T-14 Transfer Students Please Post OCI Results Here Forum

[bradley]

Delete.

[run26.2]

Yes I went through OCI last year, and got a job at a firm that has hired people from my TTT; I'm not lying when I say my 3 callbacks were the only firms I interviewed with that have hired from my old school. I patently disagree with you. The extra "Columbia Law School" line on the resume means nothing when they don't have grades from the school yet. If transferring is such a sweet deal, why didn't you go to a TTT and transfer in, or transfer to Harvard? Hard to do, isn't it?

I think you have overstated the case. When you transfer from a TTT to Columbia, yes, employers who have no experience hiring from your school don't know how to contextualize your degree of success. However, if your old school is more reputable, I think they would be more apt to try to compare that student's particular degree of success against students at similarly ranked schools at which they do interview.

[Unemployed]

In fairness, that's not really true.

It absolutely is. And to the below poster, if firms only hire the #1 from a TTT then they will only hire the #1 - they won't hire people below that just because the top students transferred out. Rankings at the TTT don't change the second the transfers leave. And point well-taken about inflated GPA's if upper-class courses aren't curved. I don't know how that works, though, since at my T10 upper level classes are generally curved. Besides, if transfers really get the top clerkships, they took Fed Courts/Admin/Antitrust and not Juvenile Justice seminar.

Are you a transfer student who has been through OCI? No? Because there are plenty of my transfer student classmates who got jobs at firms that WOULD NOT HAVE LOOKED AT THEIR RESUME had they not transfered. Period. End-of-fucking-story. In my case, that came directly from the mouth of several of the people I worked with over the summer.

Yes I went through OCI last year, and got a job at a firm that has hired people from my TTT; I'm not lying when I say my 3 callbacks were the only firms I interviewed with that have hired from my old school. I patently disagree with you. The extra "Columbia Law School" line on the resume means nothing when they don't have grades from the school yet. If transferring is such a sweet deal, why didn't you go to a TTT and transfer in, or transfer to Harvard? Hard to do, isn't it?

He pretty much did, FYI.

I don't understand why you cannot acknowledge that yours isn't the only valid experience/data point in this discussion which, for the most part, deals with broader trends.

[bradley]

Delete.

[bradley]

Delete.

[Unemployed]

I acknowledge that. I just don't understand the animosity toward transfers, when you know you would have done the exact same thing they did. Transfer students are (usually) people who did great in law school but didn't get tip-top LSAT scores. Should they not be able to get a prestigious degree just because they didn't do great on the LSAT?

They would have done the exact same thing in your shoes, sure. However, if you were in their shoes - that is, if your job opportunities were at stake - you wouldn't have nonchalantly said "well, I guess those transfers deserve it more than I do" either. This is human nature.

Like I said from the get-go, this discussion (at least for me) isn't about whether transfers deserve the job/degree. It's about explaining why students were protesting the law school's decision to increase the transfer size. That was where you entered the discussion and started talking defensively about how transfers are smarter than 3/4 of the regular students and deserve the jobs, etc.

[Anonymous User]

I acknowledge that. I just don't understand the animosity toward transfers, when you know you would have done the exact same thing they did. Transfer students are (usually) people who did great in law school but didn't get tip-top LSAT scores. Should they not be able to get a prestigious degree just because they didn't do great on the LSAT?

Do you really think the only difference between transfers and the original class is the LSAT? In general (with one glaring exception I can think of), everyone I know in my class also graduated with latin honors and/or has fairly impressive resume. Even the kids who went straight from UG all had great internships or summer jobs or speak 3 languages or something.

And actually, I would've worked my ass off to get a better LSAT score, instead of settling on a shitty law school. Oh wait, I did.

[bwv812]

.

[ToTransferOrNot]

I acknowledge that. I just don't understand the animosity toward transfers, when you know you would have done the exact same thing they did. Transfer students are (usually) people who did great in law school but didn't get tip-top LSAT scores. Should they not be able to get a prestigious degree just because they didn't do great on the LSAT?

Do you really think the only difference between transfers and the original class is the LSAT? In general (with one glaring exception I can think of), everyone I know in my class also graduated with latin honors and/or has fairly impressive resume. Even the kids who went straight from UG all had great internships or summer jobs or speak 3 languages or something.

And actually, I would've worked my ass off to get a better LSAT score, instead of settling on a shitty law school. Oh wait, I did.

Yeah, well, how'd that work out for you?

LSAT and GPA are meant to guage law school success. When people actually, you know, succeed at law school, they have demonstrated that far better than the shitty .4 LSAT/GPA get. If you're a better student, don't let me kick you in the teeth in the 2L/3L classes. That simple. Not my fault that you either slack off in 2L/3L or can't cut it against tougher competition. Amusing that it's always people who don't do particularly well at the transferee school as 1Ls (i.e. median-ish people) who bitch about transfers "stealin yur jurbz."

If you don't get anything through OCI and the transfers do, and then you outperform those transfers in the 2L/3L classes - alright, you have a gripe there. Otherwise, cry more, seriously.

Anyway, I'm bowing out here. No one "based their decision to attend CLS" on the assumption of any particular transfer class size. Give me a fucking break. Similarly, no one passed up a free ride at a lower-ranked school so they wouldn't have to worry about the top 1-5% at said lower-ranked schools transfering in and "stealing" their jobs. Jobs only get "stolen" from people who aren't anywhere near the top of class, and correspondingly would probably not have been top 1% at the hypothetical transferor school, either.

In closing, none of this matters, because schools will continue to take transfer students, and the 25%-and-below people will continue having to compete with us. Get over it. Don't like it - do better than 25%.

[Anonymous User]

I acknowledge that. I just don't understand the animosity toward transfers, when you know you would have done the exact same thing they did. Transfer students are (usually) people who did great in law school but didn't get tip-top LSAT scores. Should they not be able to get a prestigious degree just because they didn't do great on the LSAT?

Do you really think the only difference between transfers and the original class is the LSAT? In general (with one glaring exception I can think of), everyone I know in my class also graduated with latin honors and/or has fairly impressive resume. Even the kids who went straight from UG all had great internships or summer jobs or speak 3 languages or something.

And actually, I would've worked my ass off to get a better LSAT score, instead of settling on a shitty law school. Oh wait, I did.

Yeah, well, how'd that work out for you?

LSAT and GPA are meant to guage law school success. When people actually, you know, succeed at law school, they have demonstrated that far better than the shitty .4 LSAT/GPA get. If you're a better student, don't let me kick you in the teeth in the 2L/3L classes. That simple. Not my fault that you either slack off in 2L/3L or can't cut it against tougher competition. Amusing that it's always people who don't do particularly well at the transferee school as 1Ls (i.e. median-ish people) who bitch about transfers "stealin yur jurbz."

If you don't get anything through OCI and the transfers do, and then you outperform those transfers in the 2L/3L classes - alright, you have a gripe there. Otherwise, cry more, seriously.

Anyway, I'm bowing out here. No one "based their decision to attend CLS" on the assumption of any particular transfer class size. Give me a fucking break. Similarly, no one passed up a free ride at a lower-ranked school so they wouldn't have to worry about the top 1-5% at said lower-ranked schools transfering in and "stealing" their jobs. Jobs only get "stolen" from people who aren't anywhere near the top of class, and correspondingly would probably not have been top 1% at the hypothetical transferor school, either.

In closing, none of this matters, because schools will continue to take transfer students, and the 25%-and-below people will continue having to compete with us. Get over it. Don't like it - do better than 25%.

Haha actually I'm top 1/3 (no reference points for anything between 10%-33%, since we don't rank), and I think my target firms are more threatened by transfers than people median or below. But I am pleased to see you made some wonderful assumptions about me... or rather, the type of person who has the problem with transfers. That's going to serve you well in your legal career.

[UnTouChablE]

I acknowledge that. I just don't understand the animosity toward transfers, when you know you would have done the exact same thing they did. Transfer students are (usually) people who did great in law school but didn't get tip-top LSAT scores. Should they not be able to get a prestigious degree just because they didn't do great on the LSAT?

Do you really think the only difference between transfers and the original class is the LSAT? In general (with one glaring exception I can think of), everyone I know in my class also graduated with latin honors and/or has fairly impressive resume. Even the kids who went straight from UG all had great internships or summer jobs or speak 3 languages or something.

And actually, I would've worked my ass off to get a better LSAT score, instead of settling on a shitty law school. Oh wait, I did.

Yeah, well, how'd that work out for you?

LSAT and GPA are meant to guage law school success. When people actually, you know, succeed at law school, they have demonstrated that far better than the shitty .4 LSAT/GPA get. If you're a better student, don't let me kick you in the teeth in the 2L/3L classes. That simple. Not my fault that you either slack off in 2L/3L or can't cut it against tougher competition. Amusing that it's always people who don't do particularly well at the transferee school as 1Ls (i.e. median-ish people) who bitch about transfers "stealin yur jurbz."

If you don't get anything through OCI and the transfers do, and then you outperform those transfers in the 2L/3L classes - alright, you have a gripe there. Otherwise, cry more, seriously.

Anyway, I'm bowing out here. No one "based their decision to attend CLS" on the assumption of any particular transfer class size. Give me a fucking break. Similarly, no one passed up a free ride at a lower-ranked school so they wouldn't have to worry about the top 1-5% at said lower-ranked schools transfering in and "stealing" their jobs. Jobs only get "stolen" from people who aren't anywhere near the top of class, and correspondingly would probably not have been top 1% at the hypothetical transferor school, either.

In closing, none of this matters, because schools will continue to take transfer students, and the 25%-and-below people will continue having to compete with us. Get over it. Don't like it - do better than 25%.

OH SNAP!! He brought down the hammer!!

No seriously, can the thread get back on track? The HiJack stopped being fun to read two pages ago, I really would like to know how ppl are doing ITE.

[bradley]

X

[run26.2]

I acknowledge that. I just don't understand the animosity toward transfers, when you know you would have done the exact same thing they did. Transfer students are (usually) people who did great in law school but didn't get tip-top LSAT scores. Should they not be able to get a prestigious degree just because they didn't do great on the LSAT?

Do you really think the only difference between transfers and the original class is the LSAT? In general (with one glaring exception I can think of), everyone I know in my class also graduated with latin honors and/or has fairly impressive resume. Even the kids who went straight from UG all had great internships or summer jobs or speak 3 languages or something.

And actually, I would've worked my ass off to get a better LSAT score, instead of settling on a shitty law school. Oh wait, I did.

Yeah, well, how'd that work out for you?

LSAT and GPA are meant to guage law school success. When people actually, you know, succeed at law school, they have demonstrated that far better than the shitty .4 LSAT/GPA get. If you're a better student, don't let me kick you in the teeth in the 2L/3L classes. That simple. Not my fault that you either slack off in 2L/3L or can't cut it against tougher competition. Amusing that it's always people who don't do particularly well at the transferee school as 1Ls (i.e. median-ish people) who bitch about transfers "stealin yur jurbz."

If you don't get anything through OCI and the transfers do, and then you outperform those transfers in the 2L/3L classes - alright, you have a gripe there. Otherwise, cry more, seriously.

Anyway, I'm bowing out here. No one "based their decision to attend CLS" on the assumption of any particular transfer class size. Give me a fucking break. Similarly, no one passed up a free ride at a lower-ranked school so they wouldn't have to worry about the top 1-5% at said lower-ranked schools transfering in and "stealing" their jobs. Jobs only get "stolen" from people who aren't anywhere near the top of class, and correspondingly would probably not have been top 1% at the hypothetical transferor school, either.

In closing, none of this matters, because schools will continue to take transfer students, and the 25%-and-below people will continue having to compete with us. Get over it. Don't like it - do better than 25%.

OH SNAP!! He brought down the hammer!!

No seriously, can the thread get back on track? The HiJack stopped being fun to read two pages ago, I really would like to know how ppl are doing ITE.

+1

[bwv812]

.

[Anonymous User]

I acknowledge that. I just don't understand the animosity toward transfers, when you know you would have done the exact same thing they did. Transfer students are (usually) people who did great in law school but didn't get tip-top LSAT scores. Should they not be able to get a prestigious degree just because they didn't do great on the LSAT?

Do you really think the only difference between transfers and the original class is the LSAT? In general (with one glaring exception I can think of), everyone I know in my class also graduated with latin honors and/or has fairly impressive resume. Even the kids who went straight from UG all had great internships or summer jobs or speak 3 languages or something.

And actually, I would've worked my ass off to get a better LSAT score, instead of settling on a shitty law school. Oh wait, I did.

What does speaking 3 languages have anything to do with the practice of law? Sure, it's something to brag about and it makes you sound smart, but when transfers come in and beat you on anonymous grading the number of languages you speak means nothing. By the way, you should have worked your ass off to get above median (and you can't plausibly make the claim that top 1% at a T3 is worse than a median CLS student).

See five posts above. And I even managed to keep my ass fairly perky.

Edit: actually, the last part is a lie. It's flat as hell now. But I'm off to watch my dvr-ed True Blood.

[ToTransferOrNot]

Anyway, I'm bowing out here. No one "based their decision to attend CLS" on the assumption of any particular transfer class size. Give me a fucking break. Similarly, no one passed up a free ride at a lower-ranked school so they wouldn't have to worry about the top 1-5% at said lower-ranked schools transfering in and "stealing" their jobs. Jobs only get "stolen" from people who aren't anywhere near the top of class, and correspondingly would probably not have been top 1% at the hypothetical transferor school, either.

Lots of people took CLS or whatever T10/T14 instead of a free ride at a lower-ranked school. Why? Because they thought they had a better chance at jobs that way. If they thought they could do 1L for free and do well enough to transfer into their school (and a number of them probably could), they would. Hell, if I knew top 20% at IUB could get me a transfer to CLS, I probably would have taken a much longer look at lower-ranked schools.

In closing, none of this matters, because schools will continue to take transfer students, and the 25%-and-below people will continue having to compete with us. Get over it. Don't like it - do better than 25%.

Lots of people into the top 15% at my T14 struck out. Lots of transfers struck out, too, but it's not like it's just transfers v. bottom 75%.

I don't have anything against transferring, but I think your outlook on this is slightly skewed.

Anyone who would have taken a free ride at a lower-ranked school with the intention of transfering up is a fool. End of story, there. You take the higher ranked school because median at the higher rank is safer than median at the lower rank, and top of the class at the higher rank opens better opportunities than top of the class at the lower rank. All of those things are true. People do NOT pick the higher rank because they will "have better opportunities at the median of the high-ranking school than they would have had if they got top 5% at the lower school and transfered." Or, if they pick the higher school for that reason, they were wrong.

The "never assume you can transfer" wisdom is thrown around so much because it is 100% true; and you underestimate how much transfer students give up in the process.

People who struck out in the T14 in the top 15% managed it on their own due to some failure of interviwing - transfer students had nothing to do with it.

[bwv812]

.

[rynabrius]

This argument seems to be generating heat but not light. Would it be possible for a mod to prune the argument (or just move it to a separate thread) so that this thread can be used for its original purpose?

Thanks.

[ZXCVBNM]

T-14 Transfer Students PLease Post OCI Results Here. Everyone else...go find somewhere else to have this lengthy yet pointless conversation.

[Action Jackson]

T-14 Transfer Students PLease Post OCI Results Here. Everyone else...go find somewhere else to have this lengthy yet pointless conversation.

So says the catalyst for the lengthy and pointless conversation. Well played, sir.

[ZXCVBNM]

touche...UPDATE?!....Have to submit bids by tomorrow at noon. Would love to hear how you are all doing. Include callbacks that you got and at which firms. How did you do at Skadden, Cravath, Clearly, Debevoise etc...????

[Anonymous User]

touche...UPDATE?!....Have to submit bids by tomorrow at noon. Would love to hear how you are all doing. Include callbacks that you got and at which firms. How did you do at Skadden, Cravath, Clearly, Debevoise etc...????

With your grades from Fordham, you should feel comfortable bidding on the entire V10 with the possible exception of Wachtell. I know transfers here at CLS (either this yr or last) that have gotten CB's from S&C, Skadden, Cleary, Debevoise, Simpson Thatcher, etc...

[180orbust]

Watch out for us transfer students. We're climbing in through your windows, snatching your people up, so y'all need to hide your kids, hide your wives, and hide your husbands cuz we're raping e'erybody up in hurr. RUNANDTELLDAT, homeboy!

[Anonymous User]

T2 transfer to a T14. About 25 screening interviews, 11 CB's. 5 V50's, 2 V20's, 1 V10. The rest are V100. From the people I've talked to, transfers have done verryyy well.

[pandacot]

T2 transfer to a T14. About 25 screening interviews, 11 CB's. 5 V50's, 2 V20's, 1 V10. The rest are V100. From the people I've talked to, transfers have done verryyy well.

Congrats. Any journals or work experience info you'd share?