But it has also brought about some less-than-welcoming reactions from schools unwilling to lose their students to the transfer process. A few weeks ago, Above the Law reported that Loyola (L.A.) Law School was barring potential transfers from participating in the school's on campus interview program. We've heard rumblings of similar tactics being used at other schools--the apparent goal being to convince students to stay put. As a tipster who transferred from Brooklyn Law School tells it, for example, the "efforts" began shortly after requesting a transcript even though the school was never expressly apprised of any transfer plans:
They told me . . . they would mail all my OCI firms saying that I would not be interviewing there any more and wouldn't tell them where I transferred. They also threatened me with the writing competition and my moot court saying that they may not be able to hold a spot for me as long as I'm transferring.The (threatened) adverse consequences extended far beyond the short-term, however. According to our tipster, Brooklyn Law School's administration used an additional ploy that they have since made good on:
They specifically told me they will not let any professor give me a letter of recommendation for clerkships, [pursuant to] school policy [and] used this as a threat to get me not to transfer.Our tipster's story has been confirmed by other former Brooklyn Law School students. I attempted to contact Brooklyn Law School to inquire as to whether the policy our tipster described remains in effect, and will update this posting later in the day should I hear back.
While I cannot fault schools for calculatedly choosing to devote school resources to students who continue to be paying customers, I have to wonder whether such tactics are truly necessary. Are law schools overreacting to the problems posed by increased transfer admissions?
UPDATE (Apr. 7, 4:30 PM): I have posted an update to this story here.