Let's Figure this Transfer Thing Out Forum

[canesfan1986]

Well, I was #1 with a 3.9 and I still underperformed.

Also another data point: I know someone who was #2 at a school in the high 40s who applied late (not after deadline, but way after most of us) and got H and Y both. And I know this for realsies, not just a rumor.

You know what I think about the transfer process? W....T....F?! lol

[alienshooter]

I applied to UC Berkeley, Michi, UPenn, NW, and Columbia. Got in Michi and Columbia. Seriously, I don't know why I got rejected or admitted. I have tons of work and leadership experience, and 1L big law summer (I got it because I had good grades but more importantly, I worked before and knew how to sell). I think all of these somewhat helped me in this cycle, but not for sure. My feeling is Berkely and Upenn really care about your ties. Some schools like Chicago seem to only care about your grades, but based on my experience at least, schools like Columbia and Michigan want to see your softs, or at least your ability to distinguish from other peer students. All of this is just my guess, but hope it may shed some light on the secretive process. My stat: top 6-7% at T30. Best of Luck to everyone and future transfer applicants!

[mdfreeman]

Stats: T30, top 10% of section. No W/E, didn't make LR but on secondary.

Applied: GULC, NYU, Columbia

Accepted: GULC, NYU

???: Columbia

It's kind of funny, CLS never even got back to me regarding admit/deny. I'm expecting the snail mail letter soon but I was just surprised that they didn't notify me at all. I think I may have also messed up with getting all my material to them on-time so I may deserve my ding for that.

Would've been interesting to apply to Harvard just to get the ding. Someone told me they still consider your LSAT score and mine was very meh.

Should've also applied to Berkeley because I'm originally a CA guy anyway and tuition would've been less than NYU. I really didn't think 2nd semester grades were going to put me in top 10%. Thought I semi-bombed finals so I didn't get my June 15th apps together.

Such is life I supposed. Happy with NYU!

[HtransferQ]

Just wanted to briefly offer my experience as I feel like I was successful in a year where many thought they underperformed.

T25, around top 5%, applied to and accepted at H.

To be fair, I'm not a huge outlier in terms of numbers, but there were certainly a lot of people on these boards who had better numbers than I did and were not accepted. That said, there were a few things I did which I think really made the difference.

First, I submitted a targeted LOR. To those of you applying next year, I really think this means a lot, particularly to top schools. Stanford, from what I remember reading, expressly says this matters to them (and I think is evidenced by a T35, top 5% who got in a year or so ago with one). So, rack your brain come application season for friends, family members, a professor, etc. who could possibly write a targeted letter.

Second, if possible in your personal statement, highlight something, anything, from your past which you can make look very unique. It doesn't have to be very impressive, just something that would make an adcom raise an eyebrow. I remember a girl on here who wrote about her experience traveling to different countries comparing and writing about local candymaking. She got in everywhere and apparently recieved letters identifying how interesting her PS was. I also know of a guy who was the lead singer of a heavy metal type band who got into Yale after writing about it. He had below average numbers. It's tough to stand out in a stack of papers, so take the PS seriously despite some posts among these message boards which suggest you don't have to. For full disclosure, I wrote about starting a small business in a very interesting field. PM if you want details.

Third, if you have an opportunity to update your application once it's on file, do so. I wasn't accepted among the initial wave at H. However, in the lull period when everyone was speculating "are they done accepting?" I emailed an update with a rather meaningless law review offer type addition, simply adding "I remain sincerely interested in attending and look forward to the committee's decision." I have no idea if this actually had an impact, but it certainly didn't hurt.

Maybe this will help some people, maybe not, and maybe others think it is all obvious or didn't help at all in their experience. All I can offer is that I really think it helped me. Best luck to those of you applying next year!

[keg411]

Well, I was #1 with a 3.9 and I still underperformed.

Also another data point: I know someone who was #2 at a school in the high 40s who applied late (not after deadline, but way after most of us) and got H and Y both. And I know this for realsies, not just a rumor.

I'll add in my 2 cents about over-performance vs. under-performance in terms of transfer cycle:
1) GPA matters. My 1L school didn't rank, but I had a transcript littered with A's and A-'s. The higher your first school's curve is, the better.

2) School matters. While NYU/CLS will take some people at T2's, it can be much harder to break, even if you're #1. Penn/Michigan/Northwestern/GULC are much kinder to T2's. So even if you're #1, you can't necessarily put all of your eggs in the CCN basket (although some T2 people have managed to break CCN). Additionally, some schools may understand a particular school's curve better than others, which can sometimes help (if they know your school has a low curve and will look more at rank) and can sometimes hurt (see #1. If they know your school gives out A+'s to the top-of-the-top, your A's and A-'s may not look so good). It's also damn hard to break HYS outside of the top 20 schools or so (unless you're at the very very top of your class).

3) Residency/ties *can* matter. They certainly do for UVA and Duke (especially UVA). Berkeley has seemed to strongly favor CA residents the past few years. Being a Michigan resident (or Michigan undergrad) will help at Michigan but you aren't SOL even if you've never stepped foot in the state. The rest of the schools don't seem to care. Probably because they're all private schools. However, if you're going to school away from your home, and want to go home, you should definitely use this as a selling point somewhere in your application.

4) Your PS matters. Adcomms want to know why you want to transfer. They want to know what you're going to bring to the school. They want to know why you want to leave despite having top grades, a great chance at local OCI, LR, etc. What classes are you interested in? Are there any professors you specifically want to learn from? I know if you're not someone who is interested in academia, and generally are in law school for the end game (jerbs), this can be difficult... but it still needs to be done. And if they ask for supplemental essays -- write them! This is also a great place to sell your ties (and yes, if you're otherwise qualified, undergrad can be HUGE here)..

5) WE/resume may matter. There are some sources that say WE helps, but I dunno about this. I think it's connected to #4 -- if you can sell why your WE helped you in law school or might help you in terms of getting a job, it helps.

[FlanSolo]

1) GPA matters. My 1L school didn't rank, but I had a transcript littered with A's and A-'s. The higher your first school's curve is, the better.

This is something I see here a bit, but I have a really hard time believing it provided that the school you are coming from ranks, or publishes enough data (through NALP or elsewhere) to figure out what the GPA actually means. I think the more likely explanation is that TTT/TTTTs tend to have really, really low curves relative to T/TT schools. Thus, the applicants with high ranks and low GPAs are more likely having bad luck because of where they are coming from, not the number assigned to their performance.

Moreover, I just can't think of a reason why a school would care if they have a sense of your rank and the quality of your school. It's not like they need to report this information to anyone, and I imagine the adcomm folks are professional enough not to be swayed by grade inflation when they have information about the school's quality and the applicant's relative standing.

My sense is that this just a "grass is always greener" kind of situation. I have a 3.95 from a T20 that doesn't rank, and sometimes I felt disadvantaged because the only designation I had was top 15 percent. Based on NALP data, I was conservatively top-2 percent, but I couldn't lead with that information. I just had to hope they could figure it out.

[keg411]

1) GPA matters. My 1L school didn't rank, but I had a transcript littered with A's and A-'s. The higher your first school's curve is, the better.

This is something I see here a bit, but I have a really hard time believing it provided that the school you are coming from ranks, or publishes enough data (through NALP or elsewhere) to figure out what the GPA actually means. I think the more likely explanation is that TTT/TTTTs tend to have really, really low curves relative to T/TT schools. Thus, the applicants with high ranks and low GPAs are more likely having bad luck because of where they are coming from, not the number assigned to their performance.

Moreover, I just can't think of a reason why a school would care if they have a sense of your rank and the quality of your school. It's not like they need to report this information to anyone, and I imagine the adcomm folks are professional enough not to be swayed by grade inflation when they have information about the school's quality and the applicant's relative standing.

My sense is that this just a "grass is always greener" kind of situation. I have a 3.95 from a T20 that doesn't rank, and sometimes I felt disadvantaged because the only designation I had was top 15 percent. Based on NALP data, I was conservatively top-2 percent, but I couldn't lead with that information. I just had to hope they could figure it out.

TBF, we had honors cut-offs that indicated the top 5% and the subsequent 25% after that. However, I actually didn't write out what they meant because I initially thought I only made the second cut-off second semester, and it wasn't until I saw my transcript that I realized I made the higher cut-off both semesters (they sent an e-mail with the cut-offs and apparently that was wrong or something).

But coming from a T20 is a different situation coming from a TT because you're looking at HYS and not just breaking the T14 in general.

[aca0260]

1) GPA matters. My 1L school didn't rank, but I had a transcript littered with A's and A-'s. The higher your first school's curve is, the better.

This is something I see here a bit, but I have a really hard time believing it provided that the school you are coming from ranks, or publishes enough data (through NALP or elsewhere) to figure out what the GPA actually means. I think the more likely explanation is that TTT/TTTTs tend to have really, really low curves relative to T/TT schools. Thus, the applicants with high ranks and low GPAs are more likely having bad luck because of where they are coming from, not the number assigned to their performance.

Moreover, I just can't think of a reason why a school would care if they have a sense of your rank and the quality of your school. It's not like they need to report this information to anyone, and I imagine the adcomm folks are professional enough not to be swayed by grade inflation when they have information about the school's quality and the applicant's relative standing.

My sense is that this just a "grass is always greener" kind of situation. I have a 3.95 from a T20 that doesn't rank, and sometimes I felt disadvantaged because the only designation I had was top 15 percent. Based on NALP data, I was conservatively top-2 percent, but I couldn't lead with that information. I just had to hope they could figure it out.

It's not that hard to understand. People like seeing A's on transcripts. Think of it this way, the guy with a high curve doesn't need to rely on rank or make excuses for his performance. The guy with a lower curve does. Compound this by the fact that T14s don't rank their own students, and they have a tendency to look at GPA quite a bit. Overall, a 3.7 Top 10% is much more impressive than a 3.4 Top 10%.

[DildaMan]

Third, if you have an opportunity to update your application once it's on file, do so. I wasn't accepted among the initial wave at H. However, in the lull period when everyone was speculating "are they done accepting?" I emailed an update with a rather meaningless law review offer type addition, simply adding "I remain sincerely interested in attending and look forward to the committee's decision." I have no idea if this actually had an impact, but it certainly didn't hurt.

^ Same thing happened for me, albeit at a lower ranked school.

[FlanSolo]

It's not that hard to understand. People like seeing A's on transcripts. Think of it this way, the guy with a high curve doesn't need to rely on rank or make excuses for his performance. The guy with a lower curve does. Compound this by the fact that T14s don't rank their own students, and they have a tendency to look at GPA quite a bit. Overall, a 3.7 Top 10% is much more impressive than a 3.4 Top 10%.

Yep, I get the argument. I just find it hard to believe that a paid professional, who presumably prides themselves on not being fooled by sophistry, thinks a top 10 percent ranking called a "3.7" is more "impressive" than a top 10 percent ranking called a "3.4." I understand why this discrimination would exist for 0L admissions, because the data is recorded, but there is no parallel recording and ranking system for transfers. Thus, there is essentially no incentive to take the 3.7 over the 3.4 (assuming both are top 10 percent), other than sheer stupidity.

[keg411]

It's not that hard to understand. People like seeing A's on transcripts. Think of it this way, the guy with a high curve doesn't need to rely on rank or make excuses for his performance. The guy with a lower curve does. Compound this by the fact that T14s don't rank their own students, and they have a tendency to look at GPA quite a bit. Overall, a 3.7 Top 10% is much more impressive than a 3.4 Top 10%.

Yep, I get the argument. I just find it hard to believe that a paid professional, who presumably prides themselves on not being fooled by sophistry, thinks a top 10 percent ranking called a "3.7" is more "impressive" than a top 10 percent ranking called a "3.4." I understand why this discrimination would exist for 0L admissions, because the data is recorded, but there is no parallel recording and ranking system for transfers. Thus, there is essentially no incentive to take the 3.7 over the 3.4 (assuming both are top 10 percent), other than sheer stupidity.

It's partially because law firms that are totally unfamiliar with the transferee schools are more likely to want to give CB's to the 3.7 than the 3.4. It's not because the law schools are necessarily being "stupid".

[aca0260]

It's not that hard to understand. People like seeing A's on transcripts. Think of it this way, the guy with a high curve doesn't need to rely on rank or make excuses for his performance. The guy with a lower curve does. Compound this by the fact that T14s don't rank their own students, and they have a tendency to look at GPA quite a bit. Overall, a 3.7 Top 10% is much more impressive than a 3.4 Top 10%.

Yep, I get the argument. I just find it hard to believe that a paid professional, who presumably prides themselves on not being fooled by sophistry, thinks a top 10 percent ranking called a "3.7" is more "impressive" than a top 10 percent ranking called a "3.4." I understand why this discrimination would exist for 0L admissions, because the data is recorded, but there is no parallel recording and ranking system for transfers. Thus, there is essentially no incentive to take the 3.7 over the 3.4 (assuming both are top 10 percent), other than sheer stupidity.

Take a look at another side of the argument. In the same way that a school with a low curve deflates GPA, a school with a giant class can inflate rank. This isn't typically a problem for Tier 1 schools because they are largely 150-250 in size; however, many TT's have 400+ students. I think a lot of T14 schools realize that the bottom end of the 400 is filled with people who really don't give a damn, which inflates the rank of top students. Having gone to a TT with large classes, I don't disagree with them.

[FlanSolo]

Take a look at another side of the argument. In the same way that a school with a low curve deflates GPA, a school with a giant class can inflate rank. This isn't typically a problem for Tier 1 schools because they are largely 150-250 in size; however, many TT's have 400+ students. I think a lot of T14 schools realize that the bottom end of the 400 is filled with people who really don't give a damn, which inflates the rank of top students. Having gone to a TT with large classes, I don't disagree with them.

Assuming what you are saying here is true, that's exactly my point: to the extent that a low GPA would hamstring an applicant, it's because the school they are coming from is less respected than another, not because of where the median of the curve happens to be set.

Thus, the applicants with high ranks and low GPAs are more likely having bad luck because of where they are coming from, not the number assigned to their performance.

Your point about "rank inflation" is just another way of saying that applicants from "worse" schools need to have higher ranks to be competitive. If you have two schools who, other than the median GPA, are roughly identical, the student with a higher GPA is not going to do any better than the student with the lower GPA if both students performed identically in terms of percentile.

[fatduck]

this gpa vs rank discussion is kind of academic, isn't it? it's not like you're going to pick a school based on their median gpa, given the relative importance of so many other factors. seems more useful to focus on the more controllable aspects of transfer apps.

[aca0260]

Take a look at another side of the argument. In the same way that a school with a low curve deflates GPA, a school with a giant class can inflate rank. This isn't typically a problem for Tier 1 schools because they are largely 150-250 in size; however, many TT's have 400+ students. I think a lot of T14 schools realize that the bottom end of the 400 is filled with people who really don't give a damn, which inflates the rank of top students. Having gone to a TT with large classes, I don't disagree with them.

Assuming what you are saying here is true, that's exactly my point: to the extent that a low GPA would hamstring an applicant, it's because the school they are coming from is less respected than another, not because of where the median of the curve happens to be set.

Thus, the applicants with high ranks and low GPAs are more likely having bad luck because of where they are coming from, not the number assigned to their performance.

Your point about "rank inflation" is just another way of saying that applicants from "worse" schools need to have higher ranks to be competitive. If you have two schools who, other than the median GPA, are roughly identical, the student with a higher GPA is not going to do any better than the student with the lower GPA if both students performed identically in terms of percentile.

You're missing the point. No one said anything about "worse" schools. I said schools with large class sizes can inflate rank for the top students. For the most part these are TTs but there are Tier 1 schools with large class sizes too like UF. And the inverse is also true, with many TTs having small sizes.

Are you an 0L? Because you are 100% wrong about two students coming from similar schools with similar ranks. The higher GPA will win out. You do realize that some T14s don't even ask for class rank right? Two deans from T14 schools told me in person that they care more about the students transcript than rank. Like I said earlier, you can't knock down someone that has a 3.8 no matter how high the curve is. Tough fact to swallow but that's reality.

[FlanSolo]

You're missing the point. No one said anything about "worse" schools. I said schools with large class sizes can inflate rank for the top students. For the most part these are TTs but there are Tier 1 schools with large class sizes too like UF. And the inverse is also true, with many TTs having small sizes.

Your argument directly references (1) what you perceive as a lower quality student body at TTs with large class sizes, and (2) that "for the most part" TTs have these large student bodies (subject to this dread rank inflation). Assuming then that a school's tier has something do with it's (perceived) quality, how are you now telling me that "rank inflation" (that is, bias against class ranking as a measurement of performance) has nothing to do with the quality of school?

Are you an 0L?

No, I'm transferring to CLS. I had both a high GPA and a high rank, so I don't really have a dog in this fight.

Because you are 100% wrong about two students coming from similar schools with similar ranks. The higher GPA will win out. You do realize that some T14s don't even ask for class rank right? Two deans from T14 schools told me in person that they care more about the students transcript than rank. Like I said earlier, you can't knock down someone that has a 3.8 no matter how high the curve is. Tough fact to swallow but that's reality.

I'm pretty sure every single T14 I applied to, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, NYU, UVA, and Duke, asked for rank. Maybe one didn't, but then damn near close to all of them did. And yes, you can knock down a 3.8 any way you want to by figuring out how high the median GPA is. Just ask legal employers, who predominately list cut-offs in terms of GPA percentile because they are smart enough to realize that a school can manipulate its GPA so that its candidates look impressive because of "high" GPAs.

All this aside, your argument doesn't even make sense conceptually. Everybody knows that grades are assigned on a curve. That is, students who score this many points get an A, students who get that many points get a B, etc. The letter assigned is only a reflection of that student's performance relative to their peers, not some reference to a Platonic issue spotting standard. In other words, the assignment of a grade is based purely on that student's rank within the class.

[aca0260]

You're missing the point. No one said anything about "worse" schools. I said schools with large class sizes can inflate rank for the top students. For the most part these are TTs but there are Tier 1 schools with large class sizes too like UF. And the inverse is also true, with many TTs having small sizes.

Your argument directly references (1) what you perceive as a lower quality student body at TTs with large class sizes, and (2) that "for the most part" TTs have these large student bodies (subject to this dread rank inflation). Assuming then that a school's tier has something do with it's (perceived) quality, how are you now telling me that "rank inflation" (that is, bias against class ranking as a measurement of performance) has nothing to do with the quality of school?

Are you an 0L?

No, I'm transferring to CLS. I had both a high GPA and a high rank, so I don't really have a dog in this fight.

Because you are 100% wrong about two students coming from similar schools with similar ranks. The higher GPA will win out. You do realize that some T14s don't even ask for class rank right? Two deans from T14 schools told me in person that they care more about the students transcript than rank. Like I said earlier, you can't knock down someone that has a 3.8 no matter how high the curve is. Tough fact to swallow but that's reality.

I'm pretty sure every single T14 I applied to, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, NYU, UVA, and Duke, asked for rank. Maybe one didn't, but then damn near close to all of them did. And yes, you can knock down a 3.8 any way you want to by figuring out how high the median GPA is. Just ask legal employers, who predominately list cut-offs in terms of GPA percentile because they are smart enough to realize that a school can manipulate its GPA so that its candidates look impressive because of "high" GPAs.

All this aside, your argument doesn't even make sense conceptually. Everybody knows that grades are assigned on a curve. That is, students who score this many points get an A, students who get that many points get a B, etc. The letter assigned is only a reflection of that student's performance relative to their peers, not some reference to a Platonic issue spotting standard. In other words, the assignment of a grade is based purely on that student's rank within the class.

Don't have the patience to debate this so agree to disagree. There are plenty of people on here that have mentioned that certain T14s penalize schools with lower curves in spite of high rank. Whether you want to believe me or make use of the search box is up to you. What I will point out, however, is that larger class size does not equal "worse" school no matter how strained your inferences are. School 1 is ranked 80. School 2 is ranked 60. School 2 has a 500 person class and School 1 has a 200 person class. School 2 will inflate the rank of top students; however school 2 is not necessarily "worse" than School 1 (USNews ranking criticism aside).

Oh and best of luck at CLS.

[FlanSolo]

Don't have the patience to debate this so agree to disagree. There are plenty of people on here that have mentioned that certain T14s penalize schools with lower curves in spite of high rank. Whether you want to believe me or make use of the search box is up to you. What I will point out, however, is that larger class size does not equal "worse" school no matter how strained your inferences are. School 1 is ranked 80. School 2 is ranked 60. School 2 has a 500 person class and School 1 has a 200 person class. School 2 will inflate the rank of top students; however school 2 is not necessarily "worse" than School 1 (USNews ranking criticism aside).

Oh and best of luck at CLS.

I agree with the agreement to disagree. However, since you sneaked one last point in, I will as well . Assuming the schools in your example have roughly the same admissions standards, there is not much reason to believe the larger school has a greater ratio of poor students that inflate rank. That is, assuming basically the proportional spread of LSAT/uGPA across the class, why would the larger school have a substantially greater percentage of slackers such that 50/500 (with a lower GPA) is worse than 20/200 (with a higher GPA)? I'll stipulate that the answer to this question doesn't address whether or not there is actually a perceptible bias against high rank, low GPA students.