Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: New UNC transfer policy  (Read 3170 times)

starter

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: New UNC transfer policy
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2007, 04:56:13 PM »
Policies like this are why UNC is underfunded and underperforming.

The policy is odd to say the least, but I don't see a connection with underfunding and underperformance. 

Bob Loblaw Esq.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: New UNC transfer policy
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2007, 05:16:08 PM »
Policies like this are why UNC is underfunded and underperforming.

The policy is odd to say the least, but I don't see a connection with underfunding and underperformance. 

many of the top schools have been taking active measures to recruit top performing students from other law schools.  One benefit of doing this may be that schools that attract the top performers have the benefit of graduating these individuals, which translates into a possibly more qualified graduating class, which may be seen as performing better, speaking to the name of their alma mater. over time this could probaly translate into more funding, more alum $, a higher rep, etc...

CoxlessPair

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: New UNC transfer policy
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2007, 07:27:36 PM »
UNC deserves their slide into #36 for this alone. Festering TTT.
Air Force JAG Corps

misshermesboston

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: New UNC transfer policy
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2007, 03:39:33 PM »
This is ridiculous. They certainly make money from the transfer application fees, and if they decide they don't want to take those students based on certain factors, I think they should look at it on a candidate-by-candidate basis.

torturedbylawschool

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: New UNC transfer policy
« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2007, 09:44:24 PM »
UNC deserves their slide into #36 for this alone. Festering TTT.

I go to this school, and even I agree!!!! Trust me, there are numerous ridiculous policies like this....

UNCLaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: New UNC transfer policy
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2007, 09:58:17 PM »
UNC deserves their slide into #36 for this alone. Festering TTT.

I go to this school, and even I agree!!!! Trust me, there are numerous ridiculous policies like this....

How do you feel about course selection for next year? 

torturedbylawschool

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: New UNC transfer policy
« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2007, 12:18:53 AM »
The registration process is crap, as is the course selection. All the time slots conflict.

UNCLaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: New UNC transfer policy
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2007, 01:13:21 PM »
The registration process is crap, as is the course selection. All the time slots conflict.

Very true. 

LegalMatters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: New UNC transfer policy
« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2007, 03:55:48 PM »
Am I correct to understand that this means that they will not consider transfers who are not NC residents attending school outside of NC?



The UNC School of Law will continue to offer a very limited number of
transfer opportunities to academically qualified residents of North
Carolina
attending law schools outside of North Carolina...


Sort of...(see the last sentence of the second paragraph).  Its basically the same policy for everyone else as it originally was, ie) must have high first year applicatant credentials.  Like the poster a couple up noted, it really affects students in NC law schools.

....which might be decent news for me.  I'm actaully an NC resident who is out of state for law school trying to go back to NC as a transfer next fall. 

But I'm still not sure how to interpret the last sentence of the second paragraph; does this mean if I have a compelling reason to transfer and I am in an out of state law school and I have competitive 1L grades, I therefore do not need to have been originally admissible (per the third paragraph)?

Translated: If you can't go on to 2L where you are, don't waste your time. I believe originally admissable refers to any prereqs they have for soon-to-be 1Ls.