I saw this week at Tax Prof Blog a link to this article about the high numbers of transfer students that George Washington School of Law is accepting from oher schools, namely American University's Washington College of Law.  American's Associate Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs has some choice words for this practice, which of course stems from the fact that a law school can bring in additional revenue with transfer students, whose LSAT/gpa's might otherwise have been reportable to ABA/USNews if admitted as 1Ls.  Theoretically, a school could shrink the entering class to maintain good stats, then increase transfers to make up the revenue.

One might criticize the practice as rankings gamesmanship, but Dean Varona seems to say the practice is "predatory" and unethical (he praises GW's new dean as being "ethical," so by reverse implication. . . .).  And, transfers obviously create categories of those who benefit, with those who have their best students skimmed off the top each year.  And, some law schools will be both the poached and the poachers.

So, I've had this debate with several of my professor friends at different schools, both the poaching and the poached.  And, of course, we wouldn't even be having this conversation without the USNews rankings.  (Back in the day, transfers were for fiancees and students with transferred spouses).  Even in today's climate, I think I come down on the side of the poached student.

First, I don't agree that ethical law schools have a duty not to take transfers in large numbers.  This comes close to a "gentlemen's agreement," which are usually nonagreements by nongentlemen.  I think there are enough regulatory monopolies at play here without adding more anti-competitive restrictions.  I also don't think students are being disloyal.  If they have performed especially well and have the opportunity to transfer to a school that has more on-campus interviews, networking possibilities, course offerings, and name recognition, then I say so be it.  I say let the market play out.

But, if we don't like this practice, what (legally) should be done?  (Abolishing the rankings being put aside.)  The NCAA has eligibility requirements that limit transfers, but what's a law school without a football team to do?

Feeder Schools could contract with law students.  Presumably, some of these top students are receiving scholarships from their 1L school.  Could that school require an incoming student to agree that, should the student transfer after 1L year for a non-emergency reason, then the student would have to repay the scholarship?  Would that scare off students or not?

Feeder Schools could make it administratively more difficult.  This seems pretty sneaky, but feeder schools could make their first-year curriculum different than recruiting schools so that transferring is hard.  For example, School A could leave off Con law until the second year.  Then, students transferring would be told that they have to take Con law with the first year students.  It might not stop the transfer, but it might give the student pause. I'm sure someone more creative could create a thornier transfer problem.

The ABA could require reporting of transfer students, whose statistics would be included in the statistics of the incoming class the year they transfer.  This would take away the benefit of shifting part of the X Year incoming class into the X+1 Year 2L class.

The ABA could create standards for the number of transfers as a percentage of the class.  I think this one is baloney, but I can imagine others disagreeing.

Of course, all of these suggestions are anti-student -- they restrict the student's decisionmaking on some very important decisions.

Law Schools/Lawyering | Bookmark

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e201bb07db12ac970d

Links to weblogs that reference The Law Student Transfer "Problem":