T14 to YHS/T6 transfers Forum

[Anonymous User]

I know that many of you who ended up with good (but not tippy-top) grades might be wondering what is possible with your current grade profile. As noted elsewhere, there is exceedingly little data on these kinds of transfers, so I'm writing this post to share what I learned last year when I went through this process. I have gone through the transfer databases (which fwiw haven't been updated in ages) and scoured this forum (and others) extensively — probably spending over 75 hours on all of it...

First, note that transfer classes at Harvard, Columbia, and NYU are generally larger than at Yale, Stanford, and Chicago, so naturally they have to be more strictly grades-focused. (Though honestly they are all grades-focused — only I do believe that YS weigh other accomplishments ever so slightly more, much as with 1L admissions…) I'll focus on the former three rather than the latter three as a result.

Second, there are more transfer applicants out there from the other T14 schools than you might not otherwise think — they just happen to be quiet about it. Many, many people apply (at least 10 from every lower T7-T14, I would estimate) just to see what happens and hope that they slip in. There were a few isolated cases of people who are top 15% to top 25% from lower T14 making it into HLS from a few years ago, but I have not heard of anyone who had this grade profile who was admitted in recent years. Generally speaking, I would ignore the Paul Campos blog post about transfer admissions becoming easier (since ostensibly schools are just after cash and there aren't any unfavorable US News repercussions for admitting transfers) — or at least ignore it at this level. I haven't seen any evidence that it is at all true for T14 transfers.

Third, from what I have seen, Chicago/NYU require top 20-30% grades from a T7-T14, and Columbia top 15-20%. Higher is always better. No, NYU does not take medianish students, and yes, that percentage for Columbia isn't too high. Elsewhere you might have read that Columbia will take those who are upper quarter from MVPB/DCNG, but I know of many hopeful transfers with those grade profiles who didn't get admitted. I also know of people who had top 10-15% grades who did. You also might think that top 15% is very close to the top 10% threshold being thrown around for HLS, but again, I know many people who had better than top 10% grades from MVPB who didn't get HLS. I think that top 5% is more accurate to stand a good shot. YLS is even more strict with its grade requirements.

I do think that there are exceptions to these percentages, but not that many. We hear about the successful ones from time to time, but again, there are many transfer applicants who apply and don't get admitted and remain silent about the entire thing. I also understand that there's more than a few T6 to YHS applicants with top 15-25% grades who don't get admitted, even if T6 to YHS are subject to somewhat less strict grade cutoffs. (For example, top 10% at CLS would have a strong shot at HLS. Top 20% is questionable…)

Before ending this, I do want to say that I think that transfer admissions from T7-T14 to YHS/T6 are harder than for applicants from T1/T2 schools — even after adjusting for the grade profiles required. I understand that this is controversial, but it is my personal belief that many top 2-5% students from T2 schools and top 10% students from lower sub-T20 T1 schools would *not* have made median at T6 schools during 1L. There's a debate on TLS that has gone on for years as to whether it is easier to do exceedingly well in 1L at a mediocre school than do pretty good at a T14, and I think there is absolutely no comparison: on average, a good T7-T14 student is more intelligent than the top students from a T2/lower T1 and had to go through a much more difficult 1L to end up where s/he is, and yet the transfer admissions policies of T6 schools generally favor the top T2 students. Take from that what you will if you're a 0L. Again, just my view...

[FSK]

: on average, a good T7-T14 student is more intelligent than the top students from a T2/lower T1 and had to go through a much more difficult 1L to end up where s/he is, and yet the transfer admissions policies of T6 schools generally favor the top T2 students. Take from that what you will if you're a 0L. Again, just my view...

This is bullshit.

[txig]

: on average, a good T7-T14 student is more intelligent than the top students from a T2/lower T1 and had to go through a much more difficult 1L to end up where s/he is, and yet the transfer admissions policies of T6 schools generally favor the top T2 students. Take from that what you will if you're a 0L. Again, just my view...

This is bullshit.

That is an incredibly ignorant statement considering some people don't test well yet will have better grades/jobs than people in your intelligent T7-T14 block.

[Nebby]

The author has two possible profiles:

They are a disgruntled failed transfer that couldn't even crack top 15% and thus couldn't transfer to T14; or
They are a disgruntled T14 that got no-offered at OCI, while transfers were stuck with having to decide what offers to accept.

There is also a third possibility.

It's a troll. Evidenced by the fact that their list contains no reference to any evidence, not even anecdotal, for the myriad of claims made.

[NYC-WVU]

A troll? Really? I think OP makes it pretty clear that everything is based only on what s/he has seen, and it's still filled with disclaimers. Not really a recipe for trolling. Which parts do you disagree with, aside from the statement that it's harder for T14 to make the transfer because the competition is higher based on average T14 students allegedly being more intelligent than top% at T2?

[Nebby]

A troll? Really? I think OP makes it pretty clear that everything is based only on what s/he has seen, and it's still filled with disclaimers. Not really a recipe for trolling. Which parts do you disagree with, aside from the statement that it's harder for T14 to make the transfer because the competition is higher based on average T14 students allegedly being more intelligent than top% at T2?

Did you just out yourself? Bad troll is bad.

[Foghornleghorn]

A troll? Really? I think OP makes it pretty clear that everything is based only on what s/he has seen, and it's still filled with disclaimers. Not really a recipe for trolling. Which parts do you disagree with, aside from the statement that it's harder for T14 to make the transfer because the competition is higher based on average T14 students allegedly being more intelligent than top% at T2?

Did you just out yourself? Bad troll is bad.

[NYC-WVU]

A troll? Really? I think OP makes it pretty clear that everything is based only on what s/he has seen, and it's still filled with disclaimers. Not really a recipe for trolling. Which parts do you disagree with, aside from the statement that it's harder for T14 to make the transfer because the competition is higher based on average T14 students allegedly being more intelligent than top% at T2?

Did you just out yourself? Bad troll is bad.

No. I'm a 0L, I have no experience with transferring. I also was honestly asking which parts of the post are incorrect, because my initial reaction was that it was useful information. But if it's all bullshit, that would be helpful to know.

[Nebby]

I'm a 0L

Did you just out yourself?

[juzam_djinn]

OP is right about one thing: it is much harder to crack HYS admissions as a T14 applicant than otherwise suggested

I think this is mostly due to the data being old and the rising awareness amongst top students at the t14s that transferring is an option. It's conventional wisdom that top 10% at a t10 will give you a decent shot at HYS...but according to anecdotal evidence (which is all we have), it really seems like it takes top 5% to have a 50/50 shot. Otherwise, chances are not good.

probably worth it to keep this in mind when responding to "what are my chances" threads

I have no comment regarding rigor of lower schools v. top schools.

[NYC-WVU]

I'm a 0L

Did you just out yourself?

Based on your lack of any meaningful reply. I will assume that you were only arguing with OPs comment that top% at T2 is roughly equivalent to median at lower T14. Of course, you will be in a unique circumstance to let us know if that's true, since you'll get to see both sides of that argument.

[Volake]

If OP is correct, which I suspect he/she isn't, this would have substantial implications about the wisdom of attending T1/T2 schools. An admittee to a T14 school would have an easier time getting the top 10-20% biglaw range at a t1 than getting median at a t14.

Of course, this view flies in the face of the TLS evidence from transferors from T1 and T2 schools whose class ranks, on average, seem to only have decreased modestly when they went to a T14 school. Further, the fact that admissions are based predominantly on undergraduate GPA and LSAT scores which have weak (albeit the best) predictive powers regarding 1L performance militates against this view.

[juzam_djinn]

If OP is correct, which I suspect he/she isn't, this would have substantial implications about the wisdom of attending T1/T2 schools. An admittee to a T14 school would have an easier time getting the top 10-20% biglaw range at a t1 than getting median at a t14.

Of course, this view flies in the face of the TLS evidence from transferors from T1 and T2 schools whose class ranks, on average, seem to only have decreased modestly when they went to a T14 school. Further, the fact that admissions are based predominantly on undergraduate GPA and LSAT scores which have weak (albeit the best) predictive powers regarding 1L performance militates against this view.

not saying i agree with OP at all, but we can't infer much based on this data

first off, it's all based on self-reporting so we know there's possibly a selection bias. second, I've seen the data myself, and while the majority do just as well at their new school or almost as well, there is a sizable minority that sees a drastic drop in class rank. third, you can't compare 2l and 1l grades. everyone is gunning their hardest during 1l, and transfers have an added incentive to gun extra hard at their new schools given the fact that they now have blank slates

[Jchance]

.

[Volake]

not saying i agree with OP at all, but we can't infer much based on this data

first off, it's all based on self-reporting so we know there's possibly a selection bias. second, I've seen the data myself, and while the majority do just as well at their new school or almost as well, there is a sizable minority that sees a drastic drop in class rank. third, you can't compare 2l and 1l grades. everyone is gunning their hardest during 1l, and transfers have an added incentive to gun extra hard at their new schools given the fact that they now have blank slates

Fair criticism. However, if the difficulties of the schools were as radically divergent as OP believes (T14 median harder than T1 top 3-5%), we could expect very different accounts notwithstanding the factors that you identify which probably skew results upward.

[juzam_djinn]

not saying i agree with OP at all, but we can't infer much based on this data

first off, it's all based on self-reporting so we know there's possibly a selection bias. second, I've seen the data myself, and while the majority do just as well at their new school or almost as well, there is a sizable minority that sees a drastic drop in class rank. third, you can't compare 2l and 1l grades. everyone is gunning their hardest during 1l, and transfers have an added incentive to gun extra hard at their new schools given the fact that they now have blank slates

Fair criticism. However, if the difficulties of the schools were as radically divergent as OP believes (T14 median harder than T1 top 3-5%), we could expect very different accounts notwithstanding the factors that you identify which probably skew results upward.

no i agree, OP overstates the differences; i firmly believe that differences exist, but not nearly to the extent that median at t14 would be auto top 10% at a T1 or even some T2s

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I don't engage personal attacks, so I'll ignore most of the replies so far. I will merely point out that I clearly stated I was referring to a "good T14" student, which I would reasonably interpret as being upper 1/4 or so. Remember, even at T7-T14 schools, the upper 25% of students (and usually much more) are generally very accomplished people who have a demonstrated lifetime record of being amongst the best. More often than not, they attended excellent undergraduate programs and did well there, got high-prestige jobs afterwards, and have impressive extracurricular accomplishments. These have also demonstrated excellence on law school exams.

Even setting aside the predictive value of the LSAT, dogfighting the competition at a T14 is leagues harder than at a school where few of these are true, and thus where the culture does not require excellence (as understood at the same level.) I don't think any of you could look me in the eye and tell me that many T2 students threw away a career at a top investment bank, consultancy, or technology firm to go to a low-prestige school as is common at a T14. Frankly, there is a reason why people who are used to being the best don't go to T2 and lower T1 schools. (Note again that I set aside UCLA, USC, Vanderbilt, etc. when I said "lower, sub-T20 T1". I completely concede that these schools do attract a certain caliber of student largely absent at lower T1/T2 schools.) So where is the difficulty in doing well where the concentration of talent is so diluted and where there is no culture of excellence?

I also said that this was true "on average" — meaning that the average upper 25% student at a T14 is more intelligent than the average T2 top 2-5% and T1 top 10% student. To construe this as a median T14 student being automatically better than a top T2 student is to completely distort what I've said. I am aware that this has strong implications for 0Ls and I acknowledged that as well.

[jbagelboy]

Your model assumes 1) the LSAT, the key determinant of law school admission, is a perfect gauge of general academic & career success, and 2) that money plays zero role and everyone attends the highest ranked program they were admitted to. Both of these are flawed such a statistically significant portion of the time that the conclusion is erroneous.

A guy I worked with, an analyst at Bain, couldn't hit over 165 on the LSAT on test day. Just couldn't do it - he never made it to "T14," and he had an objectively very prestigious undergrad record and career. Conversely, there are a lot of dumb k-jds at T14 who just got high LSAT scores. Hell, as this site evidences, there are some very unimpressive and immature kids who got lucky on the LSAT headed to Harvard. People at these schools tend to be very hard working, intelligent and accomplished, but so are the students who gained admission to those programs and went to local schools for free instead.

[Captain Rodeo]

Your model assumes 1) the LSAT, the key determinant of law school admission, is a perfect gauge of general academic & career success, and 2) that money plays zero role and everyone attends the highest ranked program they were admitted to. Both of these are flawed such a statistically significant portion of the time that the conclusion is erroneous.

A guy I worked with, an analyst at Bain, couldn't hit over 165 on the LSAT on test day. Just couldn't do it - he never made it to "T14," and he had an objectively very prestigious undergrad record and career. Conversely, there are a lot of dumb k-jds at T14 who just got high LSAT scores. Hell, as this site evidences, there are some very unimpressive and immature kids who got lucky on the LSAT headed to Harvard. People at these schools tend to be very hard working, intelligent and accomplished, but so are the students who gained admission to those programs and went to local schools for free instead.

I love you

[Anonymous User]

Your model assumes 1) the LSAT, the key determinant of law school admission, is a perfect gauge of general academic & career success, and 2) that money plays zero role and everyone attends the highest ranked program they were admitted to. Both of these are flawed such a statistically significant portion of the time that the conclusion is erroneous.

A guy I worked with, an analyst at Bain, couldn't hit over 165 on the LSAT on test day. Just couldn't do it - he never made it to "T14," and he had an objectively very prestigious undergrad record and career. Conversely, there are a lot of dumb k-jds at T14 who just got high LSAT scores. Hell, as this site evidences, there are some very unimpressive and immature kids who got lucky on the LSAT headed to Harvard. People at these schools tend to be very hard working, intelligent and accomplished, but so are the students who gained admission to those programs and went to local schools for free instead.

1) I make no such assumption. The LSAT is a silly but entirely learnable exam. There is a significant drop off from T14 to lower T1/T2 schools — a difference of 10-20 questions correct. We can both accept that the LSAT isn't a "perfect gauge," but any intellectually honest person must concede that student quality has degraded materially with that many more questions wrong. Even if you disagree that T14 kids are necessarily that much smarter, you must nevertheless acknowledge that they face much sharper competition because their peers have demonstrated the desire to work harder and have achieved results. This is particularly true in the upper 25% of the T14 class in many facets of their academic and professional lives.

2) But really, the overwhelming majority of scholarship offerees do attend the highest ranked school to which they are admitted. Exceedingly few people at any school are on full scholarship and turned down significantly higher ranked schools for money. For most law school applicants, money only comes into play when admitted to more or less equivalently good schools. (Even CCN have difficulty luring away YHS kids with full scholarship.) This is confirmed by LSN data on cross-admits: almost all students who receive large scholarships at any school turn them down for higher-ranked schools. If they don't, it's usually because there wasn't a significantly higher-ranked school at which to matriculate. (Northwestern presents the only regular exception to this rule because it is unusually generous with its scholarships — and because it is a T14.)

3) Everyone has anecdotes. My professors (who have taught at both) have told me over and over that the tippy top kids at T2/lower T1 schools are worse than the average student at the good schools: "my A+ [there] wouldn't make B+ here." (I don't make anything close to this claim, nor do I even think it is true. The top student, or even top 1% of students, at any school likely defies generalization. The top student might be a top student anywhere else — it's simply unknowable right now. I extend this principle to the entire top 1% and purposely excluded it in any discussion above.) Further, the kids I know who went to lower T1/T2 schools and transferred out all tell me that ranking in the top 10% just requires doing the reading and not much more, because 80% of students won't, and another 10% won't understand what they did read. Very simply, they say that it wasn't hard. Regardless, I'm familiar with MBB hiring and a Bain analyst likely had a strong enough GPA to avoid ending up at a lower T1/T2 (or he likely wouldn't even go.)

4) There are always exceptional cases. Notwithstanding exceptions, I simply don't see such schools overflowing with people with top-notch work experience. Likewise, I don't see T14 schools overflowing with idiots who end up in the upper 1/4 of the class with any regularity.

This thread has gotten sidetracked quite a bit. My claim is very simply that if you are dead set on CCN, note that top 2% at a T2 is a likely admit at CCN, while a top 35% student at Duke or Northwestern faces poor odds. It is my view that scoring in the top 2% at a T2 is easier than getting in the upper 25% at a T14, and that this is a significant loophole in the transfer admissions process.

[juzam_djinn]

OP here. I don't engage personal attacks, so I'll ignore most of the replies so far. I will merely point out that I clearly stated I was referring to a "good T14" student, which I would reasonably interpret as being upper 1/4 or so. Remember, even at T7-T14 schools, the upper 25% of students (and usually much more) are generally very accomplished people who have a demonstrated lifetime record of being amongst the best. More often than not, they attended excellent undergraduate programs and did well there, got high-prestige jobs afterwards, and have impressive extracurricular accomplishments. These have also demonstrated excellence on law school exams.

Even setting aside the predictive value of the LSAT, dogfighting the competition at a T14 is leagues harder than at a school where few of these are true, and thus where the culture does not require excellence (as understood at the same level.) I don't think any of you could look me in the eye and tell me that many T2 students threw away a career at a top investment bank, consultancy, or technology firm to go to a low-prestige school as is common at a T14. Frankly, there is a reason why people who are used to being the best don't go to T2 and lower T1 schools. (Note again that I set aside UCLA, USC, Vanderbilt, etc. when I said "lower, sub-T20 T1". I completely concede that these schools do attract a certain caliber of student largely absent at lower T1/T2 schools.) So where is the difficulty in doing well where the concentration of talent is so diluted and where there is no culture of excellence?

I also said that this was true "on average" — meaning that the average upper 25% student at a T14 is more intelligent than the average T2 top 2-5% and T1 top 10% student. To construe this as a median T14 student being automatically better than a top T2 student is to completely distort what I've said. I am aware that this has strong implications for 0Ls and I acknowledged that as well.

fair enough, i think i do agree that a top quarter student at t14 would be more or less equivalent to a top 10% student at a T1/T2. of course I have no hard evidence for backing this belief up, but i think a lot of people would agree that this is not an unreasonable thing to say (it's certainly not as unreasonable as median T14 = top 5/10% T1/T2)

the thing is, the top 10% or even top 5% students at most T1/T2 have essentially no shot at HYS transfers...so in terms of the transfer game they are in exactly the same boat as the top 25% student from T14. that was the takeaway i got from your post, that HYS transfers are much harder than TLS would suggest

[jrf12886]

I think a problem with your argument is that prior "success" in life is not really predictive of good grades in law school. So someone who "threw away a career at a top investment bank, consultancy, or technology firm" won't necessarily be stronger competition come exam time. Someone who is top 1-5% at a lower ranked school, however, has proven sucessful at what actually does translate into higher law school grades: taking law schools exams (and to a lesser extent, writing memos). It would not surprise me if a top 1-5% student at a lower ranked school performs better at HYS then someone who was top 20% at a lower T14. I'm not saying they're smarter or more successful, just more likely to possess skills that made are useful in law school.

[ughbugchugplug]

[lavarman84]

3) Everyone has anecdotes. My professors (who have taught at both) have told me over and over that the tippy top kids at T2/lower T1 schools are worse than the average student at the good schools: "my A+ [there] wouldn't make B+ here." (I don't make anything close to this claim, nor do I even think it is true. The top student, or even top 1% of students, at any school likely defies generalization. The top student might be a top student anywhere else — it's simply unknowable right now. I extend this principle to the entire top 1% and purposely excluded it in any discussion above.) Further, the kids I know who went to lower T1/T2 schools and transferred out all tell me that ranking in the top 10% just requires doing the reading and not much more, because 80% of students won't, and another 10% won't understand what they did read. Very simply, they say that it wasn't hard. Regardless, I'm familiar with MBB hiring and a Bain analyst likely had a strong enough GPA to avoid ending up at a lower T1/T2 (or he likely wouldn't even go.)

First of all, I have to ask, why post anonymously? It just seems cowardly to post a divisive theory anonymously.

As a person who actually goes to a lower T1 school, this is not even remotely true. There are certainly some lazy people that put in no effort here. But I bet just about every law school has those. However, I sat in on class discussions nearly every day during 1L year and I can tell you that the vast majority of people here read every day.(except for one class which is seen as a joke here)

I can't speak for other students at other schools but I have a very hard time believing that 80% of 1L law students would neglect to read.

4) There are always exceptional cases. Notwithstanding exceptions, I simply don't see such schools overflowing with people with top-notch work experience. Likewise, I don't see T14 schools overflowing with idiots who end up in the upper 1/4 of the class with any regularity.

This thread has gotten sidetracked quite a bit. My claim is very simply that if you are dead set on CCN, note that top 2% at a T2 is a likely admit at CCN, while a top 35% student at Duke or Northwestern faces poor odds. It is my view that scoring in the top 2% at a T2 is easier than getting in the upper 25% at a T14, and that this is a significant loophole in the transfer admissions process.

I really hope that no 0L actually gives this advice the time of day. If you get in a T14, you'd be a fool to pass on that for a T2 school SOLELY because you think it will be easier to transfer. 1L grades are difficult to project so I'd take my chances of being an upper top 25% at a T14 school over being a top 2% at a T2 school. You have no margin for error if you're aiming for the top 2%.

And as others have pointed out, top notch work experience is great but it doesn't necessarily mean you'll be good at taking law school exams.

[A. Nony Mouse]

My impression based on TLS and my lower-T1-school experience is that it's all the T-14 kids who stop reading and 2LOL/3LOL, because nothing matters after their 1L grades, which wasn't at all the case at my school.

I think the points about difficulty in transferring are very important, but the generalizations about student ability at different tiers is inevitably based on secondhand impressions and assumptions, since no one has enough experience at different institutions to base those generalizations in anything else (even profs).

I mean, basically the idea that LSAT/GPA and school pedigree give you sufficient information to grade everyone's intellectual ability for all time is just kind of laughable. People (and intelligence) are much more complicated than that.