<p><a href=“http://www.theconglomerate.org/2005/05/admissions_myth.html[/url]”>http://www.theconglomerate.org/2005/05/admissions_myth.html</a></p>
<p>
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I disagree with most of that.</p>
<p>It does not really matter what your major is. If you do engineering and get a 2.9, you're going to go through hell trying to get into law school. They don't much care that your 2.9 was in engineering and might have put you in the top 1/4 of your class. OTOH, if you were in liberal arts and got the exact same class rank, which brings in a 3.5, most law schools would look seriously at you. So no, major does not matter, in that schools don't adjust your GPA for it. So long as you take something that isn't a complete joke, no one cares what it is.</p>
<p>As for schools, same goes. As long as your school isn't horrible, you'll probably look decent.</p>
<p>The Penn admissions dean (in Law School Confidential, 2000 edition) said that transfer students are fine. Granted, a student who hops between several schools would look bad, but one transfer might not be held against you. Hanna, on these boards, transferred and was admitteed to HLS. Community college to university = not the best idea. Transfer from MIT to Swathmore because you realized that the techie environment isn't for you = good choice. </p>
<p>No need to take a prep course. Single best thing to do is go through old LSATs. Some people NEED a prep course for the motivation. Yes, law schools average the scores. Some look at the higher of the two, especially if there is an explanation for the lower score (i.e. construction in the room next door, flu, etc). Although there is evidence that students who take the test twice don't do as well in law school, there is no evidence (that I've heard of) that law schools penalize students for taking it twice. </p>
<p>The problem with #4 is that it comes from the perspective of a 22-year-old. "Work experience" for a lot of people that age means retail or a job as a paralegal. Won't do much for you, unless you can make a great essay out of the latter. "Work experience" for me meant engineering - real engineering work - in a lab, writing proposals, going to conferences, presenting my research, etc. IMO, being a nanotechnologist helped me get into law school. For a lot of people who are 30, work experience is much, much more than retail. There are people at my law school who worked in hospitals (legal dep't) or as social workers and want to go into public service. Yeah, that's going to be looked upon differently than a job at the Gap. IMO, most law school applicants just don't have much real work experience. If they take time off, it's at a very non-descript job, and their summer experience probably is meaningless. Some of this might be intertwined with the fact that older applicants are best judged on their work experience, not their college transcripts from 15 years ago.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hanna, on these boards, transferred and was admitteed to HLS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>She transferred into Harvard. A minor factor, right?</p>
<p>And no, I do not know if I agree with it either.</p>
<p>Not a minor factor... just demonstrates that transfer is not per se negative. I think it depends on where it was from, where it was to, and WHY.</p>
<p>There is also a big difference between getting into a local law school and a top 25 law school. I know dozens of people who went to no name colleges, went to several school including ccs, and got into Duquesne or Pitt. Harvard or Yale is a different story.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not a minor factor... just demonstrates that transfer is not per se negative.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Does it really? Last I checked, not everyone was admitted into HYC and so forth as a transfer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it depends on where it was from, where it was to, and WHY.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your post never explicitly stated that; it contained an example of an acceptable form of transfer, which cannot itself be used to explain a normative concept (in the nonethical way). Individuals usually argue from principles to examples rather than the other way around.</p>
<p>This emphasis on non-transfer doesn't seem to make sense. Some fairly prestigious law schools take transfers for 2Ls, after all.</p>
<p>Not a minor factor... just demonstrates that transfer is not per se negative. I think it depends on where it was from, where it was to, and WHY.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</p>
<p>How about a minority escaping an environment that excessively limits her?</p>
<p>I ask because I feel that a lot of top firms/law schools lack in the diversity department, and maybe they might see that as a weakness.</p>
<p>why would going to a community college and then a respectable if not very good university be a negative?</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Does it really? Last I checked, not everyone was admitted into HYC and so forth as a transfer.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>That doesn't even make sense. (rolls eyes)</p>
<p>
[quote]
That doesn't even make sense. (rolls eyes)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It does make sense if you think; perhaps the activity may cause you pain, but practice makes perfect;)</p>
<p>For the purpose of lucidity, I will proceed in small steps so you can better understand:
1) The author discourages transfers.
2) You rebut with the example of Hanna.
3) I argue that Hanna is an exception to the rule, since getting
admitted into schools such as HYC and so forth is extremely difficult. The fact is that the majority of transfers are not going to Ivy-League institutions, so the author's argument is prima facie applicable.</p>
<p>Does that make more sense for you?</p>
<p>I am currently going to Marian College in Wisconsin, a smaller catholic college, and I am looking to apply to some small law schools in Florida. Do you think that because my school is small and not well known that will hurt me greatly? I am looking at 2 small schools, Nova Southeastern and Florida A&M. Or do you think that a good GPA and LSAT score will still get me there?</p>
<p>But it does nothing to rebut the theory that transfers are not per-se negative. What you said does not go to the heart of the issue.</p>
<p>No small steps necessary. No need to be condescending, either. Try civility; might be hard at first, but practice makes perfect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Try civility; might be hard at first, but practice makes perfect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A bitter pill to swallow for you then, eh?</p>
<p>
[quote]
That doesn't even make sense. (rolls eyes)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not going to argue anymore with regard to your attitude, for fear of committing a tu quoque, but you are definitely not above the standard you set. Shall we just agree that your present remark is self-referentially incoherent?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But it does nothing to rebut the theory that transfers are not per-se negative. What you said does not go to the heart of the issue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, I do not think the theory claims that transferring is negative in an absolute manner; ostensibly, the small steps did not appear to work. Hopefully, belaboring my point will:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact is that the majority of transfers are not going to Ivy-League institutions, so the author's argument is prima facie applicable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With hanna's example, you are merely grasping at straws. I do not even think that the theory is intended for individuals like her; my justification for this inference is because the majority of transfers do not enter Ivy-League institutions, and I am willing to bet that the majority of transfers probably do not even enter top tier institutions. Do not let the disproportionately high ambitions of CC posters fool you. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What you said does not go to the heart of the issue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>An intellectual sleight-of-hand; using an exception to the rule for a theory that was clearly not absolute does not refute it. Do not try to conceal your error.</p>
<p>For instance, one could argue that a candidate for Harvard Law School requires a 170 or above on the LSAT, yet another could refute the argument by showing a student that was admitted with a 165. That does not alter the non-ethical normative arrangement of the original argument, it merely provides an exception to the rule, and should not be taken as a rule in and of itself. The preliminary claim that a 170 or above on the LSAT is required to be competitive still stands prima facie, since the majority of students admitted into HLS possess such a score.</p>
<p>To prove that a transfer is per-se negative, you would have to demonstrate either:</p>
<ol>
<li> that the example I set out is an exception, which requires that you demonstrate a RULE and back it up with statistics.</li>
<li> that in my example, the person would have done better had it not been for the transfer - i.e. "but for" causation.</li>
</ol>
<p>Given that neither is present, I stand behind my assertion that your arguments are not rational and really are not relevant.</p>
<p>Find the 2000 edition of Robert Miller's "Law School Confidential." Flip to the interview with the Penn admissions dean. She explicitly stated that transfer students look good to her. </p>
<p>Ball is in your court; burden of proof is on you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. that the example I set out is an exception, which requires that you demonstrate a RULE and back it up with statistics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here are the transfer statistics of Ivy-League Institutions:
Harvard: 955/55
Yale: 696/26
Columbia: 1071/97
Brown: 686/189
Cornell: 2307/766
UPenn: 1543/336
Dartmouth: 305/34
The source is collegeboard.</p>
<p>Now do the admit rates for these institutions account for the majority of all transfers that occur annually in the United States? Obviously not. Even if I grant the assumption that all the students admitted into Ivy's intend to go to Law School, your argument still does not improve. I maintain that transferring to an Ivy and applying from an Ivy to a Law School is an exception to the rule, the fact that such Ivy Transfer admissions bear only a minuscule portion of all transfer acceptances that are given annually is attests to that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2. that in my example, the person would have done better had it not been for the transfer - i.e. "but for" causation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With the above framework established, your example is rendered invalid. You cannot possibly use the example of Hanna as representative of all transfer applicants for law school. Even if you succeed in providing a more "mainstream" example, it still would not succesfully dismantle the author's argument. As a law student, you should know the distinction between induction and deduction. Inductive arguments will always contain exceptions; if a plethora of exceptions are found, then the induction is intrinsically fallacious - a hasty generalization. In order for you to overturn this specific induction, you must provide an excess of transfer cases that do not fall under the Ivy-League. This you cannot do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I stand behind my assertion that your arguments are not rational and really are not relevant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The label of irrationality is far down your list of problems if you perpetually interpret the argument in this manner.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Find the 2000 edition of Robert Miller's "Law School Confidential." Flip to the interview with the Penn admissions dean. She explicitly stated that transfer students look good to her.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What kind of transfers was he/she referring to? A student who transferred from community college to George Washington University or a student transferring from community college to Harvard? There is an enormous equivocation, and your argument rests on this ambiguity.</p>
<p>I would love to agree with you, as I am currently facing the choice transferring to Georgetown as a sophomore, or waiting another year and transferring to an Ivy-League (for the purpose of a stronger philosophy program). I am playing the devil's advocate; if you are correct, then I fear not when placing my deposit for Georgetown. Thus far, your arguments are unconvincing and ill-contrived. Tomorrow, when someone argues that, by miracle, he defied gravity, I will place the burden of proof on humanity to demonstrate that gravity is still present...</p>
<p>"What kind of transfers was he/she referring to?"</p>
<p>You ready for this? Seriously ready? Her example was from (emphasis on starting there) MIT to Cal State Long Beach. Her words, as close as I can get (my book is in the South and I'm not): "I give each file about 10 minutes. I try to get a picture of what the applicant is like. Let's say I get a kid who started at MIT and then transferred to Cal State Long Beach to be a philosophy major. He was obviously miserable being an engineer and now that he's back home, he's successful. To me, he looks like a good candidate." </p>
<p>Perhaps I should have just started with that example and then let you fight me on that - because your position is basically indefensible in that light. </p>
<p>Georgetown is a great school. So it's not in the same athletic conference as Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Penn, and the like - but it's still a great school. I'm not seeing the issue here.</p>
<p>Your numbers don't prove that transfers fare worse in admissions. All you have demonstrated is that my example COULD be an exception to the rule, not that it IS an exception to the rule. </p>
<p>Example (completely made-up): a person who transferred to Harvard gets a 4.0 and a 178 LSAT. For the past five years, everyone with a 175+ and 3.8+ from Harvard College got into Yale Law. Said transfer does not, but gets into Harvard Law (and rejected from Stanford and Columbia). Conclusion: transfer status has a negative effect. This COULD be possible given your data (obvious data at that - that less than half of a student body is made up of transfers), but you have not demonstrated this to be true.</p>
<p>The Ivy League issue of transfer is pretty irrelevant, because you can always neutralize it by comparing the transfer student's stats and success rates against non-transfers from that school. Another example: someone transfers from Babson to BU, gets the 4.0 and 178, and gets rejected from law schools that non-transfer BU kids and non-transfer Babson with those stats normally get into. Conclusion: my hypothetical transfer kid would have been better off with his 4.0/178 had he spent four years at either BU or Babson, but the transfer hurt him.</p>
<p>I'll be transferring into Georgetown from a community college, would the fact that I'm a transfer be a negative when looking at law schools...granted it would depend on my LSATs which I have not taken and my GPA which for now is soley based on my academics at a CC. But if I were to do just as well as a classmate of mine would he get the nod because he never went to a community college at lets just say Harvard?</p>
<p>I don't know how things are these days for "elite" law schools, but I know a number of attorneys who have transfered from community college or unknown schools to better known schools and then went on to a top law school. In fact one of my closest friend took this route, transferring twice. Also, getting into a top law school seems to me to have a bit of other factors thrown into the mix other than stats because I know too many kids accepted to one top law school, rejected by a number of others that are comparable. I know that the grades and the LSAT score are the most important components but other factors must come into play as well. Is it such a direct relationship, Ariesathena, that say you have 20 kids from Harvard all applying to top law schools, that the ones with the top stats are just skimmed from the top? Or is there some serendipity in the process as well and a 175 with a 3.8 could be accepted when he is below some kids in stats from the same school who are rejected, or conversely, could someone with the same stats be rejected when he is above some kids in stats from the same school who are accepted?</p>