Undergraduate Advice Forum

[ls1995]

I currently attend a big ten state school and am majoring in finance. I have a 4.0 GPA and have been doing a lot of research about transferring after my sophomore year (I am only a freshmen). I am confident that I can keep my GPA how it is, and I believe this would open up doors for me to transfer to a better school. I am interested in finance and strive to work on wall street but I do not know if it is what I am truly interested in. I am very interested in economics, political economy, and I enjoy reading. I have been looking at transferring to schools like Northwestern, Georgetown, and Cornell (ILR program most likely with a business minor). I am also obviously interested in pursuing law school. Although the other schools may be more rigorous, I feel it would be more beneficial to my education even if it meant a lower GPA. Would these schools adequately prepare me for taking the LSAT better than a big ten school (besides Northwestern). Or am I better off just staying put and studying hard for the test when the time comes?

[bkraut1]

(1) There is no reason for you to transfer unless (a) you can do so without taking on more debt and (b) you are positive that you can get a 4.0 wherever it is you might transfer. Every Big 10 school will attach enough respect to your GPA that YHS are still possible.

(2) Additionally, transferring to another school will not prepare you for the LSAT anymore than your current school will. Choose a good course/tutor (i.e. PowerScore, Manhattan LSAT, BluePrint) and start studying 6 months out from the test. Aim for at least a 174 and you will be in good shape (assuming you can realistically score that, or at least a 170).

[Pneumonia]

Undergraduate curriculum has precisely nothing to do with LSAT prep. It is a unique test and the only real skill it tests is "LSAT taking ability." If you want law school, do whatever it takes to keep the 4.0, even if it means staying at your current school. If you want finance then transferring is a better idea provided its not going to put you in much more debt.

[jbagelboy]

Meh. It won't matter for law school, but if you're interested in finance, there's a huge difference between Michigan State and Cornell or Northwestern. It sounds like you are more interested in working at JP Morgan than going to law school, and transferring to a school with on-campus fall recruiting and summer programs in consulting/IB would be critical for the former (professional work experience is valuable for law school, but generally not significant for admissions purposes at most schools).

[ls1995]

Meh. It won't matter for law school, but if you're interested in finance, there's a huge difference between Michigan State and Cornell or Northwestern. It sounds like you are more interested in working at JP Morgan than going to law school, and transferring to a school with on-campus fall recruiting and summer programs in consulting/IB would be critical for the former (professional work experience is valuable for law school, but generally not significant for admissions purposes at most schools).

Won't transferring to a more reputable school open up more doors in general? I want to keep my options as open as possible. As of now, I am definitely more interested in going to law school than working in IB, but both are very different in the way that you pursue them. Law school is all about the grades (which I currently have) and the LSAT which I will not take for another 2 years. I am confident that I can do well on the LSAT, but what if I score a score that is not quite what it should be and I do not have the stats to get into a T14. If I have the option to minimize risk, why wouldn't I take it, even if it meant a slightly lower GPA.

[Pneumonia]

For law school, minimizing risk is precisely the opposite of having a lower GPA

[jbagelboy]

Meh. It won't matter for law school, but if you're interested in finance, there's a huge difference between Michigan State and Cornell or Northwestern. It sounds like you are more interested in working at JP Morgan than going to law school, and transferring to a school with on-campus fall recruiting and summer programs in consulting/IB would be critical for the former (professional work experience is valuable for law school, but generally not significant for admissions purposes at most schools).

Won't transferring to a more reputable school open up more doors in general? I want to keep my options as open as possible. As of now, I am definitely more interested in going to law school than working in IB, but both are very different in the way that you pursue them. Law school is all about the grades (which I currently have) and the LSAT which I will not take for another 2 years. I am confident that I can do well on the LSAT, but what if I score a score that is not quite what it should be and I do not have the stats to get into a T14. If I have the option to minimize risk, why wouldn't I take it, even if it meant a slightly lower GPA.

if you don't score "well enough" the first time, you just take it again.

[Lwoods]

I currently attend a big ten state school and am majoring in finance. I have a 4.0 GPA and have been doing a lot of research about transferring after my sophomore year (I am only a freshmen). I am confident that I can keep my GPA how it is, and I believe this would open up doors for me to transfer to a better school. I am interested in finance and strive to work on wall street but I do not know if it is what I am truly interested in. I am very interested in economics, political economy, and I enjoy reading. I have been looking at transferring to schools like Northwestern, Georgetown, and Cornell (ILR program most likely with a business minor). I am also obviously interested in pursuing law school. Although the other schools may be more rigorous, I feel it would be more beneficial to my education even if it meant a lower GPA. Would these schools adequately prepare me for taking the LSAT better than a big ten school (besides Northwestern). Or am I better off just staying put and studying hard for the test when the time comes?

A few thoughts...

If you want to do IB, why not Columbia, NYU, or Penn? Wall Street is in NY. If you're going to go through the hassle and expense of transferring, go big or [stay] home.

You should reach out to alumni from your school who are working in investment banking to get their perspective on if a transfer is worth it. I feel like I met a ton of people in that industry from Kelley, but I might just remember them better since I'm from Indiana.

You definitely give yourself a lot of options by maintaining a 4.0 in undergrad, particularly when it comes to law school admissions. But I also don't think you should sell yourself short in case you might want to go to law school down the line. The 0Ls who are in the middle of applying are in a place of regret for not getting a 4.0 GPA in college because of the doors it can open up (when paired with a killer LSAT, which, unlike UG GPA, can be improved). But there is more to life than law school admissions, and many on this board would advise against going to law school at all. There are more than 3 careers (law / medicine / finance) in the world. Don't feel chained to picking from just those options. Work hard, do well, listen to yourself, and put yourself where you want to be. You don't have to decide your life at 19.

Best of luck.

[dabigchina]

http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/

this is probably more relevant to your interests. go to law school if you want to be a lawyer. transfer to a target UG and do OCI for IBD if you want to make lots and lots of money (be a banker).

[ls1995]

where in my language do I imply that I would rather be a banker? I want to work in big law which is relevant to Wall Street. If I got the opportunity to attend a school like Cornell or Georgetown at the expense of leaving my current undergrad you all are saying that this is not a good idea? How would a degree from a school like the ones mentioned not open up more doors than one from a state school.

[Pneumonia]

where in my language do I imply that I would rather be a banker? I want to work in big law which is relevant to Wall Street. If I got the opportunity to attend a school like Cornell or Georgetown at the expense of leaving my current undergrad you all are saying that this is not a good idea? How would a degree from a school like the ones mentioned not open up more doors than one from a state school.

Law admissions are not like B-school admissions. If you want to work in BigLaw then you want to go to the best possible LAW school with the best possible scholarship at that school so that you can graduate with the least possible debt. Your GPA will be far more determinative for the first two and you're current UG will not hurt you with admissions or with scholarships. Cornell or Gtown wouldn't really help either. Your GPA is 100x more important than your UG. The only real time UG comes into play for admissions is if you went to HYPS or to like U of Phoenix online or something, otherwise they're really just gonna care about your GPA.

Since law school is gonna put you in a lot of debt no matter what people are advising against transferring if either or both of the following are true: 1) transferring will make it harder to get a 4.0 every semester 2) transferring will significantly increase your UG debt.

To restate, transferring schools will have minimal if any effect on your admissions prospects based on the name of the school. There is a soft "sufficient" condition to be met as far as UG goes but you've already met it by being at a Big 10 and not U of Phoenix or directional state college. If you were at either of those the advice MIGHT be different, but probably not even then.

[Rahviveh]

(1) There is no reason for you to transfer unless (a) you can do so without taking on more debt and (b) you are positive that you can get a 4.0 wherever it is you might transfer. Every Big 10 school will attach enough respect to your GPA that YHS are still possible.

(2) Additionally, transferring to another school will not prepare you for the LSAT anymore than your current school will. Choose a good course/tutor (i.e. PowerScore, Manhattan LSAT, BluePrint) and start studying 6 months out from the test. Aim for at least a 174 and you will be in good shape (assuming you can realistically score that, or at least a 170).

A 174? He only needs a 167+ to be competitive for the T14, maybe lower. He should get some nice schollies too.

If you're absolutely sure you want to do law, don't transfer. Don't know how you can be sure as a college student though. I sure wasn't.

[Pneumonia]

(1) There is no reason for you to transfer unless (a) you can do so without taking on more debt and (b) you are positive that you can get a 4.0 wherever it is you might transfer. Every Big 10 school will attach enough respect to your GPA that YHS are still possible.

(2) Additionally, transferring to another school will not prepare you for the LSAT anymore than your current school will. Choose a good course/tutor (i.e. PowerScore, Manhattan LSAT, BluePrint) and start studying 6 months out from the test. Aim for at least a 174 and you will be in good shape (assuming you can realistically score that, or at least a 170).

A 174? He only needs a 167+ to be competitive for the T14, maybe lower. He should get some nice schollies too.

If you're absolutely sure you want to do law, don't transfer. Don't know how you can be sure as a college student though. I sure wasn't.

Still aim for mid 170s though

[Clearly]

Your GPA is infinitely more important than where you go to undergrad from a strictly LS admissions perspective. I say stay put, you can be as confident as you want, but you've proven you can succeed where you are, and that's not a guarantee anywhere else.

[Rahviveh]

(1) There is no reason for you to transfer unless (a) you can do so without taking on more debt and (b) you are positive that you can get a 4.0 wherever it is you might transfer. Every Big 10 school will attach enough respect to your GPA that YHS are still possible.

(2) Additionally, transferring to another school will not prepare you for the LSAT anymore than your current school will. Choose a good course/tutor (i.e. PowerScore, Manhattan LSAT, BluePrint) and start studying 6 months out from the test. Aim for at least a 174 and you will be in good shape (assuming you can realistically score that, or at least a 170).

A 174? He only needs a 167+ to be competitive for the T14, maybe lower. He should get some nice schollies too.

If you're absolutely sure you want to do law, don't transfer. Don't know how you can be sure as a college student though. I sure wasn't.

Still aim for mid 170s though

Ok, aim for a 180 while you're at it. I just think it's unnecessary to tell people to gun for the 170's when it's ridiculously hard and puts a lot of stress on them. One of the luxuries of having a 4.0 is you can relax a little - and relaxation always helps with the LSAT

[Tiago Splitter]

Ok, aim for a 180 while you're at it. I just think it's unnecessary to tell people to gun for the 170's when it's ridiculously hard and puts a lot of stress on them. One of the luxuries of having a 4.0 is you can relax a little - and relaxation always helps with the LSAT

It's ridiculously hard because people tell themselves it's ridiculously hard. Let's not kid this guy into thinking that settling for a 162 because he can still ED UVA is acceptable.

[TheSpanishMain]

where in my language do I imply that I would rather be a banker? I want to work in big law which is relevant to Wall Street. If I got the opportunity to attend a school like Cornell or Georgetown at the expense of leaving my current undergrad you all are saying that this is not a good idea? How would a degree from a school like the ones mentioned not open up more doors than one from a state school.

For the purpose of law school admissions, no, Cornell or Georgetown will not really open up any more doors than, say, Ohio State. A 4.0 from a Big Ten state school beats a 3.8 from Cornell. No one will really care about the prestige of your undergrad.

[TigerDude]

not everyone can score a 175. That's just how it is.

[Pneumonia]

not everyone can score a 175. That's just how it is.

Everyone should still try though

[Clearly]

not everyone can score a 175. That's just how it is.

This is nonsense. Don't settle man, nothing on this test says you aren't smart enough for it. I started in the 150s, scored mid 160s, retook after another year of prepping and broke 175. Statistically not everyone will break 170, but no one should be discouraged from trying, its 100 question multiple choice test after all.

[dwil770]

Your GPA is infinitely more important than where you go to undergrad from a strictly LS admissions perspective. I say stay put, you can be as confident as you want, but you've proven you can succeed where you are, and that's not a guarantee anywhere else.

You are telling a freshman or sophomore to stay at his college from, as you say, strictly a LS admissions perspective. Which is accurate. But the best advice for him is to transfer to a better UG because he is not sure he wants to be a lawyer.

[SFrost]

not everyone can score a 175. That's just how it is.

This is nonsense. Don't settle man, nothing on this test says you aren't smart enough for it. I started in the 150s, scored mid 160s, retook after another year of prepping and broke 175. Statistically not everyone will break 170, but no one should be discouraged from trying, its 100 question multiple choice test after all.

The fact that over 99% of people fail to score 175 or above tends to argue against 'everyone' being able to hit 175.

For comparison, most people here could never compete in the NBA, regardless of effort. Some ability is innate.

[Clearly]

not everyone can score a 175. That's just how it is.

This is nonsense. Don't settle man, nothing on this test says you aren't smart enough for it. I started in the 150s, scored mid 160s, retook after another year of prepping and broke 175. Statistically not everyone will break 170, but no one should be discouraged from trying, its 100 question multiple choice test after all.

The fact that over 99% of people fail to score 175 or above tends to argue against 'everyone' being able to hit 175.

For comparison, most people here could never compete in the NBA, regardless of effort. Some ability is innate.

I didn't argue that everyone can hit a 175. In fact, I conceded the opposite is true. I did argue that everyone should SEEK to score well, because very few of the people that do end up scoring 175 did so with the attitude of "I'll just get a decent score and be happy". You never know if you don't try. It is true that not everyone can play in the NBA, but its also true that everyone who does play in the NBA is there because they tried to play in the NBA.