LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15524
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Tiago Splitter » Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:45 am

kappycaft1 wrote:
BLUERUFiO wrote:What is the reasoning for this? The lower performers wait till February to take the LSAT?

Or they take it earlier and are just too lazy to apply until later in the cycle. You have to figure that someone who only put forth enough effort to get a 140 on the LSAT probably hasn't thought through the importance of timing very much, so when they see that the deadline isn't until the spring, they probably figure that as long as they get their applications in by the cutoff then they'll be good.

While this makes sense, we're looking at year over year data, so your point shouldn't make any difference in how these new numbers are viewed.

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby cotiger » Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:06 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:
kappycaft1 wrote:
BLUERUFiO wrote:What is the reasoning for this? The lower performers wait till February to take the LSAT?

Or they take it earlier and are just too lazy to apply until later in the cycle. You have to figure that someone who only put forth enough effort to get a 140 on the LSAT probably hasn't thought through the importance of timing very much, so when they see that the deadline isn't until the spring, they probably figure that as long as they get their applications in by the cutoff then they'll be good.

While this makes sense, we're looking at year over year data, so your point shouldn't make any difference in how these new numbers are viewed.


Exactly. Unless the high scores are applying on average even earlier this year than last year, the fact that high scorers apply earlier than low scorers makes no difference in how you interpret this year over year data.

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby 20141023 » Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:23 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby cotiger » Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:39 pm

There are updated volume counts. Holding pretty steady at -12.4% applicants and -14.1% applications as of 1/17/14.

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... ear-volume

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby prezidentv8 » Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:29 pm

cotiger wrote:There are updated volume counts. Holding pretty steady at -12.4% applicants and -14.1% applications as of 1/17/14.

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... ear-volume


awesome

BillsFan9907
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:28 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby BillsFan9907 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:05 pm

ScottRiqui wrote:
Clearly wrote:
Split90 wrote:I see. So that ptc change is between last year and this year. Not to mention 175 + is 99.4% and above of all test takers--which means they are not that many to begin with. So even a slight increase of the number in that score range group could give us a false impression.

Nice. A real-life number and percentage trick.
Unlikely to play against us. I think.

:| This isn't a trick, and its not flawed...it's the nature of statistics at the margins...


Exactly. My statistics prof used to call it "the tyranny of small numbers".


But overall can we know if there are less 170+ scorers?

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby ScottRiqui » Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:26 pm

Seoulless wrote:
ScottRiqui wrote:
Clearly wrote:
Split90 wrote:I see. So that ptc change is between last year and this year. Not to mention 175 + is 99.4% and above of all test takers--which means they are not that many to begin with. So even a slight increase of the number in that score range group could give us a false impression.

Nice. A real-life number and percentage trick.
Unlikely to play against us. I think.

:| This isn't a trick, and its not flawed...it's the nature of statistics at the margins...


Exactly. My statistics prof used to call it "the tyranny of small numbers".


But overall can we know if there are less 170+ scorers?


With the 170-174 band experiencing a drop, and the 175-180 band experiencing an increase, I don't think you can say for certain one way or the other what the 170-180 band did as a whole, at least not from the data linked to in this thread.

EDIT - Just saw that you were talking about scorers, not applicants. Yes, the number of 170+ scorers has almost certainly gone down this cycle.
Last edited by ScottRiqui on Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

BillsFan9907
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:28 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby BillsFan9907 » Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:35 am

Wouldn't it just take some simple number crunching? With the percentiles and the number of test-takers, shouldn't we be able to determine how many people got a 170+ for the 2012-2013 cycle and the 2013-2014 cycle (excluding feb tests of course).

Let's say that for June 2012 169 is 97th percentile (I don't know the actual numbers). So we would know that 3% of all test takers got a 170 or above. If we know the number of test takers, we would know the number who got a 170 or above. Then wouldn't it just be a matter of adding up all the data from cycle 1, doing the same for cycle 2 and comparing?

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby ScottRiqui » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:31 am

Seoulless wrote:Wouldn't it just take some simple number crunching? With the percentiles and the number of test-takers, shouldn't we be able to determine how many people got a 170+ for the 2012-2013 cycle and the 2013-2014 cycle (excluding feb tests of course).

Let's say that for June 2012 169 is 97th percentile (I don't know the actual numbers). So we would know that 3% of all test takers got a 170 or above. If we know the number of test takers, we would know the number who got a 170 or above. Then wouldn't it just be a matter of adding up all the data from cycle 1, doing the same for cycle 2 and comparing?


I just saw that you were asking about 170+ scorers and not 170+ applicants. Yes, the method you described will tell you roughly how big the decline in 170+ scorers will be this cycle compared to last cycle (and it's certainly a decline), but that won't tell you anything about how many 170+ scorers are actually applying to schools compared to last year.

Paul Campos
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:44 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Paul Campos » Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:02 pm

Latest LSAC volume summary:

Applicants down 14.5% year over year through the end of January. (58% of the final applicant pool had applied by 1/31/2013).

Projects to 51,110 total applicants this cycle. For comparison purposes, ABA law schools admitted 60,400 out of 87,900 applicants in 2010.

This suggests total first year enrollment will be down to about 35,000 this fall.

redbull12
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:56 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby redbull12 » Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:25 pm

Paul Campos wrote:Latest LSAC volume summary:

Applicants down 14.5% year over year through the end of January. (58% of the final applicant pool had applied by 1/31/2013).

Projects to 51,110 total applicants this cycle. For comparison purposes, ABA law schools admitted 60,400 out of 87,900 applicants in 2010.

This suggests total first year enrollment will be down to about 35,000 this fall.


What will 2015 entail?

Creditisgood
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:13 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Creditisgood » Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:30 pm

Redbull


Carpe Diem 8)

redbull12
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:56 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby redbull12 » Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:59 pm

I wonder if in 10-15 years Paul Campos will be seen as a prophet that saved an entire generation.

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -14.5%

Postby cotiger » Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:30 pm

Wow, if this 14.5% decrease holds up, this year will have the largest percentage decline yet.

The previous three cycles had applicant declines of 10.7%, 13.5%, and 12.3%.

No indication of a bottom so far.

8)

User avatar
jk148706
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 11:14 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -14.5%

Postby jk148706 » Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:21 pm

cotiger wrote:Wow, if this 14.5% decrease holds up, this year will have the largest percentage decline yet.

The previous three cycles had applicant declines of 10.7%, 13.5%, and 12.3%.

No indication of a bottom so far.

8)


So I wonder what the % drop is this year when compared to 4 years ago.

ETA: if we get 51,000 applicants, that'd be a drop of like 42% since 2010, no?

User avatar
jk148706
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 11:14 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby jk148706 » Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:25 pm

redbull12 wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:Latest LSAC volume summary:

Applicants down 14.5% year over year through the end of January. (58% of the final applicant pool had applied by 1/31/2013).

Projects to 51,110 total applicants this cycle. For comparison purposes, ABA law schools admitted 60,400 out of 87,900 applicants in 2010.

This suggests total first year enrollment will be down to about 35,000 this fall.


What will 2015 entail?


Bout to take the cycle off, not retake, just hope a decline in applicants helps me :D

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby jenesaislaw » Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:27 pm

jk148706 wrote:Bout to take the cycle off, not retake, just hope a decline in applicants helps me :D


I actually think this strategy makes a lot of sense. I think we're about to see tuition drop at more than a few schools.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:30 pm

redbull12 wrote:I wonder if in 10-15 years Paul Campos will be seen as a prophet that saved an entire generation.

And maybe some of the lawsuits against schools for blatantly misrepresenting numbers will get more traction. I just hope people remember that the reason applications are plummeting is that more realistic employment numbers are available. So more people are realizing that law school isn't worth it. LST has made a big impact.

Meanwhile schools raise tuition.
Last edited by NYstate on Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:32 pm

jenesaislaw wrote:
jk148706 wrote:Bout to take the cycle off, not retake, just hope a decline in applicants helps me :D


I actually think this strategy makes a lot of sense. I think we're about to see tuition drop at more than a few schools.


Lol. You mean for the next cycle?. As far as I know most schools had some increase for the upcoming year 2014_-15.

Edit: I was laughing here because I just posted the exact opposite thought. Not at your post.
Last edited by NYstate on Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
hung jury
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:52 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -14.5%

Postby hung jury » Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:57 pm

cotiger wrote:Wow, if this 14.5% decrease holds up, this year will have the largest percentage decline yet.

The previous three cycles had applicant declines of 10.7%, 13.5%, and 12.3%.

No indication of a bottom so far.

8)


Also of note: Last cycle schools extended the cycle for applications. This caused the decline in applications to slow, on a year over year basis, as the cycle advanced into months that used to be dead months for recruiting. But since this is a YOY analysis, the extended 2012-2013 campaign for tuition dollars is now baked into the comparison.

The short of it is that we're unlikely to see the same YOY late-year growth in applications this cycle.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -14.5%

Postby ScottRiqui » Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:47 am

hung jury wrote:
cotiger wrote:Wow, if this 14.5% decrease holds up, this year will have the largest percentage decline yet.

The previous three cycles had applicant declines of 10.7%, 13.5%, and 12.3%.

No indication of a bottom so far.

8)


Also of note: Last cycle schools extended the cycle for applications. This caused the decline in applications to slow, on a year over year basis, as the cycle advanced into months that used to be dead months for recruiting. But since this is a YOY analysis, the extended 2012-2013 campaign for tuition dollars is now baked into the comparison.

The short of it is that we're unlikely to see the same YOY late-year growth in applications this cycle.


That's a good point - there were stories from the June 2013 LSAT of takers being reminded (right before the test) by representative of the local law schools that they could still use their June score to apply for the Fall 2013 incoming class.

Skump
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -14.5%

Postby Skump » Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:46 am

jk148706 wrote:
cotiger wrote:Wow, if this 14.5% decrease holds up, this year will have the largest percentage decline yet.

The previous three cycles had applicant declines of 10.7%, 13.5%, and 12.3%.

No indication of a bottom so far.

8)


So I wonder what the % drop is this year when compared to 4 years ago.

ETA: if we get 51,000 applicants, that'd be a drop of like 42% since 2010, no?


What's frightening is that this is still far too many applicants. We've seen multiple year on year declines, and we're still in a bubble.

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -14.5%

Postby cotiger » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:57 am

Skump wrote:What's frightening is that this is still far too many applicants. We've seen multiple year on year declines, and we're still in a bubble.


I don't think that's correct.

Assuming that C/O 2016 has a normal attrition rate, they should graduate around 35,300 students, lowest since 1983. If this cycle has another 8% drop in enrollments (as looks likely), then C/O 2017 should end up with around 32,500 graduates, the lowest since 1976.

C/O 2012 found 30,453 LTFT positions that were either bar passage required or JD-advantage. From 1998-2008, the percentage of grads who got one of those positions hovered around 75%. If you consider that the historical equilibrium (and the number of positions holds steady), then we'll get back to normal with the class of 2015.

Since NALP began tracking in 1985, the highest ever employment percentage was 84.5%. If the number of jobs holds steady, C/O 2017 would see 93.7%.

It seems like we're in the overcorrection phase of a bursted bubble, which is a nice place to be.

User avatar
jk148706
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 11:14 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -14.5%

Postby jk148706 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:37 am

cotiger wrote:It seems like we're in the overcorrection phase of a bursted bubble, which is a nice place to be.


Man I hope you are correct

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -14.5%

Postby cotiger » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:13 am

jk148706 wrote:
cotiger wrote:It seems like we're in the overcorrection phase of a bursted bubble, which is a nice place to be.


Man I hope you are correct


Even if you take out present-day JD-advantage jobs as not being "real" legal jobs (keep in mind that now you would not be comparing apples to apples for those percentages), C/O 2017 would have an 80.2% employment rate--which is on the high side of the historical average.

One thing to note is that even with a significantly above average hiring market, that doesn't necessarily mean that the value of a JD is also currently above average. The very high tuition compared to twenty years ago means that someone who gets a 40k lawyer job this year can be in a much worse off financial situation than someone who couldn't find a job in 1994. They do, however, get to be a lawyer, which is assumedly the reason they went to law school in the first place.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests