Wednesday, December 10, 2014
BETTER UNDERSTANDING THE TRANSFER MARKET
What do we know about the transfer student market in legal education?
Not enough. But that will begin to change in the coming weeks.
NUMBER/PERCENTAGE OF TRANSFER STUDENTS HAS INCREASED MODESTLY
Up until this year, the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar only asked law schools to report the number of transfer students “in” and the number of transfer students “out.” This allowed us to understand roughly how many students are transferring and gave us some idea of where they are going, and where they are coming from, but not with any direct “matching” of exit and entrance.
Has the number and percentage of transfer students changed in recent years?
In 2010, Jeff Rensberger published an article in the Journal of Legal Education in which he analyzed much of the then available data regarding the transfer market and evaluated some of the issues associated with transfer students. He noted that from 2006 to 2009 the number of transfer students had remained within a range that represented roughly 5% of the rising second-year class (after accounting for other attrition) – 2,265 in summer 2006, 2,324 in summer 2007, 2,400 in summer 2008, and 2,333 in summer 2009.)
Using data published in the law school Standard 509 reports, the number of transfers in 2011, 2012 and 2013 has increased only marginally, from 2427 to 2438 to 2501, but, given the declining number of law students, it has increased as a percentage of the preceding year’s first-year “class,” from 4.6% to 5.6%. Thus, there is a sense in which the transfer market is growing, even if not growing dramatically.
Numbers of Transfer Students 2006-2008 and 2011-2013
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
|
Number of Transfers |
2265 |
2324 |
2400 |
2427 |
2438 |
2501 |
Previous Year First Year Enrollment |
48,100 |
48,900 |
49,100 |
52,500 |
48,700 |
44,500 |
% of Previous First-Year Total |
4.7% |
4.8% |
4.9% |
4.6% |
5% |
5.6% |
SOME SCHOOLS DOMINATE THE TRANSFER MARKET
In 2008, Bill Henderson and Brian Leiter highlighted issues associated with transfer students. Henderson and Leiter were discussing the data from the summer of 2006. Brian Leiter posted a list of the top ten law schools for net transfer students as a percentage of the first year class. Bill Henderson noted the distribution of transfer students across tiers of law schools (with the law schools in the top two tiers generally having positive net transfers and the law schools in the bottom two tiers generally having negative net transfers), something Jeff Rensberger also noted in his 2010 article.
Things haven’t changed too much since 2006. In 2012, there were 118 law schools with fewer than 10 “transfers in” representing a total of 485 transfers – slightly less than 20% of all transfers. On the other end, there were 21 schools with 30 or more “transfers in” totaling 996 transfers -- nearly 41% of all transfers. Thus, roughly 10% of the law schools occupied 40% of the market (increasing to nearly 44% of the market in 2013).
We also know who the leading transfer schools have been over the last three years. The following two charts list the top 20 transfer schools in Summer 2011 (fall 2010 entering class), Summer 2012 (fall 2011 entering class) and Summer 2013 (fall 2012 entering class) – with one chart based on “numbers” of transfers and the other chart based on the number of transfer students as a percentage of the prior year’s first year class.
Largest Law Schools by Number of Transfers in 2012 and 2013
(BOLD indicates presence on list all three year)
School |
Number in 2011 |
School |
Number in 2012 |
School |
Number in 2013 |
George Wash. |
104 |
Florida State |
89 |
Georgetown |
122 |
Georgetown |
71 |
Georgetown |
85 |
George Wash. |
93 |
Florida St. |
57 |
George Wash. |
63 |
Florida St. |
90 |
New York Univ. |
56 |
Columbia |
58 |
Emory |
75 |
American |
53 |
Michigan State |
54 |
Arizona State |
73 |
Michigan State |
52 |
New York Univ. |
53 |
American |
68 |
Columbia |
46 |
American |
49 |
Texas |
59 |
Cardozo |
45 |
Cardozo |
48 |
Columbia |
52 |
Loyola Marymount |
44 |
Loyola Marymount |
46 |
New York Univ. |
47 |
Washington Univ. |
42 |
Rutgers - Camden |
42 |
Minnesota |
45 |
Cal. Los Angeles |
40 |
Minnesota |
42 |
Arizona |
44 |
Michigan |
39 |
Arizona State |
42 |
Northwestern |
44 |
Northwestern |
39 |
Cal. Berkeley |
41 |
Cal. Los Angeles |
41 |
Rutgers - Camden |
36 |
Emory |
41 |
Cardozo |
38 |
San Diego |
35 |
Cal. Los Angeles |
39 |
Southern Cal. |
37 |
Arizona State |
34 |
Northwestern |
38 |
Utah |
34 |
Brooklyn |
33 |
Florida |
37 |
Harvard |
34 |
Cal. Hastings |
32 |
Maryland |
34 |
Florida |
33 |
Minnesota |
31 |
Michigan |
33 |
Cal. Berkeley |
32 |
Lewis & Clark |
30 |
SMU |
31 |
Washington Univ. |
31 |
Harvard |
30 |
Harvard |
31 |
Largest Law Schools by Transfers as a Percentage of Previous First Year Class
(BOLD indicates presence on list in both years)
School |
Percentage 2011 (as a percentage of the 2010 first year class) |
School |
Percentage 2012 (as a percentage of the 2011 first year class) |
School |
Percentage 2013 (as a percentage of the 2012 first year class) |
Florida St. |
28.6 |
Florida St. |
44.5 |
Florida State |
48.1 |
George Wash. |
19.9 |
Arizona State |
24.6 |
Arizona State |
48 |
Utah |
19.7 |
Michigan State |
17.5 |
Utah |
34.7 |
Arizona State |
17.8 |
Utah |
17.5 |
Emory |
29.6 |
Michigan State |
17.4 |
Minnesota |
17.1 |
Arizona |
28.9 |
Washington and Lee |
15.3 |
Emory |
16.5 |
Minnesota |
22 |
Washington Univ. |
15.2 |
Cal. Berkeley |
16.2 |
George Wash. |
21.8 |
Loyola Marymount |
15.1 |
Rutgers - Camden |
14.9 |
Georgetown |
21.2 |
Northwestern |
14.2 |
Georgetown |
14.7 |
Rutgers – Camden |
20.7 |
Richmond |
13.7 |
Southern Cal. |
14.7 |
Southern Cal. |
19.7 |
Rutgers - Camden |
13.4 |
Northwestern |
14.4 |
Texas |
19.1 |
Cal. Los Angeles |
13 |
Cincinnati |
14.3 |
Cincinnati |
17.5 |
Cal. Davis |
12.8 |
Columbia |
14.3 |
Northwestern |
17.1 |
Lewis & Clark |
12.1 |
Buffalo |
14.2 |
Washington Univ. |
15.4 |
Georgetown |
12 |
Arizona |
14 |
Univ. Washington |
15.3 |
Minnesota |
11.9 |
Cardozo |
13.8 |
Columbia |
14.2 |
New York Univ. |
11.8 |
SMU |
13.4 |
American |
13.8 |
Cardozo |
11.8 |
Florida |
12.7 |
SMU |
13.3 |
Columbia |
11.4 |
Chicago |
12.6 |
Cal. Los Angeles |
13.3 |
Buffalo |
11 |
George Wash. |
12.5 |
Chicago |
13 |
Note that in these two charts, the “repeat players” are bolded – those schools in the top 20 for all three years – 2011, 2012 and 2013. (Four of the top ten schools Leiter highlighted from the summer of 2006 remain in the top ten as of the summer of 2013, with four others still in the top 20.) In addition, it is worth noting some significant changes between 2011 and 2013. For example, the number of schools with 50 or more transfers increased from six to eight with only two schools with more than 70 transfers in 2011 and 2012, but with five schools with more than 70 transfers in 2013.
Leiter’s top ten law schools took in a total of 482 transfers, representing 21.3% of the 2,265 transfers that summer. The top ten law schools in 2011 totaled 570 transfers, representing 23.5% of the 2427 transfer students that summer. The top ten law schools in 2012 totaled 587 transfers, representing 24.1% of the 2438 transfers that summer. The top ten law schools in 2013, however, totaled 724 students, representing 28.9% of the 2501 transfers in 2013, demonstrating an increasing concentration in the transfer market between 2006 and 2013 and even moreso between 2012 and 2013.
In addition, three of the top four schools with the highest number of transfers were the same all three years, with Georgetown welcoming 71 in the summer of 2011, 85 in the summer of 2012, and 122 in the summer of 2013, George Washington, welcoming 104 in the summer of 2011, 63 in the summer of 2012, and 93 in the summer of 2013, and Florida State welcoming 57 in the summer of 2011, 89 in the summer of 2012 and 90 in the summer of 2013. (Notably, Georgetown and Florida State were the two top schools for transfers in 2006, with 100 and 59 transfers in respectively.)
Similarly, three of the top four schools with the highest “percentage of transfers” were the same all three years, with Utah at 19.7% in 2011, 17.5% in 2012 and 34.7% in 2013, Arizona State at 17.8% in 2011, 24.6% in 2012 and 48% in 2013, and Florida State at 28.6% in 2011, 44.5% in 2012 and 48.1% in 2013. The top five schools on the “percentage of transfers” chart all increased the “percentage” of transfer students they welcomed between 2011 and 2013, some significantly, which also suggests greater concentration in the transfer market between 2011 and 2013.
More specifically, there are several schools that have really “played” the transfer game in the last two years – increasing their engagement by a significant percentage. These eight schools had 10.2% of the transfer market in 2011, but garnered 22.2% of the transfer market in 2013.
Schools with Significant Increases in Transfers 2011-2013
School |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
Percentage Increase |
Texas |
6 |
9 |
59 |
883% |
Arizona |
6 |
24 |
44 |
633% |
Emory |
19 |
41 |
75 |
295% |
Arizona State |
34 |
42 |
73 |
115% |
Georgetown |
71 |
85 |
122 |
70% |
Florida State |
57 |
89 |
90 |
58% |
Southern Cal |
24 |
29 |
37 |
54% |
Minnesota |
31 |
42 |
45 |
45% |
Totals |
248 |
371 |
555 |
124% |
REGIONAL MARKETS
There appear to be “regional” transfer markets. In the Southeast in 2013, for example, three schools -- Florida State, Florida and Emory -- had a combined net inflow of 180 transfer students, while Stetson and Miami were flat (43 transfers in and 42 transfers in, combined) and eight other schools from the region -- Florida Coastal, Charlotte, Charleston, Atlanta’s John Marshall, St. Thomas University, Ave Maria, Florida A&M, Nova Southeastern – had a combined net outflow of 303. It seems reasonable to assume that many of the transfers out of these schools found their way to Emory, Florida and Florida State (and perhaps to Miami and Stetson to the extent that Miami and Stetson lost students to Emory, Florida and Florida State).
NEW DATA – NEW INSIGHTS
Starting this fall, the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is collecting and requiring schools to report not only the number of students who have transferred in, but also the schools from which they came (indicating the number from each school) along with the 75%, 50% and 25% first-year, law school GPAs of the pool of students who transferred in to a given school (provided that at least five students at the school transferred in). As a result, we will be able to delineate the regional transfer markets (as well as those schools with more of a national transfer market.
Notably, even though the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is not requiring the gathering and publication of the 75%, 50%, and 25% LSAT and UGPA, one thing we are very likely to learn is that for many schools, the “LSAT/UGPA” profile of transfers in is almost certainly lower than the LSAT/UGPA profile of the first-year matriculants in the prior year, a point that both Henderson and Rensberger highlight in their analyses.
Just look at the schools in the Southeast as an example. Assume Emory, Florida State and Florida (large “transfer in” schools) are, in fact, admitting a significant number of transfer students from other schools in the Southeast region, such as Miami and Stetson, and schools like Florida Coastal, St. Thomas University, Charlotte, Atlanta’s John Marshall and Ave Maria (large “transfer out” schools in the Southeast). Even if they are taking students who only came from the top quarter of the entering classes at those schools, the incoming transfers would have a significantly less robust LSAT/UGPA profile when compared with the entering class profile at Emory, Florida State or Florida in the prior year. Virtually every student who might be transferring in to Emory, Florida or Florida State from one of these transfer out schools (other than Miami and perhaps Stetson) is likely to be in the bottom quarter of the entering class LSAT profile at Emory, Florida, and Florida State.
Comparison of Relative Profiles of Southeast Region Transfer In/Out Schools
TRANSFER IN SCHOOLS |
2012 LSAT |
2012 UGPA |
TRANSFER OUT SCHOOLS |
2012 LSAT |
2012 UGPA |
Emory |
166/165/161 |
3.82/3.70/3.35 |
Miami |
159/156/155 |
3.57/3.36/3.14 |
Florida |
164/161/160 |
3.73/3.59/3.33 |
Stetson |
157/157/152 |
3.52/3.28/3.02 |
Florida State |
162/160/157 |
3.72/3.54/3.29 |
St. Thomas (FL) |
150/148/146 |
3.33/3.10/2.83 |
|
|
|
Florida Coastal |
151/146/143 |
3.26/3.01/2.71 |
|
|
|
Charlotte |
150/146/142 |
3.32/2.97/2.65 |
|
|
|
Atlanta’s John Marshall |
153/150/148 |
3.26/2.99/2.60 |
|
|
|
Ave Maria |
153/148/144 |
3.48/3.10/2.81 |
This raises an interesting question about LSAT and UGPA profile data. If we assume that LSAT and UGPA profile data are used not only by law schools as predictors of performance, but that third parties also use this data as evidence of the “strength” of the student body, and ultimately the graduates, of a given law school (for example, USNEWS in its rankings and employers in their assessment of the quality of schools at which to interview), what can we surmise about the impact from significant numbers of transfers? For those law schools with a significant number/percentage of “transfers in” from law schools whose entering class profiles are seemingly much weaker, the entering class profile presently published in the Standard 509 disclosure report for each school arguably fails to accurately reflect the LSAT and UGPA quality of the graduating class. Similarly, if the “transfers out” from a given school happen to come from the top half of the entering class profile, then for these schools as well the entering class profile presently published in the Standard 509 disclosure report for each school arguably fails to accurately reflect the LSAT and UGPA quality of the graduating class.
Using the chart above, if Emory, Florida and Florida State are drawing a significant number of transfers from the regional transfer out schools, and if they had to report the LSAT and UGPA profile of their second-year class rather than their first-year class, their LSAT and UGPA profiles almost certainly would decline. (The same likely would be true for other law schools with large numbers of transfers.)
STILL MANY UNKNOWNS
Even with more granular data available in the near future to delineate more clearly the transfer pathways between transfer out schools and transfer in schools, there still will be a significant number of unknowns relating to transfer students, regarding employment outcomes, the demographics of transfers, the experience of transfers and the motivation for transfers.
First, with respect to the employment outcomes of transfer students, how do they compare with the employment outcomes for students who started at a law school as first-years? Do the employment outcomes for transfer students track that of students who started at a law school as first-years, or is the employment market for transfer students less robust than it is for students who started at a law school as first-years? Are the employment outcomes nonetheless better than they might have been at the school from which they transferred? These are important questions given the perception that many students transfer “up” in the rankings to improve their employment opportunities.
Second, with respect to demographics, do students of color and women participate proportionately in the transfer market or is the market disproportionately occupied by white males?
Third, with respect to the experience of transfers, the Law School Survey of Student Engagement gathered some data from participating law schools in 2005 regarding the experience of transfers but more could be done to better understand how integrated transfer students are in the life of the learning community into which they transfer.
Fourth, with respect to the motivations of transfers, it is generally assumed that transfers are “climbing” the rankings, and Henderson’s data broadly suggests movement from lower-ranked schools to higher-ranked schools, but what percentage of transfers are doing so partly or primarily for geographic reasons – to be near family or a future career location? How many are transferring for financial reasons because they lost a conditional scholarship after their first year of law school? How many truly are transferring to get a JD from a higher ranked law school? How many of those believe their job opportunities will be better at the school to which they are transferring?
We will have answers to some questions soon, but will still have many questions that remain unanswered.
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwhiteboard/2014/12/better-understanding-the-transfer-market.html
Comments
Ray - You are exactly on point on the learning community impact as well -- something Jeff Rensberger also discusses at some length in his article. Thanks for raising that.
Posted by: Jerry Organ | Dec 11, 2014 5:13:53 AM
Unfair to lump Florida with FSU, given that nearly 1/5 of FSU's class consists of transfers! The highest for UF is about 23 percent. Also, Georgetown, American, GWU, and NYU all seem to have inflated profiles as well.
Posted by: tony smith | Dec 15, 2014 10:59:31 AM
Very interesting, Jerry. To the extent we (the collective we) collect LSAT/UGPA info on transfers, we should also look at law school performance. If the transfers outperform any large percentage of the students who were admitted as 1Ls, that's information.
Posted by: Kristen Holmquist | Dec 15, 2014 12:27:40 PM
Kristin - The ABA is requiring those schools with more than five transfers in to publish the median first-year law school GPA. Those with 12 or more transfers in must publish the 75th/50th/25th law school GPAs of those transferring in. That data will provide some insights on the extent to which transfers might be understood to have "outperformed" some of the continuing students at the transferee school.
Posted by: Jerry Organ | Dec 15, 2014 12:54:14 PM
Sorry - that was a typo - not 1/5 of FSU's first-year population = transfers, but transfers = 1/2 of it's first-year class. Emory is also a lot higher than UF.
Posted by: tony smith | Dec 15, 2014 2:53:42 PM
LSAT scores were never intended to be a proxy on the quality of a law school or its students. LSAC continues to stress LSAT scores and UGPA are predictors of first year performance and not much else. Once 1L grades are posted, who cares about LSAT scores and UGPA in regard to the quality of transferees? Although, it would be interesting to compare performance between transferees and the original class, which likely was selected based on the index.
Posted by: Mark P. Yablon | Dec 18, 2014 9:14:00 AM
I'm guessing that 90% of the students transfer to go to a higher ranked law school with better job opportunities. I transferred from a law school that was towards the bottom of the US News rankings to one towards the top and it was the best decision I ever made.
Posted by: j | Dec 19, 2014 6:54:26 AM
Unfortunately, people care way too much about law school rankings. There are some schools, and in turn their graduates, who have benefitted by taking smaller first-year classes with higher UGPA and LSAT to boost their ranking and then accepting "lower quality" second-year transfers so they could cash in on the much needed tuition revenue. And now, with a sharp decline in enrollment, these "transfer-in" schools are accepting transfer students outside the top 20% of their first-year classes. It's deceptive, and because of the amount of attention paid to law school rankings, it is a bit unfair. But hey life is unfair, right? With that said, because of the emphasis placed on the ranking of the school, it may potentially help level the playing field a little if the UGPA and LSAT of "transfer students" are disclosed.
Unlike J, I did not transfer out and I regret not doing so. However, that is not an indictment of my school, although there are things it could do to improve its reputation. From my experience, as well as some of my colleagues I graduated with, I am having a harder time finding a good legal job than those students who transferred and were not the same quality of student. Perhaps that sounds bitter, but it is ironic and it can only be explained by the perceived quality of a school based on it's ranking.
As a disclaimer, I do not believe that a "bottom-tier" law school is on par with a "top-tier" law school as far as quality of students. But I do believe that the discrepancy between the candidates from "second-tier" schools through the "bottom-tier" schools is not in any way significant enough to lead one to conclude that just because you graduated from school X your are much more qualified than the graduate from school Y.
In the end, this assumes that employers care that much about the law school. If that's not true, then tell me so.
Posted by: r | Dec 23, 2014 10:22:00 AM
Professor:
In my opinion, there are "other" variables that affects the LSAT and the bar exam. Preparing and taking the LSAT has become a big business and those students who can afford to pay the very expensive preparation of taking the LSATs have two advantages. One is the getting a decent score (higher than otherwise) in the LSAT. Two, the advantage of being prepared for 1L exam taking, which is heavily based on analysis.
However, in the long term, those students who were disadvantaged in the preparations and taking of the LSAT catch up as they learn throughout the law school years, practically, how to take the law exams. Theses students' bar exams will be higher compared to their LSATs. That is if they survive all the way to the bar exam.
Because many of the students who did poorly in their LSAT may also do poorly in their 1L exams, they are more than likely to drop out or transfer and more than likely end up dropping out, anyway. Thus the true relationship of their LSAT's scores with the bar exams may never be known.
Other variables that may affect the bar exam (and law school exams in general) and transfers could be if the student is a parent, ages of the children, full time employment, LSAT preparations, etc.
Until every possible variable is taken in account, I would agree with Professor Organ that "............but will still have many questions that remain unanswered."
Posted by: Abdulkarim Dahir | Jan 3, 2015 7:48:11 PM
I think another big issue not mentioned in the article is the impact on school communities when, year after year, a good sized chunk of the best students vanish over the summer. It has to be dispiriting for both faculty and students to return in the fall and find that many of the best performers in the first year class have left. It must also be difficult to find ways to integrate culturally and socially all the new faces that missed the first year bonding experiences. For those schools that have tried to move beyond the 1950 style first year curriculum, it must be especially hard to try to integrate students who have missed what are intended to be foundational courses beyond the traditional curriculum.
As for UGPA, it would seem to me that first year law school grades are much more on point for students who have matured, who came from diverse kinds of educational programs, etc..
Posted by: Ray Campbell | Dec 11, 2014 2:21:38 AM