hi kash!

"Transfer students get to skip out on the hellish first year at a top school, and then ride the curve to graduation. "

A "hellish" first year at a top law school? Give me a break.

DVZ rules!

Transfers at my old firm were really hit or miss. Then again, the homegrown talent didn’t always work out as well as we hoped.

University of Michigan takes a couple dozen transfers each year, most in the top 5% of their class in non-t14 schools. They seem to do pretty well. Yes, they're gunners -- transfers are on the moot court board, law review and secondary journals, leadership positions in journals. They're high in the class and at least two at U of M have federal clerkships lined up, the rest are going to BigLaw.

They seem to play well with others and haven't been responsible for any of U of M's ATL headlines.

University of Michigan takes a couple dozen transfers each year, most in the top 5% of their class in non-t14 schools. They seem to do pretty well. Yes, they're gunners -- transfers are on the moot court board, law review and secondary journals, leadership positions in journals. They're high in the class and at least two at U of M have federal clerkships lined up, the rest are going to BigLaw.

They seem to play well with others and haven't been responsible for any of U of M's ATL headlines.

A 1L year at a lower-ranked school is arguably much tougher because you KNOW that you have to finish at the top of your class if you want any chance at a decent job whereas if you're at a T-14 school, all you really need is the top half to have a decent chance.

Classmates lose friends?

Where did these people go to law school?

ninf

As a former transfer student myself, much of what is said is true. It's a bit harder to forge friendships given that most friendships are formed in the first year when everyone is first meeting. Some students did resent us, but mostly because we received higher grades than they did in the second and third years. Interesting that a lower-tiered dean would call transfer students "cash cows"; isn't that what his students are to his school who won't place at least a 1/3 of its kids upon graduation? It's a bit irresponsible to charge a student $20k for an education that won't lead him to a job that can pay off such a debt.

Transfered from one of the lowest ranked law schools in the country to a Tier 1 school. True story.

In sum: A little effort goes a long way.

Transfer Students: Blowing the curve since 1896 baby!

Yeah, seriously - what top law school has a "hellish first year?" If anything, the trend is in the opposite direction, as we couldn't possibly give a precious little snowflake at Harvard or Yale a C.

As for "poaching," lower ranked law schools should be a little more aggressive about retaining talent. Give the top 5% a free ride, and you'll see fewer transfers. Charge the same as Harvard, and people who can transfer to Harvard will go to Harvard. It's not difficult to understand.

fourteenf

http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2008/06/transfer-studen.html

There is one easy solution. These lower tier schools need to quit complaining and take action. Offering your best students scholarships would surely cause many would-be transfers to think twice before leaving.

The major problems with transfers is that they, on the whole, are stupid. They work like dogs (see: rising to the top of the TTT crap pile), but generally lack the native intelligence and speed of regular top-tier students.

Maybe that makes them better biglaw drones?

I am a 2L at a t50 school. I find it interesting that transfer students from schools such as mine are often branded as "gunners." It seems to me that gunnerhood is in the eye of the beholder. It's one thing for students at t10 schools who will get BigLaw almost regardless of grades, journal admission, etc. But I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that if you're at a law school like mine, and you don't "gun" for those things, then you're out of game as far as BigLaw is concerned. Of course, law students should try to minimize douche-iness to the extent possible. But the most tried and true way to get BigLaw from most t50 schools (let alone TTTs) is to be a gunner.

11 & 13- highly credited

Why are all the good Elie posts not Elie posts? Sigh.

"Transfer students may well be cash cows to the schools, but their chances to make Biglaw cash after graduation are much improved by transferring."

Not sure if this is true. At my school, all the transfers had very high GPAs and could have gotten into the same top firms without transferring. The top students from my section who did not transferred got offers from the same firms as those that did.

The article did not mention, however, that graduating from a top school may make it easier to get hired in the future (when you try to leave your first firm), obtain a clerkship, or get another type of job.

17-
I don't know how you can make that generalization. In many cases, the difference between a regular admit and a transfer admit may have been only a couple of points on the LSAT. That's not the difference between "native intelligence" and stupidity.

I think #13 is absolutely right. I'm a 2L at a school ranked in the 40's, and of my class of 200 about 10 students transferred to top 20 schools. IMHO, if my school made ANY effort to retain its top performing students (i.e. grants/scholarships) some of those students wouldn't have transfered.

Basically, non top-tier law schools are like moderately attractive girls in law school. You've got a pretty good think going for you (i.e. a monopoly). But if you're not cool and you let it get to your head, don't be surprised when your bf jumps at a chance to trade up (like to a girl who is hot in the "real world").

Transfer girls are the best lovers.

If you do well at a non-T14 law school, why wouldn't you transfer, especially in this economy? I knew a classmate (top 1/3, did not write onto law review) who transferred out after the first-year and before he even received any grades at his new school, he had summer position lined up with a V10 firm. Meanwhile, classmates with comparable grades/stats who did not transfer couldn't even get an interview with that firm.

If non-T14 law schools want to retain students, they need to offer something to students that T14 schools don't offer, namely, affordability. As 13 alluded to, if you're going to charge Harvard tuition, your students better have Harvard job prospects.

If you do well at a non-T14 law school, why wouldn't you transfer, especially in this economy? I knew a classmate (top 1/3, did not write onto law review) who transferred out after the first-year and before he even received any grades at his new school, he had summer position lined up with a V10 firm. Meanwhile, classmates with comparable grades/stats who did not transfer couldn't even get an interview with that firm.

If non-T14 law schools want to retain students, they need to offer something to students that T14 schools don't offer, namely, affordability. As 13 alluded to, if you're going to charge Harvard tuition, your students better have Harvard job prospects.

Michigan lost a few gun-tastic 1Ls to the transfer system. I, for one, am glad they're gone. And the imports tend to be hotter than the schwag that left.

"Poaching" implies trespass, stealing, or some level of impropriety. How could anyone possibly argue that schools are "poaching" the students of other schools, or that offering promising students a spot at a top-tier school could constitute a "predatory practice?"

A couple of points:

Re 21's post, I transferred and probably could have gotten the same job I have now had I not transferred, but for future jobs, I feel a lot more comfortable having the top 20 school from which I graduated on my resume, instead of the tier 2 school from which I transferred.

My first year was hell because I hated my law school and chose to spend time working my ass off to get out instead of spending any time making friends. Luckily it worked, and when I arrived at my second school I was able to relax a little bit and actually made a lot more friends because I didn't hate my life anymore

Attending a school that you know you want to transfer from is incredibly risky, but I did it anyway and luckily it worked out.

LOL at someone from Roger Williams University School of Law lamenting his former students turning into "cash cows."

All of the 3rd and 4th tier schools are moneymaking shams, where all but the top 1% of students are basically paying $10-30k a year for no payoff in the end. Those pitiful kids are cash cows without even knowing it... until they transfer to better schools and have real job prospects.

The transfers at Michigan are, despite one or two bad apples, by far the nicest and most pleasant people in the law school.

I'm happy to have them, they are welcomed alternatives to the socially-awkward "geniuses" that got it on the first go-round.

Commenter 17 being a perfect example of one of those "geniuses."

Concerned Transfer Applicant: I love your school, but I am afraid I will be treated as a second-class citizen if I come here.

Peppy Dean of Admissions: Transfer applicants are just applicants that would have been admitted in their first year had their GPA and LSAT stats been a little higher. These are the applicants with exceptional achievements that every school would have courted in the days before law school rankings shifted the focus from strong individuals to strong statistics.

Applicant: Would you be able to offer me a scholarship?

Officer: Transfer students are not eligible for merit aid.

17 is full of shit. I transferred after my first year to a T10 school. I had a perfect LSAT and a mediocre (B/B+) GPA (mostly due to skipping too many classes in undergrad). I worked my tail off at my original law school (which had a C curve, instead of the B curve at the T10 school I transferred to), made the jump, and graduated with honors from the T10 school. It was a little harder to make friends, but I and most of my classmates got over it pretty quickly. I guess I was a "cash cow" for my transfer school, but I saved $20K in tuition my first year and got the same degree as the people who started there, so it worked out fine for me.

At my T14 law school we had what seemed like a lot of transfers. Some didn't realize the league that they were now playing in and tried to dominate the class room discussions like they presumably did at there last law school. That didn't go over that well because, frankly, at their new school these were mediocre students. Others, like a friend of mine, realized that they were now in the big leagues and sat back and listened to the smart people in the class room. He found the discussions much more educational and interesting than in his last school and he didn't need to jump in all the time to prove himself. Really, in a law school class of about 100 at a T14, there are going to be some brilliant people. The class room is best served when those people are doing most of the talking. By the end of first year, we all know who those people are. Chances are that the transfer from Apex Tech & Law isn't going to be one of those big brains and they should realize that and they should take a back seat to the discussion like 80% of the other students.

Guys at my high school used to poach the hottest girls, it was no big deal.

Big ups to 11 & 13. It's criminal that there aren't notable price breaks between t14, the rest of the top 50, and lower-tier schools. For example, here's the tuitions from the Boston schools' websites:

HLS: $ 41,500
BC: $38,340
BU: $37,502
Suffolk: $38,070
Northeastern: $34,737

I imagine the median graduate incomes would not be so consistent... yet the Deans think they can charge the same amount.

This whole argument is nonsensical. Almost everyone agrees that the LSAT and/or undergrad GPA are at best mediocre predictors of one's ability to do well in law school and the legal field in general. Transfers have already proven themselves by their ACTUAL PERFORMANCE in law school. Why try and relabel them and their new schools in the USNEWS rankings with indicators that they have already proven were inaccurate? Alternatively, we should just assign grades in law school based on people's LSAT scores and be done with it.

Regarding the poaching argument, we should also mandate that no associate/partner can lateral to another firm. That would prevent some firms from offering attractive options to associates/partners, thus "poaching" them away from other firms.

30, very good point. I transferred from a tier 3 law school to a tier 1 law school and both schools had the same tuition! The difference is, now I can pay back my loans with the job I secured by transferring to a better school. If lower tier law schools are complaining about their top students getting poached then maybe they should stop duping 300 students ever year into paying them $40K in tuition to attend their law school when they know full well, that only 10 or 20 of those students will graduate with biglaw jobs.

Transfer students will always be less than. Not specifically less than full students at their school of matriculation, that too, but as people.

I know a girl who transferred from a second tier state school to Georgetown and landed in BigLaw.

This is noteworthy solely for the fact that she was admitted to the state school with a 148 on her LSAT, nearly ten points below the average for that school at that time.

The poor state school no doubt took a gamble admitting this girl on the basis of her c.v. etc., wagering that she'd ultimately prove herself a successful lawyer and thereby a distinguished alumna in spite of her LSATs.

They were right.

Unfortunately, Georgetown now gets credit for this girl's success in BigLaw (along with her alumna donations) while the state school has nothing to show for its gamble but a stinking 148 in its already anemic pool of LSAT scores.

LOL @ the UM transfer student trying to stroke himself off by posting how great he is.

40 YOU are a douche!

Any point in transferring from CCN to YH? Looking to get out of law and America when debts are paid sometime.

BOTTOM LINE:

State schools get screwed.

t10 and transfers do well.

Douche Patrol - too quick on the douche trigger. I thought 40 brought some funny sarcasm to the discussion.

I transferred to a T3 school. It was only a $5k difference to attend the T3 school (factoring my scholarship at the old school).

At the time, I know (now) I could have had the same summer job 2L year regardless of what school I attended. However, I'm not so sure that in THIS economy that would be the case.

I got a Circuit Clerkship right after graduation. I'm not sure I could've gotten that even with perfect grades at my 1L school. However, at the moment of making the decision of whether or not to transfer, I would've stayed at my former school for a free ride. It's the only way you can equate the experiences--the "brand" name of the higher-ranked school v. $0 debt.

Yes it was hard to make friends at first. Yes, I don't know as many people at my current school as I did at my 1L school. But so what? I got involved in extra-curricular activities and DID make good friends, and I have found great mentors at my new school.

While I'm sure some transfers are "gunners" in the pejorative sense of word, my experience has been that the majority of transfers are simply hard workers. (Remember the gunners don't usually get the top grades 1L year).

Transfers, much like canker sores and splinters, are an inevitable unpleasantness of life with which we all must unfortunately deal. I just pray to God my daughter never marries one.

the difference between "t14" whatever the hell that means, and tier 2 law students is probably often that the tier 2 student partied way harder, has wealthy parents, ust didn't really care about prepping that hard for the lsat, or wasn't bred to perform exceptionally well on standardized tests and didn;t worry about the lsat until sr. year of college. yes there are often likely cases of plain smarts, but i'd bet that's not the norm. also consider that different people hit their peaks at different times in their lives (i didnt crack a book until sophomore year of college).

I transferred from Texas to St. Mary's and got a Circuit City Clerkship, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

46 YOU are a douche!

Someone told me that a Yale Law 1L transferred to Cardozo. This was back in 2003 or 2004. Sounds unlikely, but too crazy to be made up.

Can anyone verify this or another case of a reverse transfer?

50- you did what?!

douche patrol is a twatwaffle.

52

It was the bastard grandchild of Justice RBG.

WUSTL also has a big transfer class, many from TTTs, TTTTs. We even had a Cooley girl when I was going through. WUSTL tries to get it every which way. Play the USNews game by buying every single top student/LSAT score. And when second year rolls around, admit a 40+ transfer class to make up your margin. Though, many of these transfers had real problems getting jobs.

A lot of my friends who have transferred up from second tier, fourth tier or unaccredited law schools to the first tier found it really difficult to land 2L jobs this year. The firms are there to see main show - students with good grades from Tier 1 School. Because grades are all based on your classmates, firms have no idea how you would have done in 1L year among the students they came to see. It was hard for them to get callbacks in the new pool, and some of them would have done better as the top student/law review/etc. at old school with firms who came to see THEM. It also didn't help that OCI bidding was already going on before these students even transferred in.

52, a reverse transfer could definitely make sense if there was a scholarship involved. You'd still have Yale or whatever on your resume, you might get a free ride somewhere else and still get into Biglaw. Or, if you're not interested in Biglaw, all the better. That said, I don't know of anyone who has done it.

I heard the dean at a certain chicago ttt used to encourage top ranked students to transfer to schools like northwestern.

I know people who have gone from T10 to T25, but it was for geography, and it wasn't a big drop.

37-

Your point, as well as those you reference is valid. But don’t be fooled into thinking that the true villains are the Deans of lower ranked schools. That, much like thinking that Ira Gaines was the true villain of Day 1 would be a mistake. Those guys are just lackeys, the true villain is the ABA. Because of the uniform standards required for accreditation by the ABA, including but not limited to a certain number of tenured faculty as well as library facilities, schools are forced into a certain cost structure in order to receive accreditation. Without which, their students couldn’t sit for the bar. This is just a form of protectionism under the guise of ensuring a professional standard. There are worthwhile arguments to be made for these standards, but the ABA is truly concerned with schools just preparing students for the bar with low cost adjuncts and flooding the market. The problem is, once lawyers graduate they have a vested interest in keeping the system going.

37-

Your point, as well as those you reference is valid. But don’t be fooled into thinking that the true villains are the Deans of lower ranked schools. That, much like thinking that Ira Gaines was the true villain of Day 1 would be a mistake. Those guys are just lackeys, the true villain is the ABA. Because of the uniform standards required for accreditation by the ABA, including but not limited to a certain number of tenured faculty as well as library facilities, schools are forced into a certain cost structure in order to receive accreditation. Without which, their students couldn’t sit for the bar. This is just a form of protectionism under the guise of ensuring a professional standard. There are worthwhile arguments to be made for these standards, but the ABA is truly concerned with schools just preparing students for the bar with low cost adjuncts and flooding the market. The problem is, once lawyers graduate they have a vested interest in keeping the system going.

57 = TTT Dean.

I can confrim a reverse trasnfer. Class of 2006 guy transferred from GULC to BC. Did great at both schools, and I believe had a sweet BigLaw job lined up. He was really nice. Said that that he just couldn't stand the people at GULC and wasn't going to waste another two years being in that environment anymore, if I remember correctly.

If I'd worked my ass off through college only to get the same job and name-recognition as someone who slacked off in college and then worked their ass off for only their 1L year, I'd be bitter too. And when the transfer graduated with a higher GPA because they came in with a clean GPA slate, I'd be even more bitter.

Suck it Trebek.
/s/ Summa Cum Transfer

52 –
I transferred from a TTT to dozo before 2003. There were a few reverse transfers who came to Cardozo to land a job in NYC. They were from schools like Maryland and Wisconsin, but not Yale.

The only reason I could think of for leaving Yale is either getting kicked out (impossible) or moving out of CT to join a spouse (unlikely to cause transfer in this case given the proximity).

Hypothetically, I guess it could happen if a Yale 1-L moved to be with his/her spouse in NYC and either preferred a school with a Jewish affiliation or transferred so late that Columbia/NYU/Fordham were booked.

52 - how about Judge Rendell (3d Cir.) who transferred from GULC to Nova.

Transfer students deserve to be treated as second-class citizens. They're fucking traitors.

65-
You're a huge dumb-ass if you think it's that clear cut. Often, the transfer worked just as hard as your goony ass in college, maybe even harder. It could have been a couple of LSAT points that made the difference. It could have been the timing of the law school application. It could have been a number of factors. Don't be a douche-head

69 - Sounds like you're the "douche-head." Obviously I was referring to my own circumstances. Right now I'm trying to guess how many times you got laid in college, and I'm thinking it was zero.

-65

70 (65):
I guess you're not counting all those times I fucked your mom and sister.
-69 (did that with your mom too)

I agree with 13 and 26 - the lower ranking schools charge an awful lot of money for a degree that promises NO job security. I went to a mid-30s school, and so many of my classmates are in serious financial trouble. Meanwhile, the school just got a huge endowment, which they have announced they will use to recruit better students. (Because, as another commenter pointed out, two points on the LSAT, is definitely indicative of the difference between native intelligence and abject stupidity).

Awesome.

We haze anybody at our school who transferred from GULC; man, woman or child. Their life becomes hell on earth not that it wasn't before having gone to GULC.

Now I realize I should've transferred up after my first year!!! Yet again a revelation that back in the mid-90s, in the days just before the internet explosion, so few of us really knew the game! Now, every snotnose undergrad realizes this is what you should do. The rest of us were just surprised when three or four good students moved on to NYU and Columbia.

However I had already met my future wife by that point so I don't think I would have wanted to transfer from TT to T1, as none of those schools were close.

The thing I noticed about the transfer students is that they always stuck out socially for some reason-- it was obvious in class or at parties who was a transfer. There was a lot of intense friendship-forming that first year of law school and these guys were the perpetual odd men/women out. Some of them would bitch about it a little. That said, I was good friends with a couple of those guys. On top of that, law school is a professional endeavor rather than (only) a frat- no one will give a shit in 10 years if you had a lot of friends in law school. So if you can move up, it's worth it to have a lonely year or two in order to make shitloads more money down the road. Duh.

There are a lot of transfers out there who are not gunners.

Jack Bauer-
You are a national hero. You rightly condemn the scum suckers at the ABA, painting them for the swine that they are. And you didn't even mention "for profit law schools", their greatest crime against the profession.

Transfers represent everything that is wrong with the legal profession.

Their reward? More PIE!

75 - not so subtle gunner trolling

I transferred to a first-tier school (ranked in the 30s) from a second-tier school (ranked in the 50s). Both are large state schools, both are visited by the same firms during OCIs, and historically neither school has a meaningful edge in terms of academic reputation over the other. Even so, I felt like damaged goods during OCIs (one douche even asked me for my LSAT percentile before he would give me a job offer) and probably would have had an easier time landing a job during OCIs had I stayed at the second-tier school.

I transferred to a first-tier school (ranked in the 30s) from a second-tier school (ranked in the 50s). Both are large state schools, both are visited by the same firms during OCIs, and historically neither school has a meaningful edge in terms of academic reputation over the other. Even so, I felt like damaged goods during OCIs (one douche even asked me for my LSAT percentile before he would give me a job offer) and probably would have had an easier time landing a job during OCIs had I stayed at the second-tier school.

I think it's laughable that people at top schools would look down their noses at transfer students. It suggests a certain sense of entitlement that is just plain unwarranted. I went to college at a t10 school (both in undergrad and law rankings) - the folks I knew who in college who ended up at top law schools were not the hardest workers at my institution by a longshot; they may have thought they were working hard, but the folks I knew who aspired to be med students or certain types of PhD students worked circles around the pre-law crowd. Plus, many top undergraduate schools are notorious for rampant grade inflation in the humanities and social sciences (here's looking at you, Harvard). Of course, somebody with fantastic LSAT scores and grades may deserve to get into a top law school - but that takes nothing away from the person who may have had only slightly worse numbers, went to a lesser law school as a result, and worked his or her ass off during 1L year to successfully transfer. God knows I know enough sycophantic idiot undergrads who ended up at HYS because they could train themselves to take a standardized test, but aside from that, were the the butt of everyone else's jokes

I think it's laughable that people at top schools would look down their noses at transfer students. It suggests a certain sense of entitlement that is just plain unwarranted. I went to college at a t10 school (both in undergrad and law rankings) - the folks I knew who in college who ended up at top law schools were not the hardest workers at my institution by a longshot; they may have thought they were working hard, but the folks I knew who aspired to be med students or certain types of PhD students worked circles around the pre-law crowd. Plus, many top undergraduate schools are notorious for rampant grade inflation in the humanities and social sciences (here's looking at you, Harvard). Of course, somebody with fantastic LSAT scores and grades may deserve to get into a top law school - but that takes nothing away from the person who may have had only slightly worse numbers, went to a lesser law school as a result, and worked his or her ass off during 1L year to successfully transfer. God knows I know enough sycophantic idiot undergrads who ended up at HYS because they could train themselves to take a standardized test, but aside from that, were the the butt of everyone else's jokes

To get into a top law school as a 1L, the school looks at the applicant's entire life. For transfer students, they look at 7 law school examinations.

Degrees of transfer students should have a big asterik.

83-
that's just not true. I applied to transfer- they wanted resume, recommendations, undergrad transcripts, etc. It was essentially the same as applying for 1L, except that I ALSO needed a rec from a law prof (who I only had one semester to get to know). So in a sense, it's a more rigorous application.

AP Lawyers, the comprehensive reference of useful Law related information,articles. Find the best lawyers, attorneys and law firms in the US. Find the best Injury Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer, Criminal Lawyer, Accident Lawyer, Mesothelioma Lawyer, Medical Malpractice, Debt Consolidation, Nonprofit and other attorneys.

Visit at http://aplawyers.com/c/4/Agricultural-Law/

The only people at my school (t10) that complain about transfers are the people toward the bottom of the class with no job lined up. But they are always complaining about everything. If it's not transfers, it's the administration, the p/f system, etc., etc. They are simply complainers and transfers are just an easy target.

Everyone with good grades and a good job is either indifferent to the transfers or actually likes most of them.

Tranfers at my school = crushing tight box

Why does everyone make such a fuss about transfer students? If they managed to transfer to a better school, then they are just as good as those who were good enough to get in in the first place.
Those pretending they are better because they got in from the start are just soporiphic douches that should be expelled to an island in the middle of the artic ocean.

89,

"If they managed to transfer to a better school, then they are just as good as those who were good enough to get in in the first place."

This is a transfer fantasy. They were not good enough to get in in the first place. 3.2 GPA, 158 LSAT is not good enough for UCLA. Sorry.

90 There is apparently, more than one way to get into UCLA. One would be with your great numbers on GPA and LSATs (oh and with a nerdy look and no real friends, probably). One other would be by getting some other kind of noteworthy credit elswhere, and transfering.
You are still a moron, for believing those high LSATs make you a better person.
-89

I know that some people would like to look down on me as a transfer, but I'm now top 10% in the class at a T14 school. There are 3-5 people who have a right to look down on me, if the rest thought they were better than me because of my 2.9 undergrad GPA, then they could try to do better than me on law exams... but they can't.

I transferred from a 4th tier school to a 2nd tier state school with cheap tuition. I graduated with high honors, and am now practicing BigLaw. I have the same job, same pay, and less debt than all of you T10 grads. But, you are right. Since the LSAT said so, you are probably smarter than I am.

83: Right. I'm sure T 14 schools actually read the personal statement, letters of recommendation, etc. I know many, many people who went to top schools who hit it out of the ballpark on the LSAT but had mediocre grades.

94 is correct. Aside from Boalt, schools would rather take someone with a 3.2 / 170 than someone with a 3.9 / 165. It's classic GULC-itis at work where you could have been a complete dunce in college, but as long as you can eke out a decent LSAT score, that's enough for them.

R.B. Ginsburg transferred from HLS to CLS.

Which amounts to the biggest coup CLS has ever seen.

Uh, note that Ginsburg transferred to be with her husband in NYC, not because she thought CLS was better than HLS.

As some other posters have pointed out, in what way is this process "poaching"? Except for weird cases such as the conditional transfer offers, it's the unhappy, unsatisfied students taking the first initiative to apply out.

And you'd be plenty unsatisfied with your original school too if you saw large scholarships going to (people who turned out to be) dunces with below median GPAs while you're paying full tuition and ended up at top of the class. There's simply no reason for the high-achieving student at a lower-ranked school to stick around and pay full tuition for another two years to get a degree that will offer questionable at best job prospects.

74 & others nailed it. transferring is a career decision and (generally) what one gives up initially is paid back 10 fold over a career. You can't change where you received your law degree from, and once your far enough into practice, the grades you received in law school, TTT or t10, don't tend to be as meaningful; whereas the school you received our degree from does.

100 is right. After 5-10 years of practice, no one is going to hone in on your law school GPA -- and odds are, that won't even be on your resume by then. All that will be noticed is where you went to law school. Having a top school there makes you look smarter (whether true or not) and usually gives you more networking opportunities.

In my opinion, that's a pretty small price to pay for a little bit of social awkwardness for two years. Plus, as long as you're reasonably social, you're likely to make a close-knit group of friends at your new school. It's unnecessary to know / be friendly with everyone -- odds are, you'll lose touch with all but your closest law school friends a couple of years after graduating anyway.

I transferred from 2T school to a top-3 school. I had the undergrad GPA and the LSAT scores to go there in the first place. but had not applied there initially because I wanted to stay in the city where I lived. However, I eventually realized that names matter and your school stays with you forever -- so I bit the bullet, made a significant financial sacrifice, and went.
I had a pretty awful time at my transfer school. People looked down on transfers as though they were, indeed, just "cash cows" with no business being there. I am sure they all thought we did not have the "native intelligence" and "speed" of the students who had comt as 1Ls. (See the earlier comment.)
I am still not sure how people can allow themselves to feel so superior to others without making any effort whatsoever to know their circumstances.

Transfers should do OCI with their 1L school. It's ridiculous to get the benefits of attending a new school (i.e. job prospects and OCI) without having taken any classes there.

Transfers will never shed their taint or shame.

103: Oh yeah, because it won't be awkward as hell for the outgoing transfers to be around their former classmates and have to strongly preface each interview with the fact that they transferred, especially when firms try to provide alumni interviewers for law schools. Also, good luck getting the outgoing school to agree to that.

Getting the additional OCI opportunities is another perk of transferring. Also, you're assuming that firms are stupid and don't realize which school's transcript they're look at -- they do and take that into account. Sure, transfers doing OCI get more opportunities, but they're not treated by employers as having attended 1L at the new school. From what I've seen, it's more a halfway thing.

At least when I went there years ago, Brooklyn did give automatic scholarships to its top students. 1/4 tuitition to the students ranked 25-50, 1/2 tuition to 2-25, and a full ride + dorm to the #1 student. Yet, many still left the money behind, thinking paying $20-30K more was in the long run worth it. Money won't keep people - otherwise people would turn down Harvard for Binghamtpon. And, the payouts caused a lot of heartache for the administration because the students complained that the students who needed the money the least got the most.

I had a full scholarship to Tier 4 then transferred to T14. Basically, I got 1/3 of the T14 diploma for free, no asterix on diploma.

Suckas.

96 < 55

93: Why, because transfers get the jobs and you don't? Sorry, work a little harder. The grading curves in lower tiered law schools are usually around a C instead of a B. So those transfers taking your jobs deserve it because they already outperformed you.

Other schools offer the "please don't transfer" bribe, but it's more discretionary and one of those types of things where the student would have to seek out the Dean, transfer acceptance in hand. In most cases, this doesn't take place because like previous posters have said, the student realizes it's better to leave the money on the table now and take the longer-term benefit of a more prestigious degree.

Is transferring from UChicago to HLS worthwhile?

109, I think you meant to refer to 93, but your point is well taken. I don't feel sorry for the student at a top school who couldn't cut it and is trying to scapegoat transfers to justify him not getting a good firm job. Either the student is lazy or simply underqualified for his school -- admissions made a mistake with him and to some extent, is trying to compensate by accepting transfers who have proven the ability to do well in law school. Given his crappy performance, said student should feel even luckier than he got into the school in the first place.

111, it depends. Do you have some other reason for transferring aside from a naked prestige grab? Things like, if you have a spouse, SO, or family in / around Boston that you want to closer to. Or, if there are particular courses you want to take at HLS that aren't offered at Chicago (this works well because Chicago is a smaller school). If those types of things are true, it might be worth a shot. Otherwise, it's not as if Chicago isn't going to open up enough doors for you already. Assuming you don't hate Chicago (big if), it might not be worth it.

105 - you're right; both systems are imperfect. The additional OCI opportunities are not merely another perk of transferring. It is the entire reason to transfer.

And let's be honest about the difference in opportunities. Firms want X students from HYS, Y students from CCN, and Z students from the rest of the T14. The prestige of your degree is an incredibly important signalling mechanism in this profession. It is extremely valued by firms, and given the choice between a Top 5% UC Davis student, or a Top 5% UC Davis student who, for purposes of their firm website and marketting to clients, will be a NYU alum, they will choose the latter every time.

I'm not saying students shouldn't transfer, or that they don't belong at their new school. Only that letting transfers interview as students of a law school before they've taken a class there strikes me as flawed - though not sure how to better it.

-103

I assume someone has already mentioned this in the comments but I'm going to re-state in anyway and not read every braying jack@$$'s comments.

Transfer students do, in fact, count for LSAT and GPA and all other aspects of USNews rankings. The students who don't are "visting" students. If you obtain a degree from a law school you are factored into their rankings. If you don't, you won't be. This isn't rocket science and I would imagine the many elitist simpeltons who thumb their noses at anyone at a "lesser" institution would be able to grasp that concept.

103 / 105 --
Actually, the only thing that transfers gain by interviewing with the new school is the opportunity to interview at places that would never have looked at them at their old school. When it comes to any given employer, the transfer will have a lesser chance when compared with his brand new classmates because he is "unproven." However, an employer has already decided it wants to show its openmindedness by hiring people from second tier schools, it will be delighted to hire the 4.0 GPA guy -- but hesitant to use up its top school slots for the transfers.

114 -- I completely agree that the system is flawed, but there's no good solution that's fair to the outgoing school and the new school.

Let's say the transfer does OCI at his outgoing school. In addition to all that awkwardness, etc., said transfer will likely take a lot of spots away from the students staying at the old school. And even worse for old school, they don't get any credit for the having succeeded in getting a student at a top firm -- the transfer isn't one of them anymore.

In contrast, the new school is a lot more able to "take the hit" and employers are a lot more willing to take one more for example, NYU student than one more for example, Cardozo student. Given the two choices (short of any alternative), I'd rather put the burden a little more on the students at the top school who might be very very marginally disadvantaged (and only those who didn't do well) vs. putting the burden on the students at the lower-ranked school, who might see their only opportunity for BigLaw disappear if outgoing transfers interviewed with them and took all the good spots.

I applied to 20 law schools and got into one, part-time program at tier 4 school (I applied for full-time). Got good grades, transfered to a T25, landed big law, and the rest is history...

I applied to 20 law schools and got into one, part-time program at tier 4 school (I applied for full-time). Got good grades, transfered to a T25, landed big law, and the rest is history...

Post 116 corrected (sorry)
103 / 105 --
Actually, the only thing that transfers gain by interviewing with the new school is the opportunity to interview at places that would never have looked at them at their old school. When it comes to any given employer, the transfer will have a lesser chance when compared with his brand new classmates because he is "unproven." However, if an employer has already decided it wants to show its openmindedness by hiring people from second tier schools, it will be delighted to hire the 4.0 GPA guy -- but hesitant to use up its top school slots for the transfers.

I had an interesting experience. I worked for six years after gradutating undergrad with a 2.4 from a prestigous undergrad institution. I was active in electoral politics and college debate, classes got in the way due to immaturity. I was top 4% on the LSAT, had very solid recs, including one from a prominent member of the Clinton adminsitration who was both my professor and when he/she ran for elected office, my boss. I applied to 16 schools and was admitted to two, waitlisted at fourteen and rejected by none. The waitlists ranged from HLS to NY Law (not NYU, NY Law). I was flabergasted so I spoke with someone I knew in admissions at one of the schools who flat out said "look, we know you CAN do the work, we just aren't sure you'll choose to, prove you give a damn for a year and apply again, you'll get in." So I took that adive, and did.

115, if that were true, GULC would be ranked about #30 right now with the ~100 transfer students it takes every year who I'm sure didn't get anywhere close to 170 on the LSAT. Each year, USNews only reports the GPA and LSAT of the entering 1L class, not of transfers and visiting students. The only way for transfers to be incorporated into the USNews statistics would be to change the metric to a measure of the last three years of admissions (creating other problems) or to release revised rankings for previous years that incorporate transfer data in with the 1L data. And, while I would be psyched to see GULC reduced to the crappy mid-20s ranking it deserves, neither approach is really plausible.

121, good story. This just goes to show that the transfer process, at least ideally, offers students the opportunity to prove themselves for a year and then be given the opportunity to go to a school that more closely matches their abilities. It's also nice that the one admissions person was blunt with you and clearly told you that if you showed you'd commit to doing the work, you'd get taken at a much better place next year. Clearly, there was a signaling issue and thankfully, it was fixed via the transfer opportunity.

Likewise, there are plenty of students who just don't take timed tests well, but who are otherwise extremely intelligent. Because the LSAT is the be-all, end-all of the current admissions system, those students would never have a chance of going to a top law school, if not for the chance to transfer. I don't see a problem with rewarding students for their actual law school performance versus their performance for 3-4 hours one day on a standardized test.

Also, it's not as if most mid-160 LSAT scores are bad either, percentile-wise. A 165 is something like 93rd percentile, yet wouldn't give you a chance in hell at most top schools. A 170 is ~98th percentile and that still probably wouldn't get you into YHSCCN. There's way too much emphasis on a really narrow group of testtakers. For all the flaws of the SAT, at least colleges aren't only taking kids who got a 1580 (or 2380 on the new system).

121 who told you that was interesting?

"Degrees of transfer students should have a big asterik," says 83.

Mine does. It says "With Honors." And they actually gave me a special diploma that says "Order of the Coif."

125 -- you rock!

Transferred to a top school from a low second tier school. My 1L was more rigorous than anything I've seen here. I had to stand up to address certain teachers in class, and we had mostly closed book exams. 1L at my new school is ridiculously simple. The kids here don't really even study, and I don't think they have any closed book exams. The rich get richer.

And to anyone complaining about transfers -- remember that we enter 2L OCI with grades from the shitty school. No one takes those as seriously. Riding the curve is fun though. I got above a 4.0 last semester. I didn't know that was even possible.

Fuck yo couch.

DVZ: "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a student who learns and interviews under the U.S. News Rankings I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide them! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you attend some festering TTT like GULC. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!"

127,

Closed book exams reward memorization and are usually less difficult. Closed book exams reward thinking.

Closed book exams are necessary at TTTs or else the stupid students will never pass their respective bar exams.

129, actually I took a couple of closed book exams at a top school and they required as much thinking as the open book ones -- and were harder, because you actually had to know the stuff and not just remember where to look it up.
Really, how arrogant can you people get?

I agree with 130. The hardest exams I've taken (and yes, at a top school) have been closed book exams where you both needed to memorize concepts and apply them to complex fact patterns on the fly. With an open book exam, you could get by (median or better) with a very basic understanding of the class (you actually attended most of the time) and good outline that someone else put together a couple of years ago (outline banks, anyone?).

And also, aside from the oddball prof with his own way of viewing the subject (ex, Epstein, Lessig), 1L and upper level core subjects are basically taught the same way everywhere -- everyone learns the same rule against perpetuities, elements of negligence, ConLaw scrutiny standards, progression of duty of care cases, etc. The thing that separates out the top schools from the lower tier ones is usually the quality of upper level electives, because those are usually more based on the research interests and talent of the faculty.

I transferred from T50 to T6. I dominated OCI because I have a better personality than the dorks in my new class. My degree will be the same as yours.

Oh, and my 1L year was free.

In sum, to all haters: Suck It.

131, and by the same token, "lesser" schools often have better teaching in the core subjects, because the profs actually have time to focus on teaching instead of spending all their time writing articles. That's the flip side of prestige.
--130.

Transfer students dominate U of M. Get the best grades, the best jobs, the hottest chicks (college girls obviously, nothing at the law school will even tempt the transfer students) and dominate their jobs after law school because they understand law and can actually talk to people.

Three-quarters of the 1Ls at WCL ("Washington College of Law at American University") attend with the hopes of transferring.

Unfortunately, only about 10% of them are lucky enough to get out.

It was kind of funny last year - a tour of prospective students was going around and the tour guide stopped to talk to a 1L. When they asked the 1L how he liked the school, he said he was transferring out because WCL was an overcrowded sh*thole.

After the 1L got yelled at, he went around posting notices on all the bulletin boards:

"Advice to Admitted Students - Retake the LSAT, wait a year, and get in a good school. WCL is an overcrowded sh*thole."

I transferred this year from my t-14 to HYS mostly because of my significant other. I only applied to the school she was at. I had some very good friends at my original school and there is no doubt there was some initial resentment when they heard that I transferred, especially from some of them who had better grades than I did.

I think people make a bigger deal about the OCI advantages than its worth. I got all of interviews I would have gotten at my initial school, but honestly, the OCI people can see you transferred and you are competing against those in your new school which is "more prestigious" for call backs when there is a limited number of spots they are going to give from each school. There is no doubt in my mind that I missed out on some callbacks I would have gotten at my old school since they only could give so many from each school, even if you are at HYS. Also, I know that many firms that have strict GPA cuttoffs look at your GPA based on your old school and your new school is irrelevant for OCI. One firm told me that he hiring partner wouldn't let him give me a callback offer since my gpa was below the cutoff the firm had from my old school, even though he thought I was the best interview he had all day. He told me as long as I get average grades as a 2L, he will definitely push to get me an offer even if I dont summer there, which shows you how little your new school matters for your initial OCI.

Its also going to be interesting for those who are transferring to all the schools with P/F as of this year. I have a GPA which is good, but its from a t-14, not my graduating school, and now I have no way to pad that GPA as most people do as 2L's and 3L's by taking joke seminars. Also, since my t-14 has a set 1L curriculm where you never get to pick your classes and everything is on mean, my GPA didn't have the advantage of getting padded with off mean classes as many of current classmates did in their 1L year by taking off means seminars with A means.

The gunner thing is definitely true. 75% of the people who transferred from my old school were GRADE A douches, and 50% of the transfers at my new school can't figure out when they should shut up in class. Being a new person I had no idea that a good chunk of all the people talking in my 2L fall classes were actually transfer students who were accustomed to dominating their 1L class discussions.

Barring the significant other factor I probably wouldnt recommend going through the transfer process, and this is after my new school gave me 20K a year more in need aid.

to pick up the thread on open-book exams: unless your exam requires something akin to research, "open-book" is useless other than as a crutch. if you have to look something up by the time you are there to take an exam, you don't know it very well. The only thing that really helps- and only a little- is when they allow you to bring in outlines, because then you can fill in sample answers to the kinds of questions you anticipated. Also you can scrawl these in the back of "open books" which I also did.

Other than that, it really makes little difference anyway. Everyone is taking the test under the same conditions so whatever advantage applies in one format will be experienced by all.

How could someone really look down on others over an issue of open book or closed book exams? Idiots.

I currently attend a T-50 school as a 2L. I applied as a transfer to a number of schools. I ended up getting in to Michigan but was talked out by my Profs and the Law School Dean. Anyone who reads this and are in a similar position. PLEASE learn from my mistakes. TRANSFER. You need to look out for yourself first. If you can make a significant move up in the rankings you should take the opportunity. I would have a lighter credit load, wouldn't have to be on a journal, and post-graduation I would still be significantly more sought after by virtue of my degree. I made a mistake -- if I could go back in time, I would go in a heartbeat. Please give me some solace in knowing that I prevented someone else from repeating my mistake.

138, your profs talked you out of transferring? That's a bit surprising actually. I could see the Dean doing that (since the Dean is directly accountable for maintaining / increasing the quality of the school), but profs understand (or should understand) the whole prestige / advancement game. Hell, most of them went to top schools and would lateral to teaching at a better law school in a second if they received the chance.

I'm a 2L that made the big jump from third tier to T14. A professor who wrote a recc wouldn't write it until I spoke with the Dean first, and the Dean sort of discouraged it, talked up all the big changes they were making, but realized it was inevitable. I think they had a few other students transfer out as well.

131,

If you attended an elite school, you'd know that everyone does not learn the same stuff.

141, feel free to reread through those examples I provided (rule against perpetuities, elements of negligence, ConLaw scrutiny standards, progression of duty of care cases) and post back telling me which one of those four things you learned differently at your "elite" school.

I guess you missed the qualifier "basically" as in, yes, every professor has unique extra stuff that they teach or subjects that the emphasize more, but there's a basic set amount of material that everyone learns in the 1L and upper-level core courses. If you disagree, I'd really like to hear the account of how you were taught Torts without learning about the elements of negligence, ConLaw without learning about different scrutiny standards, Corporations without learning about the duty of care, etc.

P.S. Unless you're at Yale, I have you trumped, so drop the "I'm better than you" elitist crap. Is it really that much of a concession to admit that everyone learns the same basic crap in core courses? In a given core course, 95% of profs, regardless of law school, are going to teach from one of the same 3-4 textbooks, all of which probably contain the same basic cases in them.

142 Lives in the real world = refreshing on this blog

142-
I was at a T-35 law school for 1L year, and I learned things you certainly didn't learn in Con Law. For example, I learned the special ingredients in Ollie's BBQ sauce, Representative Powell’s drug of choice, and, most importantly, that every good morning begins by placing two ice cubes in a crystal tumbler filled with gin followed by promptly beginning class at 9am with severely slurred speech. Sadly, I transferred before obtaining this professors enlightened views on criminal procedure. I have yet to find a professor with the same level of alcoholism and love of meaningless details at my new T-14 school. This and the horrible difference in football programs between the two schools make me feel like I truly reversed transferred.

@64, that's not a reverse transfer. That's a lateral move from one crapalicious school to another.

@81, I don't just look down my nose at transfer students. I look down my whole chest at them while they're sucking my nuts.

give me a break on the hellish first year. you're talking t14 median gpa's in the 3.3-3.4 range today while transfers from lower ranked schools are dealing with a strict 2.9-3.0 median. transfers are still at the top of their game at lower ranked schools and can compete with at least the top 50% at t14 schools. they are no less "worthy" than those who had mommy and daddy buy them an LSAT coach

142,

We taught ourselves the rule against perpetuities. The professor knew we were smart enough to figure it out. We spent all day talking policy, theory, and whatever else the professor wanted to discuss. We did this in a room full of very high achievers. People who will become the next generation of law professors, judges, etc.

Anyways, it doesn't matter "what you learn." It is about being smart enough to get in in the first place.

You review documents at Wachtel and you review them at a TTT like Reed Smith. No one says "you do the same work so it is just as good." It isn't.

T-14 students are spoiled, obnoxious brats.

147 is right about classroom life at a T-14. In a way, it's double the work. You have to come prepared for free-ranging discussion on policy and theory while teaching yourself the law in time for the exam.

Of course 149, if you're unable to teach yourself the law in time for the exam, you get, what, a B in the class?

I went to Yale. For every truly brilliant person there were 20 arrogant asses with a staggering sense of entitlement and an incredibly narrow perspective on life.

Unfortunately, it appears: (1) that time does not change that; and (2) that they all write here.

As someone who's been at two T14 schools (a lower T14 originally, and then a T3 via transfer), 147 and 149 are mostly full of it unless they had really wacky and / or bad profs. Yes, there's more policy and theory even in core courses than there would be in lower ranked schools. However, they're making it sound like every core class at a T14 is a grand philosophical seminar on the meaning of the law that requires they stretch their brains to the extreme to keep pace and that barely covers any black letter.

That may be true of how a few isolated profs teach, but it's not generally the case, and it's kind of ridiculous the extent to which people are willing to embellish to make themselves / their school sound better than it actually is. It's really not that hard to participate in "free-ranging discussion on policy and theory" and if you're profs aren't teaching you any of the law, then maybe they're crappy profs. Upper level electives, not core, are supposed to be the soapbox courses.

149: it's called law school. You're experience isn't really unique to T14's.

149 --- Bwahahahahahahaha. That's the biggest load of nonsense I've ever read. The only person doing that is you. Class preparation is worth absolutely nothing in the long run. Your friends may not tell you this, but the only person who likes the sound of your voice is you.

--T14 3L who transferred from U. of Shit State who passed four times in the same class last semester at his new school and booked it.

"In addition, faculties lose research assistants, classmates lose friendships, and tuition increases are imposed to offset departing students. And at their new school, transfer students will find it tougher to forge relationships."

-- Like law schools really give a crap whether I have friends?? Please, it's all about the benjamins for the low ranked schools too. Frankly, anyone that stays at a low ranked law school for friendships is an idiot. Law school is an investment in a profession and career -- not a fraternity -- and anyone that has the opportunity to transfer up should do it.

-Happy Transfer

I did well enough at Georgetown as a 1L to get the hell outta there.. I'm in Columbia now.. got rejected by YHS despite having a bunch of A's in my transcript from 1L..

Dope.

I did well enough at Georgetown as a 1L to get the hell outta there.. I'm in Columbia now.. got rejected by YHS despite having a bunch of A's in my transcript from 1L..

Dope.

I did well enough at Georgetown as a 1L to get the hell outta there.. I'm in Columbia now.. got rejected by YHS despite having a bunch of A's in my transcript from 1L..

Dope.

I transferred from a 3rd Tier Shit hole. Near perfect grades too. Dean was pissed. Offered me zilch to stay. So, I transferred the hell out. Landed at Columbia, along with about 80 other transfers. Cleaned up during on-campus interviewing as a 2L. 90% of the firms saw I transferred. I just told them anyway. Few cared. I got several call backs, and scored a top gig.

At CLS, I was treated ok, but I did feel like a foreign invader. I didn't know where things were, such as where to get your ID card, etc. People came up to me on ocassion -"Which section were you in? I don't remember you?" "Oh, I just transferred in." "Really? Wow. From what school?" "Bum Fuck State U". "Oh, you must have fucked up on the LSAT, right?"

Going forward, I graduated, could give a shit about lost friendships from my old school. And the gunner thing is true. I was a huge gunner.

Just thought I'd provide my transfer experience... and you can take it for what it's worth.

I was at a Tier4 school and busted my ass. It was the only school that accepted me, I applied late. Was in a teaching career and decided to make a move. My undergrad was one of the best public schools in the nation and I did well there, but yes, did not spend a lot of time focusing on the LSAT. Instead of attending my prep course I'd often cut out early to drink with friends... I know, clearly a sign I'm not going to be a good lawyer.

Anyways, I destroyed the curve at my school. Ranked #1, set the curve for several classes. And there were a lot of "gunners" there. At the end of the year I thought about transferring and had discussions with anyone and everyone... my professor, a biglaw lawyer, a recent Yale grad going to a kickass firm after their clerkship. All the feedback was the same... if you're going to transfer, transfer BIG.

I've been reading the comments and what strikes me is that no one is talking about when a "transfer" makes sense. I dont see the point in going from top60 to top30? I guess if it's to be a specific city/state, ok. But to get a better job? I can't believe the top student at that 60 school will have better job opportunity at that new school. So the cost/benefit analysis should seem to be job prospects from the new school assuming you don't perform as well there.

I'll admit, my jump was major. A good few hundred places. I'm now at a top10 and was nervous if I could compete. Of course I competed against "dumber" kids compared to the gods of top10s. And my OCI experience was not as promising as I'd hoped... Im sure a direct result of my non grades from the new school. However, for all the nay-sayers about transfers, I killed it this semester. And as far as I hear from my tranfer friends, they did the same. Lots of Honors.

There is a cost to transferring... class rank, scholorship, none grades at the new school for OCI... but at the end of the day I'll have a great name on my degree and will have proven to myself (if no one else) I belong at a top school. Maybe my circumstances of how I got there aren't as cool as yours... but I got myself there, and I've made it count.

And I have to figure... at the end of the day if you're an employer, don't you want the new hire that will dare to take on a challenge, push themselves, and prove they can handle it? That says something more to me than the kid who gets straight in and then just sits back.