drive4showLSAT4dough wrote:Since you mentioned the LSAC's Statement of Good Practices, can you speak to some top law schools' practices of requiring withdrawals of all other acceptances upon placing a seat deposit? Do you think that is fair? Do you see it as a growing trend, given that the admissions offices that employ this tactic are gaining a clear advantage in terms of yield rate?
Thanks in advance.
Like others mentioned, it does seem like each side gives up something and gets something in return for Binding ED programs. However, I worry that the bump in chances of admission is more perception than reality, which if true would put more than a thumb on the scale on the law school's side. In that case, all an ED applicant is really getting is the promise to find out sooner than they would otherwise. Not sure that's worth losing the flexibility that comes with fully exploring all the possible offers.
It bears repeating, also, that this is only really an issue with the T25 schools. Those of us in the "99%" aren't usually popular enough, even within our regions, to have any real leverage to do binding ED. We had one here at Texas Tech when I got here mid-cycle 2010, although we explicitly stated that only people that had already fully researched law schools and made Tech Law their #1 choice should use it. We didn't promise any bump in odds of acceptance so no one was every accepted ED that wouldn't have been RD.
I didn't know if this was a net benefit, solidifying a percentage of our class early (usually around 1/8th of the enrolled class), or if it was costing us applicants/enrollees who were going RD and waiting until our deadline to apply (and in the meantime being courted by and falling in like with another school). I figured there was only one real way to know for sure so we tried non-binding this year. It's too soon to say whether or not it "worked", but we did get significantly more deposits from ED applicants this year. (You guys all hate to feel committed to anything, haha. It's a generational thing, I think. One of the speakers at our conference was Bryan Stevenson - AMAZING guy, BTW; check out his TEDTalk
- mentioned how it was hard to find "staff attorneys" for his non-profit until he changed them to "fellows" because grads were scared to commit to things longer than 2 years out.
I agree with the general principle that if an applicant wants to limit themselves and enter into an ED application, then that's on them. There is very little information today that is not available for anyone willing to put in the time to find it. However, we know that not everyone does put in that time. And I wonder if allowing students to apply to a binding ED program is offering them a choice they shouldn't be offered in the first place.