C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size Forum

[sublime]

..

[sublime]

..

[The-Specs]

15. Vandy
16. UCLA
16. UT
18. USC
19. WUSTL
19. GWU

No way GW ties WUSTL this year.

But surely GW's desire to bring legal education to the masses will earn them some points with the USNWR...right? I mean the are so strong that they avoided the evils of decreased class size that seemed to afflict all of those other TTT's out there; surely that counts for something.

[ManoftheHour]

SanTTTa Clara Lawl School
http://law.scu.edu/admissions/2013-class-profile/

What a TTT.

[jbagelboy]

SanTTTa Clara Lawl School
http://law.scu.edu/admissions/2013-class-profile/

What a TTT.

Lol 25th under 3.0? That shits low

[altoid99]

SanTTTa Clara Lawl School
http://law.scu.edu/admissions/2013-class-profile/

What a TTT.

Lol 25th under 3.0? That shits low

Why in the world would they raise class size when their graduates are clearly struggling big time? I just...can't.

[ManoftheHour]

SanTTTa Clara Lawl School
http://law.scu.edu/admissions/2013-class-profile/

What a TTT.

Lol 25th under 3.0? That shits low

Why in the world would they raise class size when their graduates are clearly struggling big time? I just...can't.

I can't believe people still enroll and pay sticker at TTTs like this.

[hephaestus]

SanTTTa Clara Lawl School
http://law.scu.edu/admissions/2013-class-profile/

What a TTT.

Lol 25th under 3.0? That shits low

Why in the world would they raise class size when their graduates are clearly struggling big time? I just...can't.

I am assuming the administration/dean/professors rationalize with one of the following (mostly "bootstraps" flawed logic): all law schools are troubled, not just TTTs; students of this generation just will not compromise and choose jobs that are not six figures, students are not looking hard enough, students refuse to move to a new state for jobs, etc. Either that, or they are just straight-up raiders sucking as much money from the federal government on the backs of students as possible.

[Dr. Dre]

Isn't Santa Clara number one in IP law though?

[BruinRegents]

Isn't Santa Clara number one in IP law though?

Generally Cal and Stanford are considered one and two. Santa Clara is third and respected in The Bay. A grad that does well there will get a sniff from places like Orrick. But given the current hiring climate, they are mostly still left out in the cold.

[hephaestus]

Isn't Santa Clara number one in IP law though?

Lol specialty rankings. But yes, though people on TLS have said that most of their successful grads already work in the tech sector and go part time, which probably makes their already dismal statistics look better than they truly are.

[jk148706]

Isn't Santa Clara number one in IP law though?

Lol specialty rankings. But yes, though people on TLS have said that most of their successful grads already work in the tech sector and go part time, which probably makes their already dismal statistics look better than they truly are.

Where do specialty Rankings come from? How are they developed? Do they mean anything? Why do they exist? I don't get them.

[jingosaur]

Where do specialty Rankings come from? How are they developed? Do they mean anything? Why do they exist? I don't get them.

Specialty rankings: These specialty rankings are based solely on votes by legal educators, who nominated up to 15 schools in each field. Legal educators chosen were a selection of those listed in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Law Teachers 2009-2010 as currently teaching in that field. In the case of clinical and legal writing, the nominations were made by directors or members of the clinical and legal writing programs at each law school.

Those programs that received the most top 15 nominations appear and are numerically ranked in descending order based on the number of nominations they received as long as the school/program received seven or more nominations in that specialty area. This means that schools ranked at the bottom of each law specialty ranking have received seven nominations.

[Dr. Dre]

GUISE: will next cycle be worse? or better? that is, will it be even easier to get into lawl schools?

[rebexness]

GUISE: will next cycle be worse? or better? that is, will it be even easier to get into lawl schools?

I think spivey (?) said next year should be similar to this year, and then after that it will start getting "harder" again.

Apply now is TCR.

[isuperserial]

GUISE: will next cycle be worse? or better? that is, will it be even easier to get into lawl schools?

I think spivey (?) said next year should be similar to this year, and then after that it will start getting "harder" again.

Apply now is TCR.

I mean, I know Spivey knows his stuff, but I'd imagine predicting a year ahead would be difficult at best while predicting two years ahead simply cannot be possible.

[haus]

GUISE: will next cycle be worse? or better? that is, will it be even easier to get into lawl schools?

I think spivey (?) said next year should be similar to this year, and then after that it will start getting "harder" again.

Apply now is TCR.

I mean, I know Spivey knows his stuff, but I'd imagine predicting a year ahead would be difficult at best while predicting two years ahead simply cannot be possible.

The further down the road one gets the rougher any prediction gets. But think about the likely possibilities.

I do not know about you, but I am fairly comfortable in ruling out both massive increases or massive (additional) decreases to the applicant pool. Which leaves us with with stability (+/-2%), minor (2-8%) decreases or perhaps a minor uptick (2-4%).

If decreases are seen, schools have already had time to adapt to patterns and have moved to reduce hiring, ease up on new expenditures, while still painful, schools will have made a decision on how to cope with this environment so the upside for students will be less than it was in the earlier' more dramatic part of the downhill run.

If we start seeing a bit of a turn around (minor increase), the austerity steps schools have taken over the last few years, may put them in a position of being more selective. Sure everyone will want to bring in more heads, but pain from the drop will likely make caution the order of the day

If stable, not much has changed, unlikely to alter the situation in a big way. But schools are already in a mindset of tightening their belts, and will likely not be as eager to grab onto any student that is available, unless they see it as a key to a specific victory for them.

This year has a slight advantage in that schools are a bit earlier into their plans for adapting to whatever the new normal might be.

But of course, time will tell.

[ms9]

GUISE: will next cycle be worse? or better? that is, will it be even easier to get into lawl schools?

I think spivey (?) said next year should be similar to this year, and then after that it will start getting "harder" again.

Apply now is TCR.

I mean, I know Spivey knows his stuff, but I'd imagine predicting a year ahead would be difficult at best while predicting two years ahead simply cannot be possible.

Agreed. Actually my exact words were "So hard to say but my gut tells me next cycle will be slightly up." but this is based almost entirely on a hunch that I then delved a bit deeper into.

[notalobbyist]

One thing to remember is how many more people will be encouraged to apply to law school due to the easier cycles. For some people, this will be the difference between taking the LSAT and sitting out.

[Tiago Splitter]

One thing to remember is how many more people will be encouraged to apply to law school due to the easier cycles. For some people, this will be the difference between taking the LSAT and sitting out.

You have to take the LSAT first, and the number of test takers continues to decline. A big key to this whole thing is keeping people from taking that test, because once they do they'll all too often talk themselves into law school. If they hear that the employment market is terrible and realize how unlikely law school is to be a smart decision, there's a good chance they won't ever sit down to study, much less take an actual test, and therefore never take on the kind of commitment that will later lead to the sunk cost fallacy.

[rebexness]

One thing to remember is how many more people will be encouraged to apply to law school due to the easier cycles. For some people, this will be the difference between taking the LSAT and sitting out.

How many people do you think actually know that its an "easier" cycle?

[ManoftheHour]

One thing to remember is how many more people will be encouraged to apply to law school due to the easier cycles. For some people, this will be the difference between taking the LSAT and sitting out.

How many people do you think actually know that its an "easier" cycle?

Not that many. Considering that there are thousands of people attending TTTs at sticker price, probably not that many.

Look at the fools who signed up for Indiana TTTTech. A quick google search would reveal that attending such an insTTTTitution at any price is a bad idea.

[notalobbyist]

Aren't we most concerned with top tier caliber applicants? The kind who do research before making major life decisions? I'm not saying there will necessarily be a net increase of applicants, I just think the ivy leaguers and grads from other top schools will be most responsive to changes, as evidenced by the steep drop off last cycle in lsats taken. If the likelihood of getting into a top school increases, the opportunity cost goes up.

This may not necessarily offset wider declines, but its worth pointing out that the system is dynamic and will not stay in free fall forever.

[Tiago Splitter]

Aren't we most concerned with top tier caliber applicants? The kind who do research before making major life decisions? I'm not saying there will necessarily be a net increase of applicants, I just think the ivy leaguers and grads from other top schools will be most responsive to changes, as evidenced by the steep drop off last cycle in lsats taken. If the likelihood of getting into a top school increases, the opportunity cost goes up.

This may not necessarily offset wider declines, but its worth pointing out that the system is dynamic and will not stay in free fall forever.

I agree that it won't decline forever, but for the studious potential applicant how much has really changed? It's recently become abundantly clear to anyone paying attention that law school employment outcomes are not good and the cost is way too high. While there has been a decline in the number of people going to law school, this decline won't be reflected in the employment numbers for a few more years. Meanwhile, the cost continues to skyrocket. Moreover, the people who do this kind of research quickly figure out that if they're going to go at all they need a high LSAT score, and given that a high LSAT score typically take some work to acquire the people who are most likely to get those high scores are simply backing out before they even get the process started.

[isuperserial]

Aren't we most concerned with top tier caliber applicants? The kind who do research before making major life decisions? I'm not saying there will necessarily be a net increase of applicants, I just think the ivy leaguers and grads from other top schools will be most responsive to changes, as evidenced by the steep drop off last cycle in lsats taken. If the likelihood of getting into a top school increases, the opportunity cost goes up.

This may not necessarily offset wider declines, but its worth pointing out that the system is dynamic and will not stay in free fall forever.

Exactly. I'm not concerned with people who are going to Cooley at sticker. I'm not even concerned with people who go to their state flagship at sticker. I'm concerned solely with people who are getting 165+. I would say that by and large, these are the most dedicated and informed applicants. They are far more likely to have done research.

I think it's important when we consider the trends that we're not looking at the whole picture, but how it impacts our piece of the pie.