LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
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 7:34 pm

Some of the waitlist movement this cycle has been pretty eye-opening. Can't judge how down apps are by December-March admittances.

User avatar
longlivetheking
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:15 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby longlivetheking » Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:22 am

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.


erm isn't 173 = 99.9%?

harvard sends out ~800 acceptance letters. is 275 too low an estimate?

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Lavitz » Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:26 am

longlivetheking wrote:erm isn't 173 = 99.9%?

Nope, looks like 99%.

http://www.alphascore.com/resources/lsa ... onversion/

User avatar
longlivetheking
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:15 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby longlivetheking » Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:31 am

Lavitz wrote:
longlivetheking wrote:erm isn't 173 = 99.9%?

Nope, looks like 99%.

http://www.alphascore.com/resources/lsa ... onversion/


my bad. also would like to hear Lavitz's take on the new 'drop' in medians and 2013-2014 cycle. :D

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Lavitz » Sat Aug 03, 2013 2:35 am

longlivetheking wrote:my bad. also would like to hear Lavitz's take on the new 'drop' in medians and 2013-2014 cycle. :D

My take is that I wish I had waited another cycle + hired the new Mike Spivey / Karen Buttenbaum team. :lol: But I already quit my job so that's not happening.

Not much else to say, really. The trend of less applicants is continuing, medians are dropping, class sizes decreasing, schools are in financial trouble, applicants have better chances, etc. 2013-2014 will be another gradual improvement for applicants like 2012-2013 was. Higher ranked schools are better off than lower ranked ones, with some exceptions. The schools at the bottom of the rankings probably don't even care about medians any more and will just focus on trying to fill seats.

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby KevinP » Sat Aug 03, 2013 3:33 am

CyanIdes Of March wrote: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.


The number of test takers doesn't necessarily directly translate to the number of applicants.

We know the number of test takers this cycle (112,515) and the 170+ percentile (97.4). Using the number of test takers, we should expect ~2925 170+ applicants. However, we have the data for the number of 170+ test takers, which is 2517 (historically practically no 170+ applicants apply this late in the cycle); ergo, using the number of test takers overestimated the percentage by ~13% and the number of 173+ applicants is probably closer to 970.

Humbert Humbert wrote: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:

The author was one of the presenters at NAPLA (The Northeast Association of Pre-Law Advisors), so I'm not surprised about the pro-lawschool stance. Most 140s/150s should absolutely not go to law school.

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


Just a random fact: the national decision profiles showed around 30% of the 170+ crowd a few years back had GPAs under 3.5.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby romothesavior » Sat Aug 03, 2013 10:18 am

NYstate wrote:
MyNameIsFlynn! wrote:
NYstate wrote: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.

I'm still trying to figure out what was so offensive or wrong about your posts on the last page.

NYState is spot-on. One of the best and most informative posters here. You should all listen to him.

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MikeSpivey » Sat Aug 03, 2013 11:29 am

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.


Erm, no faculty demand invulnerability from the market so staff lose their jobs, or so I op-eded:

http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/this-time-around-the-revolution-will-not-be-televised/

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby CyanIdes Of March » Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:02 pm

KevinP wrote:
CyanIdes Of March wrote: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.


The number of test takers doesn't necessarily directly translate to the number of applicants.


We know the number of test takers this cycle (112,515) and the 170+ percentile (97.4). Using the number of test takers, we should expect ~2925 170+ applicants. However, we have the data for the number of 170+ test takers, which is 2517 (historically practically no 170+ applicants apply this late in the cycle); ergo, using the number of test takers overestimated the percentage by ~13% and the number of 173+ applicants is probably closer to 970.


You're right, I didn't take into account how many people just never apply at all (I didn't think it'd be 13% and I didn't know we actually had that data somewhere).

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby CyanIdes Of March » Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:37 pm

longlivetheking wrote:
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.


erm isn't 173 = 99.9%?

harvard sends out ~800 acceptance letters. is 275 too low an estimate?


You're right about the ~800 acceptances vs 550 matriculants, but when counting acceptances and not just matriculants you start to overlap with other schools and we dont know the percentage each LSAT score represents in the 800 number, so I couldn't do the calculation to see how many actually end up at HYS.

The take-away from this is: About 1/3 of LSAT 1%ers end up at HYS, almost 1/2 of LSAT 1%ers that apply get in (the difference accounted for from people not applying), and likely a bit higher chance of getting an offer due to schools sending more offers than will matriculate (what that increases the likelihood of getting in, I do not know, someone else may have relevant information to determine this). None of this takes into account GPA or the application in general, just a mere estimate based solely on LSAT score. Also assumes class sizes and medians will stay relatively the same this coming cycle.

kaseyb002
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:55 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby kaseyb002 » Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:14 pm

I don't know if this has already been brought up, Yale's applicant profile thing is up on LSAC.

https://officialguide.lsac.org/Release/ ... px?sid=177

3.75+/175+ apps = 256 and admits = 107

User avatar
I Used to Be a Spy
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:00 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby I Used to Be a Spy » Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:23 pm

kaseyb002 wrote:I don't know if this has already been brought up, Yale's applicant profile thing is up on LSAC.

https://officialguide.lsac.org/Release/ ... px?sid=177

3.75+/175+ apps = 256 and admits = 107


Hadn't known about this, very interesting. Wish they had more categories for GPA though...

Just browsed through the website and it looks like Y is the only t14 reporting this data?
Last edited by I Used to Be a Spy on Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby KevinP » Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:30 pm

kaseyb002 wrote:I don't know if this has already been brought up, Yale's applicant profile thing is up on LSAC.

https://officialguide.lsac.org/Release/ ... px?sid=177

3.75+/175+ apps = 256 and admits = 107

If this doesn't prove a hard GPA floor, I don't know what does. Not event a single applicant with <3.5 GPA got accepted.

Also, the chart lists 3 total admits for GPAs 3.5-3.74... but the other sections show more. Looks as if Yale can't even do basic math (or a screw up on LSAC's part).

User avatar
I Used to Be a Spy
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:00 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby I Used to Be a Spy » Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:40 pm

155-159/3.5-3.75 = 1. Movie star, grandchild of a supreme court justice, or URM Olympic athlete?

User avatar
ScottRiqui
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby ScottRiqui » Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:29 am

Clearlynotstefan wrote:
KevinP wrote:Interesting thing is google trends shows a decline for lsat/law school, etc. The relatively small decline for June might be masked by schools accepting applicants later (hence people taking tests in June instead of waiting for October). I'm fairly confident we'll see the decline continue, and I wouldn't be surprised if the decline was in the double digits for October.

Looking at these charts (http://www.cambridgelsat.com/resources/ ... les-table/), it does seem as if for 2013 potential top scorers are disproportionately opting out of taking the LSAT, even if slightly.

It's happening and it's not slightly, I'll post the data when I'm not mobile.


Any update on this?

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4165
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Clearly » Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:10 am

ScottRiqui wrote:
Clearlynotstefan wrote:
KevinP wrote:Interesting thing is google trends shows a decline for lsat/law school, etc. The relatively small decline for June might be masked by schools accepting applicants later (hence people taking tests in June instead of waiting for October). I'm fairly confident we'll see the decline continue, and I wouldn't be surprised if the decline was in the double digits for October.

Looking at these charts (http://www.cambridgelsat.com/resources/ ... les-table/), it does seem as if for 2013 potential top scorers are disproportionately opting out of taking the LSAT, even if slightly.

It's happening and it's not slightly, I'll post the data when I'm not mobile.


Any update on this?

Whoops, knew I forgot something.
Image
Image
Image

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby bizzybone1313 » Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:16 am

This thread is probably one of the best I have ever seen on TLS.

Do you all think the ADCOMS at the T-14 are starting to stain their pants and get worried that their precious medians are going to keep taking a hit? One would think that eventually they would look deep down at themselves and at some point realize that their ridiculous tuition bills are one of the biggest problems.

I would be real interested in knowing what all of those 170+ scorers ended up doing with their careers. MBA? P.h.D? Master's in Finance of LSE? They have to be doing some kind of high end career.

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby KevinP » Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:20 am

@Clearlynotstefan
Well the data does tell us that the number of high scoring applicants is declining faster than other groups, but this could be explained by potential high scorers taking the lsat and not applying versus opting out of taking the LSAT at all.

ETA:
The medians for many law schools *should* be released this month, so we'll hopefully be able to see how the T14 coped.
Last edited by KevinP on Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4165
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Clearly » Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:22 am

bizzybone1313 wrote:This thread is probably one of the best I have ever seen on TLS.

Do you all think the ADCOMS at the T-14 are starting to stain their pants and get worried that their precious medians are going to keep taking a hit? One would think that eventually they would look deep down at themselves and at some point realize that their ridiculous tuition bills are one of the biggest problems.

I would be real interested in knowing what all of those 170+ scorers ended up doing with their careers. MBA? P.h.D? Master's in Finance of LSE? They have to be doing some kind of high end career.

The thing is, the data (at least what I posted) doesn't have anything to do with how many people opted not to take the lsat at all. It only deals with the total drop in APPLICANTS for each score range. It's more likely to me that the people smart enough to earn a 170 instead opted to not take the test at all, than it is likely they put the time in to earn a 170, then opted not to use it. Of course this approach means that silly things are going to happen to the LSAT when the experimental data from this year gets factored in to future tests, or that the percentiles are about to go all screwy. Whereas people actually earning a high score and not using it would have no effect on the future LSAT.

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby twenty » Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:27 am

bizzybone1313 wrote:They have to be doing some kind of high end career.


Slight tangent, I personally know three 172+ takers that have decided not to go to law school. One of them was only willing to go if she could get into Berkeley and then didn't, one of them just decided she wanted to get her Ph.D instead, one of them was a splitter who didn't get any money from Columbia, so he decided to teach the LSAT. The first one's a military officer making absolute bank, the second one's getting jaw-droppingly awesome offers (in fairness, she's at one of the top 10 universities in the world), and the last one is making somewhere north of 85 dollars an hour and spends 8-9 months out of the year traveling the world.

So yeah. Just because you scored a 170+ on the LSAT certainly doesn't mean you should/have to go to law school. ;)

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby KevinP » Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:14 am

Clearlynotstefan wrote:The thing is, the data (at least what I posted) doesn't have anything to do with how many people opted not to take the lsat at all. It only deals with the total drop in APPLICANTS for each score range.

I assume this quote was directed at me?

I was taking issue with your assertion that the change in top scorers was not slight. The posted data alone can not be relied upon to tell us much about test takers. Also, the image you posted from LSAT blog was compiled with my help.

Clearlynotstefan wrote:It's more likely to me that the people smart enough to earn a 170 instead opted to not take the test at all, than it is likely they put the time in to earn a 170, then opted not to use it. Of course this approach means that silly things are going to happen to the LSAT when the experimental data from this year gets factored in to future tests, or that the percentiles are about to go all screwy. Whereas people actually earning a high score and not using it would have no effect on the future LSAT.

That would be my guess as well, but the data suggest otherwise.

Looking at: http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/resea ... -12-03.asp and doing the math (you can approximate scores using the mean and SD because they are approximately normally distributed), you'll confirm what the executive summary states ("The overall distribution of LSAT scores remained fairly constant."). Furthermore, the percentile changes have been very slight. If anything, the data suggest the declines among top test takers has been rather proportional, but the number of top applicants show an unproportional decline.

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4165
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Clearly » Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:22 am

KevinP wrote:
Clearlynotstefan wrote:The thing is, the data (at least what I posted) doesn't have anything to do with how many people opted not to take the lsat at all. It only deals with the total drop in APPLICANTS for each score range.

I assume this quote was directed at me?

I was taking issue with your assertion that the change in top scorers was not slight. The posted data alone can not be relied upon to tell us much about test takers. Also, the image you posted from LSAT blog was compiled with my help.

Clearlynotstefan wrote:It's more likely to me that the people smart enough to earn a 170 instead opted to not take the test at all, than it is likely they put the time in to earn a 170, then opted not to use it. Of course this approach means that silly things are going to happen to the LSAT when the experimental data from this year gets factored in to future tests, or that the percentiles are about to go all screwy. Whereas people actually earning a high score and not using it would have no effect on the future LSAT.

That would be my guess as well, but the data suggest otherwise.

Looking at: http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/resea ... -12-03.asp and doing the math (you can approximate scores using the mean and SD because they are approximately normally distributed), you'll confirm what the executive summary states ("The overall distribution of LSAT scores remained fairly constant."). Furthermore, the percentile changes have been very slight. If anything, the data suggest the declines among top test takers has been rather proportional, but the number of top applicants show an unproportional decline.

I think we have a miscommunication, my first comment wasn't directed at you, and I'm only taking about applicants, not test takers. Bah
I'm tired, we'll sort it out in the morning, I think we basically agree with each other.

Ah I see, up there somewhere I expressed an opinion on people taking or opting not to take the lsat, I was referring to overall application numbers, and didn't mean to debate that matter. Yeah I have no idea or data that suggests if less high scoring people are taking the lsat, or if people are scoring high and opting not to apply.

I was just merely showing the application data.
Last edited by Clearly on Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby KevinP » Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:29 am

Clearlynotstefan wrote:I think we have a miscommunication, my first comment wasn't directed at you, and I'm only taking about applicants, not test takers. Bah I'm tired, we'll sort it out in the morning, I think we basically agree with each other.

Gotcha -- no worries. I just get worked up when it comes to numbers :)

I think what happened was my original quote was talking about test takers while you were talking about applicants.

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4165
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Clearly » Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:41 am

KevinP wrote:
Clearlynotstefan wrote:I think we have a miscommunication, my first comment wasn't directed at you, and I'm only taking about applicants, not test takers. Bah I'm tired, we'll sort it out in the morning, I think we basically agree with each other.

Gotcha -- no worries. I just get worked up when it comes to numbers :)

I think what happened was my original quote was talking about test takers while you were talking about applicants.


Updated post to clarify problem, and thank you for your data you posted, I'm mostly interested in the not take or take question because I'd like to see how they effect the lsat in the future, if the applicant drop is caused by smart kids avoiding taking the test, the curve and percentiles will get interesting. If the drop is from people who earned 170 then walked away, the test wouldn't be much effected.
Frankly I don't care how it happened, all I know is it is happening and it's gonna make my cycle easier.

User avatar
longlivetheking
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:15 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby longlivetheking » Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:52 am

Clearlynotstefan wrote:
KevinP wrote:
Clearlynotstefan wrote:I think we have a miscommunication, my first comment wasn't directed at you, and I'm only taking about applicants, not test takers. Bah I'm tired, we'll sort it out in the morning, I think we basically agree with each other.

Gotcha -- no worries. I just get worked up when it comes to numbers :)

I think what happened was my original quote was talking about test takers while you were talking about applicants.


Updated post to clarify problem, and thank you for your data you posted, I'm mostly interested in the not take or take question because I'd like to see how they effect the lsat in the future, if the applicant drop is caused by smart kids avoiding taking the test, the curve and percentiles will get interesting. If the drop is from people who earned 170 then walked away, the test wouldn't be much effected.
Frankly I don't care how it happened, all I know is it is happening and it's gonna make my cycle easier.



my attitude towards this whole thread.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], elterrible78, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests