Spivey Consulting Q&A with Adcoms from Yale, Harvard, Penn, Chicago etc.

Special forum where professionals are encouraged to help law school applicants, students, and graduates.

Which would you prefer most?

Poll ended at Sat Apr 23, 2016 11:05 am

1. Blog advice
0
No votes
2. Podcast advice
0
No votes
3. Video advice
0
No votes
4. Just keep it all on TLS
0
No votes
5. Tweet it
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 0

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby lawschool22 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:16 pm

cotiger wrote:Four cycles ago, the total number ENROLLED was 52,500, fewer than the number projected to even apply (much less get in, much less enroll) this year.


Crazy stuff. I really want to see the breakdown by LSAT scores to see how this is affecting top schools.

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

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby ScottRiqui » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:17 pm

cotiger wrote:Four cycles ago, the total number ENROLLED was 52,500, fewer than the number projected to even apply this year (not to mention get in, or enroll, which about 13% of acceptances typically don't).


You mean "more than", right? The point being that even if every single applicant gets in somewhere, there will be schools that will have to shrink their class size?
Last edited by ScottRiqui on Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gb47
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:23 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby gb47 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:17 pm

lawschool22 wrote:
cotiger wrote:Four cycles ago, the total number ENROLLED was 52,500, fewer than the number projected to even apply (much less get in, much less enroll) this year.


Crazy stuff. I really want to see the breakdown by LSAT scores to see how this is affecting top schools.


When can we expect to see the breakdown by LSAT?

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby lawschool22 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:19 pm

gb47 wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:
cotiger wrote:Four cycles ago, the total number ENROLLED was 52,500, fewer than the number projected to even apply (much less get in, much less enroll) this year.


Crazy stuff. I really want to see the breakdown by LSAT scores to see how this is affecting top schools.


When can we expect to see the breakdown by LSAT?


I'm not sure when it came out last year. Spivey or someone more knowledgeable than me might know.

User avatar
HorseThief
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:45 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby HorseThief » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:22 pm

Don't worry, the no. of apps will get back to par. Everyone knows our generation is full of procrastinators ;)

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby MikeSpivey » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:25 pm

lawschool22 wrote:
gb47 wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:
cotiger wrote:Four cycles ago, the total number ENROLLED was 52,500, fewer than the number projected to even apply (much less get in, much less enroll) this year.


Crazy stuff. I really want to see the breakdown by LSAT scores to see how this is affecting top schools.


When can we expect to see the breakdown by LSAT?


I'm not sure when it came out last year. Spivey or someone more knowledgeable than me might know.


Well technically you are never supposed to see it until the cycle is over. It's not on the public page.

But last year it was floated to me on Dec 7., FYI.

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

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby cotiger » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:29 pm

ScottRiqui wrote:
cotiger wrote:Four cycles ago, the total number ENROLLED was 52,500, fewer than the number projected to even apply this year (not to mention get in, or enroll, which about 13% of acceptances typically don't).


You mean "more than", right? The point being that even if every single applicant gets in somewhere, there will be schools that will have to shrink their class size?


Yeah, good catch. Typo. Also, even if every single applicant got in, there would still only be like 44,000 enrollments because of the consistent 13% who get accepted but don't enroll.

User avatar
midwest17
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby midwest17 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:33 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:Well technically you are never supposed to see it until the cycle is over. It's not on the public page.

But last year it was floated to me on Dec 7., FYI.


$20 says LSAC sent it out to law schools with a specific note at the top telling them not to send it to Spivey. They're on to your data-leaking ways! :)

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

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby cotiger » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:43 pm

For the two years that LSAC gives of the data for the applicant crash, the decrease in the number of admitted applicants was 2.3 and 4.5 percentage points less than the change in applicants. Being conservative and assuming that the decrease in admitted applicants for last cycle and the current one will be a full 5 percentage points less than the decrease in applicants as schools desperately try to remain open, we'll end up with about 43,000 accepted students. That would translate into about 37,500 enrollments for the C/O 2017.
Last edited by cotiger on Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby lawschool22 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:46 pm

cotiger wrote:For the two years that LSAC gives of the data for the applicant crash, the change in the number of admitted applicants was 2.3 and 4.5 percentage points less than the change in applicants. Being conservative and assuming that the change in admitted applicants for last cycle and the current one will be a full 5 percentage points less than the change in applicants as schools desperately try to remain open, we'll end up with about 43,000 accepted students. That would translate into about 37,500 enrollments for the C/O 2017.


This is great news for not only applicants but future graduates as well.

User avatar
Tyr
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:15 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby Tyr » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:50 pm

cotiger wrote:For the two years that LSAC gives of the data for the applicant crash, the decrease in the number of admitted applicants was 2.3 and 4.5 percentage points less than the change in applicants. Being conservative and assuming that the decrease in admitted applicants for last cycle and the current one will be a full 5 percentage points less than the decrease in applicants as schools desperately try to remain open, we'll end up with about 43,000 accepted students. That would translate into about 37,500 enrollments for the C/O 2017.


At what point does this decline bottom-out and resume at a gradual increase? Hopefully we've got time before that happens.

chrispyreddit
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby chrispyreddit » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:52 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:WOW, only 14,171 applicants as of 12/06 and applications are down 15.7 from this point last cycle.

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

I am super, super cereal (anyone?), mad-dash this cycle!


obviously we haven't seen the breakdown of any of this data, but would you mind speculating on how this is likely to affect supersplitters at top schools? like, sub 3.0 gpa and above 75th lsat. Does this change your ideas of which (mid t14) schools might be willing to dip below their traditional GPA floor? Or are supersplitters still basically screwed everywhere except UVA and NU? thanks mike and karen!

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby MikeSpivey » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:58 pm

midwest17 wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:Well technically you are never supposed to see it until the cycle is over. It's not on the public page.

But last year it was floated to me on Dec 7., FYI.


$20 says LSAC sent it out to law schools with a specific note at the top telling them not to send it to Spivey. They're on to your data-leaking ways! :)


I actually think about things like this all the time. It'll happen to you all too as you get older and higher up in organizations you start becoming paranoid, or put more politely, you always plan for bad-case scenarios.

But, in this case the people who just share the data with me would simply laugh and be like, "hey Spivey you have a blockade that bears your name"

This kind of reminds me when I was in jr. high and never returned movies and video games to the only store in my town (New Canaan High School football rules!) and my dad walked in only to see a sign on the counter "Do not rent to these people" with my name being one of three on the list.

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

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby cotiger » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:00 pm

Also, historically, only about 90% of matriculants graduate. So that would mean about 33,500 grads.

C/O 2012 found about 26,000 LTFT bar passage required jobs. 30,500 if you count JD advantage.

h/t http://www.lawschoolcafe.org/thread/whe ... ates-jobs/

SPerez
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:22 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby SPerez » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:26 pm

xylocarp wrote:Mike and Karen,

I apologize if you've commented on this before, but do you think we're seeing the beginnings of a trend with law schools cutting tuition? Penn State recently halved their in-state tuition, and University of Iowa just decreased out-of-state tuition by 16.4%. Any chance other schools will follow suit?


I'm very interested to see which, if either, of these two approaches works better. Iowa lowered their tuition. Penn State actually did not. They're just guaranteeing a scholarship ONLY for PA residents that is the equivalent of a half-ride. The "sticker price" remains unchanged.

It begs the question that retailers I think have long faced: Should they reduce the price of their product or should they just put it "on sale"? I think human nature, unfortunately, is that we prefer to be tricked into thinking we got a "bargain" (Black Friday, anyone?). JC Penny experimented with a "No Sales"/everyday low price strategy to try and turn their company around and it failed miserably. On the other hand, I doubt one would ever see 50% Off sales at Nordstroms or Tiffany's. Bentleys don't go on sale. That's probably why to the extent this happens other places, it won't be at the top private schools. (Anyone have a pool going on how high NYU/Columbia/etc. will go before people stop enrolling? $60k /yr? $80k /yr?)

A long time ago, I was talking to a colleague from a private school. He told me about a period in his school's past where their app volume was lagging behind their peer schools. They had been positioning themselves to be the "value" among the similar schools in their region, with tuition below the peer group average. A consultant told them their tuition was too low, that applicants see a lower tuition and assume a lower quality education. They raised their tuition to above the peer average, offsetting it a bit with additional scholarships, and their applications went up.

I get students trying to negotiate scholarships every year that say "XYZ school is giving me more money." I then have to point out their math-fail and how we are still less expensive because XYZ's tuition starts off double what ours is. A lot of students just want to be shown "the love" and would rather get a $20k scholarship at a school with $40k tuition than go to a school that just costs $20k with no scholarship, again, consciously or subconsciously, b/c of a false perception that better educations cost more money.

Then there's the part where USNWR still has a small portion of the ranking for "expenditures per student". Scholarships are expenditures so a school can boost themselves (a little, 1.5% of the overall score) by increasing scholarships, but gets no benefit from cutting tuition.

Dean Perez

ZVBXRPL
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:15 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby ZVBXRPL » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:26 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
midwest17 wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:Well technically you are never supposed to see it until the cycle is over. It's not on the public page.

But last year it was floated to me on Dec 7., FYI.


$20 says LSAC sent it out to law schools with a specific note at the top telling them not to send it to Spivey. They're on to your data-leaking ways! :)


I actually think about things like this all the time. It'll happen to you all too as you get older and higher up in organizations you start becoming paranoid, or put more politely, you always plan for bad-case scenarios.

But, in this case the people who just share the data with me would simply laugh and be like, "hey Spivey you have a blockade that bears your name"

This kind of reminds me when I was in jr. high and never returned movies and video games to the only store in my town (New Canaan High School football rules!) and my dad walked in only to see a sign on the counter "Do not rent to these people" with my name being one of three on the list.

Ha. Two weeks ago my sister got a $200.00 bill from the library's collection agency for late movie fees.

User avatar
The-Specs
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby The-Specs » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:34 pm

SPerez wrote: Anyone have a pool going on how high NYU/Columbia/etc. will go before people stop enrolling? $60k /yr? $80k /yr?


They will never stop enrolling so long as the government pays the tab up front and tuition is within a reasonable range of the other T14 T6 or even T10.

User avatar
MarkinKansasCity
Posts: 10955
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:18 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby MarkinKansasCity » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:35 pm

SPerez wrote:
xylocarp wrote:Mike and Karen,

I apologize if you've commented on this before, but do you think we're seeing the beginnings of a trend with law schools cutting tuition? Penn State recently halved their in-state tuition, and University of Iowa just decreased out-of-state tuition by 16.4%. Any chance other schools will follow suit?


I'm very interested to see which, if either, of these two approaches works better. Iowa lowered their tuition. Penn State actually did not. They're just guaranteeing a scholarship ONLY for PA residents that is the equivalent of a half-ride. The "sticker price" remains unchanged.

It begs the question that retailers I think have long faced: Should they reduce the price of their product or should they just put it "on sale"? I think human nature, unfortunately, is that we prefer to be tricked into thinking we got a "bargain" (Black Friday, anyone?). JC Penny experimented with a "No Sales"/everyday low price strategy to try and turn their company around and it failed miserably. On the other hand, I doubt one would ever see 50% Off sales at Nordstroms or Tiffany's. Bentleys don't go on sale. That's probably why to the extent this happens other places, it won't be at the top private schools. (Anyone have a pool going on how high NYU/Columbia/etc. will go before people stop enrolling? $60k /yr? $80k /yr?)

A long time ago, I was talking to a colleague from a private school. He told me about a period in his school's past where their app volume was lagging behind their peer schools. They had been positioning themselves to be the "value" among the similar schools in their region, with tuition below the peer group average. A consultant told them their tuition was too low, that applicants see a lower tuition and assume a lower quality education. They raised their tuition to above the peer average, offsetting it a bit with additional scholarships, and their applications went up.

I get students trying to negotiate scholarships every year that say "XYZ school is giving me more money." I then have to point out their math-fail and how we are still less expensive because XYZ's tuition starts off double what ours is. A lot of students just want to be shown "the love" and would rather get a $20k scholarship at a school with $40k tuition than go to a school that just costs $20k with no scholarship, again, consciously or subconsciously, b/c of a false perception that better educations cost more money.

Then there's the part where USNWR still has a small portion of the ranking for "expenditures per student". Scholarships are expenditures so a school can boost themselves (a little, 1.5% of the overall score) by increasing scholarships, but gets no benefit from cutting tuition.

Dean Perez


I obviously can't speak for other applicants, but when I applied, the number I used to compare schools was total cost of attendance after scholarships. Since the cost of living was pretty much the same everywhere I applied, the proxy for this turned into tuition - scholarships. When I spoke to admissions offers at schools that had offered 20k a year, I brought up the fact that it would only cost me 5k a year in tuition to attend my local state school, which was decent, and I wouldn't have to move. I'm not sure you can extrapolate this anecdote into the applicant body. Unfortunately, most people don't analyze these things very rationally.

User avatar
Tyr
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:15 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby Tyr » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:46 pm

The-Specs wrote:
SPerez wrote: Anyone have a pool going on how high NYU/Columbia/etc. will go before people stop enrolling? $60k /yr? $80k /yr?


They will never stop enrolling so long as the government pays the tab up front and tuition is within a reasonable range of the other T14 T6 or even T10.


Agreed. As long as we are a credit-debit society, people will pay (take out loans for) whatever it takes.

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby MikeSpivey » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:49 pm

lawschool22 wrote:
gb47 wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:
cotiger wrote:Four cycles ago, the total number ENROLLED was 52,500, fewer than the number projected to even apply (much less get in, much less enroll) this year.


Crazy stuff. I really want to see the breakdown by LSAT scores to see how this is affecting top schools.


When can we expect to see the breakdown by LSAT?


I'm not sure when it came out last year. Spivey or someone more knowledgeable than me might know.


STAY TUNED TODAY!

EDIT: bandwidth tweeted @spiveyconsult

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

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby cotiger » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:58 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:
gb47 wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:Crazy stuff. I really want to see the breakdown by LSAT scores to see how this is affecting top schools.


When can we expect to see the breakdown by LSAT?


I'm not sure when it came out last year. Spivey or someone more knowledgeable than me might know.


STAY TUNED TODAY!

EDIT: bandwidth tweeted @spiveyconsult


Is that a 12.1% increase in 175-180 applicants?

User avatar
gb47
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:23 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby gb47 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:58 pm

175-180 scores are UP 12%?

politics89
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:50 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby politics89 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:01 pm

gb47 wrote:175-180 scores are UP 12%?


This is incredibly disheartening.

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby lawschool22 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:03 pm

politics89 wrote:
gb47 wrote:175-180 scores are UP 12%?


This is incredibly disheartening.


Keep in mind that with the very small amount of test takers receiving these scores, even small changes in absolute numbers can cause a relatively larger % change.

There were only 353 people who got scores in this range. Which means a 12% increase corresponds to roughly (if my algebra is correct :)) an increase of around 38 applicants with a score in this range.
Last edited by lawschool22 on Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
outlawscr10
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:37 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby outlawscr10 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:03 pm

The two most significant drops last year were in the highest two brackets. Now, 175-180 has increased and 170-174 is the lowest drop.


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests