2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
bernaldiaz
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:51 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby bernaldiaz » Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:55 pm

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?


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)
Last edited by bernaldiaz on Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3098
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby Lavitz » Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:56 pm

bernaldiaz wrote:
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?


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)

Also, the link to the chart is in the OP.

User avatar
BlueJeanBaby
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:46 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby BlueJeanBaby » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:15 pm

Do you guys think that some schools will extend their application deadline to accept Feb LSAT scores?

User avatar
bizzybone1313
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:31 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby bizzybone1313 » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:23 pm

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.

User avatar
abcde12345
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:41 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby abcde12345 » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:27 pm

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.


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.
Last edited by abcde12345 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby sinfiery » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:27 pm

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.

I hope they are, do cut class sizes, not medians, and possibly even charge less money somehow.

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3098
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby Lavitz » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:39 pm

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.

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.

Of course, I'm a 0L so I could very easily be wrong.

User avatar
helix23
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:18 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby helix23 » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:42 pm

abcde12345 wrote:
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.


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.


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).

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).

WanderingPondering
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:47 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby WanderingPondering » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:43 pm

Lavitz wrote:
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.

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.

Of course, I'm a 0L so I could very easily be wrong.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15525
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:55 pm

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).

I don't think Harvard or Northwestern ultimately cut class size, but both Penn and Columbia cut theirs by 10%.

WhiskeynCoke
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:12 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby WhiskeynCoke » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:58 pm

Do you guys think that some schools will extend their application deadline to accept Feb LSAT scores?


A lot of schools did just that last cycle (including many T14), so I wouldn't be surprised.

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.


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.

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).

User avatar
justonemoregame
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby justonemoregame » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:29 pm

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.

User avatar
Jaqen
Posts: 949
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:23 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby Jaqen » Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:16 pm

Awesome news! :mrgreen:

Betharl
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:48 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby Betharl » Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:29 pm

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
Last edited by Betharl on Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
NoodleyOne
Posts: 2358
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby NoodleyOne » Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:30 pm

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

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.

User avatar
HawkeyeGirl
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby HawkeyeGirl » Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:45 pm

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.

User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby 06102016 » Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:20 pm

..

SportsFan
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:26 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby SportsFan » Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:41 pm

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

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.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby JCougar » Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:04 am

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.

User avatar
jkpolk
Posts: 896
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:44 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby jkpolk » Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:30 am

JCougar wrote:blah blah blah


:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby JCougar » Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:48 am

polkij333 wrote:
JCougar wrote:blah blah blah


:lol: :lol: :lol:


You might LOL now, but your attitude will change pretty damn soon.

User avatar
jkpolk
Posts: 896
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:44 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby jkpolk » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:36 am

JCougar wrote:You might LOL now, but your attitude will change pretty damn soon.


:lol: :lol:

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby sinfiery » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:45 am

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.

Yes...permanent changes...we are witness. 2009-2012 changed law as we know it permanently....yes...yes....fear...run...cower...etc.


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.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby JCougar » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:56 am

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.


I already have a job, thanks.

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.

encaenia
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:54 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby encaenia » Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:09 am

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.
Last edited by encaenia on Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:16 am, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests