16.9% Drop in October Test Takers and URMs Forum

[Rickjames11]

Here is the main thread on the drop in oct. test takers:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=170835


However, I wanted to start a thread specifically addressing what this means for URMs.

We are quite possibly witnessing a drop in law school applicants and more specifically a drop in applicants with high achieving LSAT scores. This will surely make URMs with great/good (165+) scores that much more attractive.

Also, it is my belief (conjecture), that URMs are a more volatile segment of applicants, and therefore the "lost segment" will disproportionately be comprised of URMs.

In short, URMs with a decent shot at the t14, will surely get a bump this cycle and perhaps next.

[FryBreadPower]

Here is the main thread on the drop in oct. test takers:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=170835


However, I wanted to start a thread specifically addressing what this means for URMs.

We are quite possibly witnessing a drop in law school applicants and more specifically a drop in applicants with high achieving LSAT scores. This will surely make URMs with great/good (165+) scores that much more attractive.

Also, it is my belief (conjecture), that URMs are a more volatile segment of applicants, and therefore the "lost segment" will disproportionately be comprised of URMs.

In short, URMs with a decent shot at the t14, will surely get a bump this cycle and perhaps next.

We can't necessarily make this assumption. Class sizes may be reduced; URM enrollment may be reduced. There are too many variables to account for to assume what may or may not happen.

[Rickjames11]

Here is the main thread on the drop in oct. test takers:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=170835


However, I wanted to start a thread specifically addressing what this means for URMs.

We are quite possibly witnessing a drop in law school applicants and more specifically a drop in applicants with high achieving LSAT scores. This will surely make URMs with great/good (165+) scores that much more attractive.

Also, it is my belief (conjecture), that URMs are a more volatile segment of applicants, and therefore the "lost segment" will disproportionately be comprised of URMs.

In short, URMs with a decent shot at the t14, will surely get a bump this cycle and perhaps next.

We can't necessarily make this assumption. Class sizes may be reduced; URM enrollment may be reduced. There are too many variables to account for to assume what may or may not
happen.

You're right, they could reduce their class size. However, wouldn't this result in less revenue for the school and therefore hurt the school? Is it likely that a law school will proportionately reduce it's class size to the reduced number of applicants just for this cycle? I doubt it.

[FryBreadPower]

Here is the main thread on the drop in oct. test takers:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=170835


However, I wanted to start a thread specifically addressing what this means for URMs.

We are quite possibly witnessing a drop in law school applicants and more specifically a drop in applicants with high achieving LSAT scores. This will surely make URMs with great/good (165+) scores that much more attractive.

Also, it is my belief (conjecture), that URMs are a more volatile segment of applicants, and therefore the "lost segment" will disproportionately be comprised of URMs.

In short, URMs with a decent shot at the t14, will surely get a bump this cycle and perhaps next.

We can't necessarily make this assumption. Class sizes may be reduced; URM enrollment may be reduced. There are too many variables to account for to assume what may or may not
happen.

You're right, they could reduce their class size. However, wouldn't this result in less revenue for the school and therefore hurt the school? Is it likely that a law school will proportionately reduce it's class size to the reduced number of applicants just for this cycle? I doubt it.

Unless they are trying to protect their medians to protect their rank. They may be afraid of making the assumption that other schools would be lowering their medians to keep their admission numbers the same. There may be an "arms race" of sorts were medians take precedent over revenues.

[boosk]

medians take precedent over revenues.

doubt it

[Rawlberto]

My contention is that if schools decide to ease up on URM applicants it will be at the expense of Hispanic and not AA applicants. My contention is based purely on the organized political power of AAs in this country, which is something that Hispanics simply just lack. A dean would be more likely to "take his chances" with letting Hispanics slide as opposed to AAs sliding for fear of political pressure.

It is of course possible they reduce class sizes, but the problem is not only that the law schools need the revenue but other departments get the benefit of the funds generated. For a school like Yale and Harvard they can of course to take the hit, they have massive endowments. A school like UVA though? It just seems really unlikely that they could afford to shrink class sizes in order to protect their numbers.

This of course ALL speculation.

[horrorbusiness]

My contention is that if schools decide to ease up on URM applicants it will be at the expense of Hispanic and not AA applicants. My contention is based purely on the organized political power of AAs in this country, which is something that Hispanics simply just lack. A dean would be more likely to "take his chances" with letting Hispanics slide as opposed to AAs sliding for fear of political pressure.

It is of course possible they reduce class sizes, but the problem is not only that the law schools need the revenue but other departments get the benefit of the funds generated. For a school like Yale and Harvard they can of course to take the hit, they have massive endowments. A school like UVA though? It just seems really unlikely that they could afford to shrink class sizes in order to protect their numbers.

This of course ALL speculation.

Pretty interesting.

More speculation: isn't the hispanic (and mexican) population increasing faster than the AA population though? would this mean that the MA boost should increase, since that would make MA's more underrepresented? (after all, MA applicants are not increasing, but rather decreasing)..

[IAFG]

The "political pressure" seems pretty easy to sidestep. We failed to convince as many URM candidates to matriculate as in years past, drop in applicants, step up recruiting for minorities next year, etc, etc.

Also, doesn't USNWR count ORMs when counting up minorities?

[horrorbusiness]

The "political pressure" seems pretty easy to sidestep. We failed to convince as many URM candidates to matriculate as in years past, drop in applicants, step up recruiting for minorities next year, etc, etc.

Also, doesn't USNWR count ORMs when counting up minorities?

Any opinion about OP's hypothesized newly-increased URM boost?

[IAFG]

The "political pressure" seems pretty easy to sidestep. We failed to convince as many URM candidates to matriculate as in years past, drop in applicants, step up recruiting for minorities next year, etc, etc.

Also, doesn't USNWR count ORMs when counting up minorities?

Any opinion about OP's hypothesized newly-increased URM boost?

I suspect schools will handle it differently based on their dedication to diversity. Remember that many schools are still smarting from big hits to their endowments, so buying up diversity might not be feasible. Somehow though I don't think that's going to lead to a really remarkable URM cycle.

[Jennifer Coolidge]

.

.

[horrorbusiness]

its because everyone is afraid of the giant black cock

.

laziest troll ever?

[FryBreadPower]

My contention is that if schools decide to ease up on URM applicants it will be at the expense of Hispanic and not AA applicants. My contention is based purely on the organized political power of AAs in this country, which is something that Hispanics simply just lack. A dean would be more likely to "take his chances" with letting Hispanics slide as opposed to AAs sliding for fear of political pressure.

It is of course possible they reduce class sizes, but the problem is not only that the law schools need the revenue but other departments get the benefit of the funds generated. For a school like Yale and Harvard they can of course to take the hit, they have massive endowments. A school like UVA though? It just seems really unlikely that they could afford to shrink class sizes in order to protect their numbers.

This of course ALL speculation.

Same logic apply for NA?

[thelawschoolproject]

Same logic apply for NA?

I want an answer to this, too.

[Rawlberto]

Same logic apply for NA?

I want an answer to this, too.

I would suspect so. But, again, this is all just speculation on my part. So I would not put much stock into it, but it is a possibility.

[tooswolle]

I guess I'll chime in since this is a matter that affects me and my interests. In general I doubt schools will decrease enrollment due to loss of revenue. Many schools depend on the cash cow that is their law school. That being said gpa/LSAT aren't the biggest factors in calculating rank they are institutional prestiege, allocation of resources etc. hence a blow to that may not in itself mean a lower ranking. What does make me afraid is the marginalization of minorities to keep medians. The thought by itself is atrocious given the discrepancies found in LSAT performance among races. In general I believe that a higher decrease in test takers means over all lower scores and when the scores are lower you still want the best you can get and the Urms scoring on the higher end would be a commodity. In general I just hope it helps us not hurts us.

[Revolver066]

I'll bet a handful of URM high-LSAT splitters will find themselves getting into schools that would have waitlisted them a year earlier, but other than that, I doubt much changes.

Please be true, please be true, please be true...

[vulpixie]

I'll bet a handful of URM high-LSAT splitters will find themselves getting into schools that would have waitlisted them a year earlier

I hope so.

[PoMama]

This will surely make URMs with great/good (165+) scores that much more attractive.

I'd say a great/good URM LSAT will = 160+ this cycle for the T-20

Harvard, Duke, UMich, Cornell, GW & Vandy have all begun showing the love. And if you look hard enough, you'll see some 159+ URM happiness on LSN (lawschoolnumbers.com) already. The T-20 doesn't need to reduce its class size. Their graduates have higher success rates & their application pools are sure to remain robust.

Let's further focus this particular post on AA URMs:

After Harvard soaks up the 29 (or so) AA URMS scoring 170+ for their entering AA pool of 60 (taken from 2010-11 ABA data on LSAC), this year's 160-169 AA scorers can cherrypick HYS, CCN & MVPB. http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html

Note of caution however: As 52% of AA law students comprise the bottom 10% of the T-20 (and only 8% of AAs are represented in the top 50% of the T-20 class), it may make more sense for high scoring URMs not in at T6 to hedge their bets, accepting $$ at lower-ranked schools where their numbers are at or above median. --LinkRemoved--

This will both reduce post-law school debt AND increase chances for higher class rank - leading to greater employment prospects, as top employers will typically hire top quarter URMs from ANY school.

So . . . champagne anyone??

[Doritos]

This will surely make URMs with great/good (165+) scores that much more attractive.

I'd say a great/good URM LSAT will = 160+ this cycle for the T-20

Harvard, Duke, UMich, Cornell, GW & Vandy have all begun showing the love. And if you look hard enough, you'll see some 159+ URM happiness on LSN (lawschoolnumbers.com) already. The T-20 doesn't need to reduce its class size. Their graduates have higher success rates & their application pools are sure to remain robust.

Let's further focus this particular post on AA URMs:

After Harvard soaks up the 29 (or so) AA URMS scoring 170+ for their entering AA pool of 60 (taken from 2010-11 ABA data on LSAC), this year's 160-169 AA scorers can cherrypick HYS, CCN & MVPB. http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html

Note of caution however: As 52% of AA law students comprise the bottom 10% of the T-20 (and only 8% of AAs are represented in the top 50% of the T-20 class), it may make more sense for high scoring URMs not in at T6 to hedge their bets, accepting $$ at lower-ranked schools where their numbers are at or above median. --LinkRemoved--

This will both reduce post-law school debt AND increase chances for higher class rank - leading to greater employment prospects, as top employers will typically hire top quarter URMs from ANY school.

So . . . champagne anyone??

Hmmm.....I don't know if I buy into your, go to a T20 instead of a T10 and you will have a much higher class rank. If you are a median URM at a T10 you can swing biglaw. Are you telling me that median T10 is going to equal top 25% at T20 and that top25% at T20 = autolock at a TOP EMPLOYER? Also, by top employer what do you mean? Covington, Cravath and whatnot? Or do you just mean biglaw?

I personally would caution URMs from thinking dropping 5-10 spots on the USNews is going to mean a noticeably higher class rank, but I can speak confidently that graduating median from UVA is going to be materially different than median at GW.

[PoMama]

Also, by top employer what do you mean? Covington, Cravath and whatnot? Or do you just mean biglaw?

I personally would caution URMs from thinking dropping 5-10 spots on the USNews is going to mean a noticeably higher class rank, but I can speak confidently that graduating median from UVA is going to be materially different than median at GW.

Biglaw.

We agree. On MEDIANS. But the problem is:

• * According to that study, only 8% of AA URMs WILL find themselves at or above median.
  
  * Deductively, fully NINETY-TWO percent of African-American matriculants at T-20 schools, end up in the bottom half of the class at the conclusion of 1L. (yeah. I know. I was as skeptical of that statistic as you).
  
  * Since 52% are in the bottom 10, that means the other 40% land somewhere between [edited for clarification] below-median 11% & 49%. Not sure this is a great position these days, even for those in at T6-10.
  
  * If you're the 1-point-whatever out of 2 finding yourself in the bottom decile at a T4-20, chances are biglaw will become distressingly elusive.
  
  * The study further found that URMs with LSATs/GPAs identical to majority peers, tended to fare equally as well as those peers in school (Seems logical. But nice to have the validation).
  
  * Arguably, the 8% in the top half at T-20s are comprised primarily of those who scored 170+ w/high GPAs anyway (and therefore are likely attending the T-20 on merit schollys in an enviably no-lose position).
  
  * Ergo, AA URMs w/LSAT scores below 170 are best served by attending a T3-6 (where that bottom 10% scarlet letter may not matter so much) -- OR accepting pay for play & enjoying hefty merit at a school where they have better odds at besting the median.

It's really a crapshoot, 'cause of course the study doesn't take into consideration stuff like family or professional connections, luck, or the exception-that-proves-the-rule-performer. But for those who balk at the prospect of being saddled w/6-figure debt & no way to repay, the strategy's worth consideration.

[Doritos]

Also, by top employer what do you mean? Covington, Cravath and whatnot? Or do you just mean biglaw?

I personally would caution URMs from thinking dropping 5-10 spots on the USNews is going to mean a noticeably higher class rank, but I can speak confidently that graduating median from UVA is going to be materially different than median at GW.

Biglaw.

We agree. On MEDIANS. But the problem is:

• * According to that study, only 8% of AA URMs WILL find themselves at or above median.
  
  * Deductively, fully NINETY-TWO percent of African-American matriculants at T-20 schools, end up in the bottom half of the class at the conclusion of 1L. (yeah. I know. I was as skeptical of that statistic as you).
  
  * Since 52% are in the bottom 10, that means the other 40% land somewhere between 11% & 49%. Not sure this is a great position these days, even for those in at T6-10.
  
  * If you're the 1-point-whatever out of 2 finding yourself in the bottom decile at a T4-20, chances are biglaw will become distressingly elusive.
  
  * The study further found that URMs with LSATs/GPAs identical to majority peers, tended to fare equally as well as those peers in school (Seems logical. But nice to have the validation).
  
  * Arguably, the 8% in the top half at T-20s are comprised primarily of those who scored 170+ w/high GPAs anyway (and therefore are likely attending the T-20 on merit schollys in an enviably no-lose position).
  
  * Ergo, AA URMs w/LSAT scores below 170 are best served by attending a T3-6 (where that bottom 10% scarlet letter may not matter so much) -- OR accepting pay for play & enjoying hefty merit at a school where they have better odds at besting the median.

It's really a crapshoot, 'cause of course the study doesn't take into consideration stuff like family or professional connections, luck, or the exception-that-proves-the-rule-performer. But for those who balk at the prospect of being saddled w/6-figure debt & no way to repay, the strategy's worth consideration.

Still, it's worth noting that even if you go to WUSTL on a full-ride and end up top 40%...biglaw is going to be a tough (maybe impossible) from that position and it's nice to have no debt but you also spent 3 years getting a degree that very well may not get you where you want to be.

You do make good points and it is important for URMs to realize this. I guess I would still caution URMs to realize that the further you go down the higher your rank needs to be. Maybe your rank will go up what with your competition having lower numbers on average but the biglaw prospects are decreasing as well so this has to be considered if that is your end goal.

[PoMama]

Credited.

The good news is tho -- statistics showing shrinking numbers of LSAT takers, shrinking percentages of LSAT takers who actually apply to law school, and no indication of shrinking class sizes at the T-14 -- can only bode well for the URM 2011-2012 app cycle!

Once you're out in 3yrs, we baby-boomers are retiring and making way for you (fewer jobs? yes. But also fewer of you than there were of us). There ARE tons of jobs out there beyond biglaw that pay a decent wage -- at least enuf to absorb the handful of URM grads from T-14s, AND w/the world a bit smaller these days, there are increasing URM opportunities internationally -- so I'm STILL pouring that champagne.

Premature? Maybe. But any excuse for a party!

[Doritos]

Credited.

The good news is tho -- statistics showing shrinking numbers of LSAT takers, shrinking percentages of LSAT takers who actually apply to law school, and no indication of shrinking class sizes at the T-14 -- can only bode well for the URM 2011-2012 app cycle!

Once you're out in 3yrs, we baby-boomers are retiring and making way for you (fewer jobs? yes. But also fewer of you than there were of us). There ARE tons of jobs out there beyond biglaw that pay a decent wage -- at least enuf to absorb the handful of URM grads from T-14s, AND w/the world a bit smaller these days, there are increasing URM opportunities internationally -- so I'm STILL pouring that champagne.

Premature? Maybe. But any excuse for a party!

Bottles and Models for everyone.