Is it worth it? T3 to University of Arizona Forum

[un3que]

I'm a 1L at a T3 school in Ohio, but I'm in the top 15% and I'm gauranteed a spot on Moot court AND most likely Law Review for my second year (my school allows you to do both concurrently). My dilemma....If I have the possibility to transfer to UofA, should I? Hurts my chances of ever being on Law Review and/or moot court. Money is not an issue at this point. But I do plan to move back to the Southwest and most likely end up in Arizona or Utah.

Only issue is whether someone is better off graduating from a T1 school (let's just say still in the top 1/3 of the class) OR if they are better off staying at a T3 school and having done both law review and moot court?

HELP!

[classix]

I would go where you want to work. In ohio where there is 7+ schools, a T3 is kinda shitty. Arizona is the only school in the state (besides phoenix school of law ) so even at top 1/3rd you may have a better market to enter.

[Ty Webb]

Blatant anti-Sun Devil trolling.

[Badger3920]

Blatant anti-Sun Devil trolling.

Complete garbage!

[Veyron]

If you have ties to AZ and want to work in AZ keep the law review credential.

[3ThrowAway99]

..

[vanwinkle]

BTW, you can still put the T3 law review credential on your resume since you were selected, regardless of whether or not you transfer (though perhaps you would have to write "selected for law review..")

WTF. Seriously? No. A resume is for things you actually did (or will do), not things you passed up. Nobody gives a damn what you could have done if you don't do it.

[Veyron]

BTW, you can still put the T3 law review credential on your resume since you were selected, regardless of whether or not you transfer (though perhaps you would have to write "selected for law review..")

WTF. Seriously? No. A resume is for things you actually did (or will do), not things you passed up. Nobody gives a damn what you could have done if you don't do it.

CS tells transfers to write selected for law review.

[vanwinkle]

CS tells transfers to write selected for law review.

[Veyron]

CS tells transfers to write selected for law review.

No idea if it matters or not but it can't hurt.

Edit: Oh, career services.

[3ThrowAway99]

BTW, you can still put the T3 law review credential on your resume since you were selected, regardless of whether or not you transfer (though perhaps you would have to write "selected for law review..")

WTF. Seriously? No. A resume is for things you actually did (or will do), not things you passed up. Nobody gives a damn what you could have done if you don't do it.

CS tells transfers to write selected for law review.

@Vanwinkle: getting selected isn't something that would have been passed up. It is just a fact- while he attended the school he made their law review, so I think it makes sense to add the credential (although I think the qualification of 'selected for' is probably in order, since obv OP wouldn't have been an actual writer during 2L if he or she transfers).

I do think down the road it may make less sense for OP to keep that on the resume. But considering the emphasis on Law Review for OCI, I think it is a good thing to have on there. I really don't see an ethical problem, as long as it is clear that it was just a matter of selection and not participation. But maybe there are other compelling reasons for not putting it down that I'm not aware of.

The referenced part of my comment is only meant to apply if OP were to keep the 1st school on the resume. Obviously just listing the new school and yet having a comment about law review could be misleading. I'm not sure with transfers if it is always necessary to put the prior school (in the future I would think graduating institution would be sufficient for a resume, but I don't know the standard for legal resumes in this regard).

[sarryn]

BTW, you can still put the T3 law review credential on your resume since you were selected, regardless of whether or not you transfer (though perhaps you would have to write "selected for law review..")

WTF. Seriously? No. A resume is for things you actually did (or will do), not things you passed up. Nobody gives a damn what you could have done if you don't do it.

CS tells transfers to write selected for law review.

@Vanwinkle: getting selected isn't something that would have been passed up. It is just a fact- while he attended the school he made their law review, so I think it makes sense to add the credential (although I think the qualification of 'selected for' is probably in order, since obv OP wouldn't have been an actual writer during 2L if he or she transfers).

I do think down the road it may make less sense for OP to keep that on the resume. But considering the emphasis on Law Review for OCI, I think it is a good thing to have on there. I really don't see an ethical problem, as long as it is clear that it was just a matter of selection and not participation. But maybe there are other compelling reasons for not putting it down that I'm not aware of.

The referenced part of my comment is only meant to apply if OP were to keep the 1st school on the resume. Obviously just listing the new school and yet having a comment about law review could be misleading. I'm not sure with transfers if it is always necessary to put the prior school (in the future I would think graduating institution would be sufficient for a resume, but I don't know the standard for legal resumes in this regard).

Law Review is generally regarded favorably in OCI because it shows you have/will have writing experience. If you're leaving a school and passing up Law Review, I can't imagine why you'd put it on there. That being said, if the school to where you transferred says to add it, keep it on. I'm sure they know better than I do...

[Norwood]

Why not take a shot at Law Review at Arizona? Most Law Reviews have an additional selection process for transfer students which will allow you to do LR during your 2L.

[vanwinkle]

I do think down the road it may make less sense for OP to keep that on the resume. But considering the emphasis on Law Review for OCI, I think it is a good thing to have on there. I really don't see an ethical problem, as long as it is clear that it was just a matter of selection and not participation. But maybe there are other compelling reasons for not putting it down that I'm not aware of.

I don't consider it an ethical problem, just a bad idea. Here's why:

LR is (as mentioned above) valuable for the actual writing experience and work commitment, which are both positive attributes. At OCI they know you don't have that experience yet, but you will. On the other hand, being "selected" is only a statement of qualification, not experience. In that regard, employers will already be aware of how good your grades were from 1) your transcript and 2) the fact that you were able to transfer substantially upward. Putting it on there is kind of redundant in terms of showing off your 1L success, and that's the only thing it can really do for you.

I'm also just under the general impression that it looks bad to put down things you were offered and declined. It makes it look like you're having to reach for good things to put on your resume, or that you don't understand that the experience that's valuable. Would you put "Admitted to Yale Law School" on your resume if you didn't go? "Offered SA position at Wachtell" if you declined? These are things that are impressive to get, but they're not awards or symbols of prestige themselves, they're just invitations to do something prestigious. And you may even get grilled by future employers about why you turned it down if it was valuable enough to you to list on your resume.

It's not unethical, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

[uzpakalis]

If you have ties to AZ and want to work in AZ keep the law review credential.

[CanadianWolf]

I agree with VanWinkle, except that it may be unethical to cite "law review" on your resume if you were never a member.
If you want to work in the Southwest, then transfer to Arizona. If you want a great legal education, then stay & participate on moot court & law review (assuming that both are well run--which, based on some of my recent visits, is assuming a lot).

[Veyron]

I agree with VanWinkle, except that it may be unethical to cite "law review" on your resume if you were never a member.
If you want to work in the Southwest, then transfer to Arizona. If you want a great legal education, then stay & participate on moot court & law review (assuming that both are well run--which, based on some of my recent visits, is assuming a lot).

? Obviously U of A is better regarded than some random T3 in AZ all other things being = but its better to be your average T3 student with law review and ties than your average transfer at U of A.

AZ is, in general, more concerned with grades and LR and less concerned with school prestige than many other markets.

[RVP11]

I agree with VanWinkle, except that it may be unethical to cite "law review" on your resume if you were never a member.
If you want to work in the Southwest, then transfer to Arizona. If you want a great legal education, then stay & participate on moot court & law review (assuming that both are well run--which, based on some of my recent visits, is assuming a lot).

LOL at equating moot court and Law Review with "a great legal education."

I bet the improvement from taking classes with a bunch of ~155s to taking classes with a bunch of ~165s would matter more in terms of quality of education.

Also, OP: what are your career goals? Are you working in AZ/UT in the summer?