Planned Transfer Forum

[lymenheimer]

I'm telling you that if I couldn't get top 15% of the schools that I'm looking to transfer from, I'd belong there because I'd struggle immensely at the schools I want to go to.

This is a fallacious argument. For one, some schools allegedly section-stack, which forces a certain percentage of the class below median. So even if your work isn't poor, it could result in you being below the top 15%. For another, as has been mentioned by numerous students in the past (and will continue to be mentioned in the future), the difference between an A- and a B+ is sometimes no more than a single point on an essay, which doesn't mean that the B+ student struggled, just that he didn't mention one key item. For 3, it has been debated that the top schools are the easiest because they (some) don't give common grades (H/P scale, etc), they don't [officially] rank students (depends on the school), and you have less stress in achieving your career goals (because a larger percentage of the class ends up in those positions), so you can afford to end up at median.

[Apple4321]

I'm telling you that if I couldn't get top 15% of the schools that I'm looking to transfer from, I'd belong there because I'd struggle immensely at the schools I want to go to.

This is a fallacious argument. For one, some schools allegedly section-stack, which forces a certain percentage of the class below median. So even if your work isn't poor, it could result in you being below the top 15%. For another, as has been mentioned by numerous students in the past (and will continue to be mentioned in the future), the difference between an A- and a B+ is sometimes no more than a single point on an essay, which doesn't mean that the B+ student struggled, just that he didn't mention one key item. For 3, it has been debated that the top schools are the easiest because they (some) don't give common grades (H/P scale, etc), they don't [officially] rank students (depends on the school), and you have less stress in achieving your career goals (because a larger percentage of the class ends up in those positions), so you can afford to end up at median.

Thanks for your insight. Could you elaborate your third point (about the different curves and ways schools rank students)?

[lymenheimer]

Thanks for your insight. Could you elaborate your third point (about the different curves and ways schools rank students)?

I'm a 0L, so I don't have insight based on personal experience. But there was a thread about which school is the easiest to graduate from. That being said, Yale, Stanford, and Boalt were all in contention because they don't do normal grades. I don't even think Yale gives grades for 1L, but idk how that actually plays out (I haven't looked and I have no reason to because I don't expect I'll ever make it there). A lot of the top schools will internally rank students, for the prestigious clerkship hiring, etc. but they don't have to outwardly rank students, "that way every student can say I'm in the top of my class at Yale" or something (is the sentiment that others share), but the lower ranked schools need to rank their students so that firms know who is definitively at the top for hiring purposes, because they have a higher bar to jump.

[Nachoo2019]

Another thing to note is that you better believe most students at those top schools like Yale and Harvard are happy and know that at median they will still have a chance at whatever outcome they want.

the exact opposite goes at TTTTs like John marshal. Students get there and realize that the only way to have a shot at a good legal career is to be top 15% or transfer(which means that they need too 15%). This will lead to extreme gunning and people ready to kill each other over that A because that last A is the only chance they have in transferring out of that hell hole.

Disclaimer: I am just an 0L but this i have read in other threads just like this one. I would recommend finding and looking through those threads as they can answer all the questions you have

[Apple4321]

Thanks for your insight. Could you elaborate your third point (about the different curves and ways schools rank students)?

I'm a 0L, so I don't have insight based on personal experience. But there was a thread about which school is the easiest to graduate from. That being said, Yale, Stanford, and Boalt were all in contention because they don't do normal grades. I don't even think Yale gives grades for 1L, but idk how that actually plays out (I haven't looked and I have no reason to because I don't expect I'll ever make it there). A lot of the top schools will internally rank students, for the prestigious clerkship hiring, etc. but they don't have to outwardly rank students, "that way every student can say I'm in the top of my class at Yale" or something (is the sentiment that others share), but the lower ranked schools need to rank their students so that firms know who is definitively at the top for hiring purposes, because they have a higher bar to jump.

Solid points. Thanks!

[Apple4321]

Another thing to note is that you better believe most students at those top schools like Yale and Harvard are happy and know that at median they will still have a chance at whatever outcome they want.

the exact opposite goes at TTTTs like John marshal. Students get there and realize that the only way to have a shot at a good legal career is to be top 15% or transfer(which means that they need too 15%). This will lead to extreme gunning and people ready to kill each other over that A because that last A is the only chance they have in transferring out of that hell hole.

Disclaimer: I am just an 0L but this i have read in other threads just like this one. I would recommend finding and looking through those threads as they can answer all the questions you have

Good points! From what you've read, does it seem like a lot of TTTT students are trying to transfer out after 1L? There's always going to be a top 1%, 5%, 10%, 15%, etc. so there are always going to be people that can transfer. Do most of the top students at TTTT schools transfer? I do imagine that TTTT schools would be more competitive than people realize. Not only does it sound like a lot of people want to transfer out (requiring good grades/rank), but those schools also give conditional scholarships (requiring good grades/rank), and for the students staying, they still need good grades/rank to secure a position. On top of this, as previously mentioned, there's a high chance that there will be grading policies working against you at these schools.

[Alive97]

^didnt you just list a bunch of factors that undercut the reliability of your spreadsheet? What non-subjective aspect of grading policy factors into your spreadsheet? What do you have to go on I your spreadsheet other than the predictive power of LSAT and GPA when it comes to law school grades?

I think it can be firmly established that your spreadsheet (if it exists) has zero reliability.

Top 5-15% with subjectively graded written exams is just too high of a bar to bank on.

[drblakedowns]

So I found this paper http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2627330 and I think it is illuminating.

Two main take-aways.
1) how detailed is your list of your fellow 1L students. Do you have their university, major, we, etc because according to the paper, there are many factors that have predictive value.

2) In the paper, even with access to pretty much all the available information from 1400 students at two schools from 2005 to 2012, the adjusted r-squared value of their regression model is 0.28. They aren't explaining all that much of the variance.

From those two things, I would not bet my future on your magic spreadsheet.

[Apple4321]

*Update for people considering a planned transfer (not TLS trolls):

Ignoring the advice I received on this very forum, I accepted the full ride scholarship to the inferior law school. Rising to the top 5%, getting on law review, moot court, getting a great summer position, and booking two classes affirmed my rationale for how I could confidently plan a transfer.

The pros are obvious; my first year was free, relatively easier, and I got to experience a new city with different people (contacts). Additionally, the rigorous 1L classes will not taint my GPA at the law school I will graduate from, which is an inherent advantage for class rank purposes.

However, there is some merit to dissenting opinions on this 'planned transfer' concept. In law school, success is the result of an immense amount of hard effective and efficient work. There are no easy As; an A requires virtually everything to go correctly. In a couple of my classes, the difference between an A and a C were not significant, which is not the way it's supposed to be. Failing can be the result of a single mistake. There are opportunities to fail--even if you know the content extremely well and can effectively apply it in all other contexts other than your exam.

The last point comes from experience (minus the part about failing). I booked a midterm, but I idiotically took "Do not discuss X law" from a short answer question that immediately came before the main essay, which was the law the key issues revolved around. I'm not just trying to convince myself I can read when I say I can read... But law school exams, much like the LSAT, have very limited time. I was confident in what I thought were the directions, and the scarcity of time doesn't leave one to question such parts of the exam. Quick tip that may sound stupid: highlight/underline any explicit directions for what law to talk about in one color and what not to talk about in another color (if applicable). I managed to get a B by doing well on everything else in the class, but had I even been average leading up to that disaster, I would have failed, and my transfer plans would have been ruined.

Despite this low-point in my law school career, I got into a t10, which I will be attending this fall. However, I did consider staying at my school.

From my exposure, TLS users seem to be t(arbitrary) or bust. If you get a full ride to t(>14), why not retake the LSAT and get the full ride to a t(arbitrary)? Retaking the LSAT automatically gives you 5 points, right? No, oh well read X, Y, and Z books, hire these tutors, etc. Not t14 again? Try again. And again... Until you become a LSAC wiseman and can write your own questions and get into a t(arbitrary) school with an acceptable offer.

There are good options for students that want to plan on transferring. I advise typing in the school you're interested in transferring to followed by 509. Look at the most recent report, and scroll down to the transfer information. Georgetown, which is outside the arbitrarily set magical range of golden tickets, unicorns, and rainbows but still a great school for common folk, accepts a lot of transfers with surprisingly low credentials. Emory, which is a good school if you want to work in Georgia or Florida and can graduate in the top 10%, accepts a ton of students with awful credentials from hideous law schools. If you can't get into a school like Emory as a transfer student, you shouldn't be upset that your "planned transfer" failed. You should be happy your first year was at an easier, cheaper school, and that the world has let you know, without waisting anything else, that you're simply not fit to be an attorney.

In conclusion, if the offer is right, planning on transferring can be good if it's followed up by hard, effective, efficient work without making any major mistakes. It can serve as a valuable stepping-stone like a community college in undergrad (trolls will love that comment, but no one cares if you went to a community college). I'm definitely glad I didn't follow the advise against transferring. Even if I stayed at my current school, I'd be happy and almost certainly get coveted position--despite night being a t(arbitrary). Don't let the rank-worship alone stop you from considering what could very well be a savvy investment decision. Just remember, law school is not intellectually hard; law school is just hard work that requires commitment. You have a great amount of control over how hard you work.

[UVA2B]

Congratulations on your plan working out as you planned. That's really great. In hindsight, wouldn't you safely say that there was a lot of variability and risk in your plan? You mention major mistakes derailing the plan really easily, and how very little separates a really good grade and a decidedly mediocre one, but if you could go back prior to making this decision without applying confirmation bias because it did work out, would you plan on killing 1L year so transferring was a viable option as a 0L?

You threw out a bunch of strawman attacks at a perceived TLS hivemind, which frankly unfairly paints the collective advice of most posters on this board, but do you at least see how potentially achieving a goal of graduating from a T(arbitrary) through transferring from a much lower ranked school is a decidedly risky move when you only get one shot at the start of this career that is extremely unforgiving if mistakes are made?

[cavalier1138]

In conclusion, if the offer is right, planning on transferring can be good if it's followed up by hard, effective, efficient work without making any major mistakes. It can serve as a valuable stepping-stone like a community college in undergrad (trolls will love that comment, but no one cares if you went to a community college). I'm definitely glad I didn't follow the advise against transferring. Even if I stayed at my current school, I'd be happy and almost certainly get coveted position--despite night being a t(arbitrary). Don't let the rank-worship alone stop you from considering what could very well be a savvy investment decision. Just remember, law school is not intellectually hard; law school is just hard work that requires commitment. You have a great amount of control over how hard you work.

Congratulations on your great outcome, but this is unequivocally wrong. You are giving potentially harmful advice to others, and you're ignoring the fate of all your classmates who didn't have the good fortune you did to end up at the top of the class. Your performance didn't confirm your rationale; you had no way of knowing that you would perform that well until getting to school.

Incidentally, enjoy paying sticker for two years when retaking the LSAT could have gotten you into the better school up-front with a scholarship. Just in case you were feeling too comfortable on your high-horse.

[poptart123]

I'm still not understanding why you wouldn't just put all the effort into the LSAT rather than a year at a lower ranked law school with the risk of the transfer not working out.

[A. Nony Mouse]

.You should be happy your first year was at an easier, cheaper school, and that the world has let you know, without waisting anything else, that you're simply not fit to be an attorney.

Not being the top of your class in law school means you're not good at law school, not that you're not fit to be an attorney.

Admittedly it will be a lot harder to get a job as an attorney, but class rank measures only your ability to do well in school. Being an attorney entails way more than that.

[mjb447]

Eh, it's not just "mistakes" like misreading a question - a stacked section, a prof that you just can't figure out, a badly timed illness or a death in the family can hurt your grades just as easily. You were lucky, and that's great, but as numerous others have said throughout this thread, it's a better plan to beat your potential classmates on the LSAT initially once (with multiple tries, no law-school style curve, and lots and lots of available study materials) rather than bank on your performance on a series of largely "black box" exams over two semesters with a lot more at stake.

[Apple4321]

Congratulations on your plan working out as you planned. That's really great. In hindsight, wouldn't you safely say that there was a lot of variability and risk in your plan? You mention major mistakes derailing the plan really easily, and how very little separates a really good grade and a decidedly mediocre one, but if you could go back prior to making this decision without applying confirmation bias because it did work out, would you plan on killing 1L year so transferring was a viable option as a 0L?

You threw out a bunch of strawman attacks at a perceived TLS hivemind, which frankly unfairly paints the collective advice of most posters on this board, but do you at least see how potentially achieving a goal of graduating from a T(arbitrary) through transferring from a much lower ranked school is a decidedly risky move when you only get one shot at the start of this career that is extremely unforgiving if mistakes are made?

There is absolutely risk involved--just like there's risk of paying $XX,XXX your first year to potentially fail. Honestly, with how risk averse most people are--yet optimistic in their own abilities, I could make a strong argument for why taking a full ride scholarship your first year is the risk averse option. Whether or not I would advise a planned transfer depends on the individual's circumstances. We should all agree that the answer is the cringe-worthy response we're all too used to in law school: "it depends" or "maybe" NOT "No".

[Apple4321]

In conclusion, if the offer is right, planning on transferring can be good if it's followed up by hard, effective, efficient work without making any major mistakes. It can serve as a valuable stepping-stone like a community college in undergrad (trolls will love that comment, but no one cares if you went to a community college). I'm definitely glad I didn't follow the advise against transferring. Even if I stayed at my current school, I'd be happy and almost certainly get coveted position--despite night being a t(arbitrary). Don't let the rank-worship alone stop you from considering what could very well be a savvy investment decision. Just remember, law school is not intellectually hard; law school is just hard work that requires commitment. You have a great amount of control over how hard you work.

Congratulations on your great outcome, but this is unequivocally wrong. You are giving potentially harmful advice to others, and you're ignoring the fate of all your classmates who didn't have the good fortune you did to end up at the top of the class. Your performance didn't confirm your rationale; you had no way of knowing that you would perform that well until getting to school.

Incidentally, enjoy paying sticker for two years when retaking the LSAT could have gotten you into the better school up-front with a scholarship. Just in case you were feeling too comfortable on your high-horse.

Thank you. Yes, to a large extent, I am definitely ignoring my less fortunate classmates. However, I disagree that you have know way of knowing how well until you get to school. I know you mean in/after the semester--not when you actually arrive at the school. Nevertheless, my rationale is affirmed because I knew with substantial certainty I would be able to go where I want to go after having a free first year if I worked hard and effectively. I had control over doing that. If I didn't work hard or effectively, I wouldn't have made it. Saying "you had no way of knowing" asserts a certain 'you're along for the ride' and coincidence/luck tone, which is not accurate. It's law school. Just work hard.

Also, I'm not paying sticker; I got a decent transfer scholarship. If more TLS users were out of the closet about their transfer affairs, TLS wouldn't believe the myth that top tier scholarships don't exist.

[A. Nony Mouse]

What about when all your classmates - or at least 15-20% of them - also work hard and effectively and you're graded on a curve?

[Apple4321]

I'm still not understanding why you wouldn't just put all the effort into the LSAT rather than a year at a lower ranked law school with the risk of the transfer not working out.

To clarify, if (1) you took the LSAT early enough to retake, (2) the actual increase in the score will have a net benefit over applying later, and (3) you do actually improve your score, the LSAT is almost certainly worth retaking. However, if that's not the case, and you can't increase your score and/or you'd have to wait another year, I'd seriously consider a planned transfer.

Don't forget to factor in the difference between what you make as a non-lawyer and what you'll make as an attorney to determine the opportunity cost of waiting another year. Also keep in mind that, much like an IQ test, the LSAT is somewhat engineered to be an intellect-based exam (not knowledge-based), so many people either have a trivial increase or no increase at all.

[Apple4321]

What about when all your classmates - or at least 15-20% of them - also work hard and effectively and you're graded on a curve?

Clearly, our definitions of "effectively" are different. How do you think LSAT scores are given?

[Mullens]

In conclusion, if the offer is right, planning on transferring can be good if it's followed up by hard, effective, efficient work without making any major mistakes. It can serve as a valuable stepping-stone like a community college in undergrad (trolls will love that comment, but no one cares if you went to a community college). I'm definitely glad I didn't follow the advise against transferring. Even if I stayed at my current school, I'd be happy and almost certainly get coveted position--despite night being a t(arbitrary). Don't let the rank-worship alone stop you from considering what could very well be a savvy investment decision. Just remember, law school is not intellectually hard; law school is just hard work that requires commitment. You have a great amount of control over how hard you work.

Congratulations on your great outcome, but this is unequivocally wrong. You are giving potentially harmful advice to others, and you're ignoring the fate of all your classmates who didn't have the good fortune you did to end up at the top of the class. Your performance didn't confirm your rationale; you had no way of knowing that you would perform that well until getting to school.

Incidentally, enjoy paying sticker for two years when retaking the LSAT could have gotten you into the better school up-front with a scholarship. Just in case you were feeling too comfortable on your high-horse.

Thank you. Yes, to a large extent, I am definitely ignoring my less fortunate classmates. However, I disagree that you have know way of knowing how well until you get to school. I know you mean in/after the semester--not when you actually arrive at the school. Nevertheless, my rationale is affirmed because I knew with substantial certainty I would be able to go where I want to go after having a free first year if I worked hard and effectively. I had control over doing that. If I didn't work hard or effectively, I wouldn't have made it. Saying "you had no way of knowing" asserts a certain 'you're along for the ride' and coincidence/luck tone, which is not accurate. It's law school. Just work hard.

Also, I'm not paying sticker; I got a decent transfer scholarship. If more TLS users were out of the closet about their transfer affairs, TLS wouldn't believe the myth that top tier scholarships don't exist.

There is a T10 law school other than HYS that gives scholarships to transfers? This is the first time I've heard of that.

[Apple4321]

.You should be happy your first year was at an easier, cheaper school, and that the world has let you know, without waisting anything else, that you're simply not fit to be an attorney.

Not being the top of your class in law school means you're not good at law school, not that you're not fit to be an attorney.

Admittedly it will be a lot harder to get a job as an attorney, but class rank measures only your ability to do well in school. Being an attorney entails way more than that.

True, but not being able to get a 3.16 (median transfer GPA to Emory) at Atlanta's John Marshall (by far the most common feeder for the Emory transfer whale), then you don't have the work ethic or natural intellect to be what I'd define as a successful attorney. If there's a surplus of lawyers, standards need to be increased. I'm just pointing out some slack in the rope.

[Apple4321]

Eh, it's not just "mistakes" like misreading a question - a stacked section, a prof that you just can't figure out, a badly timed illness or a death in the family can hurt your grades just as easily. You were lucky, and that's great, but as numerous others have said throughout this thread, it's a better plan to beat your potential classmates on the LSAT initially once (with multiple tries, no law-school style curve, and lots and lots of available study materials) rather than bank on your performance on a series of largely "black box" exams over two semesters with a lot more at stake.

I think the problem is in the notion that you "figure out" a law school professor. In my experience, you don't play the professor; you learn the law. Figuring out black letter law is easier and more predictable than the characters that are law professors. Refer to my prior comment about the LSAT.

[UVA2B]

What about when all your classmates - or at least 15-20% of them - also work hard and effectively and you're graded on a curve?

Clearly, our definitions of "effectively" are different. How do you think LSAT scores are given?

How did you know what working effectively would be in law school? Again, forgetting confirmation bias, how did you know what working effectively meant as a 0L? Was your plan read a lot, read carefully, take excellent notes, read supplements, participate in class discussion, outline early and rigorously, and go to office hours when you didn't understand something? Because most people do some/most of these things to the best of their abilities. So they're probably "working effectively" in their own personal understanding of what that means. And a decent percentage of them will come to learn that what they did will not equal success in law school. That's how a forced curve works, and there's not much room for debate in that.

This isn't a discussion about whether choosing to go to a low-ranked school for free is a good idea anymore, because it's more about the extent to which you can understand in advance that you'll do well in law school. If you look at it objectively and realistically, you couldn't predict your performance with any amount of certainty. So no, going to the lower-ranked law school is not the risk-averse option when you remove the assumption that you can predict your own performance.

[A. Nony Mouse]

What about when all your classmates - or at least 15-20% of them - also work hard and effectively and you're graded on a curve?

Clearly, our definitions of "effectively" are different. How do you think LSAT scores are given?

So, I thought the whole point of this was that you didn't want to retake to get a higher LSAT. How do you know your classmates weren't in the same position you were in? Why didn't you work effectively on the LSAT to start with yourself then?

There are also many many reasons why someone doesn't live up to their potential on the LSAT that would not necessarily affect their chances of success in law school. Every year lots of people who didn't do well on the LSAT do what you did, kill it in law school and transfer. You're gambling that there won't be enough of them in your school to affect your own position. Because it worked out for you didn't make it anything other than a risky choice.

[Apple4321]

What about when all your classmates - or at least 15-20% of them - also work hard and effectively and you're graded on a curve?

Clearly, our definitions of "effectively" are different. How do you think LSAT scores are given?

How did you know what working effectively would be in law school? Again, forgetting confirmation bias, how did you know what working effectively meant as a 0L? Was your plan read a lot, read carefully, take excellent notes, read supplements, participate in class discussion, outline early and rigorously, and go to office hours when you didn't understand something? Because most people do some/most of these things to the best of their abilities. So they're probably "working effectively" in their own personal understanding of what that means. And a decent percentage of them will come to learn that what they did will not equal success in law school. That's how a forced curve works, and there's not much room for debate in that.

This isn't a discussion about whether choosing to go to a low-ranked school for free is a good idea anymore, because it's more about the extent to which you can understand in advance that you'll do well in law school. If you look at it objectively and realistically, you couldn't predict your performance with any amount of certainty. So no, going to the lower-ranked law school is not the risk-averse option when you remove the assumption that you can predict your own performance.

These blanket statements are rudimentary--just like me saying "effectively" is a cheap way for me to say I performed well because actually articulating what it takes would be harder than actually doing it. Since none of us have crystal balls, you just have to know yourself and be as objective as possible when comparing yourself to others. A full ride scholarship is a strong indicator by people who do this for a living that you are overqualified for the school--at least in the sense you could go to a higher ranked school (except t3).

The curve is even more restrictive and forced with the LSAT.

Planning on transferring under my circumstances was risk averse because (1) I saved tens of thousands of dollars, which was certain, went to an (2) easier school where I was overqualified, which was certain and made it easy to (3) perform well. I'm starting to feel bad for Emory, but the numbers are fresh in my mind. Can you honestly say you deserve to be at a good school if you can't get a 1L GPA of 3.16 at Atlanta's John Marshall? I understand you can predict with absolute certainty precisely how well you'll do, but there's a huge gap between that and knowing you'll keep your things in order well enough to go to Georgetown or Emory.