Does LSAT score impact transfer possibilities? Forum

[ptorsten13]

So, I understand that it is not advisable to go to a school with the expectation that you'll be able to transfer. However, I'm curious as to whether or not a lower LSAT score would prevent you from getting accepted as a transfer even if your 1L grades would make you a good candidate (i.e. top 5-10%). I ask because I've seen some information on the individual law school sites that makes it sound like your GPA/LSAT numbers should be fairly close to the normal range of students that are admitted as 1Ls.

[CanadianWolf]

Depends upon whether or not you believe what some law schools print regarding their transfer standards.

[ptorsten13]

Should I believe it?

[CanadianWolf]

Probably varies by law school & by admissions cycle. Some law schools write that transfer applicants need to meet first year admission requirements/standards of their class. Some posters on TLS claim that they transferred successfully without meeting those requirements. My best advice is to apply relying on your first year performance & not worry about your pre-law school numbers.

The short answer to your initial question, therefore, is "no".

[TTRansfer]

No.

[concurrent fork]

Even at schools that explicitly state your LSAT matters, I don't think it does. There's just no incentive for the school to care -- transfer LSAT/GPA does not impact their medians, employers never know what your score was, and 1L performance is a much better indicator of LS success.

Anecdotal evidence: HLS says successful transfer applicants typically would have been admitted or waitlisted as a 0L. I was dinged in the first wave of rejections as a 0L, and I suspect many others in my class had similar experiences.

[shock259]

Conventional wisdom says your class rank replaces your LSAT as a predictor of how you will do in law school.

[TTRansfer]

Conventional wisdom says your class rank replaces your LSAT as a predictor of how you will do in law school.

When has conventional wisdom ever worked in lawl school?

[PDaddy]

At most schools, your LSAT and UG transcripts are either of modest relevance or irrelevant altogether for transfer purposes.

However, schools like Stanford do evaluate, among other things like 1L grades and recos, your 0L profile. if you were unlikely to at least get waitlisted as an 0L, your chance of getting in as a transfer is still close to zero. The reason is that so many waitlisted Stanford students - those who came within a hair of getting in as 1L's - do well as 1L's and apply to Stanford as transfers. They have an obvious leg up on a top student from, say, USF whom would not have been admitted as a 1L. Think about the schools a waitlisted Stanford applicant might attend: HY CCN, MVPNBD CG.

But the good news, like I said above, is that most schools don't operate this way. 0L record and test scores are either of modest relevance or do not factor at all.

Even at schools that explicitly state your LSAT matters, I don't think it does. There's just no incentive for the school to care -- transfer LSAT/GPA does not impact their medians, employers never know what your score was, and 1L performance is a much better indicator of LS success.

Anecdotal evidence: HLS says successful transfer applicants typically would have been admitted or waitlisted as a 0L. I was dinged in the first wave of rejections as a 0L, and I suspect many others in my class had similar experiences.

Harvard probably states this because Stanford does (and actually lives by it), and to keep transfer apps at a minimum. Maybe Harvard really means it but you were just fortunate (or highly exceptional for some reason). There are always a few exceptions to any rule(s).

[tww909]

At most schools, your LSAT and UG transcripts are either of modest relevance or irrelevant altogether for transfer purposes.

However, schools like Stanford do evaluate, among other things like 1L grades and recos, your 0L profile. if you were unlikely to at least get waitlisted as an 0L, your chance of getting in as a transfer is still close to zero. The reason is that so many waitlisted Stanford students - those who came within a hair of getting in as 1L's - do well as 1L's and apply to Stanford as transfers. They have an obvious leg up on a top student from, say, USF whom would not have been admitted as a 1L. Think about the schools a waitlisted Stanford applicant might attend: HY CCN, MVPNBD CG.

But the good news, like I said above, is that most schools don't operate this way. 0L record and test scores are either of modest relevance or do not factor at all.

Even at schools that explicitly state your LSAT matters, I don't think it does. There's just no incentive for the school to care -- transfer LSAT/GPA does not impact their medians, employers never know what your score was, and 1L performance is a much better indicator of LS success.

Anecdotal evidence: HLS says successful transfer applicants typically would have been admitted or waitlisted as a 0L. I was dinged in the first wave of rejections as a 0L, and I suspect many others in my class had similar experiences.

Harvard probably states this because Stanford does (and actually lives by it), and to keep transfer apps at a minimum. Maybe Harvard really means it but you were just fortunate (or highly exceptional for some reason). There are always a few exceptions to any rule(s).

this is so wrong it's incredible. i don't know where you got this information, but try this on:

i got a 164, went to wisconsin, and go to stanford now. not only was i not waitlisted or near getting in, i didn't even apply.

the remainder of the transfer class shows that this is an absolute myth:

2 CCN
3 MVPB
1 DCNG

3 T20
3 T35
2 T50
1 T2

so a mere 9/15 of the class would apparently not have been admitted in your totally speculative world.

to OP: the answer is unequivocally no.

[ptorsten13]

Thanks for all the well-reasoned/informed responses.