Planned Transfer Forum

[PeanutsNJam]

So you think law school grades are dispositive of intelligence, and if 2 people work the same amount but have different grades, the one with a higher grade is per se smarter?

[Gunner19]

Probably, but apparently not smart enough. Just saying, if we keep effort constant, it's a question of how smart you are.

Heres where I get off. There are people at HYS who are incredibly intelligent but just don't "get it," with "it" being how to write a good law exam. Law exams are not necessarily indicative of intelligence. At my 1L school this kid who was an absolute moron by any metric booked two classes and made law review.

[Apple4321]

It seems as if neither side will agree here. At the end of the day we can all agree that there are many of variables in this planned transfer scenario that you just can't account for which can completely destroy your plans to transfer, leaving you shit out of luck. OP seems to think he took a calculated enough risk to make the risk worth it. We're all glad it worked out in your favor, but for others reading this, please realize you're taking an enormous (and I mean enormous) gamble with your future.

I appreciate the support, and I'm definitely not trying to cast a shadow on your points. All I'm proposing is maybe the answer to the question, "Should I plan to transfer," is "it depends" opposed to "absolutely not".

[Apple4321]

So you think law school grades are dispositive of intelligence, and if 2 people work the same amount but have different grades, the one with a higher grade is per se smarter?

Keeping everything else constant (including effort), intellect, knowledge retention, and communication abilities (in other words, how we perceive who's smart) will have a causal relationship with your grades.

[Gunner19]

It seems as if neither side will agree here. At the end of the day we can all agree that there are many of variables in this planned transfer scenario that you just can't account for which can completely destroy your plans to transfer, leaving you shit out of luck. OP seems to think he took a calculated enough risk to make the risk worth it. We're all glad it worked out in your favor, but for others reading this, please realize you're taking an enormous (and I mean enormous) gamble with your future.

I appreciate the support, and I'm definitely not trying to cast a shadow on your points. All I'm proposing is maybe the answer to the question, "Should I plan to transfer," is "it depends" opposed to "absolutely not".

I'd agree that there are certain scenarios that make more sense than others. Whether I was correct or not, it seemed to me that a planned transfer was my best option because as I mentioned earlier, my gpa was garbage and even if I knocked out a 170+ I would've had trouble getting into a t14. Looking back now, this could have turned out horrible. All that aside, you have to take most opinions here with a grain of salt as the majority sentiment on TLS is if you aren't at a t14 on at least a 50% scholly and plan on big law you're doing it wrong.

[Nebby]

TL;DR- I would strongly advise anyone planning a transfer to reconsider. I did it myself, and it certainly can be done, but the risks are astronomical.

As someone who also booked 1L and transferred to T6, ditto.

Do not let OP's survivorship bias fool you

[poptart123]

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.

I get it now. You think this is a good idea because you don't know how the LSAT works.

"How the LSAT works"... Please tell me LSAT guru. I was referring to the fact that the raw scores place you into a percentile, which determines your score. It's all about how you do relative to everyone else taking the same LSAT. Is that competitive dynamic and limitation for grades/scores not precisely what some of the others are saying is so difficult in law school?

Yeah, that's not how the LSAT works.

[cavalier1138]

How is it that apparently stellar 1L students are still completely baffled by the difference between a projected and a forced curve?

[lucretius_]

Apple4321 = the most insufferable poster I've ever come across. If you're real life, I don't want to be where you are.

[Apple4321]

How is it that apparently stellar 1L students are still completely baffled by the difference between a projected and a forced curve?

How? Because statistics terminology has nothing to do with 1L performance. What difference do the titles have in the fact that you're working against a tough curve? There's very likely a good answer; I genuinely do not know.

[Apple4321]

Apple4321 = the most insufferable poster I've ever come across. If you're real life, I don't want to be where you are.

Real? Nah, I'm a Russian robot here to sabotage tomorrow's Hillary Clintons' chances of going to Yale to save the world from pantsuits.

But seriously, if you're not used to cocky a**holes like me, and if you think I'm bad, I doubt you have anything to worry about.

[Nebby]

Apple4321 = the most insufferable poster I've ever come across. If you're real life, I don't want to be where you are.

Real? Nah, I'm a Russian robot here to sabotage tomorrow's Hillary Clintons' chances of going to Yale to save the world from pantsuits.

But seriously, if you're not used to cocky a**holes like me, and if you think I'm bad, I doubt you have anything to worry about.

Insufferable turd is a more apt descriptor

[cavalier1138]

How is it that apparently stellar 1L students are still completely baffled by the difference between a projected and a forced curve?

How? Because statistics terminology has nothing to do with 1L performance. What difference do the titles have in the fact that you're working against a tough curve? There's very likely a good answer; I genuinely do not know.

You aren't working against a curve at all on the LSAT. That's the difference.

Think of it this way. You're in a room taking the LSAT with 9 other people. How many of you can possibly get a 170+?

Now you're in a room taking a law school exam with 9 other people. The school's curve says that 10% of the class can get an A. How many of you can possibly get an A?

[Apple4321]

Apple4321 = the most insufferable poster I've ever come across. If you're real life, I don't want to be where you are.

Real? Nah, I'm a Russian robot here to sabotage tomorrow's Hillary Clintons' chances of going to Yale to save the world from pantsuits.

But seriously, if you're not used to cocky a**holes like me, and if you think I'm bad, I doubt you have anything to worry about.

Insufferable turd is a more apt descriptor

I could definitely see how I'd be intimidating to someone who apparently lives on this website and likely plays Pokemon.

[Apple4321]

How is it that apparently stellar 1L students are still completely baffled by the difference between a projected and a forced curve?

How? Because statistics terminology has nothing to do with 1L performance. What difference do the titles have in the fact that you're working against a tough curve? There's very likely a good answer; I genuinely do not know.

You aren't working against a curve at all on the LSAT. That's the difference.

Think of it this way. You're in a room taking the LSAT with 9 other people. How many of you can possibly get a 170+?

Now you're in a room taking a law school exam with 9 other people. The school's curve says that 10% of the class can get an A. How many of you can possibly get an A?

Just because it's a larger population doesn't take away the fact that you could make a strong argument that the top scores are limited to the top 10%.

Just like in law school, you can argue that the curve is with you or against you. It just depends where you fall relative to everyone else. I still don't see what makes the LSAT's curve objectively easier, but I'm not claiming to be a statistician.

[cavalier1138]

Just because it's a larger population doesn't take away the fact that you could make a strong argument that the top scores are limited to the top 10%.

Just like in law school, you can argue that the curve is with you or against you. It just depends where you fall relative to everyone else. I still don't see what makes the LSAT's curve objectively easier, but I'm not claiming to be a statistician.

That wasn't an answer to my question.

Under the LSAT's projected curve (not forced), how many students can get a 170+? And how many students in a law school class on a forced curve can get the A grade?

[lucretius_]

I could definitely see how I'd be intimidating to someone who apparently lives on this website and likely plays Pokemon.

...cool...

[Apple4321]

Just because it's a larger population doesn't take away the fact that you could make a strong argument that the top scores are limited to the top 10%.

Just like in law school, you can argue that the curve is with you or against you. It just depends where you fall relative to everyone else. I still don't see what makes the LSAT's curve objectively easier, but I'm not claiming to be a statistician.

That wasn't an answer to my question.

Under the LSAT's projected curve (not forced), how many students can get a 170+? And how many students in a law school class on a forced curve can get the A grade?

What is the relevance of the quantity of students/test takers? At some schools, there aren't even forced curves that limit individual grades--just a required mean with no standard deviation requirements. From what I've seen, a lot of schools can give As to over a third of the class. Even using your figure of 10%, the estimated percentile for 170 is 97.37%, which is obviously significantly worse than just needing the top ten percent.

If 100 people in a room took the LSAT, and the same 100 people in the same room took a law school exam, which curve is harder? I'm going to stay with saying the LSAT--given our standards for what constitutes a good score.

[A. Nony Mouse]

All 100 people in the room for the LSAT could get 180s, if they all got the questions right. All 100 students taking a law school exam cannot get As regardless of how well they answer. You control the outcome of the LSAT in a way that you don't for a law school exam.

[Apple4321]

All 100 people in the room for the LSAT could get 180s, if they all got the questions right. All 100 students taking a law school exam cannot get As regardless of how well they answer. You control the outcome of the LSAT in a way that you don't for a law school exam.

What is the significance of the theoretical possibility of everyone getting 180s? If you average out all rooms, the outcome is the same as the LSAT percentiles. You're not only competing with people in the same room that you take your LSAT.

Let me be more clear with phrasing my question:

Imagine that the 100 people in the room were the only people you were being graded against for the LSAT and law school exam.

[cavalier1138]

All 100 people in the room for the LSAT could get 180s, if they all got the questions right. All 100 students taking a law school exam cannot get As regardless of how well they answer. You control the outcome of the LSAT in a way that you don't for a law school exam.

What is the significance of the theoretical possibility of everyone getting 180s? If you average out all rooms, the outcome is the same as the LSAT percentiles. You're not only competing with people in the same room that you take your LSAT.

Let me be more clear with phrasing my question:

Imagine that the 100 people in the room were the only people you were being graded against for the LSAT and law school exam.

Then in the LSAT, all 100 people could score 180. It probably won't happen, because LSAC has gotten pretty good at projecting the curve. But it's statistically possible.

In the law school class, only 10% (arbitrary number) of the class can actually get an A. The professor is literally not allowed to give any more A grades out.

If you cannot understand the difference between these scenarios, that's insane.

[Apple4321]

All 100 people in the room for the LSAT could get 180s, if they all got the questions right. All 100 students taking a law school exam cannot get As regardless of how well they answer. You control the outcome of the LSAT in a way that you don't for a law school exam.

What is the significance of the theoretical possibility of everyone getting 180s? If you average out all rooms, the outcome is the same as the LSAT percentiles. You're not only competing with people in the same room that you take your LSAT.

Let me be more clear with phrasing my question:

Imagine that the 100 people in the room were the only people you were being graded against for the LSAT and law school exam.

Then in the LSAT, all 100 people could score 180. It probably won't happen, because LSAC has gotten pretty good at projecting the curve. But it's statistically possible.

In the law school class, only 10% (arbitrary number) of the class can actually get an A. The professor is literally not allowed to give any more A grades out.

If you cannot understand the difference between these scenarios, that's insane.

It's ironic that this all started with outrage that someone could make an alleged risky move by planning on transferring. Now, you're using a theoretical possibility that everyone in a room of 100 people could get a 180 to support your argument. In reality, the LSAT's curve is harsher if you're comparing As to 170+.

[UVA2B]

All 100 people in the room for the LSAT could get 180s, if they all got the questions right. All 100 students taking a law school exam cannot get As regardless of how well they answer. You control the outcome of the LSAT in a way that you don't for a law school exam.

What is the significance of the theoretical possibility of everyone getting 180s? If you average out all rooms, the outcome is the same as the LSAT percentiles. You're not only competing with people in the same room that you take your LSAT.

Let me be more clear with phrasing my question:

Imagine that the 100 people in the room were the only people you were being graded against for the LSAT and law school exam.

Oy, this is a really bad conflation and I wish you knew it. You're not being graded against anyone on the LSAT. The median LSAT in the country could hypothetically be a 180 if everyone studied hard and aced the test. We both know that's not going to happen, but regardless that's how the LSAT curve works. It's not directly corresponding a percentile rank with a given test score. 170 could be 100th percentile, 99th percentile, 98th percentile, or 50th percentile hypothetically. Maybe it'll never get there in reality because a sizable portion of the population will understudy/underperform *ahem*, but that doesn't change the fact that LSAC would report 50% of the population getting a 170+ and move on. Predictive curves and forced curves are two very different statistical models.

Law school exams just aren't predictive curves. They are forced, meaning even if you had a multiple choice test like the LSAT, the top score whether it's a 100% or 65% would be an A, a few below it would be an A-, so on until you get a neatly compiled curve of everyone's performance. Some law profs explicitly give easier tests that make the curve that much tighter, which results in law students who understand the material as well as their classmates but can't articulate it as well being below median.

So again, congrats on your haphazard plan of backdooring into a T10 law school working. But if you can't understand these sorts of things, and on top of that you're going to be willfully dense about it when people explain it, you're better off just giving up. Because people have spent 4 pages trying to explain to you rationally how this is a risky plan, but you don't want to hear it. Maybe that's reason enough to not try to explain why you think you know better.

[Nebby]

Apple4321 = the most insufferable poster I've ever come across. If you're real life, I don't want to be where you are.

Real? Nah, I'm a Russian robot here to sabotage tomorrow's Hillary Clintons' chances of going to Yale to save the world from pantsuits.

But seriously, if you're not used to cocky a**holes like me, and if you think I'm bad, I doubt you have anything to worry about.

Insufferable turd is a more apt descriptor

I could definitely see how I'd be intimidating to someone who apparently lives on this website and likely plays Pokemon.

Lol

I'm better than you at every conceivable metric

This is a battle you won't win

[Greenteachurro]

Apple4321 = the most insufferable poster I've ever come across. If you're real life, I don't want to be where you are.

Real? Nah, I'm a Russian robot here to sabotage tomorrow's Hillary Clintons' chances of going to Yale to save the world from pantsuits.

But seriously, if you're not used to cocky a**holes like me, and if you think I'm bad, I doubt you have anything to worry about.

Insufferable turd is a more apt descriptor

I could definitely see how I'd be intimidating to someone who apparently lives on this website and likely plays Pokemon.

Lol

I'm better than you at every conceivable metric

This is a battle you won't win

is that a pokemon quote...? Seems like something Team Rocket would say