It was down 16.9% percent last year and 10.5% the year before that, so in total it is down about 38% (!!!) from it's peak (w/r/t October takers, at least)risa wrote:I assume when you are saying -16.4% that is from last year's October test? (not June's or the average or something)
Wasn't last year down from 2010 numbers too? Anyone know (or able to point me to a thread where I'm sure this has been covered!) what the drop has been over the last two years or so?
2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%) Forum
- bernaldiaz
- Posts: 1674
- Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:51 am
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
Last edited by bernaldiaz on Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Lavitz
- Posts: 3402
- Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
Also, the link to the chart is in the OP.bernaldiaz wrote:It was down 16.7% percent last year and 10.5% the year before that, so in total it is down about 38% (!!!) from it's peak (w/r/t October takers, at least)risa wrote:I assume when you are saying -16.4% that is from last year's October test? (not June's or the average or something)
Wasn't last year down from 2010 numbers too? Anyone know (or able to point me to a thread where I'm sure this has been covered!) what the drop has been over the last two years or so?
- BlueJeanBaby
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:46 pm
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
Do you guys think that some schools will extend their application deadline to accept Feb LSAT scores?
- bizzybone1313
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:31 pm
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
I am just hoping the T-14 aren't real pricks and simply resort to slashing their incoming class to compensate for the fewer applicants in order to maintain their precious medians. 20 years ago they didn't have even remotely close to the standards they have now. Just let medians drop. It won't be the end of the world.
- abcde12345
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:41 pm
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would smaller class sizes help admissions chances? Wouldn't it be ideal if they stayed the same size, because then medians would inevitably drop?Yukos wrote:So what are law schools going to do? Just accept the lower medians? Continue cutting class/sizes and throwing money? Close?
I'm hoping for a 1-2 LSAT drop across the board AND smaller class sizes, but maybe that's asking for too much.
And also, I highly doubt they would cut class sizes. The standards are dropping across the board, so there is no relative change in rank. Also, don't underestimate how much these places care about money.
Last edited by abcde12345 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- sinfiery
- Posts: 3310
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
I hope they are, do cut class sizes, not medians, and possibly even charge less money somehow.bizzybone1313 wrote:I am just hoping the T-14 aren't real pricks and simply resort to slashing their incoming class to compensate for the fewer applicants in order to maintain their precious medians. 20 years ago they didn't have even remotely close to the standards they have now. Just let medians drop. It won't be the end of the world.
- Lavitz
- Posts: 3402
- Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
I don't think people are hoping for smaller class sizes because they think it will help admissions chances. I think it's more for helping employment prospects since you're competing with less people for roughly the same number of positions.abcde12345 wrote:Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would smaller class sizes help admissions chances? Wouldn't it be ideal if they stayed the same size, because then medians would inevitably drop?
And also, I highly doubt they would cut class sizes. The standards are dropping across the board, so there is no relative change in rank. Also, don't underestimate how much these places care about money.
Of course, I'm a 0L so I could very easily be wrong.
- helix23
- Posts: 1807
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:18 pm
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
First off, smaller class sizes wouldn't help applicants' chances necessarily. But on here, cutting class sizes is perceived as the morally responsible thing to do. Given how many more JDs they graduate compared to how many jobs are out there, instead of admitting any Tom, Dick or Harry they should be maintaining medians and dropping class sizes. (I, as an applicant, personally would prefer a drop in medians at certain schools to help my chances, duh).abcde12345 wrote:Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would smaller class sizes help admissions chances? Wouldn't it be ideal if they stayed the same size, because then medians would inevitably drop?Yukos wrote:So what are law schools going to do? Just accept the lower medians? Continue cutting class/sizes and throwing money? Close?
I'm hoping for a 1-2 LSAT drop across the board AND smaller class sizes, but maybe that's asking for too much.
And also, I highly doubt they would cut class sizes. The standards are dropping across the board, so there is no relative change in rank. Also, don't underestimate how much these places care about money.
Secondly, don't be too sure they won't cut class sizes. You might not see it a lot in the T14, but off the top of my head I think Harvard reduced it's most recent class size and Northwestern cut 30-50 (again, off the top of my head). And if you look at the class size/median threads currently active, you are seeing reduced class sizes (this might just be a result of less people attending).
-
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:47 am
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
Lavitz wrote:I don't think people are hoping for smaller class sizes because they think it will help admissions chances. I think it's more for helping employment prospects since you're competing with less people for roughly the same number of positions.abcde12345 wrote:Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would smaller class sizes help admissions chances? Wouldn't it be ideal if they stayed the same size, because then medians would inevitably drop?
And also, I highly doubt they would cut class sizes. The standards are dropping across the board, so there is no relative change in rank. Also, don't underestimate how much these places care about money.
Of course, I'm a 0L so I could very easily be wrong.
- Tiago Splitter
- Posts: 17148
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
I don't think Harvard or Northwestern ultimately cut class size, but both Penn and Columbia cut theirs by 10%.helix23 wrote: don't be too sure they won't cut class sizes. You might not see it a lot in the T14, but off the top of my head I think Harvard reduced it's most recent class size and Northwestern cut 30-50 (again, off the top of my head). And if you look at the class size/median threads currently active, you are seeing reduced class sizes (this might just be a result of less people attending).
-
- Posts: 372
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:12 am
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
A lot of schools did just that last cycle (including many T14), so I wouldn't be surprised.Do you guys think that some schools will extend their application deadline to accept Feb LSAT scores?
Banjo, I think you're missing the point. # of LSAT takers is highly correlated with # of applicants (obviously). It's not a matter of "avoiding the LSAT requirement" but rather a matter of much less people being interested in law school (mainly due to news of debt and lack of jobs). How would TTTT's possibly prove that the GMAT and GRE are "reliable indicators in only a few months with no evidence? Even if they could convince the ABA to let them take the GMAT instead of LSAT, how is it that you think TTTT's will be able to convince random GMAT takers to abandon their MBA ambitions and go to one of the shittiest law schools in the country instead, in enough numbers to account for the HUGE drop in LSAT takers? Through the incredibly well-composed and inspiring spam mail they are known for? People who want to go to law school take the LSAT, people who want to get their MBA take the GMAT.It's too early to celebrate. Standard 503 only requires that law schools use a "valid and reliable" admission test to assess an applicant. If TTTTs can prove that the GMAT or GRE is a valid and reliable predictor of success in law school, they can poach potential business school and graduate school applicants. There are also a few other ways law schools can avoid the LSAT requirement, including creating temporary "experimental" programs and/or pushing for the ABA to drop the standard altogether. Law schools are better prepared this time, so let's see what happens.
I think theres a lot of reason to celebrate. People are wising up to the scam in large numbers, which is a good thing for everybody (except for bottom-feeder law schools).
- justonemoregame
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:51 pm
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
I would not at all be surprised to see TTTTs let their medians drop further. I mean if your standard is 147 or 151 or whatever, you effectively have no standard. The ABA rules regarding this are so vague as to not make it matter.
- Jaqen
- Posts: 986
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:23 am
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
Awesome news!
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:48 pm
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
How will schools handle the decrease in apps? Well, lets look at what they did last cycle, google spreadsheet linked below.
Some highlights from that spreadsheet:
LSAT median down a point at Duke, Cornell, Georgetown, and (most likely) NYU.
Change in class size: Columbia 406>368, -9.36%. Penn 266>243 -8.65%. NU 264>207 -21.59%.
It seems like the drop in apps this cycle could be as severe as the drop in apps last cycle. The real question to me is, how will schools like Penn/Columbia/NU etc handle the drop in apps as they've already cut class size. Surely NU, for example, won't cut their class size by another 21.59%....
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... nUnc#gid=0
Some highlights from that spreadsheet:
LSAT median down a point at Duke, Cornell, Georgetown, and (most likely) NYU.
Change in class size: Columbia 406>368, -9.36%. Penn 266>243 -8.65%. NU 264>207 -21.59%.
It seems like the drop in apps this cycle could be as severe as the drop in apps last cycle. The real question to me is, how will schools like Penn/Columbia/NU etc handle the drop in apps as they've already cut class size. Surely NU, for example, won't cut their class size by another 21.59%....
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... nUnc#gid=0
Last edited by Betharl on Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- NoodleyOne
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
I think NU's may be incorrect, and the second number counts JD only applicants, while the first includes joint degrees. At least I think there was some scuttlebutt to that effect.Betharl wrote:How will schools handle the decrease in apps? Well, lets look at what they did last cycle, google spreadsheet linked below.
Some highlights from that spreadsheet:
LSAT median down a point at Duke, Cornell, Georgetown, and (most likely) NYU.
Change in class size: Columbia 406>368, -9.36%. Penn 266>243 -8.65%. NU 264>207 -21.59%.
It seems like the drop in apps this cycle could be as severe as the drop in apps last cycle. The real question to me is, how will schools like Penn/Columbia/NU etc handle the drop in apps as they've already cut their class size. Surely NU, for example, won't cut their class size by another 21.59%....
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... nUnc#gid=0
- HawkeyeGirl
- Posts: 459
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:13 pm
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
I did some quick math on revenues at NU and determined that if they want to maintain their revenue level, they could increase tuition to $55k and decrease class size by 7 people. GIven the high fixed cost structure of a law school, they have to keep revenues pretty consistent to maintain margin. Not sure how much they care about $$ vs medians though.
- 06102016
- Posts: 13460
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:26 pm
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
I can't speak for any other school, but I known Penn aims for a class size of 250, and I think if you look at the 2-3 classes before the one with 266 people, they're a bit smaller. So the drop isn't THAT drastic. But yeah.Betharl wrote:How will schools handle the decrease in apps? Well, lets look at what they did last cycle, google spreadsheet linked below.
Some highlights from that spreadsheet:
LSAT median down a point at Duke, Cornell, Georgetown, and (most likely) NYU.
Change in class size: Columbia 406>368, -9.36%. Penn 266>243 -8.65%. NU 264>207 -21.59%.
It seems like the drop in apps this cycle could be as severe as the drop in apps last cycle. The real question to me is, how will schools like Penn/Columbia/NU etc handle the drop in apps as they've already cut class size. Surely NU, for example, won't cut their class size by another 21.59%....
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... nUnc#gid=0
- JCougar
- Posts: 3216
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
Everyone who is happy on this thread should keep in mind why smart people are turning away from law school. It's because they're smart.
Even with the drop in admissions standards, you should beware about taking out anything over $100K for tuition at any school--unless you really think you can bear Biglaw for 5 years, in which case HYS is a good deal at sticker. Anywhere else, and you put yourself at substantial risk of ruining your life.
As an 0L, it's easy to get lured into the prestige of "T14" schools and the way you see attorneys portrayed on TV and in the movies. In today's job market, however, there is no "T14." People's lives are getting permanently ruined at every school--even the Ivies. You might look at some of these schools and think, "Gee, their starting salaries are awesome and if I make Biglaw, my debt won't be an issue." Think again. 75% of Biglaw associates are either pushed out or leave on their own (because it's mostly horrible, mind-numbing makework with terrible hours) before year 5. Not all have good exit options. Some get stuck defending traffic tickets for the rest of their lives, and some slink into document review temp jobs before they have paid off their mountain of debt.
The legal job market is not getting any better. Most practicing attorneys will tell you straight up that the legal job market is going through permanent changes. Biglaw no longer can pad their bills to clients by hiring boatloads of first year associates and having them bill hours and hours of unnecessary makework. State legislatures and the Supreme Court are passing laws and handing down decisions that make it harder and harder for plaintiff's firms to even file claims. This, of course, means less work for Biglaw, who gets paid to defend those kinds of claims. Transactional consulting would normally be immune from these laws, but the drop in economic activity has cut into these firms' business as well.
If you're going to still attend law school despite what is described above, please limit your downside risk and go somewhere offering at least a 50% scholarship. $100K in debt is at least plausible to pay off if you--like most of your classmates even at the bottom end of the T14--end up getting a Shitlaw job making $60K/year. If you're one of the lucky ones to even get a job at all. Even schools in the T6 these days have to stuff their completely unemployed grads into school-funded jobs where the school pays a public interest organization to have you work there for free for one year.
Even with the drop in admissions standards, you should beware about taking out anything over $100K for tuition at any school--unless you really think you can bear Biglaw for 5 years, in which case HYS is a good deal at sticker. Anywhere else, and you put yourself at substantial risk of ruining your life.
As an 0L, it's easy to get lured into the prestige of "T14" schools and the way you see attorneys portrayed on TV and in the movies. In today's job market, however, there is no "T14." People's lives are getting permanently ruined at every school--even the Ivies. You might look at some of these schools and think, "Gee, their starting salaries are awesome and if I make Biglaw, my debt won't be an issue." Think again. 75% of Biglaw associates are either pushed out or leave on their own (because it's mostly horrible, mind-numbing makework with terrible hours) before year 5. Not all have good exit options. Some get stuck defending traffic tickets for the rest of their lives, and some slink into document review temp jobs before they have paid off their mountain of debt.
The legal job market is not getting any better. Most practicing attorneys will tell you straight up that the legal job market is going through permanent changes. Biglaw no longer can pad their bills to clients by hiring boatloads of first year associates and having them bill hours and hours of unnecessary makework. State legislatures and the Supreme Court are passing laws and handing down decisions that make it harder and harder for plaintiff's firms to even file claims. This, of course, means less work for Biglaw, who gets paid to defend those kinds of claims. Transactional consulting would normally be immune from these laws, but the drop in economic activity has cut into these firms' business as well.
If you're going to still attend law school despite what is described above, please limit your downside risk and go somewhere offering at least a 50% scholarship. $100K in debt is at least plausible to pay off if you--like most of your classmates even at the bottom end of the T14--end up getting a Shitlaw job making $60K/year. If you're one of the lucky ones to even get a job at all. Even schools in the T6 these days have to stuff their completely unemployed grads into school-funded jobs where the school pays a public interest organization to have you work there for free for one year.
- jkpolk
- Posts: 1236
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:44 am
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
JCougar wrote:blah blah blah
- JCougar
- Posts: 3216
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
You might LOL now, but your attitude will change pretty damn soon.polkij333 wrote:JCougar wrote:blah blah blah
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- jkpolk
- Posts: 1236
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:44 am
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
JCougar wrote: You might LOL now, but your attitude will change pretty damn soon.
- sinfiery
- Posts: 3310
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
Yes...permanent changes...we are witness. 2009-2012 changed law as we know it permanently....yes...yes....fear...run...cower...etc.JCougar wrote:Everyone who is happy on this thread should keep in mind why smart people are turning away from law school. It's because they're smart.
Even with the drop in admissions standards, you should beware about taking out anything over $100K for tuition at any school--unless you really think you can bear Biglaw for 5 years, in which case HYS is a good deal at sticker. Anywhere else, and you put yourself at substantial risk of ruining your life.
As an 0L, it's easy to get lured into the prestige of "T14" schools and the way you see attorneys portrayed on TV and in the movies. In today's job market, however, there is no "T14." People's lives are getting permanently ruined at every school--even the Ivies. You might look at some of these schools and think, "Gee, their starting salaries are awesome and if I make Biglaw, my debt won't be an issue." Think again. 75% of Biglaw associates are either pushed out or leave on their own (because it's mostly horrible, mind-numbing makework with terrible hours) before year 5. Not all have good exit options. Some get stuck defending traffic tickets for the rest of their lives, and some slink into document review temp jobs before they have paid off their mountain of debt.
The legal job market is not getting any better. Most practicing attorneys will tell you straight up that the legal job market is going through permanent changes. Biglaw no longer can pad their bills to clients by hiring boatloads of first year associates and having them bill hours and hours of unnecessary makework. State legislatures and the Supreme Court are passing laws and handing down decisions that make it harder and harder for plaintiff's firms to even file claims. This, of course, means less work for Biglaw, who gets paid to defend those kinds of claims. Transactional consulting would normally be immune from these laws, but the drop in economic activity has cut into these firms' business as well.
If you're going to still attend law school despite what is described above, please limit your downside risk and go somewhere offering at least a 50% scholarship. $100K in debt is at least plausible to pay off if you--like most of your classmates even at the bottom end of the T14--end up getting a Shitlaw job making $60K/year. If you're one of the lucky ones to even get a job at all. Even schools in the T6 these days have to stuff their completely unemployed grads into school-funded jobs where the school pays a public interest organization to have you work there for free for one year.
I understand you need to better your job prospects coming out of LS in however many years you have left so continue to do work, my son. Do work.
- JCougar
- Posts: 3216
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
I already have a job, thanks.sinfiery wrote: I understand you need to better your job prospects coming out of LS in however many years you have left so continue to do work, my son. Do work.
Whether things work out for you or whether they don't, you will go through law school humbled--whether its yourself or your friends. Even at the most elite schools in this nation, you will see at least some of your friends--and quite possibly yourself--have their futures completely devastated by a random, unjust, and invalid process that imparts upon people nothing but an empty notion of prestige.
And once you're done worrying about grades, you'll worry about getting no-offered, and then you'll worry about getting pushed out of your firm before you can pay off any debt through Biglaw's "up or out" strategy.
Or you can just go the low debt route and choose where you actually want to practice law--some place stable, some place that isn't defending large investment banks that crashed our economy, etc.
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:54 pm
Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)
But JCougar, America has a drastic under-supply of lawyers.
(according to the Dean of Yale Law School, see here http://youtu.be/EWskffWYKmo)
I completely disagree with him, btw.
(according to the Dean of Yale Law School, see here http://youtu.be/EWskffWYKmo)
I completely disagree with him, btw.
Last edited by encaenia on Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login