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 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.