LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
jcccc
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby jcccc » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:43 am

This is amazing news.

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:42 am

Some of the waitlist movement this cycle has been kind of eye-opening.

Also, these numbers, just :shock:

So much for folks who said the 2012-2013 cycle was rock bottom.

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4166
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Clearly » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:03 am

ALeal90 wrote:For those of us who waited out a cycle, it wasn't such a bad decision after all. When apps go down, that's more scholly $$$ for us

Getting a little ahead of yourself.

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:16 am

Clearlynotstefan wrote:
ALeal90 wrote:For those of us who waited out a cycle, it wasn't such a bad decision after all. When apps go down, that's more scholly $$$ for us

Getting a little ahead of yourself.


Expecting more $$$ may be premature if they downsize classes/faculty. But improving admissions chances is almost a sure thing based on the data so far.

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15418
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby sublime » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:25 am

..

User avatar
jcccc
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby jcccc » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:30 am

I'm waiting for that one T10 school to ridiculously drop their LSAT medians, setting off a chain of events that causes all the other schools to drop theirs too except YLS of course.

User avatar
Young Marino
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Young Marino » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:39 am

sublime wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
Clearlynotstefan wrote:
ALeal90 wrote:For those of us who waited out a cycle, it wasn't such a bad decision after all. When apps go down, that's more scholly $$$ for us

Getting a little ahead of yourself.


Expecting more $$$ may be premature if they downsize classes/faculty. But improving admissions chances is almost a sure thing based on the data so far.



I think it depends a lot on where the score shortages fall. Last cycle, there were not enough 165's plus to go around, so you saw people (myself included) getting scholarship offers for WAY more than they actually deserve.

Just look at UMN, who WL'd 166's before realizing how fucked they were and offering them $$$ straight off the waitlist.

Agreed.

meadow201
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:07 am

edit

Postby meadow201 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:10 am

edit
Last edited by meadow201 on Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
John Winger
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:28 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby John Winger » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:25 am

As a splitter who decided to work a year instead of going k-jd this is just making me much happier with my decision. Hopefully it all pays off at the end of the cycle.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:37 am

Waiting is a very smart decision. The only people who thought last year was the bottom were law professors and administrators who refuse to see what is happening right before their eyes.

Improved transparency in employment data coupled with the insane cost of law school is going to keep people out. There is no coincidence that applications started dropping as the true nature of the job market began to be publisized.

I like to remind people why this is happening. The combination of few jobs with insane cost is going to keep people away. Law schools only got to the place they are now because of their decades of lying to students who trusted them. They created thier own mess from their own greed.
Last edited by NYstate on Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Humbert Humbert
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Humbert Humbert » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:46 am

NYstate wrote:Waiting is a very smart decision. The only people who thought last year was the bottom were law professors and administrators who refuse to see what is happening right before their eyes.

Improved transparency in employment data coupled with the insane cost of law school is going to keep people out. There is no coincidence that applications started dropping as the true nature of the job market began to be publisized.

I like to remind people why this is happening. The combination of jobs with cost is going to keep people away. Law schools only got to the place they are now because of their decades of lying to students who trusted them. They created thier own mess from their own greed.


Well there also used to be more jobs to go around for JDs than there are currently. The problem now is that tuition kept growing throughout the 2000s as if the recession didn't happen, resulting in a lot of schools with insanely expensive tuitions that are not justified by their job prospects. The market needed to correct itself, and that's what we are seeing now.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:07 am

Humbert Humbert wrote:
NYstate wrote:Waiting is a very smart decision. The only people who thought last year was the bottom were law professors and administrators who refuse to see what is happening right before their eyes.

Improved transparency in employment data coupled with the insane cost of law school is going to keep people out. There is no coincidence that applications started dropping as the true nature of the job market began to be publisized.

I like to remind people why this is happening. The combination of jobs with cost is going to keep people away. Law schools only got to the place they are now because of their decades of lying to students who trusted them. They created thier own mess from their own greed.


Well there also used to be more jobs to go around for JDs than there are currently. The problem now is that tuition kept growing throughout the 2000s as if the recession didn't happen, resulting in a lot of schools with insanely expensive tuitions that are not justified by their job prospects. The market needed to correct itself, and that's what we are seeing now.



Law schools have only in the past year or two started to report data honestly. The whole idea of students hired by schools for 9 months so they could boost their stats was only revealed in the past year or two. Now schools have to disclose the number of students they employ. Was it UVa that had 20%? Don't remember exactly.

That is only one small aspect of the misrepresentation and manipulation that happened, I'm not going to rehash history. Even T14 schools manipulated statistics and employment data to distort the reality of the job market for lawyers and their salaries.

My point is that the misrepresentation by schools created a false demand that is not supported by the actual job market, then or now. Yes, there are far fewer biglaw SAs now, but that isn't the reason behind this collapse in demand for legal education.

User avatar
MyNameIsFlynn!
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:29 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MyNameIsFlynn! » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:41 am

NYstate wrote:
Humbert Humbert wrote:
NYstate wrote:Waiting is a very smart decision. The only people who thought last year was the bottom were law professors and administrators who refuse to see what is happening right before their eyes.

Improved transparency in employment data coupled with the insane cost of law school is going to keep people out. There is no coincidence that applications started dropping as the true nature of the job market began to be publisized.

I like to remind people why this is happening. The combination of jobs with cost is going to keep people away. Law schools only got to the place they are now because of their decades of lying to students who trusted them. They created thier own mess from their own greed.


Well there also used to be more jobs to go around for JDs than there are currently. The problem now is that tuition kept growing throughout the 2000s as if the recession didn't happen, resulting in a lot of schools with insanely expensive tuitions that are not justified by their job prospects. The market needed to correct itself, and that's what we are seeing now.



Law schools have only in the past year or two started to report data honestly. The whole idea of students hired by schools for 9 months so they could boost their stats was only revealed in the past year or two. Now schools have to disclose the number of students they employ. Was it UVa that had 20%? Don't remember exactly.

That is only one small aspect of the misrepresentation and manipulation that happened, I'm not going to rehash history. Even T14 schools manipulated statistics and employment data to distort the reality of the job market for lawyers and their salaries.

My point is that the misrepresentation by schools created a false demand that is not supported by the actual job market, then or now. Yes, there are far fewer biglaw SAs now, but that isn't the reason behind this collapse in demand for legal education.



158

maybe 160 if the curve is generous

User avatar
CyanIdes Of March
Posts: 743
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby CyanIdes Of March » Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:37 am

meadow201 wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
Clearlynotstefan wrote:
ALeal90 wrote:For those of us who waited out a cycle, it wasn't such a bad decision after all. When apps go down, that's more scholly $$$ for us

Getting a little ahead of yourself.


Expecting more $$$ may be premature if they downsize classes/faculty. But improving admissions chances is almost a sure thing based on the data so far.


Does this apply to HYS? What about CCN? Aren't there enough 173s+ to go around between HYS?


There's certainly enough to go around for HYS, but it has become easier for those 173s to get in since there are less of them. Take into consideration there's about 1,120 173s+ (112k test takers, 173 = top 1%), plus/minus the people who waited a year to apply (which was a bit more last year than will defer this year, so that's probably getting us up to 1,200).

Harvard accepts ~275. Yale sits at around 100. Stanford is a bit trickier because their LSAT median is 172, but I think 90 is a good number.

275 + 100 + 90 = 465. So HYS will take a bit more than 1/3 of the top 1%, leaving the other 2/3 for CCN and the rest of the T14.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:42 am

MyNameIsFlynn! wrote:
NYstate wrote:
Humbert Humbert wrote:
NYstate wrote:Waiting is a very smart decision. The only people who thought last year was the bottom were law professors and administrators who refuse to see what is happening right before their eyes.

Improved transparency in employment data coupled with the insane cost of law school is going to keep people out. There is no coincidence that applications started dropping as the true nature of the job market began to be publisized.

I like to remind people why this is happening. The combination of jobs with cost is going to keep people away. Law schools only got to the place they are now because of their decades of lying to students who trusted them. They created thier own mess from their own greed.


Well there also used to be more jobs to go around for JDs than there are currently. The problem now is that tuition kept growing throughout the 2000s as if the recession didn't happen, resulting in a lot of schools with insanely expensive tuitions that are not justified by their job prospects. The market needed to correct itself, and that's what we are seeing now.



Law schools have only in the past year or two started to report data honestly. The whole idea of students hired by schools for 9 months so they could boost their stats was only revealed in the past year or two. Now schools have to disclose the number of students they employ. Was it UVa that had 20%? Don't remember exactly.

That is only one small aspect of the misrepresentation and manipulation that happened, I'm not going to rehash history. Even T14 schools manipulated statistics and employment data to distort the reality of the job market for lawyers and their salaries.

My point is that the misrepresentation by schools created a false demand that is not supported by the actual job market, then or now. Yes, there are far fewer biglaw SAs now, but that isn't the reason behind this collapse in demand for legal education.



158

maybe 160 if the curve is generous


Sorry- what point are you trying to make? You don't think that transparency has anything to do with the drop in LSAT takers? If not, why not? Perhaps you are well- versed in this subject.

Ruluo
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:26 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Ruluo » Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:51 am

CyanIdes Of March wrote:
meadow201 wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
Clearlynotstefan wrote:For those of us who waited out a cycle, it wasn't such a bad decision after all. When apps go down, that's more scholly $$$ for us

Getting a little ahead of yourself.


Expecting more $$$ may be premature if they downsize classes/faculty. But improving admissions chances is almost a sure thing based on the data so far.


Does this apply to HYS? What about CCN? Aren't there enough 173s+ to go around between HYS?

There's certainly enough to go around for HYS, but it has become easier for those 173s to get in since there are less of them. Take into consideration there's about 1,120 173s+ (112k test takers, 173 = top 1%), plus/minus the people who waited a year to apply (which was a bit more last year than will defer this year, so that's probably getting us up to 1,200).

Harvard accepts ~275. Yale sits at around 100. Stanford is a bit trickier because their LSAT median is 172, but I think 90 is a good number.

275 + 100 + 90 = 465. So HYS will take a bit more than 1/3 of the top 1%, leaving the other 2/3 for CCN and the rest of the T14.


This doesn't account for the GPA factor, which actually has a significant impact, especially for the 175+ crowd at HYS...

LRGhost
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby LRGhost » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:58 pm

GPA standards have gone down at HYS but there's still enough 172+s that LSAT medians don't have to dip necessarily.

Again, this cycle HASN'T been as great for extreme splitters as people predicted. Has it been better? Marginally. But if you're sub 3.2, don't expect any miracles.

User avatar
CyanIdes Of March
Posts: 743
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby CyanIdes Of March » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:15 pm

Ruluo wrote:
CyanIdes Of March wrote:
meadow201 wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Getting a little ahead of yourself.


Expecting more $$$ may be premature if they downsize classes/faculty. But improving admissions chances is almost a sure thing based on the data so far.


Does this apply to HYS? What about CCN? Aren't there enough 173s+ to go around between HYS?

There's certainly enough to go around for HYS, but it has become easier for those 173s to get in since there are less of them. Take into consideration there's about 1,120 173s+ (112k test takers, 173 = top 1%), plus/minus the people who waited a year to apply (which was a bit more last year than will defer this year, so that's probably getting us up to 1,200).

Harvard accepts ~275. Yale sits at around 100. Stanford is a bit trickier because their LSAT median is 172, but I think 90 is a good number.

275 + 100 + 90 = 465. So HYS will take a bit more than 1/3 of the top 1%, leaving the other 2/3 for CCN and the rest of the T14.


This doesn't account for the GPA factor, which actually has a significant impact, especially for the 175+ crowd at HYS...


Of course. That 1/3 of top 1% is not saying 1/3 of top 1% w/ X GPA's. The higher your GPA, the higher chance you have of being in that 1/3 (assuming you have the LSAT to be in that 1/3 in the first place). One might expect the GPA floor to drop a bit as the high GPA/high LSAT combo becomes more and more rare.

User avatar
fips tedora
Posts: 3766
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 8:28 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby fips tedora » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:42 pm

This is fucking golden

Humbert Humbert
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Humbert Humbert » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:50 pm

KevinP wrote:Not sure how legit this is, but:
"In a presentation at this year’s Northeast Association of Pre-Law Advisors (NAPLA) Annual Conference, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) reported that many law schools’ median LSAT scores have dropped 3-5."

Source:
http://latinojustice.org/blog/the_state ... aw_school/


From that article:

"What does all of this tell us? This tells us that law schools are facing challenges across the board filling their incoming classes, which means even more of a struggle to achieve diversity. It also tells us that students who felt their LSAT score may not be competitive should really study the current climate and consider applying. We are encouraging students who have solid GPAs, and LSAT scores in the high 140s and 150s—but have been delaying law school—to go ahead and apply. I have heard many of our pre-law constituents argue for years that their score does not define their capabilities as a law student. Now may be your ideal chance to prove it."

:shock:

rwhyAn
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby rwhyAn » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:31 pm

Humbert Humbert wrote:
KevinP wrote:Not sure how legit this is, but:
"In a presentation at this year’s Northeast Association of Pre-Law Advisors (NAPLA) Annual Conference, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) reported that many law schools’ median LSAT scores have dropped 3-5."

Source:
http://latinojustice.org/blog/the_state ... aw_school/


From that article:

"What does all of this tell us? This tells us that law schools are facing challenges across the board filling their incoming classes, which means even more of a struggle to achieve diversity. It also tells us that students who felt their LSAT score may not be competitive should really study the current climate and consider applying. We are encouraging students who have solid GPAs, and LSAT scores in the high 140s and 150s—but have been delaying law school—to go ahead and apply. I have heard many of our pre-law constituents argue for years that their score does not define their capabilities as a law student. Now may be your ideal chance to prove it."

:shock:


It's all about the Benjamins, baby. If schools can't get bodies, professors lose their jobs, so it's better for them to have a dumb(er) class than no class at all.

Humbert Humbert
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Humbert Humbert » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:56 pm

rwhyAn wrote:
Humbert Humbert wrote:
KevinP wrote:Not sure how legit this is, but:
"In a presentation at this year’s Northeast Association of Pre-Law Advisors (NAPLA) Annual Conference, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) reported that many law schools’ median LSAT scores have dropped 3-5."

Source:
http://latinojustice.org/blog/the_state ... aw_school/


From that article:

"What does all of this tell us? This tells us that law schools are facing challenges across the board filling their incoming classes, which means even more of a struggle to achieve diversity. It also tells us that students who felt their LSAT score may not be competitive should really study the current climate and consider applying. We are encouraging students who have solid GPAs, and LSAT scores in the high 140s and 150s—but have been delaying law school—to go ahead and apply. I have heard many of our pre-law constituents argue for years that their score does not define their capabilities as a law student. Now may be your ideal chance to prove it."

:shock:


It's all about the Benjamins, baby. If schools can't get bodies, professors lose their jobs, so it's better for them to have a dumb(er) class than no class at all.


Right, I get the school's perspective. That doesn't explain why students with LSAT scores in the 140s should be applying (now, five years ago, ever). The quote I bolded above is patently bad advice, and it does a serious disservice to the applicants it purports to help.

User avatar
Young Marino
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Young Marino » Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:09 pm

Humbert Humbert wrote:
rwhyAn wrote:
Humbert Humbert wrote:
KevinP wrote:Not sure how legit this is, but:
"In a presentation at this year’s Northeast Association of Pre-Law Advisors (NAPLA) Annual Conference, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) reported that many law schools’ median LSAT scores have dropped 3-5."

Source:
http://latinojustice.org/blog/the_state ... aw_school/


From that article:

"What does all of this tell us? This tells us that law schools are facing challenges across the board filling their incoming classes, which means even more of a struggle to achieve diversity. It also tells us that students who felt their LSAT score may not be competitive should really study the current climate and consider applying. We are encouraging students who have solid GPAs, and LSAT scores in the high 140s and 150s—but have been delaying law school—to go ahead and apply. I have heard many of our pre-law constituents argue for years that their score does not define their capabilities as a law student. Now may be your ideal chance to prove it."

:shock:


It's all about the Benjamins, baby. If schools can't get bodies, professors lose their jobs, so it's better for them to have a dumb(er) class than no class at all.


Right, I get the school's perspective. That doesn't explain why students with LSAT scores in the 140s should be applying (now, five years ago, ever). The quote I bolded above is patently bad advice, and it does a serious disservice to the applicants it purports to help.


Yea I think that overall advice is a bit of a reach but I do agree with the general premise of the statement in that an applicant who once saw a certain school as a 'reach' can feel better about getting admitted this cycle.

User avatar
jcccc
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby jcccc » Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:48 pm

They should just make some sort of cutoff like you can only practice law if you get 170+ above. :lol:

Humbert Humbert
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Humbert Humbert » Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:57 pm

jcccc wrote:They should just make some sort of cutoff like you can only practice law if you get 170+ above. :lol:


They already did.

http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/

:wink:




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lexaholik, zot1 and 3 guests