Transferring from Phoenix School of Law Forum

[Normans54]

I am a 2L at a T1 law school, however one of my friends is in the top 1% of the 1L class at Phoenix School of Law. What chance does my friend have of getting into UCLA, Cal or Stanford (I am fully aware that Stanford is a LOOOOOOOOOOONG shot, but should my friend even bother to apply?)? Thanks!

[RhymesLikeDimes]

Absolutely no chance at Stanford, next to none at UCLA. And it depends on which Cal you are referring to (Boalt is out of the question).

[20141023]

.

[nickb285]

.

[RPK34]

In order to transfer, you had to have an application that was somewhat worthy of the law school you want to transfer to begin with. For example, if you were a 168 LSAT with a 3.97 GPA that went to Penn because you got flat our reject at Harvard when initially applying to law school, you might be able to transfer to Harvard if you were in the very top of your class at Penn.

Something tells me that if a student went to Phoenix, they probably didn't have even a slight shot at Stanford, Berkeley, or even UCLA the first time around. Accordingly, even if they place into the very top of their class at Phoenix, the chance of getting admitted to these schools is probably still just about as slim. There are going to be students from around the nation trying to transfer to the top schools with much strong numbers and from better schools than Phoenix. (The fact that Phoenix is the 26th worst school for lawyering in the nation doesn't help much either.)

This is just wrong.

[bk1]

Moved to appropriate forum.

[Wholigan]

In order to transfer, you had to have an application that was somewhat worthy of the law school you want to transfer to begin with. For example, if you were a 168 LSAT with a 3.97 GPA that went to Penn because you got flat our reject at Harvard when initially applying to law school, you might be able to transfer to Harvard if you were in the very top of your class at Penn.

Something tells me that if a student went to Phoenix, they probably didn't have even a slight shot at Stanford, Berkeley, or even UCLA the first time around. Accordingly, even if they place into the very top of their class at Phoenix, the chance of getting admitted to these schools is probably still just about as slim. There are going to be students from around the nation trying to transfer to the top schools with much strong numbers and from better schools than Phoenix. (The fact that Phoenix is the 26th worst school for lawyering in the nation doesn't help much either.)

This is just wrong.

[Nova]

In order to transfer, you had to have an application that was somewhat worthy of the law school you want to transfer to begin with.

False

[PDaddy]

In order to transfer, you had to have an application that was somewhat worthy of the law school you want to transfer to begin with.

False

As a rule, it's absolutely true in the case of Stanford; they actually say this in their website. Other top-5 schools might be more or less in that same camp, but it depends on the student and the school's needs.

However, other schools do not tend to care from which school you transfer and in fact might give extra points for the diversity a TTTT transfer might bring.

Not all TTTT schools are alike, and not all students from those schools are the same either. Many Phoenix grads seem to be older students whose work experience prior to law school may have out-shone their academic records. But if a transfer prospect all of a sudden has a top-1% ranking to go with his great work history it's a new ball game.

Even at Stanford there is always an exception to the rule, so I would never tell a transfer prospect not to aim that high. The "friend" could be that exception.

[stillwater]

In order to transfer, you had to have an application that was somewhat worthy of the law school you want to transfer to begin with.

False

[bk1]

As a rule, it's absolutely true in the case of Stanford; they actually say this in their website.

No it is not. Though they say it, they do not mean it.

[PDaddy]

Most successful transfer students at Stanford are students whose records made them competitive as 0L's.

As a RULE-OF-THUMB, the committee is going to first seek out those students during their transfer evaluations, which makes perfect sense. But there is always an exception to the rule that you must have been competitive as an 0L, because the committees can miss things - or applicants can market themselves in a much better way the second time around.

The fact that 1 in 20 students could be an exception to the rule does not mean that Stanford does not generally follow this policy, or that they "don't mean it".

It's like a stock investor saying he only bets on good stocks. The truth of the statement relies mostly on his perception of what makes a good stock, and the calculus he puts into his analysis. A better phrasing might include the words "...endeavor to only bet on good stocks", but his original wording makes the statement no less true.

The committee endeavors to create a transfer class comprised almost entirely of students who just missed the cut as 0L's, or theoretically would have had they applied. They can say that about many students that you and I might not think would be competitive. Who are we to question it?

[Oglethorpe]

Most successful transfer students at Stanford are students whose records made them competitive as 0L's.

As a RULE-OF-THUMB, the committee is going to first seek out those students during their transfer evaluations, which makes perfect sense. But there is always an exception to the rule that you must have been competitive as an 0L, because the committees can miss things - or applicants can market themselves in a much better way the second time around.

The fact that 1 in 20 students could be an exception to the rule does not mean that Stanford does not generally follow this policy, or that they "don't mean it".

It's like a stock investor saying he only bets on good stocks. The truth of the statement relies mostly on his perception of what makes a good stock, and the calculus he puts into his analysis. A better phrasing might include the words "...endeavor to only bet on good stocks", but his original wording makes the statement no less true.

The committee endeavors to create a transfer class comprised almost entirely of students who just missed the cut as 0L's, or theoretically would have had they applied. They can say that about many students that you and I might not think would be competitive. Who are we to question it?

Still false. If there seems to be a correlation, it is because Stanford takes few transfers, thus the process is extremely competitive. This means that Stanford can choose from the best of the transfer pool. The best of the transfer pool means students at the top of their class at high ranked schools. Since the best of the transfer pool come from high ranked schools, it follows that these students had pretty decent LSAT/GPAs (good LSAT/GPAs being necessary to get into a high ranked school). Stanford, like all schools in the transfer process, evaluates two things: school rank and class rank, with tie breakers going to those with better softs. Schools say a lot of things on there websites. I bet you were one of those applicants who thought schools would evaluate them holistically.

[jrf12886]

When you transfer, all that really matters are (1) your current school, and (2) your class rank. So really the argument everyone is having is irrelevant. Your current school usually reflects your LSAT and GPA (unless you decided to take a generous scholarship at a much lower ranked school than your scores warranted...in which case, you've shot yourself in the foot with respect to transferring). So if your LSAT and GPA were very low, you will not be transferring to Stanford. Whether you explain this by saying "your current school is ranked too low" or rather "your 0L scores were too low to be considered intially for Stanford" doesn'y matter; it's essentially the same explanation.

[Oglethorpe]

When you transfer, all that really matters are (1) your current school, and (2) your class rank. So really the argument everyone is having is irrelevant. Your current school usually reflects your LSAT and GPA (unless you decided to take a generous scholarship at a much lower ranked school than your scores warranted...in which case, you've shot yourself in the foot with respect to transferring). So if your LSAT and GPA were very low, you will not be transferring to Stanford. Whether you explain this by saying "your current school is ranked too low" or rather "your 0L scores were too low to be considered intially for Stanford" doesn'y matter; it's essentially the same explanation.

The explanation matters for the exact reason you stated. If you scored a 180 with a 4.0 GPA and attended a TTT, you are not gonna be competative for Stanford despite your awesome stats. Why? Because pre law school stats simply don't matter. Someone who went to George Washington with a 158 and finished top of his class will be more competitive than some who scored a 180 and finished top of the class at a lower ranked school. Even if they both went to George Washington, if the kid with a 158 had a better class rank, guess who is more competitive in the transfer pool.

[20141023]

.

[20130312]

Stop giving terrible advice in the transfer forum, you empty headed fucking 0L.

How did I do, Bildungs?

[stillwater]

Stop giving terrible advice in the transfer forum, you empty headed fucking 0L.

How did I do, Bildungs?

this is perfect. this 0L is dense.

[keg411]

Dear 0L's, GTFO of the transfer forum.

I only know a very small handful of TTTT transfers and they've gotten into places like Boalt/Michigan/GULC (and probably UCLA, though I don't know anyone specific). But you probably have to have something more than just grades and a K-JD if you want to transfer AND get a good job. If OP's friend stays in the top 1%, no reason not to apply (and throw apps to places like UA/ASU as safeties).

[shock259]

Anyway, nobody here knows whether or not this is true because nobody here is an adcomm at Stanford, Berkeley, or UCLA. (Just for the record, Harvard also states on their website that students had to be competitive as OL's in order to make it as a transfer student, but I am aware that what schools say on their websites cannot be taken at face value because they are simply trying to solicit as many applications as possible in order to improve their "selectivity.") Accordingly, allow me to revise my statement that transferring depends on one's 0L numbers because this isn't necessarily the case; rather, the two factors are at the very least highly correlated.

The fact of the matter is that students from higher-ranked schools are more successful at transferring to even-higher-ranked schools than are students from much-lower-ranked schools. Whether this is because because of those students' 1L grades and school rank with complete disregard of their OL numbers is impossible for us to distinguish. Yes, a 171/3.9 could choose to go to Cooley and thereby decimate their chances of transferring to a reasonable instutition, but 99,999,999 times out of 100,000,000 the 171/3.9 will choose a T14 or a "decent" regional school instead. Going off past data, students with higher numbers tend to go to higher-ranked schools, and students that do well at higher-ranked schools tend to be more successful at transferring, so in most cases they are the same data points. (Accordingly, I would be interested to see what sort of data you all have to be able to support your claim that 0L numbers are an irrelevant factor.)

Let me condense your argument:
1) There's not enough data disproving my premise that 0L numbers are relevant,
2) Harvard says 0L numbers matter on their website,
3) Therefore, 0L numbers are relevant

Does not compute. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Go away.

[holmesboy]

Anyway, nobody here knows whether or not this is true because nobody here is an adcomm at Stanford, Berkeley, or UCLA. (Just for the record, Harvard also states on their website that students had to be competitive as OL's in order to make it as a transfer student, but I am aware that what schools say on their websites cannot be taken at face value because they are simply trying to solicit as many applications as possible in order to improve their "selectivity.") Accordingly, allow me to revise my statement that transferring depends on one's 0L numbers because this isn't necessarily the case; rather, the two factors are at the very least highly correlated.

The fact of the matter is that students from higher-ranked schools are more successful at transferring to even-higher-ranked schools than are students from much-lower-ranked schools. Whether this is because because of those students' 1L grades and school rank with complete disregard of their OL numbers is impossible for us to distinguish. Yes, a 171/3.9 could choose to go to Cooley and thereby decimate their chances of transferring to a reasonable instutition, but 99,999,999 times out of 100,000,000 the 171/3.9 will choose a T14 or a "decent" regional school instead. Going off past data, students with higher numbers tend to go to higher-ranked schools, and students that do well at higher-ranked schools tend to be more successful at transferring, so in most cases they are the same data points. (Accordingly, I would be interested to see what sort of data you all have to be able to support your claim that 0L numbers are an irrelevant factor.)

Let me condense your argument:
1) There's not enough data disproving my premise that 0L numbers are relevant,
2) Harvard says 0L numbers matter on their website,
3) Therefore, 0L numbers are relevant

Does not compute. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Go away.

[Jsa725]

.

[TTRansfer]

In order to transfer, you had to have an application that was somewhat worthy of the law school you want to transfer to begin with.

False

Anyway, nobody here knows whether or not this is true because nobody here is an adcomm at Stanford, Berkeley, or UCLA. (Just for the record, Harvard also states on their website that students had to be competitive as OL's in order to make it as a transfer student, but I am aware that what schools say on their websites cannot be taken at face value because they are simply trying to solicit as many applications as possible in order to improve their "selectivity.") Accordingly, allow me to revise my statement that transferring depends on one's 0L numbers because this isn't necessarily the case; rather, the two factors are at the very least highly correlated.

The fact of the matter is that students from higher-ranked schools are more successful at transferring to even-higher-ranked schools than are students from much-lower-ranked schools. Whether this is because because of those students' 1L grades and school rank with complete disregard of their OL numbers is impossible for us to distinguish. Yes, a 171/3.9 could choose to go to Cooley and thereby decimate their chances of transferring to a reasonable instutition, but 99,999,999 times out of 100,000,000 the 171/3.9 will choose a T14 or a "decent" regional school instead. Going off past data, students with higher numbers tend to go to higher-ranked schools, and students that do well at higher-ranked schools tend to be more successful at transferring, so in most cases they are the same data points. (Accordingly, I would be interested to see what sort of data you all have to be able to support your claim that 0L numbers are an irrelevant factor.)

Click this link: --LinkRemoved--. Should clarify some of this for you.

[nonprofit-prophet]

In order to transfer, you had to have an application that was somewhat worthy of the law school you want to transfer to begin with.

False

Anyway, nobody here knows whether or not this is true because nobody here is an adcomm at Stanford, Berkeley, or UCLA. (Just for the record, Harvard also states on their website that students had to be competitive as OL's in order to make it as a transfer student, but I am aware that what schools say on their websites cannot be taken at face value because they are simply trying to solicit as many applications as possible in order to improve their "selectivity.") Accordingly, allow me to revise my statement that transferring depends on one's 0L numbers because this isn't necessarily the case; rather, the two factors are at the very least highly correlated.

The fact of the matter is that students from higher-ranked schools are more successful at transferring to even-higher-ranked schools than are students from much-lower-ranked schools. Whether this is because because of those students' 1L grades and school rank with complete disregard of their OL numbers is impossible for us to distinguish. Yes, a 171/3.9 could choose to go to Cooley and thereby decimate their chances of transferring to a reasonable instutition, but 99,999,999 times out of 100,000,000 the 171/3.9 will choose a T14 or a "decent" regional school instead. Going off past data, students with higher numbers tend to go to higher-ranked schools, and students that do well at higher-ranked schools tend to be more successful at transferring, so in most cases they are the same data points. (Accordingly, I would be interested to see what sort of data you all have to be able to support your claim that 0L numbers are an irrelevant factor.)

I got into harvard as a transfer and there was no way in hell I would have gotten in as 1L.

[kapital98]

I am a 2L at a T1 law school, however one of my friends is in the top 1% of the 1L class at Phoenix School of Law. What chance does my friend have of getting into UCLA, Cal or Stanford (I am fully aware that Stanford is a LOOOOOOOOOOONG shot, but should my friend even bother to apply?)? Thanks!

1% at a T4? You never know what you might get. Some top T1 schools might accept but others might reject. Depending on how much money you have, pick out 5-8 schools to apply to. Send out an app to Stanford, Berkeley, Cal, UCLA and then send out another 4 to lower T1/T2 schools (ex: Davis, Hastings, etc...)

In my case, I was accepted at a higher ranking school than some that rejected me. The acceptance criteria tends to be relatively strict, but there is always a chance a school like Stanford or Berkeley might accept you.