Official 2010 Transfer Cycle Results Thread Forum

[megaTTTron]

Hi guys. I just got into GW today after being in the top 40% at AU (WCL) with Law Review. Obviously, I'd have the chance to write on at GW, but assuming I don't get on, is it definitely worth it to transfer? I'd like to work in biglaw, i think, if possible.

thanks in advance

I'd stay. I just don't think the jump is enough. I think you have another thread, and I think what you posted there is right -- if you get into GULC go, other than that, BC and GW aren't worth it. That's just my opinion.

[thexfactor]

Hi guys. I just got into GW today after being in the top 40% at AU (WCL) with Law Review. Obviously, I'd have the chance to write on at GW, but assuming I don't get on, is it definitely worth it to transfer? I'd like to work in biglaw, i think, if possible.

thanks in advance

I'd stay. I just don't think the jump is enough. I think you have another thread, and I think what you posted there is right -- if you get into GULC go, other than that, BC and GW aren't worth it. That's just my opinion.

even at top 40% at american, you think it is better to stay put rather than go to bc orgw? At american you prob wouldnt be able to get any OCI interviews. You have a higher chance of getting an interview at BC or GW.

[megaTTTron]

Hi guys. I just got into GW today after being in the top 40% at AU (WCL) with Law Review. Obviously, I'd have the chance to write on at GW, but assuming I don't get on, is it definitely worth it to transfer? I'd like to work in biglaw, i think, if possible.

thanks in advance

I'd stay. I just don't think the jump is enough. I think you have another thread, and I think what you posted there is right -- if you get into GULC go, other than that, BC and GW aren't worth it. That's just my opinion.

even at top 40% at american, you think it is better to stay rather than bc and gw? At american you prob wouldnt be able to get any OCI interviews. You have a higher chance of getting an interview at BC or GW.

You think a firm at BC or GW OCI will give OP the time of day if he/she is a top 40% transfer from AU? I think staying, and being on LR even with top 40% is better than transferring, and losing the LR edge. GW and BC OCI are not exactly a cake walk either.

[funkyfood1]

For reasons I won't get into, I ended up only applying to GW. I think it's a close call...obviously if I got on GWLR i think it'd be worth it but that's far from a sure thing (though I did get on via write on at AU). I have some friends at big dc firms who are going to ask their hiring people what they like better....

[megaTTTron]

For reasons I won't get into, I ended up only applying to GW. I think it's a close call...obviously if I got on GWLR i think it'd be worth it but that's far from a sure thing (though I did get on via write on at AU). I have some friends at big dc firms who are going to ask their hiring people what they like better....

I don't mean to discourage you -- if your dream is GW, by all means go for it. Congrats on getting in, but if you have $$ at AU and now that you're on LR (which is feat in itself) you almost deserve to stay. Good luck.

[funkyfood1]

For reasons I won't get into, I ended up only applying to GW. I think it's a close call...obviously if I got on GWLR i think it'd be worth it but that's far from a sure thing (though I did get on via write on at AU). I have some friends at big dc firms who are going to ask their hiring people what they like better....

I don't mean to discourage you -- if your dream is GW, by all means go for it. Congrats on getting in, but if you have $$ at AU and now that you're on LR (which is feat in itself) you almost deserve to stay. Good luck.

Oh, no, I certainly appreciate the honest opinion and am grateful you took the time to give it to me. I'll let you guys know what I decide. FWIW I didn't get any money at AU.

[98234872348]

For reasons I won't get into, I ended up only applying to GW. I think it's a close call...obviously if I got on GWLR i think it'd be worth it but that's far from a sure thing (though I did get on via write on at AU). I have some friends at big dc firms who are going to ask their hiring people what they like better....

I don't mean to discourage you -- if your dream is GW, by all means go for it. Congrats on getting in, but if you have $$ at AU and now that you're on LR (which is feat in itself) you almost deserve to stay. Good luck.

Oh, no, I certainly appreciate the honest opinion and am grateful you took the time to give it to me. I'll let you guys know what I decide. FWIW I didn't get any money at AU.

How did students at AU ranked similarly to you do at big firms last year? I am surprised someone in your position is considering getting a job at a big firm as a viable option, tbf.

[Danteshek]

For reasons I won't get into, I ended up only applying to GW. I think it's a close call...obviously if I got on GWLR i think it'd be worth it but that's far from a sure thing (though I did get on via write on at AU). I have some friends at big dc firms who are going to ask their hiring people what they like better....

I don't mean to discourage you -- if your dream is GW, by all means go for it. Congrats on getting in, but if you have $$ at AU and now that you're on LR (which is feat in itself) you almost deserve to stay. Good luck.

I would stay if I were you.

disclaimer: I am applying to GW.

[thexfactor]

For reasons I won't get into, I ended up only applying to GW. I think it's a close call...obviously if I got on GWLR i think it'd be worth it but that's far from a sure thing (though I did get on via write on at AU). I have some friends at big dc firms who are going to ask their hiring people what they like better....

I don't mean to discourage you -- if your dream is GW, by all means go for it. Congrats on getting in, but if you have $$ at AU and now that you're on LR (which is feat in itself) you almost deserve to stay. Good luck.

cant you put on your resume that you were "invited" to law review?

[megaTTTron]

For reasons I won't get into, I ended up only applying to GW. I think it's a close call...obviously if I got on GWLR i think it'd be worth it but that's far from a sure thing (though I did get on via write on at AU). I have some friends at big dc firms who are going to ask their hiring people what they like better....

I don't mean to discourage you -- if your dream is GW, by all means go for it. Congrats on getting in, but if you have $$ at AU and now that you're on LR (which is feat in itself) you almost deserve to stay. Good luck.

cant you put on your resume that you were "invited" to law review?

Yea, and that's important, but very different than being on GW's LR or having the experience come 2L summer.

[funkyfood1]

For reasons I won't get into, I ended up only applying to GW. I think it's a close call...obviously if I got on GWLR i think it'd be worth it but that's far from a sure thing (though I did get on via write on at AU). I have some friends at big dc firms who are going to ask their hiring people what they like better....

I don't mean to discourage you -- if your dream is GW, by all means go for it. Congrats on getting in, but if you have $$ at AU and now that you're on LR (which is feat in itself) you almost deserve to stay. Good luck.

cant you put on your resume that you were "invited" to law review?

Yea, and that's important, but very different than being on GW's LR or having the experience come 2L summer.

I actually have to check AULR's policy. I know some schools "ban" you from mentioning law review (unconscionable, amirite?) if you transfer or quit. I've already done office hours and a 40-hour spading (source pull/cite check) though, so I'm like a full-fledged member at this point.

[ak362]

For reasons I won't get into, I ended up only applying to GW. I think it's a close call...obviously if I got on GWLR i think it'd be worth it but that's far from a sure thing (though I did get on via write on at AU). I have some friends at big dc firms who are going to ask their hiring people what they like better....

I don't mean to discourage you -- if your dream is GW, by all means go for it. Congrats on getting in, but if you have $$ at AU and now that you're on LR (which is feat in itself) you almost deserve to stay. Good luck.

cant you put on your resume that you were "invited" to law review?

Yea, and that's important, but very different than being on GW's LR or having the experience come 2L summer.

AU does its write-on during Spring Break, so it's highly likely that OP has been on Law Review for some time, having done substantive work in the process. Probably makes the quandary a bit harder to figure out.

[megaTTTron]

I actually have to check AULR's policy. I know some schools "ban" you from mentioning law review (unconscionable, amirite?) if you transfer or quit. I've already done office hours and a 40-hour spading (source pull/cite check) though, so I'm like a full-fledged member at this point.

That's awesome -- but a bit unsual, which means firms will not assume that you have any experience until you tell them. I've actually never heard of schools banning you from telling firms. You were invited to join, it's a fact. How can they ban you? Haha?

[funkyfood1]

How did students at AU ranked similarly to you do at big firms last year? I am surprised someone in your position is considering getting a job at a big firm as a viable option, tbf.

No idea, I'll need to check. I have pretty decent softs though (not amazing, but solid) outside of LR.

Also, sick passive-aggressive jab. Well-done.

[funkyfood1]

Also, sorry to keep derailing the thread, but I should mention that my grades were better than 40% overall, except for a C given by a visiting professor "not welcome back to the school" who "strongly, strongly encouraged" us not to hand-write our exams. Of course, my computer died during the exam and I had to hand-write half of it fwiw. I wrote an addendum to gw

[interalia]

Also, sorry to keep derailing the thread, but I should mention that my grades were better than 40% overall, except for a C given by a visiting professor "not welcome back to the school" who "strongly, strongly encouraged" us not to hand-write our exams. Of course, my computer died during the exam and I had to hand-write half of it fwiw. I wrote an addendum to gw

Sympathy for you, but that is part of the 1L randomness to some extent: everyone in your section had the same prof. grading his/her exam.

[funkyfood1]

Also, sorry to keep derailing the thread, but I should mention that my grades were better than 40% overall, except for a C given by a visiting professor "not welcome back to the school" who "strongly, strongly encouraged" us not to hand-write our exams. Of course, my computer died during the exam and I had to hand-write half of it fwiw. I wrote an addendum to gw

Sympathy for you, but that is part of the 1L randomness to some extent: everyone in your section had the same prof. grading his/her exam.

No, that's not my complaint. I understand the grading is random, but the fact that he said he wouldn't read a handwritten exam and would assume it was wrong if it the penmanship wasn't pristine (mine wasn't obv), and that I had to hand-write mine is relevant, I think.

[megaTTTron]

Also, sorry to keep derailing the thread, but I should mention that my grades were better than 40% overall, except for a C given by a visiting professor "not welcome back to the school" who "strongly, strongly encouraged" us not to hand-write our exams. Of course, my computer died during the exam and I had to hand-write half of it fwiw. I wrote an addendum to gw

Sympathy for you, but that is part of the 1L randomness to some extent: everyone in your section had the same prof. grading his/her exam.

No, that's not my complaint. I understand the grading is random, but the fact that he said he wouldn't read a handwritten exam and would assume it was wrong if it the penmanship wasn't pristine (mine wasn't obv), and that I had to hand-write mine is relevant, I think.

It's always a gamble to tell firms/ schools about it -- because it could come across as whiny or unaccepting of responsibility.

[98234872348]

How did students at AU ranked similarly to you do at big firms last year? I am surprised someone in your position is considering getting a job at a big firm as a viable option, tbf.

No idea, I'll need to check. I have pretty decent softs though (not amazing, but solid) outside of LR.

Also, sick passive-aggressive jab. Well-done.

I wouldn't say that's a jab whatsoever. American only placed about 15% of students in big law firms in a good economy. That would suggest that outside, adjusting for self selection, the top 25%, most students there do not get jobs at big firms.

[funkyfood1]

I wouldn't say that's a jab whatsoever. American only placed about 15% of students in big law firms in a good economy. That would suggest that outside, adjusting for self selection, the top 25%, most students there do not get jobs at big firms.

It was nothing if not passive-aggressive, or at least came off as so, and perception is reality with communications obviously. Could have easily said something like, I don't know, "It might be tough getting a biglaw job at 40% from AU. American only placed about 15% of students in big law firms in a good economy. That would suggest that outside, adjusting for self selection, the top 25%, most students there do not get jobs at big firms."

[vanwinkle]

It was nothing if not passive-aggressive, or at least came off as so, and perception is reality with communications obviously.

This is a dumb thing to say. Your argument is basically "I took it as passive-aggressive and therefore it was." How about less arguing with people about what you think they said and more talking about the subject they're actually talking about?

[98234872348]

I wouldn't say that's a jab whatsoever. American only placed about 15% of students in big law firms in a good economy. That would suggest that outside, adjusting for self selection, the top 25%, most students there do not get jobs at big firms.

It was nothing if not passive-aggressive, or at least came off as so, and perception is reality with communications obviously. Could have easily said something like, I don't know, "It might be tough getting a biglaw job at 40% from AU. American only placed about 15% of students in big law firms in a good economy. That would suggest that outside, adjusting for self selection, the top 25%, most students there do not get jobs at big firms."

I apologize most people on this site are familiar with the realities of schools outside of the T14 (or T10).

I am not sure what sort of responses you were expecting to elicit posting on TLS saying things like "what is better for big law, barely above median at a T1 or transferring into GW."

TCR is clearly neither of these options will be particularly conducive to landing you a big law job. In fact I'd go so far as to say if you had finished top 40% at GW (which you have not) you'd still be unlikely to land a big law job. Granted, yes, law review is certainly a positive, but at my T1, there were several people with good grades (read: substantially better than top 40%) and law review struck out at OCI. I would be quite impressed/surprised if students at AU fared much better.

[interalia]

I wouldn't say that's a jab whatsoever. American only placed about 15% of students in big law firms in a good economy. That would suggest that outside, adjusting for self selection, the top 25%, most students there do not get jobs at big firms.

It was nothing if not passive-aggressive, or at least came off as so, and perception is reality with communications obviously. Could have easily said something like, I don't know, "It might be tough getting a biglaw job at 40% from AU. American only placed about 15% of students in big law firms in a good economy. That would suggest that outside, adjusting for self selection, the top 25%, most students there do not get jobs at big firms."

I apologize most people on this site are familiar with the realities of schools outside of the T14 (or T10).

I am not sure what sort of responses you were expecting to elicit posting on TLS saying things like "what is better for big law, barely above median at a T1 or transferring into GW."

TCR is clearly neither of these options will be particularly conducive to landing you a big law job. In fact I'd go so far as to say if you had finished top 40% at GW (which you have not) you'd still be unlikely to land a big law job. Granted, yes, law review is certainly a positive, but at my T1, there were several people with good grades (read: substantially better than top 40%) and law review struck out at OCI. I would be quite impressed/surprised if students at AU fared much better.

Yeah, calm down there little buddy. Your sense of entitlement is absurd. People aren't here to tell everyone that they are going to get big law jobs (this isn't career services talking to 0Ls)

ITE, top 40% at Georgetown has a shot at big law, top 40% at GW has a very outside shot. As for top 40% at American, i have to think the chances are extraordinarily low.

Good luck though.

[funkyfood1]

Never did I criticize or disagree with his point. What I disagreed with was the way the information was presented, i.e. not as a statistical fact, but as a patronization.

[thexfactor]

Transfer man. Your chance at biglaw are very low no matter what. You are prob not likely to get any scholarship boosts with top40%. Look towards the future. a GW degree will boost your credentials a lot more than an American degree. A partner told me that you cant say you are from x school.. but on law review and top x% every single time you meet someone that asks you where you went to school.