Waitlist chances different this year? Forum

[justonemoregame]

Also, IBSYH

[LRGhost]

Seems like the new methodology should reward schools that cut class size, which is good. Why do so many people (lose their jobs) between graduation and 9 months?

They don't; the numbers on the right are the real numbers compared to old reported numbers, I believe.

[justonemoregame]

What are you doing, University of Washington!? Damn.[/quote]


They made a huge jump in last year's rankings, fun while it lasted

[justonemoregame]

I wish the "2-10" firm category was broken down further. "2" doesn't at all seem to belong close to 8,9, or 10 imo. Maybe your pay is similar regardless, but I wouldn't think your career trajectory would be in many instances. Also, on top of recent grads pairing together and reporting 2-10, it seems like a recent grad who is running errands and doing very little legal work for a solo might report 2-10 since, after all, two people at the office have JDs.

[Crowing]

2013: See ya ASU.

[curious66]

Good points. My thoughts: even though there might be shifts/impacts in the T-14; the schools lower than T14 will also be impacted -- some even more so than the Georgetown example above. Also, even though UCLA/Vandy/Texas may do well in certain areas (i.e. CA, Tenn and Texas), you have to account for the ability for national reach. Personally, i think there will be movement in the CCN & MVP and Duke area.. but I don't see a flat out massive change out of the T14.

I think you will be surprised. I would bet you money that GULC departs the T14. Although some schools have less national reach, reach is not a factor in the U.S. News & World Report rankings; as long as a school's graduates can get hired somewhere, the employment rates are all that matter. Here is a chart I just came up with that shows which schools will be affected the most by the release of the new rankings. Basically, the more a school was fudging its employment data up until now by including Burger-King-ish jobs in their "employment rates," the bigger their loss will be. (I made two columns to account for the school-paid positions as we do not yet know which way this will swing.)

So, by this then, UVA stands to be massively affected depending on how they count the school funded stuff? Right? Just checking to see if I am understanding this correctly.

2013: See ya ASU.

[Crowing]

I am actually confused by the school-funded thing on LST because for some schools it seems like that number is incorporated into the employment score but others it isn't.

For example, UVA has an asterisk by the employment score. It says up to 17% of the score comes from school-funded jobs, which matches what is listed below. http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=uva

However, if you look at say GULC... The asterisk says "up to 3%" but the school-funded rate is listed as 13%. http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=uva

Then there are schools with no asterisk at all, like Vandy. http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=vanderbilt

I'm confused.

[curious66]

Well, we should come back in March when the new rankings come out and compare.

[02889]

I'm going to selfishly try to steer this thread back towards its original purpose.

Take a look at this.

The number of test takers is has dropped to the level it used to be back in the early 2000s. If you click on the other tabs you will notice that almost all of the T14 had much lower LSAT 25th percentiles than they currently do back then. A paucity in strong applicants will equally affect all of the T14, and a small change in LSAT/GPA scores will not be enough to affect a school's ranking this cycle. The thing that is going to be a killer is the new methodology that U.S. News & World Report is implementing regarding employment rates.

Do you bring up 25th percentiles to say that you think schools will be more okay accepting slightly-below-median LSAT scores if the GPA is high enough (that is, schools this year might surprisingly favor reverse splitters)? I still suspect that splitters will have a better year this year getting off of waitlists, while those just below both medians will be hurt more than in the past.

Last year, my numbers meant a solid chance at getting into NYU off the waitlist, and no shot at getting into Columbia off the waitlist. This year, I'm thinking it means waitlist-rejection for both, as they both shoot hard for the people with 171-172+ LSATs.

[Tiago Splitter]

Take a look at this.

The number of test takers is has dropped to the level it used to be back in the early 2000s. If you click on the other tabs you will notice that almost all of the T14 had much lower LSAT 25th percentiles than they currently do back then. A paucity in strong applicants will equally affect all of the T14, and a small change in LSAT/GPA scores will not be enough to affect a school's ranking this cycle. The thing that is going to be a killer is the new methodology that U.S. News & World Report is implementing regarding employment rates.

Prior to 2006 schools were required to report the average LSAT rather than just the highest, so the LSAT numbers look screwy.

As to the employment reporting, these rankings will continue to be BS if USNWR counts someone employed in a 2-man shop the same way they count someone employed at Wachtell.

[suralin]

I am actually confused by the school-funded thing on LST because for some schools it seems like that number is incorporated into the employment score but others it isn't.

For example, UVA has an asterisk by the employment score. It says up to 17% of the score comes from school-funded jobs, which matches what is listed below. http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=uva

However, if you look at say GULC... The asterisk says "up to 3%" but the school-funded rate is listed as 13%. http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=uva

Then there are schools with no asterisk at all, like Vandy. http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=vanderbilt

I'm confused.

Same, don't know what's up with that.

[20141023]

.

[LRGhost]

Just want to agree with Regulus. Medians have a relative, not absolute, value. Most T14s are working with the same applicant pool and it's hard to imagine that they would all decide to slash class sizes enough to maintain LSAT medians.

[LRGhost]

Also, I don't think reverse splitters will have such a better chance than before. It'll definitely be a little bit better but not enough to bank on miracles. Same with conventional LSAT splitters. I also think the volume of late WL movement will increase this year as schools place more people on WLs instead of straight admitting some.

[longlivetheking]

Also, I don't think reverse splitters will have such a better chance than before. It'll definitely be a little bit better but not enough to bank on miracles. Same with conventional LSAT splitters. I also think the volume of late WL movement will increase this year as schools place more people on WLs instead of straight admitting some.

you mean reverse splitters/normal splitters having only a slight edge in non-WL admits? if i'm not wrong last year's waitlist movement was pretty crazy where below both medians got calls from NYU. would this year waitlist be even more crazy?

also wondering if schs already know applicant numbers/170+scorers numbers have already hit the fan, why aren't they more lenient on direct admits? why do i have to wait until waitlist admission round comes and fight again with every other sch? are they still delusional on holding onto high-end applicants?

[RetakeFrenzy]

Thanks for this table!

[LRGhost]

Also, I don't think reverse splitters will have such a better chance than before. It'll definitely be a little bit better but not enough to bank on miracles. Same with conventional LSAT splitters. I also think the volume of late WL movement will increase this year as schools place more people on WLs instead of straight admitting some.

you mean reverse splitters/normal splitters having only a slight edge in non-WL admits? if i'm not wrong last year's waitlist movement was pretty crazy where below both medians got calls from NYU. would this year waitlist be even more crazy?

also wondering if schs already know applicant numbers/170+scorers numbers have already hit the fan, why aren't they more lenient on direct admits? why do i have to wait until waitlist admission round comes and fight again with every other sch? are they still delusional on holding onto high-end applicants?

I think reverse splitters will fare marginally better than normal. Splitters will fare fairly well comparatively. Maybe schools don't have their strategy set yet with regards to shrinking class size or dropping a point in medians. Alternatively, they're assessing tables and all that and waiting for the last applicants to start making moves. Last cycle, they may have been caught by surprise. This cycle, they may just want to wait to get all their applications received and then start admitting/denying/WLing people a little later in February. But looking at all the graphs, there is substantial movement both in November/December and February at most schools so I wouldn't read too much into the delay so far.

I don't think this WL will be more crazy. I do think schools might make small cuts in class sizes if it preserves median.

[longlivetheking]

but why do u need to cut size classes when medians are relative? if everyone across the board are dropping medians, especially schs ranked below you, might as well maintain the class size and keep that revenue?