Top Law Schools

It occurred to me that stats on grades post-transfer would help people deciding to transfer. Of course, if you're only transferring for the sake of a bigger and better OCI, 2L grades may not matter to you, but if you're transferring in hopes of clerking, teaching, DOJ Honors, or whatever else to which 2L grades are relevant, whether your grades will fall off upon transferring to a better school is a matter of great importance - and a matter on which there's very little data, and a lot of conflicting anecdotal talk which breaks down into two irreconcilable camps, the "if you're good at law school you'll do well anywhere" camp, and the "a transfer is statistically predestined (usually) to fall in class rank considerably" camp. Of course, this thread may not be very accurate for obvious reasons, but TLS posters are self-deprecating enough that this sample shouldn't be too biased in favor of douchey braggarts like myself. With that said...

at my old, t30-something school I had a 3.84, which put me somewhere in the top 5%; at Georgetown, I have a 3.88, which puts me in the top 1%. Feel free to continue or not as you please.

How'd you do job-wise, Tray?

Anyway, top 10% at T25, top 1/3rd at MVPB. But I barely did any work at my new school... It's certainly not any more difficult to do well at a T10 if you put in the same effort.

They went down. Top 20% to top 50%. Got Law Review though.

Transfers typically do well at their new schools. During transfer orientation at the school I went to, they told us that only one person in the past 10 years (or something like that) graduated without honors.

But I guess it also depends on the school you went to and the school you transferred to (e.g. if you went to a t25, were top 20%, and managed to transfer to NYU, then I can't imagine your class rank being that great at NYU either).

top 10% t2 to top 20% t-20.... ( mainly because of 1 terrible outlier grade... should be top 10%).....

traydeuce returns! How'd OCI at GULC go, bro?

TT w/ ~10%, T20 w/ ~40%. I had a rough fall semester. I attribute my grades to the fact that I didn't start attending class regularly until mid-October. I had about 12 callbacks (from about 30 screening interviews) in 7 cities across the US. It's tough to do school work in hotel rooms, planes, trains, or cars, especially when you're studying for interviews. I also took conlaw II with the entire LR. Bad decision.

It would have been nice to throw my hat in the ring for clerkships, but I would rather take the 160k+bonus to pay-down my massive debt load.

T2 in the 60s-70s, a bit outside top 10%, safely inside top 10% at UCLA. I didn't put in nearly as much effort 2L and especially 3L and still managed to get almost entirely As.

Between the 2L/3L classes typically being curved much easier, and the fact that most transfers clearly know how to take law school exams well, I think it's quite easy to do as well if not better post-transfer.

Younger Abstention wrote:How'd you do job-wise, Tray?

Anyway, top 10% at T25, top 1/3rd at MVPB. But I barely did any work at my new school... It's certainly not any more difficult to do well at a T10 if you put in the same effort.

Terribly, mainly because of insane bidding and quitting on looking for a job afterwards. But clerking, obviously, is a pretty good possibility for me.

I agree with the bolded - t25 to t10 isn't that big a change. But I've been getting all these PMs from people transferring to Georgetown from t3s and t4s asking for advice, and frankly I just want to tell them that Georgetown is stealing their money in a cruel plot to destroy their GPA. I mean, transferring to a school where the average LSAT is nearly 20 points higher than the school from which you came, I don't see how you can expect any continuity in performance. We had a t4 transfer on my journal, and he spent his life in the journal office studying. One day I saw his transcript on the printer; he had something like a 2.8 at a school where 3.0 is bottom 10%. Georgetown really just takes these people to pay for yoga instructors or something. It's kind of unethical.

traydeuce wrote:

Younger Abstention wrote:How'd you do job-wise, Tray?

Anyway, top 10% at T25, top 1/3rd at MVPB. But I barely did any work at my new school... It's certainly not any more difficult to do well at a T10 if you put in the same effort.

Terribly, mainly because of insane bidding and quitting on looking for a job afterwards. But clerking, obviously, is a pretty good possibility for me.

I agree with the bolded - t25 to t10 isn't that big a change. But I've been getting all these PMs from people transferring to Georgetown from t3s and t4s asking for advice, and frankly I just want to tell them that Georgetown is stealing their money in a cruel plot to destroy their GPA. I mean, transferring to a school where the average LSAT is nearly 20 points higher than the school from which you came, I don't see how you can expect any continuity in performance. We had a t4 transfer on my journal, and he spent his life in the journal office studying. One day I saw his transcript on the printer; he had something like a 2.8 at a school where 3.0 is bottom 10%. Georgetown really just takes these people to pay for yoga instructors or something. It's kind of unethical.

So it takes alot more work to do well that transfers from lower tiers don't realize until its too late? or is just near impossible for people from lower tiers to do well at Georgetown.

traydeuce wrote:

Younger Abstention wrote:How'd you do job-wise, Tray?

Anyway, top 10% at T25, top 1/3rd at MVPB. But I barely did any work at my new school... It's certainly not any more difficult to do well at a T10 if you put in the same effort.

Terribly, mainly because of insane bidding and quitting on looking for a job afterwards. But clerking, obviously, is a pretty good possibility for me.

I agree with the bolded - t25 to t10 isn't that big a change. But I've been getting all these PMs from people transferring to Georgetown from t3s and t4s asking for advice, and frankly I just want to tell them that Georgetown is stealing their money in a cruel plot to destroy their GPA. I mean, transferring to a school where the average LSAT is nearly 20 points higher than the school from which you came, I don't see how you can expect any continuity in performance. We had a t4 transfer on my journal, and he spent his life in the journal office studying. One day I saw his transcript on the printer; he had something like a 2.8 at a school where 3.0 is bottom 10%. Georgetown really just takes these people to pay for yoga instructors or something. It's kind of unethical.

Kind of high-handed, don't you think bro? Then again, you actually went through the process so you would know better than me or anyone who hasn't. Anyways, congrats.

I think that it is hard for people who have scored in the 150s to do well in t14 schools, basically. (Though this isn't always the case and I know a couple examples to the contrary.) I also think that being #1 at a school where the median LSAT's in the 150s isn't a very strong predictor of t14 performance. I don't think that it takes more work to do well at Georgetown... or that it's near-impossible for someone coming from a t4 to do well, because there are exceptions... but I have to think that going to a t4 is generally a function of one's LSAT. I mean, I was in a t30 school in spite of a 2.63 UGPA, so there's a limit to what being a lazy bum in college, on its own, can do to where you end up. And I do think that the LSAT predicts grades with some accuracy and that, in a school where virtually everyone has a bad LSAT, someone has to do well. Even at Georgetown, you look at a lot of the best exams professors designate and they're hardly masterpieces. So I can only imagine what a lot of A work at t4s looks like.

traydeuce wrote:I think that it is hard for people who have scored in the 150s to do well in t14 schools, basically. (Though this isn't always the case and I know a couple examples to the contrary.) I also think that being #1 at a school where the median LSAT's in the 150s isn't a very strong predictor of t14 performance. I don't think that it takes more work to do well at Georgetown... or that it's near-impossible for someone coming from a t4 to do well, because there are exceptions... but I have to think that going to a t4 is generally a function of one's LSAT. I mean, I was in a t30 school in spite of a 2.63 UGPA, so there's a limit to what being a lazy bum in college, on its own, can do to where you end up. And I do think that the LSAT predicts grades with some accuracy and that, in a school where virtually everyone has a bad LSAT, someone has to do well. Even at Georgetown, you look at a lot of the best exams professors designate and they're hardly masterpieces. So I can only imagine what a lot of A work at t4s looks like.

LSAT really doesn't have much to do with law school performance. Frankly, it doesn't take much intelligence to do well in law school. Not really directed at you traydeuce, since you probably already know this, but it's more of a function of ability to know what your professor expects and being able to cater your exam answer to that. For example, if the prof really doesn't give a fuck about the black letter law, but never shuts up about policy in your class, it's safe to assume that the prof expects a lot of policy discussion in your exam answer and little BLL. Some people just never understand this concept, and waste countless hours trying to learn from supplements. I even remember reading threads on TLS from 1Ls, after their first semester, talking about how they are going to start crunching for the next semester by reading supplements. IMO, that's completely retarded because supplements are designed to supplement something. If you don't know what your prof thinks is important yet, then reading a supplement is completely useless. So many people never understand this concept. And so many people just jerk around online and pay no attention in class. Those are also the people that bust their asses outside of class and still get terrible grades in law school. To be honest, I really put in very little effort into law school after my first semester (just got scared into believing the "law school is hard because everyone is smart" crap my first semester), and did well. I definitely spent less time working on law school stuff than the average classmate. I did, however, pay attention in class, take really good notes and used those + filling in stuff I didn't fully understand as well as I should have from supplements for studying for exams.

XxSpyKEx wrote:

traydeuce wrote:I think that it is hard for people who have scored in the 150s to do well in t14 schools, basically. (Though this isn't always the case and I know a couple examples to the contrary.) I also think that being #1 at a school where the median LSAT's in the 150s isn't a very strong predictor of t14 performance. I don't think that it takes more work to do well at Georgetown... or that it's near-impossible for someone coming from a t4 to do well, because there are exceptions... but I have to think that going to a t4 is generally a function of one's LSAT. I mean, I was in a t30 school in spite of a 2.63 UGPA, so there's a limit to what being a lazy bum in college, on its own, can do to where you end up. And I do think that the LSAT predicts grades with some accuracy and that, in a school where virtually everyone has a bad LSAT, someone has to do well. Even at Georgetown, you look at a lot of the best exams professors designate and they're hardly masterpieces. So I can only imagine what a lot of A work at t4s looks like.

LSAT really doesn't have much to do with law school performance. Frankly, it doesn't take much intelligence to do well in law school. Not really directed at you traydeuce, since you probably already know this, but it's more of a function of ability to know what your professor expects and being able to cater your exam answer to that. For example, if the prof really doesn't give a fuck about the black letter law, but never shuts up about policy in your class, it's safe to assume that the prof expects a lot of policy discussion in your exam answer and little BLL. Some people just never understand this concept, and waste countless hours trying to learn from supplements. I even remember reading threads on TLS from 1Ls, after their first semester, talking about how they are going to start crunching for the next semester by reading supplements. IMO, that's completely retarded because supplements are designed to supplement something. If you don't know what your prof thinks is important yet, then reading a supplement is completely useless. So many people never understand this concept. And so many people just jerk around online and pay no attention in class. Those are also the people that bust their asses outside of class and still get terrible grades in law school. To be honest, I really put in very little effort into law school after my first semester (just got scared into believing the "law school is hard because everyone is smart" crap my first semester), and did well. I definitely spent less time working on law school stuff than the average classmate. I did, however, pay attention in class, take really good notes and used those + filling in stuff I didn't fully understand as well as I should have from supplements for studying for exams.

How does that explain people who are like top 1% at their old school and fall quite a bit at their new school. Is it just their inability to adjust to the new method of teaching presented by the professor?

merc280 wrote:

XxSpyKEx wrote:

traydeuce wrote:I think that it is hard for people who have scored in the 150s to do well in t14 schools, basically. (Though this isn't always the case and I know a couple examples to the contrary.) I also think that being #1 at a school where the median LSAT's in the 150s isn't a very strong predictor of t14 performance. I don't think that it takes more work to do well at Georgetown... or that it's near-impossible for someone coming from a t4 to do well, because there are exceptions... but I have to think that going to a t4 is generally a function of one's LSAT. I mean, I was in a t30 school in spite of a 2.63 UGPA, so there's a limit to what being a lazy bum in college, on its own, can do to where you end up. And I do think that the LSAT predicts grades with some accuracy and that, in a school where virtually everyone has a bad LSAT, someone has to do well. Even at Georgetown, you look at a lot of the best exams professors designate and they're hardly masterpieces. So I can only imagine what a lot of A work at t4s looks like.

LSAT really doesn't have much to do with law school performance. Frankly, it doesn't take much intelligence to do well in law school. Not really directed at you traydeuce, since you probably already know this, but it's more of a function of ability to know what your professor expects and being able to cater your exam answer to that. For example, if the prof really doesn't give a fuck about the black letter law, but never shuts up about policy in your class, it's safe to assume that the prof expects a lot of policy discussion in your exam answer and little BLL. Some people just never understand this concept, and waste countless hours trying to learn from supplements. I even remember reading threads on TLS from 1Ls, after their first semester, talking about how they are going to start crunching for the next semester by reading supplements. IMO, that's completely retarded because supplements are designed to supplement something. If you don't know what your prof thinks is important yet, then reading a supplement is completely useless. So many people never understand this concept. And so many people just jerk around online and pay no attention in class. Those are also the people that bust their asses outside of class and still get terrible grades in law school. To be honest, I really put in very little effort into law school after my first semester (just got scared into believing the "law school is hard because everyone is smart" crap my first semester), and did well. I definitely spent less time working on law school stuff than the average classmate. I did, however, pay attention in class, take really good notes and used those + filling in stuff I didn't fully understand as well as I should have from supplements for studying for exams.

How does that explain people who are like top 1% at their old school and fall quite a bit at their new school. Is it just their inability to adjust to the new method of teaching presented by the professor?

I honestly think it's typically a combination of laziness and burnout from 1L year. As a transfer student myself, I can tell you first-hand it is really, really, really difficult to motivate yourself to do much of anything at the new school. A ton of my transfer friends felt the same way. This is especially true if you get a biglaw SA offer. In the back of your head you know you should take it seriously, but it's tough. You also have so much more going on your 2nd and 3rd year with journal, callbacks, internships, etc. Your first year the focus is on nothing but school and you know that your law school performance will 100% correlate to the job opportunities you have for the rest of your life, especially at lower ranked schools. At a top school, there's a lot more cushion, and to be frank, if you don't care about clerkships and think you can get an offer from your SA, the correlation between future job prospects and grades decrease substantially.

Old School: T25. Top 1-2%
New School: HLS. Class ranks are tricky to predict here, but I've been told that my grades should put me somewhere in the top 5-10%.

D.Wilde wrote:Old School: T25. Top 1-2%
New School: HLS. Class ranks are tricky to predict here, but I've been told that my grades should put me somewhere in the top 5-10%.

Interested in this because I'm hoping to follow a similar path. Were you a low gpa/high LSAT splitter or anything?

Transferthrowaway wrote:

D.Wilde wrote:Old School: T25. Top 1-2%
New School: HLS. Class ranks are tricky to predict here, but I've been told that my grades should put me somewhere in the top 5-10%.

Interested in this because I'm hoping to follow a similar path. Were you a low gpa/high LSAT splitter or anything?

Nope. If anything, I was the opposite. Going into law school I had 3.84 and 164/167.

XxSpyKEx wrote:You also have so much more going on your 2nd and 3rd year with journal, callbacks, internships, etc.

I think there's something related to this that impacts a lot of transfers as well. You've got OCI, journals, callbacks, and so on and so forth, but unlike your peers, you're also learning your way around a new school, playing catch-up in terms of making connections with professors, etc. At HLS this is complicated by their allowing 1Ls on journals, which appears somewhat unique to me. That means that, during board elections, you're competing with people who've been on the journal a year longer than you, so you have to work hard to make a good impression while you can. And you have to do it during callback season.

Transferring can be a major life change, and different people react to such changes differently. Some just naturally plug right in to their new environment. Others struggle to adapt, for varying reasons. In the meantime, everyone else at the school is already comfortable because they've been there a year.

traydeuce wrote:

Younger Abstention wrote:How'd you do job-wise, Tray?

Anyway, top 10% at T25, top 1/3rd at MVPB. But I barely did any work at my new school... It's certainly not any more difficult to do well at a T10 if you put in the same effort.

Terribly, mainly because of insane bidding and quitting on looking for a job afterwards. But clerking, obviously, is a pretty good possibility for me.

I agree with the bolded - t25 to t10 isn't that big a change. But I've been getting all these PMs from people transferring to Georgetown from t3s and t4s asking for advice, and frankly I just want to tell them that Georgetown is stealing their money in a cruel plot to destroy their GPA. I mean, transferring to a school where the average LSAT is nearly 20 points higher than the school from which you came, I don't see how you can expect any continuity in performance. We had a t4 transfer on my journal, and he spent his life in the journal office studying. One day I saw his transcript on the printer; he had something like a 2.8 at a school where 3.0 is bottom 10%. Georgetown really just takes these people to pay for yoga instructors or something. It's kind of unethical.

How did GULC transfers, do in general? What percentage would you say got biglaw 2L SA's?

they went down

Of the ~20 transfers at UChicago in my class, three of them were in the top 5% of the class after 2L, something like 5 or 6 of them got high or highest honors, and I think half of the transfers got honors.

Younger Abstention wrote:How did GULC transfers, do in general? What percentage would you say got biglaw 2L SA's?

You know, I'm unclear on where the biglaw line falls (Sutherland, is that really biglaw?), but I would say most of the transfers I knew did. One of the brightest transfers I know didn't; he's at a mid-sized firm in Jersey, but seems to enjoy it.

I would agree with parts of the long rant above; supplements are usually a waste of time. I don't believe in the whole professor-gaming concept. (Nor do I believe in taking lots of notes. In the end of the day you're applying caselaw, not your professor's thoughts about it.) Professors talk about what interests them, as do most people, but it's a mistake to think that they're so self-centered that they expect you to talk, on your exam, about what interests them. For instance, I worked with a clerk this summer who's going to become a law professor this fall at a t1, teaching civil procedure. Does he have any interest in jurisdiction? Hell no. He wanted to buy a textbook about procedure as theater, whatever that means (he's a Yale guy). And I'm sure in class he'll rant about procedure as theater and post-structuralist literary criticism and all the utterly random crap he talks about in the articles he's written. Or maybe he won't and he'll just seem intensely bored all the time. But ultimately, as he and I have discussed, he understands his job is to teach 1Ls the mind-numbing basics of civ pro, and that's what he'll be grading people on, not who can, in an attempt to suck up to what they think his interests are, write the best ill-formed digression about how jurisdiction's a social construct in 15 minutes. So when I write exams, I stick to what I do well, which is doctrine, because (a) I believe that's what professors grade exams for 90% of the time unless a question is clearly calling for something different, and (b) it's what I'm good at. Now, if you look at past exams from a professor, you can know that a policy question is coming, and you can usually guess what it might be about. In my Con Law class, I knew healthcare was coming; in Civ Pro II, I knew we'd be asked to opine on Iqbal. So in both cases I read some law review articles on the subjects and prepared an answer. Never tailor your answer to the beliefs of your professor. Argue for the side for which you can make the most convincing argument. If you could go either way, make the argument that's more interesting. So I chose to defend Iqbal because I knew the professor would be bored with reading about how awful it was.

Probably true in most cases traydeuce, but I've had a few profs. who definitely did expect me to feed them back their viewpoints.

Younger Abstention wrote:Probably true in most cases traydeuce, but I've had a few profs. who definitely did expect me to feed them back their viewpoints.

That's unfortunate but I think it's hard to know in advance which ones those are. After any exam, no matter how fair the grader, some disgruntled people will go around blaming their poor grades on their professor's disagreement with their policy views, and then people come to think that that professor really is an unfair grader when he may well not be. I think the greater risk is almost always spouting an argument you don't believe in and therefore struggle to make persuasively.

Around top 5% at CCN to top 10% at Y. So slightly down, and I tried to keep them up.