LSAC: Applicants: -15.9% Forum

[ms9]

Here it is:

LSAC has released test taker data for the June LSAT. 23,997 individuals took the June test, down 1,226 - 4.9% - from June 2012. The number of first-time takers was down about 5% compared to June 2012.

Are the number of June test takers usually the highest? Meaning is it likely that if June test takers are down is it likely the whole cycle will be down?

JRS, Oct has the largest number of test-takers, and thus correlates the highest with the cycle as a whole.

[jrsbaseball5]

Here it is:

LSAC has released test taker data for the June LSAT. 23,997 individuals took the June test, down 1,226 - 4.9% - from June 2012. The number of first-time takers was down about 5% compared to June 2012.

Are the number of June test takers usually the highest? Meaning is it likely that if June test takers are down is it likely the whole cycle will be down?

October usually has the most takers. Percentage-wise, June 2012 had a drop of 5.9% over June 2011, and the October/December/February tests after June 2012 had drops of 16.4%, 15.6% and 12.9% respectively compared to the same administrations a year earlier.

June 2013 was "only" a 4.9% drop compared to June 2012, but the drop might have been lessened because of people taking the June LSAT to apply for school *this* fall, which hasn't always been an option in years past. I'd be surprised if the upcoming October/December/February test don't show at least double-digit drops compared to their previous administrations.

Oh ok I didn't know October was the highest. Makes sense though since lots of people want to study for the summer or retake.

Ya the drop of "only" 4.9% is because it is based off of the abysmal number from last year. The fact that it is still falling is the significant part. Will be great for many of us if those numbers continue to free this October and December.

[Ti Malice]

Happy, LSAC provided that to law school admissions deans and then I leaked it on my twitter and blog.

Here you go:

http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/lsac-data-as-of-531/

Do you happen to have that data for the two cycles before this one?

[ms9]

Happy, LSAC provided that to law school admissions deans and then I leaked it on my twitter and blog.

Here you go:

http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/lsac-data-as-of-531/

Do you happen to have that data for the two cycles before this one?

Let me try to get that over the weekend. I can't gaurantee I can but I'm optimistic.

[NYstate]

Here it is:

LSAC has released test taker data for the June LSAT. 23,997 individuals took the June test, down 1,226 - 4.9% - from June 2012. The number of first-time takers was down about 5% compared to June 2012.

Are the number of June test takers usually the highest? Meaning is it likely that if June test takers are down is it likely the whole cycle will be down?

October usually has the most takers. Percentage-wise, June 2012 had a drop of 5.9% over June 2011, and the October/December/February tests after June 2012 had drops of 16.4%, 15.6% and 12.9% respectively compared to the same administrations a year earlier.

June 2013 was "only" a 4.9% drop compared to June 2012, but the drop might have been lessened because of people taking the June LSAT to apply for school *this* fall, which hasn't always been an option in years past. I'd be surprised if the upcoming October/December/February test don't show at least double-digit drops compared to their previous administrations.

Oh ok I didn't know October was the highest. Makes sense though since lots of people want to study for the summer or retake.

Ya the drop of "only" 4.9% is because it is based off of the abysmal number from last year. The fact that it is still falling is the significant part. Will be great for many of us if those numbers continue to free this October and December.

Is anyone surprised at this drop ? I thought it might be higher. My hope is that as the true nature of legal employment with increased transparency and continued pressure on the schools lying liars who lie employment figures, the drop is going to continue. We all think this is old news but to many people law school seems like a sure road to at least middle class success and security . The more the word spread, the fewer people are going to attend. I can see declines continuing for the next few years.

Just look at all the threads here by people still willing to borrow sticker to go to schools with hideous employment prospects. It is going to take a few years for people to get it.

And if the predicted biglaw cutbacks happen or continue to happen, even more people will drop law as a career choice. But that is just predictions, have to see what really happens. As biglaw changes slowly it might just be a continued drumbeat of stealth layoffs and staff associates. Or maybe M&A will explode if the economy hits an upturn.

My prediction remains that as long as accurate info continues to spread, applicants will continue to drop.

[KevinP]

Happy, LSAC provided that to law school admissions deans and then I leaked it on my twitter and blog.

Here you go:

http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/lsac-data-as-of-531/

Do you happen to have that data for the two cycles before this one?

Here are the data for 2011 and most of 2012: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/ad ... asier.html

The relatively low (13.6%) 175+ decline in 2012 should be expected, as 2011 had a (~24% decline).

There may be a marginal difference, but if you mean high scorer as when it comes to HYS, the difference will be very little to none. The same is probably true for the T6, but possibly the bottom half of the T14 may drop off a bit, but I don't think it would ever be any more than a 1 point drop off.

We will have a better idea when class info gets released this fall.

The top schools may not have massive median declines, but for high scorers (170+), I strongly believe it will much easier to gain admissions. One has to consider the top schools (1) had some of the lowest declines in class sizes and (2) had the greatest decline in applicants that can be used to maintain medians.

2010/2011 had around 4500 applicants who scored 170+, whereas this cycle will have around 2500 applicants with 170+. We are talking about almost half as few 170+ applicants this year versus a couple years back. If you account for the number of 170+ who apply but don't attend and the number of 170+ who end up at lower ranked schools, I would not be surprised if it was mathematically impossible for the top schools to maintain medians without dropping class sizes.

I'm sure if you ran some statistical analysis on LSN, you'd find a noticeable different in admissions.

See Harvard:
http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1011
http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1213

See Columbia:
http://columbia.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1011
http://columbia.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1213

[ms9]

Thanks Kevin. Nice find and great stuff as always.

[NoWorries]

It's clear the Harvard is noticeably easier to get into now than it was 3 years ago. Columbia is harder to tell at first glance.

[bizzybone1313]

It's clear the Harvard is noticeably easier to get into now than it was 3 years ago. Columbia is harder to tell at first glance.

Lol. Look at user "phillycollins" under Harvard's 2012-2013 cycle. It is real funny. He was a 3.3ish/180.

[KevinP]

Thanks Kevin. Nice find and great stuff as always.

Well thank you for releasing the breakdowns. Makes it much easier to neurotically analyze the declines

Lol. Look at user "phillycollins" under Harvard's 2012-2013 cycle. It is real funny. He was a 3.3ish/180.

Plus a million dollar scholly. Harvard must be desperate for applicants.

[rftdd888]

It's clear the Harvard is noticeably easier to get into now than it was 3 years ago. Columbia is harder to tell at first glance.

Yes. I have noticed the data Kevin pointed out, as well. For example, someone with a GPA between 3.7 and 3.8 would have needed at least a 177 in the last two or three cycles to feel "comfortable" with their numbers at H; now, it looks as though 175 was a "comfortable" number in the 12/13 cycle, and 173/174 would likely get you close in 13/14. I hope so, anyway

[Ruluo]

Also, I think it depends on how we're defining "easier" for admissions. The schools are obviously fighting hard to keep their numbers (primarily medians, but also 25%/75%); so, perhaps 3-4 years ago, the schools might have been looking at two applicants with 173/3.81 and selected one over the other based on WE or softs (I recognize that this is a simplified scenario, since these two applicants don't apply in a vacuum, but I think it's representative). Now, based on the lower number of applicants, the situation is almost as if only one of those two at 173/3.81 applied, and if they want to maintain the same medians, etc., they'll have to take that one person now, even with the weaker softs/WE.

In that sense, maybe the increased "ease" of admissions comes from lowered standards for softs, as opposed to directly lowering the numbers desired for admission.

[MyNameIsFlynn!]

Also, I think it depends on how we're defining "easier" for admissions. The schools are obviously fighting hard to keep their numbers (primarily medians, but also 25%/75%); so, perhaps 3-4 years ago, the schools might have been looking at two applicants with 173/3.81 and selected one over the other based on WE or softs (I recognize that this is a simplified scenario, since these two applicants don't apply in a vacuum, but I think it's representative). Now, based on the lower number of applicants, the situation is almost as if only one of those two at 173/3.81 applied, and if they want to maintain the same medians, etc., they'll have to take that one person now, even with the weaker softs/WE.

In that sense, maybe the increased "ease" of admissions comes from lowered standards for softs, as opposed to directly lowering the numbers desired for admission.

If this were an LR question, the credited answer would be "Argument incorrectly assumes softs matter"

In any case, it seems pretty clear from LSN and the waitlist activity that schools' LSAT and GPA numbers are declining

[ScottRiqui]

Also, I think it depends on how we're defining "easier" for admissions. The schools are obviously fighting hard to keep their numbers (primarily medians, but also 25%/75%); so, perhaps 3-4 years ago, the schools might have been looking at two applicants with 173/3.81 and selected one over the other based on WE or softs (I recognize that this is a simplified scenario, since these two applicants don't apply in a vacuum, but I think it's representative). Now, based on the lower number of applicants, the situation is almost as if only one of those two at 173/3.81 applied, and if they want to maintain the same medians, etc., they'll have to take that one person now, even with the weaker softs/WE.

In that sense, maybe the increased "ease" of admissions comes from lowered standards for softs, as opposed to directly lowering the numbers desired for admission.

If this were an LR question, the credited answer would be "Argument incorrectly assumes softs matter"

For the schools I think he was talking about, softs do matter. In the "boom years", HYS could have probably filled their entire incoming classes with 176+/4.0+ students, if they had wanted to. But since they didn't necessarily need medians that high, they could pick and choose from among the applicants, and end up with a class that had meaningful, diverse and interesting backgrounds.

With the reduced number of applicants, the schools at the very top may still be able to maintain both their medians and their class size, but they're probably going to have to be less selective when it comes to soft factors.

[LRGhost]

It's worth pointing out that traditional splitters aren't over-performing this cycle whereas reverse splitters are.

[rftdd888]

With the reduced number of applicants, the schools at the very top may still be able to maintain both their medians and their class size, but they're probably going to have to be less selective when it comes to soft factors.

seems unlikely. The numbers have been dropping too significantly for them not to adjust either their medians, class size, and/or both. It's not even up for debate the fact that this previous cycle MANY, MANY applicants got into Harvard with LSATs that would have simply been too low by at LEAST two full points only the cycle or two prior. Like I said, some GPAs needed a 177 or better just a couple years ago and now seem safe with a 175. I have no idea if that will continue into the next cycle; at the very least it should hold, given the drop in applications and the especially large drop among the highest scorers.

[ScottRiqui]

With the reduced number of applicants, the schools at the very top may still be able to maintain both their medians and their class size, but they're probably going to have to be less selective when it comes to soft factors.

seems unlikely. The numbers have been dropping too significantly for them not to adjust either their medians, class size, and/or both. It's not even up for debate the fact that this previous cycle MANY, MANY applicants got into Harvard with LSATs that would have simply been too low by at LEAST two full points only the cycle or two prior. Like I said, some GPAs needed a 177 or better just a couple years ago and now seem safe with a 175. I have no idea if that will continue into the next cycle; at the very least it should hold, given the drop in applications and the especially large drop among the highest scorers.

Some people may have gotten into Harvard with slightly lower numbers, but Harvard (and the top schools) all did an admirable job of preserving their overall numbers regardless.

Check out this chart comparing 2011 to 2012. Of the T6, only one of them changed their 25th/75th LSAT numbers at all, and then only by a one-point drop in their 75th. Three of them had drops in the 25th/75th GPAs, but by .05 at most.

I'm not saying that they *will* do this, but I'd bet money that HYS could all keep their class sizes the same without sacrificing medians, *if* they're willing to stock their incoming classes with sperglords who have little or nothing going for them besides their GPAs and LSAT scores.

[rftdd888]

I think they kept their #s the same because they were (smartly) able to balance the need to reach for high LSATs and keep GPA medians up. High GPAs are always there for them, the high LSATs aren't so much. I'd probably feel good applying at H with uber high GPA and below median LSAT this upcoming cycle or above median LSAT and 25th GPA or so. It seems like they'd have to do that to keep their numbers on balance. They're doing a great job

[prezidentv8]

the schools lying liars who lie employment figures

Hahaha

[Ti Malice]

Happy, LSAC provided that to law school admissions deans and then I leaked it on my twitter and blog.

Here you go:

http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/lsac-data-as-of-531/

Do you happen to have that data for the two cycles before this one?

Here are the data for 2011 and most of 2012: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/ad ... asier.html

The relatively low (13.6%) 175+ decline in 2012 should be expected, as 2011 had a (~24% decline).

Excellent. Thanks!

[hayman]

It's worth pointing out that traditional splitters aren't over-performing this cycle whereas reverse splitters are.

Are you referring to Chicago?
I thought traditional splitters are doing generally well this cycle

[jselson]

It's worth pointing out that traditional splitters aren't over-performing this cycle whereas reverse splitters are.

Are you referring to Chicago?
I thought traditional splitters are doing generally well this cycle

People thought this year was going to be a bonanza for trad splitters, but it's ended up being about comparable to last year.

[longlivetheking]

It's worth pointing out that traditional splitters aren't over-performing this cycle whereas reverse splitters are.

Are you referring to Chicago?
I thought traditional splitters are doing generally well this cycle

People thought this year was going to be a bonanza for trad splitters, but it's ended up being about comparable to last year.

i thought columbia has been vacuuming up the splitters? this has rarely happened previously.

[ScottRiqui]

It's worth pointing out that traditional splitters aren't over-performing this cycle whereas reverse splitters are.

Are you referring to Chicago?
I thought traditional splitters are doing generally well this cycle

People thought this year was going to be a bonanza for trad splitters, but it's ended up being about comparable to last year.

i thought columbia has been vacuuming up the splitters? this has rarely happened previously.

And looking at UT last cycle on LSN, there were only two acceptances below 3.1 (1 URM). This cycle, there are already six (3 URM).

[Yukos]

It's worth pointing out that traditional splitters aren't over-performing this cycle whereas reverse splitters are.

Are you referring to Chicago?
I thought traditional splitters are doing generally well this cycle

People thought this year was going to be a bonanza for trad splitters, but it's ended up being about comparable to last year.

i thought columbia has been vacuuming up the splitters? this has rarely happened previously.

AFAIK Columbia is "splitter friendly" in that a 3.5/high 170s has a great shot at Columbia and almost no chance at HYS/C/B. I don't have any reading on if this cycle has been especially splitter friendly but Columbia always prioritizes LSATs so it's not a great example.