come into the law school already seperated and different because of their transfer status.

I transferred from a tier-4 school to a tier-1 school and I concur with many of the posters that transfers do face some discrimiation from recruiters. I contemplated leaving my transfer status off of my resume for OCI so that I would receive more initial interviews. I would also agree that transfers do have a more difficult time integrating into schools with a smaller student body and they usually stick together with other transfers. Anyone that has any ill feelings towards transfers is simply a d-bag and they are just pissed that we can compete with anyone else at top schools mostly because we are more motivated and just as intelligent.

Schools started accepting all of these transfer students about a decade ago. NYU led the way -- and it was specifically designed to inflate the LSAT / grades at entrance for US News. Others followed. But this was instrumental in NYU breaking into the top 5.

At Chicago, I think the resentment comes from the fact that the first year is way harder than subsequent years, mainly because every class is on the fixed curve 1L year. Transfers avoid going through that wringer and end out with decent grades bc they can take a high proportion of classes not on the fixed curve. Many of us would have much higher averages if only 2L and 3L grades counted. As for the transfers being the equal of regular admits, I would guess that they are close enough in intelligence and willing to work really hard so they end out doing fine, although none ended out at the top of the class, when I attended.

While I do believe the average regular admit at a top 5 or so school is quite a bit more intelligent than people admitted regularly to lesser schools, I also think that law is not rocket science, and you just don't have to be all that smart to do a good job. Working hard, diligence, etc. are more important than smarts. Some of my best associates went to really crappy schools. Some of the worst ones, went to better schools and have some inordinate sense of entitlement.

12:49 is spot on. There's normal satire and such, but consider if the same "satire" poem was about minorities getting in with lower numbers.

Also -- I think that poem is a pretty good snark.