Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=179841
IMO, the all A- transcript looks a little better because consistency is important.TFR wrote:Is there any evidence in transfer admissions that transfer commitees would prefer some excellence over complete mediocrity?
For example (A+,A+,B+,B) v. (A-,A-,A-,A-)
Stated another way, how much do individual grades way in?
How does that affect whether variation among the grades (whether numerical, alphabetical or hyroglyphic) is better or worse than all of them being the same? Even if your school gives out numbers, I think OP was asking whether a 2,2,4 and 4 looks different to reviewers than a 4,4,4,4. Every admissions department has a way to convert your transcript into something that can be compared to everyone elses' transcript.Jessuf wrote:It makes more sense to look at overall GPA and rank because not all schools grade the same. Some schools do A+, some don't. At my school, grades are numerical. A, etc. does not exist. Some number grades can be matched up to letter grades. E.g. 4.0 is obviously an A. However, some of the other numbers don't match up with anything.
No, there is no evidence of this.TFR wrote:Is there any evidence in transfer admissions that transfer commitees would prefer some excellence over complete mediocrity?
Yep. Having done far, far too much research on this, I would say that the only evidence of anything in transfers is that schools want your money if you have a certain GPA. Not any real grade outline.quiver wrote:No, there is no evidence of this.TFR wrote:Is there any evidence in transfer admissions that transfer commitees would prefer some excellence over complete mediocrity?
I understand what you're saying but you missed my point. I was merely pointing out that if a school had two students with identical overall ranks, there could be marginal value in the fact that one student got his or her rank by being consistent as opposed to the other who did extremely well in some and mediocre in others. And they could see this regardless of how the school assigns grades. I realize this is splitting hairs here.Jessuf wrote:I hate coming onto these message boards just to argue about something really pointless. OP was asking if 3.75, 3.75, 3.75, 3.75 looks better than 4.25, 4.25, 3.25, 3.25, if put numerically. Because the admissions offices need to compare applicant A's grades to applicant B's grades, they need to find a way to do this, as you stated. Because many schools grade differently than the typical A+, A, A- format, it makes more sense to me for them to compare two applicants by comparing ranks, looking at overall GPA, and looking at the median GPA for the school.Mce252 wrote:How does that affect whether variation among the grades (whether numerical, alphabetical or hyroglyphic) is better or worse than all of them being the same? Even if your school gives out numbers, I think OP was asking whether a 2,2,4 and 4 looks different to reviewers than a 4,4,4,4. Every admissions department has a way to convert your transcript into something that can be compared to everyone elses' transcript.Jessuf wrote:It makes more sense to look at overall GPA and rank because not all schools grade the same. Some schools do A+, some don't. At my school, grades are numerical. A, etc. does not exist. Some number grades can be matched up to letter grades. E.g. 4.0 is obviously an A. However, some of the other numbers don't match up with anything.
With that said, I think that once you hit T6 area, the admissions offices probably pay more attention to individual grades. I can see Harvard not being too pleased with someone getting a B or B- in a course even if their other grades are all A+.