Should I transfer to a more prestigious undergraduate institution? Forum

[AmericanPride2016]

I currently attend a mid tier public university. I am certain that I will maintain a very high gpa here. I am going to graduate with very little debt from here. Would it be beneficial to transfer to a more prestigious university to boost my chances?

Thank you for your time

[lymenheimer]

I currently attend a mid tier public university. I am certain that I will maintain a very high gpa here. I am going to graduate with very little debt from here. Would it be beneficial to transfer to a more prestigious university to boost my chances?

Thank you for your time

The search function says: no.

[BigZuck]

Chances at what?

[lymenheimer]

Chances at what?

Being more prestigious, of course!

[deant286]

No, do not transfer to a more prestigious university. If you're going to maintain a high GPA, while taking on little to no debt, then you're in the perfect position.

Law schools don't care where the GPA comes from, they only care about the actual number itself and nothing more.

[jumbo2016]

Law schools don't care where the GPA comes from, they only care about the actual number itself and nothing more.

Eh. I know this is the prevailing TLS wisdom, but I'm not sure. I've gotten a couple fee waivers that have specifically named my undergrad as a reason for me to get the waiver, and I have a pretty shitty GPA but have been accepted to 9/13 of the law schools I've applied to so far. Sure, its not the #1 or even the #3 factor, but I think it has to matter. That being said, I don't think this person should transfer. Little debt, mid-tier, and high GPA all sound good to me.

[BigZuck]

Law schools don't care where the GPA comes from, they only care about the actual number itself and nothing more.

Eh. I know this is the prevailing TLS wisdom, but I'm not sure. I've gotten a couple fee waivers that have specifically named my undergrad as a reason for me to get the waiver, and I have a pretty shitty GPA but have been accepted to 9/13 of the law schools I've applied to so far. Sure, its not the #1 or even the #3 factor, but I think it has to matter. That being said, I don't think this person should transfer. Little debt, mid-tier, and high GPA all sound good to me.

I thought the same thing as you but you're wrong, undergrad prestige doesn't matter unless maybe we're talking tippy, tippy, tippy top schools.

But even then, nah

[ihenry]

If you are dead set for law school, the overwhelming majority will say the prestige of the university doesn't matter except maybe for one or two schools. But if you are looking to find jobs in McKinsey, impress venture capital for your start up, or getting into a good PhD program, the prestige of your undergrad can matter an awful lot.

[jumbo2016]

I thought the same thing as you but you're wrong, undergrad prestige doesn't matter unless maybe we're talking tippy, tippy, tippy top schools.

But even then, nah

So two people apply, one goes to Podunk U undergrad and the other goes to Berkley undergrad. They both have a 168 LSAT and a 3.74 GPA and have equivalent internship and/or work experience, you think they're evaluated the same? I think the rigor of undergraduate curriculum has to be included as a soft.

[Alive97]

I thought the same thing as you but you're wrong, undergrad prestige doesn't matter unless maybe we're talking tippy, tippy, tippy top schools.

But even then, nah

So two people apply, one goes to Podunk U undergrad and the other goes to Berkley undergrad. They both have a 168 LSAT and a 3.74 GPA and have equivalent internship and/or work experience, you think they're evaluated the same? I think the rigor of undergraduate curriculum has to be included as a soft.

Shhh, the TLS hivemind leaves little room for nuance and exceptions.

[Mr. Archer]

Right now it's a little early to ask about your chances, since you're probably only a sophomore in undergrad. I think it would be better to maintain a high GPA and keep low debt. As another poster mentioned, the rigor of undergrad is kind of a soft factor. Maybe it will hurt you if you apply to a school and you're on the low end of GPA and LSAT. However, people from small schools get into great law schools because they have good stats/resumes.

[BigZuck]

I thought the same thing as you but you're wrong, undergrad prestige doesn't matter unless maybe we're talking tippy, tippy, tippy top schools.

But even then, nah

So two people apply, one goes to Podunk U undergrad and the other goes to Berkley undergrad. They both have a 168 LSAT and a 3.74 GPA and have equivalent internship and/or work experience, you think they're evaluated the same? I think the rigor of undergraduate curriculum has to be included as a soft.

They're literally exactly identical other than school? Ok, I could see that. Not a realistic hypo though IMO and even then I could see the Podunk being more desireable (for example, maybe they already have 10 Berkeley bros incoming but no one from Podunk)

I'm more saying that the 168/3.75 Podunk will beat out the 168/3.74 Berkeley, especially if the median GPA for the law school in question is a 3.75

I'm even more saying don't worry about this stuff or try to come up with very specific hypos that are an exception to the rule

I'm mostly saying that the OP shouldn't transfer for this reason

I'm most saying that a 168/3.7 should retake the LSAT no matter where they went to college

[lymenheimer]

eta: meh. not worth it

[A. Nony Mouse]

I thought the same thing as you but you're wrong, undergrad prestige doesn't matter unless maybe we're talking tippy, tippy, tippy top schools.

But even then, nah

So two people apply, one goes to Podunk U undergrad and the other goes to Berkley undergrad. They both have a 168 LSAT and a 3.74 GPA and have equivalent internship and/or work experience, you think they're evaluated the same? I think the rigor of undergraduate curriculum has to be included as a soft.

They're literally exactly identical other than school? Ok, I could see that. Not a realistic hypo though IMO and even then I could see the Podunk being more desireable (for example, maybe they already have 10 Berkeley bros incoming but no one from Podunk)

Yeah, completely agree with this. There's also no guarantee that Berkeley actually is more rigorous than Podunk, comparing major against major (no offense to any Berkeley bros out there; it's just that there are a lot of factors that go into a program's "rigor," if you actually mean rigor and not average high school GPA/SAT scores for its students).

[Alive97]

eta: meh. not worth it

However slight, nuance and exceptions do exist. Your statement that I'm "dumb" actually just helps my case.

[Alive97]

I thought the same thing as you but you're wrong, undergrad prestige doesn't matter unless maybe we're talking tippy, tippy, tippy top schools.

But even then, nah

So two people apply, one goes to Podunk U undergrad and the other goes to Berkley undergrad. They both have a 168 LSAT and a 3.74 GPA and have equivalent internship and/or work experience, you think they're evaluated the same? I think the rigor of undergraduate curriculum has to be included as a soft.

They're literally exactly identical other than school? Ok, I could see that. Not a realistic hypo though IMO and even then I could see the Podunk being more desireable (for example, maybe they already have 10 Berkeley bros incoming but no one from Podunk)

Yeah, completely agree with this. There's also no guarantee that Berkeley actually is more rigorous than Podunk, comparing major against major (no offense to any Berkeley bros out there; it's just that there are a lot of factors that go into a program's "rigor," if you actually mean rigor and not average high school GPA/SAT scores for its students).

I think it's safe to assume Berkeley is more rigorous than Podunk.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think it's safe to assume Berkeley is more rigorous than Podunk.

That's nice. I think you're wrong, unless you have a very narrow definition of Podunk (but most people who make this comparison don't).

[lymenheimer]

eta: meh. not worth it

However slight, nuance and exceptions do exist. Your statement that I'm "dumb" actually just helps my case.

Beat you to it...Also...Not worth it.

[Alive97]

I think it's safe to assume Berkeley is more rigorous than Podunk.

That's nice. I think you're wrong, unless you have a very narrow definition of Podunk (but most people who make this comparison don't).

Well I would certainly hope that Berkeley is more rigorous. Otherwise, I'm not too impressed with Berkeley.

[BigZuck]

Alive- As always, I appreciate your bravery. But once again you're ragily derailing for no reason. Please don't.

[Alive97]

eta: meh. not worth it

However slight, nuance and exceptions do exist. Your statement that I'm "dumb" actually just helps my case.

Beat you to it...Also...Not worth it.

I'm glad you reneged.

[Alive97]

Alive- As always, I appreciate your bravery. But once again you're ragily derailing for no reason. Please don't.

I post these things in threads where newcomers seek advice. I would say those threads are where it's most important to make the point.

[ihenry]

I think it's safe to assume Berkeley is more rigorous than Podunk.

That's nice. I think you're wrong, unless you have a very narrow definition of Podunk (but most people who make this comparison don't).

If the median SAT score of incoming Berkeley undergrad is 300 points higher than Podunk U yet they have the same undergrad GPA median, shouldn't we assume the same GPA from Berkeley is more valuable and hard-earned than that from Podunk?

Eta: this is commenting on the "rigor" in its general sense, not commenting on the law school admission process, specifically not an advice to OP. Certifiable derailment.

[mynameismyname]

For law school unless you are at an Ivy it doesn't matter a bit. I know people who went from CC to unranked undergrad that then aced the LSAT and ended up in top 14. Doesn't matter a bit. There are people who go from CC to Ivy League undergrad also. Just do well on LSAT if you want to go to a good law school. (CC is community college). IVYs just tend to have more students capable of high LSAT scores.

[jrass]

Prestigious undergrads carry more weight professionally in legal practice than they do in law school admissions, and by professionally I mean everyone I've met practicing who went to a bad law school went to an elite undergrad while there's no pattern among those who went to elite law schools. It's merely something I've noticed, but it's held true among a pretty large sample size. It could be that a Harvard education gives on a big advantage over their classmates at most law schools, or it could be that having at least one impressive school on the resume is a necessary condition to many employers.