Top Law Schools

I have an LSAT score in the 170s and a gpa above 3.0, and am aiming to get into the best school that I can (am hoping for T-14) but whether I do land T-14 or close to it, I still have a goal (or dream) if you will of trying to be at least in the Top 5 or 10 percent of my class to strive to transfer up (though the school I attend I will be happy with graduating at)

But I was just curious.....When law schools, look at transfer aps, is it school ranking and percent they look at? Or does it weigh against you if you are 30 years old and not a (22-25) year old?

I don't know, but I can't think of a reason they'd care.

Also, you'll get into the T14 as is for sure. Just watch that debt.

Unless you have academic/political aspirations AND the other school offers you scholarship (not gonna happen unless you go HYS and get need based aid), transferring from a lower T14 to an upper T14 is retarded.

Cobretti wrote:Unless you have academic/political aspirations AND the other school offers you scholarship (not gonna happen unless you go HYS and get need based aid), transferring from a lower T14 to an upper T14 is retarded.

+1. Dumb to think of transferring from a lower t14 to a higher one, especially if you have money. And if you're only 30, employers will be cool with it and you'll probably have an advantage over a lot of your classmates.

For admission, non-trad not only doesn't hurt you, but generally helps you because you have WE, especially the closer your UGPA is to 3.0 (as opposed to 4.0).

Yeah, what would be the point of transferring? If you're top 5% in the lower 14, BigLaw/federal clerkships are all but assured anyway, assuming that's your goal.

BVest wrote:For admission, non-trad not only doesn't hurt you, but generally helps you because you have WE, especially the closer your UGPA is to 3.0 (as opposed to 4.0).

I just realized "non-traditional applicants" refers to people who are not fresh out of college, so that includes those with graduate degrees but no W/E?

Oatmeal_Me wrote:

BVest wrote:For admission, non-trad not only doesn't hurt you, but generally helps you because you have WE, especially the closer your UGPA is to 3.0 (as opposed to 4.0).

I just realized "non-traditional applicants" refers to people who are not fresh out of college, then I'm one of them. However, I don't have WE either, I started my PhD right after graduating from college (in China), but as I'm finishing up my dissertation, I realize doing research is really not my thing. I cannot picture myself doing research and teaching for the rest of my life.

If working experience is the only edge for non-traditional applicants, should I postpone my law school applications until I've worked for a few years?

It will likely still help.

Oatmeal_Me wrote:

BVest wrote:For admission, non-trad not only doesn't hurt you, but generally helps you because you have WE, especially the closer your UGPA is to 3.0 (as opposed to 4.0).

I just realized "non-traditional applicants" refers to people who are not fresh out of college, then I'm one of them. However, I don't have WE either, I started my PhD right after graduating from college (in China), but as I'm finishing up my dissertation, I realize doing research is really not my thing. I cannot picture myself doing research and teaching for the rest of my life.

If working experience is the only edge for non-traditional applicants, should I postpone my law school applications until I've worked for a few years?

If you are ready to go now I'd apply and if you feel like you underperformed your numbers then you can consider taking a few years off to work.

BVest wrote:

Oatmeal_Me wrote:

BVest wrote:For admission, non-trad not only doesn't hurt you, but generally helps you because you have WE, especially the closer your UGPA is to 3.0 (as opposed to 4.0).

I just realized "non-traditional applicants" refers to people who are not fresh out of college, then I'm one of them. However, I don't have WE either, I started my PhD right after graduating from college (in China), but as I'm finishing up my dissertation, I realize doing research is really not my thing. I cannot picture myself doing research and teaching for the rest of my life.

If working experience is the only edge for non-traditional applicants, should I postpone my law school applications until I've worked for a few years?

It will likely still help.

I don't necessarily disagree but I would be careful to craft a really good answer for Why Law and Why not (using PhD). When it comes time for interviewing (especially with firms) you don't want to look like a flight risk or serial degree collector IMO.