Screwed by a Transfer Up? Forum

[kswiss]

When asked to prove I want to be in this market, I can say, "Look, with my grades I could have transferred to XX or XX, but I chose to stay because I want to be in this market."

Don't even consider saying this or anything remotely like this in an interview. Jesus.

+1

Yeah, a statement like that is a quick way to make any interviewer's douche-o-meter go through the roof, haha.

Obviously, it would be said in a non-deuche manner. I've talked to several recruiters, and almost all of them say that they care about 1. grades / personality / all of the normal criteria, and 2. flight risk. I'm attending school in a secondary market, and I moved here because I have a family and this is where we want to end up. So I think being able to give a good response to a flight risk question would be good. I'm not going to big time the interviewer, but saying that I had the opportunity to xfer but chose to stay because I like this market is a decent response IMO.

[Helmholtz]

Yeah, a statement like that is a quick way to make any interviewer's douche-o-meter go through the roof, haha.

Obviously, it would be said in a non-deuche manner. I've talked to several recruiters, and almost all of them say that they care about 1. grades / personality / all of the normal criteria, and 2. flight risk. I'm attending school in a secondary market, and I moved here because I have a family and this is where we want to end up. So I think being able to give a good response to a flight risk question would be good. I'm not going to big time the interviewer, but saying that I had the opportunity to xfer but chose to stay because I like this market is a decent response IMO.

(1) The interviewer will know that you had the opportunity to transfer.

(2) You can tell him about your ties to the area if you're worried about coming off as a flight risk.

[vanwinkle]

I don't know about other schools, but as far as I know, all of the HLS transfers got offers from at least one (usually more) of their top choice firms. These firms included pretty much all of the Vault 25, with a few exceptions (I didn't hear of anyone landing Wachtell, and W&C displayed a distinctly hostile attitude toward at least one transfer explicitly due to his transfer status).

This is definitely all true about HLS. I have heard some (not all, just some) people on here who transferred to other schools describe things as more difficult. Transferring up to the T6-ish range seems almost uniformly a good thing (as long as you're not leaving too much behind); below that it sounds like things could vary quite a bit more.

[soullesswonder]

real question...how would it hurt in regards to a clerkship?

Losing connections for clerkship LORs. At least that's what I've been told.

so you have to know judge for awhile to get spot?

I think the implication is that professors at your old school are less inclined to go to bat for you since you transferred, and the professors at your new school may not know you well enough to write a great LOR

[missinglink]

real question...how would it hurt in regards to a clerkship?

Losing connections for clerkship LORs. At least that's what I've been told.

so you have to know judge for awhile to get spot?

I think the implication is that professors at your old school are less inclined to go to bat for you since you transferred, and the professors at your new school may not know you well enough to write a great LOR

It seems to me there would be plenty of time, with a little effort, to remedy the second problem. You have as much time at your new school as your old school to forge some relationships. In fact, it would probably be easier to get to know professors at your new school - all things considered.

Smaller classes being available for instance. And perhaps more confidence to approach professors. My first semester I avoided any type of interaction with any of my professors, and I regretted that. Second semester was better. I can only imagine that going forward, I should be more able to get to know them.

[Helmholtz]

It seems to me there would be plenty of time, with a little effort, to remedy the second problem. You have as much time at your new school as your old school to forge some relationships. In fact, it would probably be easier to get to know professors at your new school - all things considered.

Smaller classes being available for instance. And perhaps more confidence to approach professors. My first semester I avoided any type of interaction with any of my professors, and I regretted that. Second semester was better. I can only imagine that going forward, I should be more able to get to know them.

Yeah, I can't say from personal experience, but this is just what I hear (it's what one of my profs who was a SLS->HLS transfer told me too).

[t14orelse]

I transferred T50 to T14. OCI was tough, but it would have been tough at my old school too. Firms are going to prefer T14 grads no matter what.

[JusticeHarlan]

As long as you can articulate a semi-legit reason, I have serious doubts as to somebody being in a tangibly worse position during OCI compared to the experience they would have received had they remained at their old school. Sure, maybe the guy who was top 7% at Pepperdine transfers to Berkeley and strikes out at OCI, but unless you can offer up some proof that he wouldn't have received the same result had he stayed at Pepperdine, I fail to see the point. At least he has a better alumni network to fall back on and a flashier LS name to show on his resume during his job search.

I was thinking about this (as I contemplate sending in some last minute apps), and I was wondering if there's a detriment from going to a school with all (or primarily) preselect OCI to a lottery school. The kind of person who's gonna be able to transfer to a T14 or a T6 would probably have the grades to grab screeners with pretty much every firm bothering to show up. At their new schools, there are certainly more firms there, but it probably takes pretty good/lucky bidding strategy to land as many interviews, and there's more of a chance of running into a few firms that don't want to deal with transfers.

Obviously, it'll depend on how many firms would be going to OCI at the old school. A lower ranked school with only a few firms coming will almost certainly benefit from a transfer, whereas someone coming from a solid T1 in a good market that attracts all the local firms might be giving up more?

I'm probably talking out of my ass here, so people who actually understand the process, please come in and educate me.

[thesealocust]

Obviously, it'll depend on how many firms would be going to OCI at the old schoo

I think you're failing to appreciate how quickly OCI size diminishes as you move down law school rankings. It's often something like hundreds of firms at T14-like schools and maybe a couple dozen, many of which are smaller, at lower ranked schools. There are dozens, possibly hundreds of firms (or at least offices of firms) which just don't recruit past the T14 and a few select schools in their region.

[mighttransfer]

tagged

[keg411]

Obviously, it'll depend on how many firms would be going to OCI at the old schoo

I think you're failing to appreciate how quickly OCI size diminishes as you move down law school rankings. It's often something like hundreds of firms at T14-like schools and maybe a couple dozen, many of which are smaller, at lower ranked schools. There are dozens, possibly hundreds of firms (or at least offices of firms) which just don't recruit past the T14 and a few select schools in their region.

Example (2011 NALP recruitment - I just picked a few random schools; if anyone wants to see other ones, I probably have those numbers as well):
Columbia - 132 firms/465 offices
Northwestern - 117 firms/361 offices
UCLA - 88 firms/325 offices
Vanderbilt - 71/253 offices
USC - 75 firms/292 offices
WUSTL - 47 firms/153 offices
Notre Dame - 51 firms/148 offices
Minnesota - 28 firms/65 offices

And around there, most firms are in the 20's/teens until you get to the real TTT's.

[JusticeHarlan]

Obviously, it'll depend on how many firms would be going to OCI at the old schoo

I think you're failing to appreciate how quickly OCI size diminishes as you move down law school rankings. It's often something like hundreds of firms at T14-like schools and maybe a couple dozen, many of which are smaller, at lower ranked schools. There are dozens, possibly hundreds of firms (or at least offices of firms) which just don't recruit past the T14 and a few select schools in their region.

Example (2011 NALP recruitment - I just picked a few random schools; if anyone wants to see other ones, I probably have those numbers as well):
Columbia - 132 firms/465 offices
Northwestern - 117 firms/361 offices
UCLA - 88 firms/325 offices
Vanderbilt - 71/253 offices
USC - 75 firms/292 offices
WUSTL - 47 firms/153 offices
Notre Dame - 51 firms/148 offices
Minnesota - 28 firms/65 offices

And around there, most firms are in the 20's/teens until you get to the real TTT's.

You both make good points, this is only really an argument is we're talking about a T30 school in a solid region.

But once we're in that range, you're going to get a much higher % of the firms who are interviewing at your school if you're at a preselect, rather than a lottery, right?

Let's take CLS v. Notre Dame. (Assume CLS is pure lottery, Notre Dame is pure preselect.) Sure, there are a lot more firms at CLS, but how many can you expect to get through the lottery? A good number, but not anywhere near even half of them. Being top 5% at Notre Dame, you probably have pretty close to your pick of those firms that have made the trek to South Bend to interview Notre Dame kids (for screening interviews, that is, not necessarily any later step). Won't you grab so high a percent of those 51 firms that it'll start to come pretty close?

I'm so ignorant about this, it probably borders on negligently spreading terribly wrong information, so I'll stop. It was just a musing I had recently. Continue to tear apart with logic, reasoning, statistics and facts, for the good of TLS.

[keg411]

ND is lottery (at least according to the employment forum), so that's not really a great choice to use.

However, that's not to say that just by pure numbers of firms that come, the choice to transfer is easy. It's not -- you're giving up a high ranking, friends, and probably $$ and LR. I think you need to look at NALP and your school's OCI and see if the firms in your desired market are coming to your school. If they are (and they actually hire), there is no reason at all to transfer. However, I also think it isn't a bad idea to send apps and see what happens. If you get into the top school, you can always decide at a later date (or leverage for more scholarship $$ if your school does that).

[thesealocust]

JusticeHarlan, what you write definitely makes sense. It's a tough call. Keep in mind though that there's yet another factor which is number of interviews each firm conducts on campus, and percentage of those interviews that turn into offers. A firm going to Columbia may interview hundreds (plural intentional) of students and make dozens (plural intentional) of offers. I doubt any firm even approaches that level of depth from any T30 school. I hypothesize, and am stretching far away from personal experience here so I may also be wrong, that there are tangible benefits to being at a school where firms recruit deeply.

Of course, there are also tangible advantages to not bothering with a transfer and being on LR + likely having less debt + being on top of your game. There isn't an easy answer.