http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ol/255685/

Article suggests that while apps are down 15%, this is particularly from higher test scorers, not from lower scorers. This suggests, according to the article that those most qualified as evidenced by an LSAT score are less likely to apply than ever before, while those with sub-150 scores have not been lowered to a great extent.

This seems to suggest that the TTT and TTTT are anything but going out of business.

This also suggests this site may facilitate this to some degree as it's a self selecting group, and those who do better on the LSAT are more likely to properly research all sites before applying, this one included than those with lower scores who likely don't plan things as well.

This makes sense. The 1Ls that I spoke to at my local TTTT have no idea what the legal market is actually like, and don't seem to care for that matter. They are still living in some fantasy world where everything will work out for them. With plans to travel for the summer. Further, only the top ranked individual out of the graduating class of 2012 had a job at graduation, from what other graduates told me.

This makes it apparent to me that they did poorly on the LSAT (which is why they are at an unranked TTTT), and have still done little to know research.

So, very believable article.

how much research have you done?

ad hominem dude.

fact is, accepting their chart as fact:

Applications among 170+ scorers are down over 33%.

Applications among sub-140 scorers is down about 4%.

If this trend continues, eventually we'll get Law School Utopian Socialism where there are only TTT's.

I think this is kind of a big deal, because if it continues whatever prestige being a lawyer has will eventually cease to exist. The average lawyer in 20 years from now may have an IQ of under 100. It's an absolute joke.

Enough to not be taking on any debt at a top 25.

An average lawyer probably already goes to a TTT or TTTT school. I don't see this as a never ending trend into the future, its a cycle.

Assuming the top schools insist on matriculating the same number of students, it would just make it easier to get into a top school, and still put the TTTT's out of business.

Also, the LSAT is curved, no? So won't it just mean it is easier to get a higher LSAT score? Or is it not curved like that.

Well, not if high scorers still take the LSAT for shits and giggles, and then just choose not to apply, which appears to be what's happening now.

I don't think this means what you think it means.

Oh, but LSAT taking is also down. Are law school apps as a percentage of LSAT takers also down?

No, it seems appropriate

I think that's a small percentage.

Even the biggest nerds in the world, myself included would not subject themselves to the hell that is the LSAT if it wasn't for a purpose. I'm someone who would rather watch CNN with a few friends than get drunk to house music and hookup with random girls, and I would never do this.

Wake up early on the weekend? Uber competitive, crazy proctors, etc.

I'm sure it happens, but it is not 33% of 170 plus scorers. That's crazy.

Did you take the GMAT for shits and giggles? No doubt people weigh their options after taking the test, but 170+ scorers generally can get almost any school they wanted. The law school app process is also more predictable than the MBA process, so it's weird they don't even apply.

What's funny is the TTT and TTTT aren't even THAT impacted by the economy. They weren't getting jobs before 2007 either. However, maybe that explains it?

I've been tutoring the LSAT for a number of years, and have met a bunch of people. My experience has largely been, those who breeze into the mid-170s approach situations by the numbers such as, "I have to be top third if I go there" where as those who are in the 140s and don't study take it as a given they'll be number one so I guess it's logical that the economy would really only influence the more responsible test takers, which are more frequently the higher scorers.

I've found this logic to be the case amongst many low scoring students:

I don't study, and I fail. Therefore, if I studied, I'd do well.

I guess if you can't understand why this is not in fact a contrapositive then you deserve to fail.

This is hilarious for a number of reasons.

It's not curved. It is equated. 170 on any test is supposed to equal 170 on the one you took.

It's not.

An ad hominem is a fallacy of reasoning in which one attacks the author in an attempt to undermine his or her argument. Above there was no attempt to undermine the author's argument.

If the usage above was appropriate, every time you say something negative about a person, that would be an ad hominem.

Thanks, didn't want to type it out.

Attempting to establish credibility != ad hominem

okay could we drop this and stay on topic?

You making a careless typo was more interesting than the topic you proposed.

all this makes me wonder is why i didnt wait a year or two longer to go so I'd either have more cash or be at a better school

Unfortunately, LSAC is only up-to-date on publishing the total number of LSATs administered, not the number of first-time LSAT-takers alone. As such, it would be misleading to compare the total # of LSATs administered with the number of applicants/applications.

However, what's interesting about these numbers (the ones in The Atlantic article are directly taken from LSAC) is that the number of high-scoring applicants is falling much faster than the number of low-scoring applicants (and faster than the overall rate of decline). The average year-to-date drop in applicants is -15.6%, while it's -20.7% for 170-174-scoring applicants is -20.7%.

I've spent the past week writing a series of posts about what this may mean for admission prospects (here's the latest: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/ad ... asier.html)

In short, it'll lower LSAT medians and/or shrink class sizes.

Here are the relevant charts - first is straight from LSAC (http://lsac.org/members/data/current-volume.asp):

Since the chart's directly from LSAC, we can accept it as fact.

However, 170+ applicants aren't down over 33%.

Due to the fact that 170+ applicants tend to apply relatively early in the cycle, we can confidently predict that they'll be down 19.6% by the end of the cycle. (It's incorrect to add the percentage decreases together for the two ranges of 170+ applicants.)

For the following score ranges, LSAC had the following % of the preliminary applicant count by 3/30 last year:

97.5% of applicants with highest LSAT scores of 165-169.
98.7% of applicants with highest LSAT scores of 170-174.
99.3% of applicants with highest LSAT scores of 175-180.

Last cycle had 4,052 170+-scoring applicants, and we can project that this cycle will have about 3,268 170+-scoring applicants.

It can be the doom and gloom media.

Most 170 plus scorers studied their asses off. I know I did. I'm not that smart. I'm more of a worker personally, but because of my work ethic I can look on paper much better than I am. This is also how I run a 5 minute mile, how I was good at basketball as a kid - never had the physical genes, always the discipline.

If the media says all lawyers are gonna be poor, then why would you allocate all your mental energy in breaking a 170 if it's all in haste?

DEAD

he prob just typed without proof reading it. this is a forum, not a law journal. relax with the typos. i'm not sure if it's snobbery or just profound dorkiness.