Top Law Schools

First, I just want to clarify that the ED scholarship is full-tuition, not full-ride, so you'd still be paying the not-insignificant cost of living in DC (which you're familiar with, obviously, but I just wanted to make sure you factored it in). In terms of stats, you're definitely looking at T-14 numbers. When I was applying there were admittedly a lot more applicants, so GW could be pickier, but the people in my class who had the scholarship were people who could've gone to Columbia instead (though probably at sticker). I'd definitely say you'd want >75% on both.

All of that said, there are fewer people applying for the scholarship now than there were when I went, so take this with a grain of possibly-outdated salt.

In terms of the transfer talk, I think the primary concern is competition for jobs. I can't speak for Flawschoolkid, of course, but I get the sense that is most folks' concern. There were a couple years where the school significantly reduced its class-size (I think the 1Ls my 3L year were the first smaller class). It benefited the first smaller class, because fewer of them were competing for jobs. After that, GW, presumably to make up for the lost revenue, let in more transfers than usual to bring the second small-class year's class size back to GW's "regular" class size for 2L and 3L.

Transfers are people, usually, who did well at a lower ranked school, and have decided their job prospects or some other aspect of their life will be better if they "transfer up" to a better-ranked school. It's the same at GW as it is everywhere else. In my year, though, our transfers seemed to have tougher luck at OCI. I assume it's because they had no GPA or scholar designation from GW to use, so it was all based on their 1L school, but I have nothing to back that up. The transfers I knew spanned the spectrum in terms of what their job goals were.

kittenmittens wrote: Also, I was very interested to hear above discussion about the large number of transfers. How exactly has this affected your experience besides for stretching class sizes? Are these transfer students generally students from lower ranked schools who work their asses off? Are they more IP students, Biglaw gunners, something else, or a general mix?

GW just let in a very large transfer class (that's what other students told me). It was about 20% of the 2L class. I think Gtown accepts the same-ish amount. GW is all about accepting the transfers as part of the community as soon as they get here. Since there's so many, there's not really a stigma. The former school usually is the one with the problem anyways.

Transfers usually come from, like you said, lower schools where they ranked decently high. I transferred to GW from Richmond because I wanted to work in DC. I was accepted to other schools, but they were not in DC. GW is good for IP and centrally located for biglaw, so students are likely a mix. DC also has access to government jobs so students interested in that probably transfer as well.

I've heard transfers do not fare well at OCI since they do not have GW grades, but do better in terms of getting jobs overall.

flawschoolkid wrote:

jarofsoup wrote:The big law chances from GW are alright in the DC, mid atlantic, and east coast market. Its a strong regional school so it does well out here, but terrible in the west. About 1/2 my friends in the 2014 class have big law positions. There has been good amount of 3L/ entry-level hiring in the big law firms, which is unusual. 2015 seems to being much better though.

But a lot of big law prospects relate to first year grades and how well you perform in OCI. The lower cut off for big law firms is around 3.4. So a lot rides on your interview skills, ability to not submit a shitty cover letter or resume and not being a complete weirdo to get these positions.

The P2P program that everyone bashes b/c its "school funded employment" is quite a big perk. A lot of my friends are on it and you can get a good position at a law firm (any firm under 50 associates qualify).

Anecdotally, a lot of people get into larger law firms and full time gigs with in 3 months from starting a P2P fellowship.

OCI has been a blood bath for those not 3.6+ or IP (top 15%). Massmailing has been better, but you're going to have to hustle. The school has been completely disingenuous admitting too many students & too many transfers. Class size up 150 kids total in one year.

Not entirely true. Final OCI numbers apparently look to be around 30% which is higher than last year. Not sure how much of that resulted from the actual OCI v mass mailing, etc, but the numbers are better.

nosleepatnight wrote:
Not entirely true. Final OCI numbers apparently look to be around 30% which is higher than last year. Not sure how much of that resulted from the actual OCI v mass mailing, etc, but the numbers are better.

Final "OCI numbers"? That stat doesn't exist. Schools don't report how many of their 2Ls landed biglaw summer associate positions. If GW did please link me. For the record, GW accepted 97 transfers this year. The median gpa of all the transfers is a 3.35 which is roughly top 40% at most schools. This is why transfers do poorly at GW OCI and also why GW is a trap school.

TheNextAmendment wrote:

nosleepatnight wrote:
Not entirely true. Final OCI numbers apparently look to be around 30% which is higher than last year. Not sure how much of that resulted from the actual OCI v mass mailing, etc, but the numbers are better.

Final "OCI numbers"? That stat doesn't exist. Schools don't report how many of their 2Ls landed biglaw summer associate positions. If GW did please link me. For the record, GW accepted 97 transfers this year. The median gpa of all the transfers is a 3.35 which is roughly top 40% at most schools. This is why transfers do poorly at GW OCI and also why GW is a trap school.

Cite.

TheNextAmendment wrote:

nosleepatnight wrote:
Not entirely true. Final OCI numbers apparently look to be around 30% which is higher than last year. Not sure how much of that resulted from the actual OCI v mass mailing, etc, but the numbers are better.

Final "OCI numbers"? That stat doesn't exist. Schools don't report how many of their 2Ls landed biglaw summer associate positions. If GW did please link me. For the record, GW accepted 97 transfers this year. The median gpa of all the transfers is a 3.35 which is roughly top 40% at most schools. This is why transfers do poorly at GW OCI and also why GW is a trap school.

Schools do keep track of the data. I'm not a student at GW, but my school tracks the data for current students to view. They don't release it to the public.

jarofsoup wrote:

TheNextAmendment wrote:

nosleepatnight wrote:
Not entirely true. Final OCI numbers apparently look to be around 30% which is higher than last year. Not sure how much of that resulted from the actual OCI v mass mailing, etc, but the numbers are better.

Final "OCI numbers"? That stat doesn't exist. Schools don't report how many of their 2Ls landed biglaw summer associate positions. If GW did please link me. For the record, GW accepted 97 transfers this year. The median gpa of all the transfers is a 3.35 which is roughly top 40% at most schools. This is why transfers do poorly at GW OCI and also why GW is a trap school.

Cite.

Google.com. Search "2014 Standard 509 gw" its the first link. Looks like someone at GW Law released the 2014 standard 509 accidentally (I assume). Enjoy.

TheNextAmendment wrote:

nosleepatnight wrote:
Not entirely true. Final OCI numbers apparently look to be around 30% which is higher than last year. Not sure how much of that resulted from the actual OCI v mass mailing, etc, but the numbers are better.

Final "OCI numbers"? That stat doesn't exist. Schools don't report how many of their 2Ls landed biglaw summer associate positions. If GW did please link me. For the record, GW accepted 97 transfers this year. The median gpa of all the transfers is a 3.35 which is roughly top 40% at most schools. This is why transfers do poorly at GW OCI and also why GW is a trap school.

I'm actually interested in where you're getting this "3.35 = top 40% at most schools" stat. That's not from the 509 and isn't necessarily true. It may be true for some of the transfers, and certainly the ones who transferred in from peer institutions who have grade-inflation around the same rate as GW. Lower-ranked schools, however, tend to have much tougher curves and lower median GPAs. So a 3.35 from Hastings may mean they were top 40%. A 3.35 from USD may be top 15% (I don't know the curves at those schools, so it's just an example). There's just no way to generalize.

None of that takes away from the fact that OCI tends to be more difficult for transfers who do not have a GW GPA or any of the GW scholar designations. So people considering transferring might bear that in mind. I do not know how easy it is for them to get biglaw through hustle, though by and large I think getting biglaw after 2L OCI is a crapshoot.

Also, GW does track the number of 2Ls who are going to biglaw to the extent it is possible to do so. They do not provide those figures to the public.

mi-chan17 wrote:

TheNextAmendment wrote:

nosleepatnight wrote:
Not entirely true. Final OCI numbers apparently look to be around 30% which is higher than last year. Not sure how much of that resulted from the actual OCI v mass mailing, etc, but the numbers are better.

Final "OCI numbers"? That stat doesn't exist. Schools don't report how many of their 2Ls landed biglaw summer associate positions. If GW did please link me. For the record, GW accepted 97 transfers this year. The median gpa of all the transfers is a 3.35 which is roughly top 40% at most schools. This is why transfers do poorly at GW OCI and also why GW is a trap school.

I'm actually interested in where you're getting this "3.35 = top 40% at most schools" stat. That's not from the 509 and isn't necessarily true. It may be true for some of the transfers, and certainly the ones who transferred in from peer institutions who have grade-inflation around the same rate as GW. Lower-ranked schools, however, tend to have much tougher curves and lower median GPAs. So a 3.35 from Hastings may mean they were top 40%. A 3.35 from USD may be top 15% (I don't know the curves at those schools, so it's just an example). There's just no way to generalize.

None of that takes away from the fact that OCI tends to be more difficult for transfers who do not have a GW GPA or any of the GW scholar designations. So people considering transferring might bear that in mind. I do not know how easy it is for them to get biglaw through hustle, though by and large I think getting biglaw after 2L OCI is a crapshoot.

Also, GW does track the number of 2Ls who are going to biglaw to the extent it is possible to do so. They do not provide those figures to the public.

I understand your attempts to defend your school because that's a natural thing to do. I'm simply sharing facts and that in my opinion they establish that GW does not do what is in the best interest for its students. Your arguments are as follows:
1) How do I know that 3.35 is around top 40%? Intuition based on the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_la ... GPA_curves
2) GW does track the number of 2Ls that get biglaw Summer Associate positions, but they just don't release them to the public. Duh. Obviously every school's career services center will track the number of 2Ls that get SAs, but if the school doesn't make those numbers public than they are of little use in an argument. I was merely asking how the user above got the 30% figure considering that GW Law doesn't release those numbers. My guess is that he was speculating; not a proper thing to do on these forums when you are giving advice to kids about decisions that could change their lives forever.

TheNextAmendment wrote: I understand your attempts to defend your school because that's a natural thing to do. I'm simply sharing facts and that in my opinion they establish that GW does not do what is in the best interest for its students. Your arguments are as follows:
1) How do I know that 3.35 is around top 40%? Intuition based on the following: [wikipedia page compiling a list of LS GPA curves]
2) GW does track the number of 2Ls that get biglaw Summer Associate positions, but they just don't release them to the public. Duh. Obviously every school's career services center will track the number of 2Ls that get SAs, but if the school doesn't make those numbers public than they are of little use in an argument. I was merely asking how the user above got the 30% figure considering that GW Law doesn't release those numbers. My guess is that he was speculating; not a proper thing to do on these forums when you are giving advice to kids about decisions that could change their lives forever.

I agree, people should do the research and carefully weigh the pros and cons of going to a school. I also agree that transfers should be aware of the difficulty in going through GW OCI as transfers. I think the only place you and I really disagree here as to the usefulness of this 3.35 = 40% statistic. I'm saying it is meaningless. Wrong? I can't say that it's wrong as an average. I haven't done the math. Possibly, as an average, it's correct. But in looking at that list, USD is curved to around a 2.95-3.05. 3.35 is well above median there. That's typical of lower ranked law schools which is by and large where transfers come from. So to get a true picture of transfer student quality based on LGPA you would have to look at the transfer school's actual curve.

You're right. I have no idea if the number is 30%. It's possible that person is right, it's possible they aren't. As an alum, I don't have those numbers anymore, so I really can't say. I was just responding to the claim that "the stat doesn't exist." It does. But relying on it with nothing to back it up would be dumb, I agree.

mi-chan17 wrote:First, I just want to clarify that the ED scholarship is full-tuition, not full-ride, so you'd still be paying the not-insignificant cost of living in DC (which you're familiar with, obviously, but I just wanted to make sure you factored it in). In terms of stats, you're definitely looking at T-14 numbers. When I was applying there were admittedly a lot more applicants, so GW could be pickier, but the people in my class who had the scholarship were people who could've gone to Columbia instead (though probably at sticker). I'd definitely say you'd want >75% on both.

On TLS for procrastination purposes so I figured I'd add to this while I'm here. I'm a 1L and got the full-tuiton scholarship with a 170 and a 3.9. Sold resume, nothing super stand-out like starting my own business. Letter of Recommendations probably pretty solid. My personal statement was decent, I've never been super great at them, and honestly didn't spend as much effort as I should have on it. I guess what I'm saying is, from my sample size of 1, it appears they are definitely numbers intensive > crazy cool extras.

mi-chan17 wrote:

TheNextAmendment wrote: I understand your attempts to defend your school because that's a natural thing to do. I'm simply sharing facts and that in my opinion they establish that GW does not do what is in the best interest for its students. Your arguments are as follows:
1) How do I know that 3.35 is around top 40%? Intuition based on the following: [wikipedia page compiling a list of LS GPA curves]
2) GW does track the number of 2Ls that get biglaw Summer Associate positions, but they just don't release them to the public. Duh. Obviously every school's career services center will track the number of 2Ls that get SAs, but if the school doesn't make those numbers public than they are of little use in an argument. I was merely asking how the user above got the 30% figure considering that GW Law doesn't release those numbers. My guess is that he was speculating; not a proper thing to do on these forums when you are giving advice to kids about decisions that could change their lives forever.

I agree, people should do the research and carefully weigh the pros and cons of going to a school. I also agree that transfers should be aware of the difficulty in going through GW OCI as transfers. I think the only place you and I really disagree here as to the usefulness of this 3.35 = 40% statistic. I'm saying it is meaningless. Wrong? I can't say that it's wrong as an average. I haven't done the math. Possibly, as an average, it's correct. But in looking at that list, USD is curved to around a 2.95-3.05. 3.35 is well above median there. That's typical of lower ranked law schools which is by and large where transfers come from. So to get a true picture of transfer student quality based on LGPA you would have to look at the transfer school's actual curve.

You're right. I have no idea if the number is 30%. It's possible that person is right, it's possible they aren't. As an alum, I don't have those numbers anymore, so I really can't say. I was just responding to the claim that "the stat doesn't exist." It does. But relying on it with no

I agree. However, I think we can both agree that a 3.35 isn't anywhere near top 10-15% for MOST schools. The fact that GW takes transfers with class ranks of <top 15% is worrisome. That was my only point.

TheNextAmendment wrote:

mi-chan17 wrote:

TheNextAmendment wrote: I understand your attempts to defend your school because that's a natural thing to do. I'm simply sharing facts and that in my opinion they establish that GW does not do what is in the best interest for its students. Your arguments are as follows:
1) How do I know that 3.35 is around top 40%? Intuition based on the following: [wikipedia page compiling a list of LS GPA curves]
2) GW does track the number of 2Ls that get biglaw Summer Associate positions, but they just don't release them to the public. Duh. Obviously every school's career services center will track the number of 2Ls that get SAs, but if the school doesn't make those numbers public than they are of little use in an argument. I was merely asking how the user above got the 30% figure considering that GW Law doesn't release those numbers. My guess is that he was speculating; not a proper thing to do on these forums when you are giving advice to kids about decisions that could change their lives forever.

I agree, people should do the research and carefully weigh the pros and cons of going to a school. I also agree that transfers should be aware of the difficulty in going through GW OCI as transfers. I think the only place you and I really disagree here as to the usefulness of this 3.35 = 40% statistic. I'm saying it is meaningless. Wrong? I can't say that it's wrong as an average. I haven't done the math. Possibly, as an average, it's correct. But in looking at that list, USD is curved to around a 2.95-3.05. 3.35 is well above median there. That's typical of lower ranked law schools which is by and large where transfers come from. So to get a true picture of transfer student quality based on LGPA you would have to look at the transfer school's actual curve.

You're right. I have no idea if the number is 30%. It's possible that person is right, it's possible they aren't. As an alum, I don't have those numbers anymore, so I really can't say. I was just responding to the claim that "the stat doesn't exist." It does. But relying on it with no

I agree. However, I think we can both agree that a 3.35 isn't anywhere near top 10-15% for MOST schools. The fact that GW takes transfers with class ranks of <top 15% is worrisome. That was my only point.

We could agree that, out of all ABA-accredited schools, 3.35 may not, on average, be near the top 15%. Of course, that includes schools in the T20, GW included, that grade-inflate the heck out of things with medians of 3.3-3.5. However, I just checked each school listed as the 1L transfer school against the list you so helpfully provided, and the vast majority of the schools which had data on the wiki page had medians between 2.XX and 3.15. At such a school, 3.35 could be top 15%.

If transfers are, in fact, ranked poorly at the transfer school, then yes, I agree that would be a problem. It screws them, and while it doesn't hurt the chances of GW/TM scholars, it could in an abstract way hurt unranked GW students. It would be a lose-lose for students.

mi-chan17 wrote:

TheNextAmendment wrote:

mi-chan17 wrote:

TheNextAmendment wrote: I understand your attempts to defend your school because that's a natural thing to do. I'm simply sharing facts and that in my opinion they establish that GW does not do what is in the best interest for its students. Your arguments are as follows:
1) How do I know that 3.35 is around top 40%? Intuition based on the following: [wikipedia page compiling a list of LS GPA curves]
2) GW does track the number of 2Ls that get biglaw Summer Associate positions, but they just don't release them to the public. Duh. Obviously every school's career services center will track the number of 2Ls that get SAs, but if the school doesn't make those numbers public than they are of little use in an argument. I was merely asking how the user above got the 30% figure considering that GW Law doesn't release those numbers. My guess is that he was speculating; not a proper thing to do on these forums when you are giving advice to kids about decisions that could change their lives forever.

I agree, people should do the research and carefully weigh the pros and cons of going to a school. I also agree that transfers should be aware of the difficulty in going through GW OCI as transfers. I think the only place you and I really disagree here as to the usefulness of this 3.35 = 40% statistic. I'm saying it is meaningless. Wrong? I can't say that it's wrong as an average. I haven't done the math. Possibly, as an average, it's correct. But in looking at that list, USD is curved to around a 2.95-3.05. 3.35 is well above median there. That's typical of lower ranked law schools which is by and large where transfers come from. So to get a true picture of transfer student quality based on LGPA you would have to look at the transfer school's actual curve.

You're right. I have no idea if the number is 30%. It's possible that person is right, it's possible they aren't. As an alum, I don't have those numbers anymore, so I really can't say. I was just responding to the claim that "the stat doesn't exist." It does. But relying on it with no

I agree. However, I think we can both agree that a 3.35 isn't anywhere near top 10-15% for MOST schools. The fact that GW takes transfers with class ranks of <top 15% is worrisome. That was my only point.

We could agree that, out of all ABA-accredited schools, 3.35 may not, on average, be near the top 15%. Of course, that includes schools in the T20, GW included, that grade-inflate the heck out of things with medians of 3.3-3.5. However, I just checked each school listed as the 1L transfer school against the list you so helpfully provided, and the vast majority of the schools which had data on the wiki page had medians between 2.XX and 3.15. At such a school, 3.35 could be top 15%.

If transfers are, in fact, ranked poorly at the transfer school, then yes, I agree that would be a problem. It screws them, and while it doesn't hurt the chances of GW/TM scholars, it could in an abstract way hurt unranked GW students. It would be a lose-lose for students.

GW took 97 transfers with a median gpa of 3.35
54 of those transfers (or 55% of all the transfers) came from American University (AUWCL)
1Ls at AUWCL with a 3.35 gpa rank around top 40%. http://www.wcl.american.edu/registrar/classrank.cfm (look at rising 2nd year numbers)

Get it?

Don't get your hopes up on 30% big law. We're just as IPSECURE based as ever.

TheNextAmendment wrote: GW took 97 transfers with a median gpa of 3.35
54 of those transfers (or 55% of all the transfers) came from American University (AUWCL)
1Ls at AUWCL with a 3.35 gpa rank around top 40%.

Get it?

Actually, you're giving GW a little too much credit. (And yes, I am mildly surprised by the irony as well.) A 3.35 GPA at AU puts a student in bottom half of their class at graduation. Now, admittedly grades tend to go up after 1L for most people, but I'd bet 3.35 is at or below median.

Interesting.

So, in a best case scenario in which all of the top (e.g., above median) 1L GPAs came out of AU, at least one or two people from at or even below median at AU transferred in. Way to go, G-dubs.

mi-chan17 wrote:

TheNextAmendment wrote: GW took 97 transfers with a median gpa of 3.35
54 of those transfers (or 55% of all the transfers) came from American University (AUWCL)
1Ls at AUWCL with a 3.35 gpa rank around top 40%.

Get it?

Actually, you're giving GW a little too much credit. (And yes, I am mildly surprised by the irony as well.) A 3.35 GPA at AU puts a student in bottom half of their class at graduation. Now, admittedly grades tend to go up after 1L for most people, but I'd bet 3.35 is at or below median.

Interesting.

So, in a best case scenario in which all of the top (e.g., above median) 1L GPAs came out of AU, at least one or two people from at or even below median at AU transferred in. Way to go, G-dubs.

I realized this early in the semester, tried to show some classmates, and we all felt kind of insulted or something. Never has a money grab by administration been so clear.

flawschoolkid wrote:

mi-chan17 wrote:

TheNextAmendment wrote: GW took 97 transfers with a median gpa of 3.35
54 of those transfers (or 55% of all the transfers) came from American University (AUWCL)
1Ls at AUWCL with a 3.35 gpa rank around top 40%.

Get it?

Actually, you're giving GW a little too much credit. (And yes, I am mildly surprised by the irony as well.) A 3.35 GPA at AU puts a student in bottom half of their class at graduation. Now, admittedly grades tend to go up after 1L for most people, but I'd bet 3.35 is at or below median.

Interesting.

So, in a best case scenario in which all of the top (e.g., above median) 1L GPAs came out of AU, at least one or two people from at or even below median at AU transferred in. Way to go, G-dubs.

I realized this early in the semester, tried to show some classmates, and we all felt kind of insulted or something. Never has a money grab by administration been so clear.

It must get awfully lonely for the remaining 2Ls and 3Ls over at American. On the bright side, I suspect that there are plenty of good seats available in upper level classes.

mi-chan17 wrote:

TheNextAmendment wrote: GW took 97 transfers with a median gpa of 3.35
54 of those transfers (or 55% of all the transfers) came from American University (AUWCL)
1Ls at AUWCL with a 3.35 gpa rank around top 40%.

Get it?

Actually, you're giving GW a little too much credit. (And yes, I am mildly surprised by the irony as well.) A 3.35 GPA at AU puts a student in bottom half of their class at graduation. Now, admittedly grades tend to go up after 1L for most people, but I'd bet 3.35 is at or below median.

Interesting.

So, in a best case scenario in which all of the top (e.g., above median) 1L GPAs came out of AU, at least one or two people from at or even below median at AU transferred in. Way to go, G-dubs.

Mi-Chan you're frustrating me because you keep trying to correct me and yet every time you fail to look at the correct data. I'll walk you through it:
Step 1: Go to http://www.wcl.american.edu/registrar/classrank.cfm
Step 2: Scroll down to the section that says "Class of 2016". Look at the left column under it. Those are the class ranks for rising 2Ls (AKA ranks after 1L year)
Step 3: Find where 3.35 fits within that range. Well, top 33.3% is 3.39-3.49; top 50% is 3.27-3.39.
Step 4: Therefore, a 3.35 gpa for 1Ls at American is roughly equivalent to top 40%.

However, I'm glad you're finally on board with the rest of us.

flawschoolkid wrote:

mi-chan17 wrote:

TheNextAmendment wrote: GW took 97 transfers with a median gpa of 3.35
54 of those transfers (or 55% of all the transfers) came from American University (AUWCL)
1Ls at AUWCL with a 3.35 gpa rank around top 40%.

Get it?

Actually, you're giving GW a little too much credit. (And yes, I am mildly surprised by the irony as well.) A 3.35 GPA at AU puts a student in bottom half of their class at graduation. Now, admittedly grades tend to go up after 1L for most people, but I'd bet 3.35 is at or below median.

Interesting.

So, in a best case scenario in which all of the top (e.g., above median) 1L GPAs came out of AU, at least one or two people from at or even below median at AU transferred in. Way to go, G-dubs.

I realized this early in the semester, tried to show some classmates, and we all felt kind of insulted or something. Never has a money grab by administration been so clear.

It gets worse. Not only did GW Law take 97 transfers this year with an average median of 3.35 (which is, according to the schools the transfers came from, roughly top 40%), but GW Law is increasing its class size. 2013- 481 total 1Ls. 2014- 539 total 1Ls. 97 transfers (up by 10 or so from 2013 I think) + 58 more regular 1Ls = OCI Hell. Everyone on board?

TheNextAmendment wrote: Mi-Chan you're frustrating me because you keep trying to correct me and yet every time you fail to look at the correct data. I'll walk you through it:
Step 1: Go to [AU's website]
Step 2: Scroll down to the section that says "Class of 2016". Look at the left column under it. Those are the class ranks for rising 2Ls (AKA ranks after 1L year)
Step 3: Find where 3.35 fits within that range. Well, top 33.3% is 3.39-3.49; top 50% is 3.27-3.39.
Step 4: Therefore, a 3.35 gpa for 1Ls at American is roughly equivalent to top 40%.

However, I'm glad you're finally on board with the rest of us.

I'm not trying to correct you. Calm down. I was looking at the NALP data that the law schools have to provide. I don't trust the schools to be particularly forthcoming with information, so that tends to be my source for GPA. Per NALP, at graduation "top 75%" was at a 3.29, and "top 50%" was at a 3.48. 3.35 would be between those numbers, thus putting graduates with a 3.35 in the bottom half of their class. That said, NALP is imperfect because it only has historical data - that is, it shows the percentage breakdown for the graduating class. It wouldn't show 2014 1L GPAs. Your data may be right for the class of 2016, assuming AU is being honest, and regardless the issue you brought up is a valid one by any measure. 3.35s coming out of AU are concerning.

In terms of class size, it has definitely gone up from when the class of 2015 entered - they were, I think, the smallest entering and graduating class in recent memory. My class graduated out around 560 people in 2013, before they started having to cut enrollment. My guess is that they're taking in so many more transfers to boost revenue to make up for the temporarily smaller class sizes. It helps the school, but I also don't think it helps the students.

OCI-wise, I think that the increased class size can and will hurt some people, but I think that damage will mostly be limited to the introduction of 550+ 1L classes. Too many GW 1Ls competing with other GW 1Ls will hurt all GW 1Ls overall. Transfers, as previously discussed, tend not to do as well at OCI because they don't get as many, if any, interviews. The bigger problem at OCI is the larger number of GW and TM scholars fighting over the stagnant number of interview spots. Transfer students are more likely to make it more competitive for jobs that hire outside of OCI, since (I am under the impression) that's how most transfer students get their jobs.

That's already been addressed on this board, though, it's not really new news. So yes, I'd say everyone is and has been on board with that. GW needs to stop increasing its class size and to reduce its expenditures accordingly.

When Arnold & Porter only gives your school of ~600 2Ls 1 interviewer, you know you're doing poorly.

Who are the 20-25% of GW grads who are under/unemployed (per LST)? Is it the bottom 25% of class? Is it people willfully taking JD-Advantage jobs? People aiming for biglaw who struck out? People who interned at government agencies but didn't get offered jobs?

And related question, if I work just as hard as everyone else is it reasonable to assume good class rank if I come in with 75% LSAT and >75% GPA ? I'm sure tons of other variables matter for this - I went to a big state school, was a poly sci major and am a good writer

kittenmittens wrote:And related question, if I work just as hard as everyone else is it reasonable to assume good class rank if I come in with 75% LSAT and >75% GPA ? I'm sure tons of other variables matter for this - I went to a big state school, was a poly sci major and am a good writer

Assume nothing. A high LSAT does not mean high rank. I bombed the LSAT (relatively) and was in the top of my class 1L year. Browse TLS to learn how to take a law school exam. That's the kicker. You have to learn it before the others do.

Edit: typo

kittenmittens wrote:Who are the 20-25% of GW grads who are under/unemployed (per LST)? Is it the bottom 25% of class? Is it people willfully taking JD-Advantage jobs? People aiming for biglaw who struck out? People who interned at government agencies but didn't get offered jobs?

And related question, if I work just as hard as everyone else is it reasonable to assume good class rank if I come in with 75% LSAT and >75% GPA ? I'm sure tons of other variables matter for this - I went to a big state school, was a poly sci major and am a good writer

In terms of the under/unemployed/rest of class numbers on LST, it depends on the grad. There's no one-size fits all answer. One of my friends is in a JD-advantage job that wouldn't count as employed on LST because there's no bar requirement. It wasn't a job that was his or her first choice, but it's a good job. Some people are in that situation. Some are in JD-advantage jobs by choice. Some people pursued LLMs or some other type of graduate degree. Some people were legitimately unemployed. It's not that the bottom 25% of the class is underemployed or slinging Starbucks. Once you get below median, whether you're unemployed, a barista, in a JD-advantage, or in a bar required job depends on hustle and luck. So, as is every law school answer, it depends.

In terms of the second question, the answer is no. People from the top of my class came from all different types of people, including those that rarely studied in law school, those with below median GPAs or LSAT scores, and people who were high scorers that also worked obsessive-compulsively. As bsktbll said, grades are wholly dependent on how quickly you master taking a law school exam, and that's something that's not necessarily determined by your UGPA, LSAT, or work ethic.