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
kay2016
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:23 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby kay2016 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:04 pm

lawschool22 wrote:
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.


Agreed, spivey also tweeted the # of these scores... So that might be more reassuring

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 2:06 pm

kay2016 wrote:
lawschool22 wrote:
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.


Agreed, spivey also tweeted the # of these scores... So that might be more reassuring


So it looks like there were 315 at this point last year vs 353 this year. Not bad, but still not what you want to see.

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 2:08 pm

cotiger wrote:So it looks like there were 315 at this point last year vs 353 this year. Not bad, but still not what you want to see.


Maybe not good for those of us applying but great news for the legal field as a whole. This means that more of the people who should be going to law school are applying.

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 2:09 pm

So for 170+, at this time last year there were 1230+315=1545
This year there have been 1173+353=1526

Overall decline of 1.2%

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 2:12 pm

The-Specs wrote:
cotiger wrote:So it looks like there were 315 at this point last year vs 353 this year. Not bad, but still not what you want to see.


Maybe not good for those of us applying but great news for the legal field as a whole. This means that more of the people who should be going to law school are applying.


I dunno, I don't think of the legal field as suffering a dearth of intelligent people. Typically the bigger problem has been that the legal field sops up too much of the talent that could have more productive uses.

The composition of the applicant pool is indeed better, but I don't think an absolute increase in any subgroup is what is needed.
Last edited by cotiger on Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:15 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 2:15 pm

Anyone have the raw numbers from last year? I thought they were in this thread but I can't find them.

redsoxfan1989
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby redsoxfan1989 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:15 pm

cotiger wrote:So for 170+, at this time last year there were 1230+315=1545
This year there have been 1173+353=1526

Overall decline of 1.2%


Relevant question here is what % of 170+ scores had already applied at this point historically.

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 2:16 pm

cotiger wrote:
The-Specs wrote:
cotiger wrote:So it looks like there were 315 at this point last year vs 353 this year. Not bad, but still not what you want to see.


Maybe not good for those of us applying but great news for the legal field as a whole. This means that more of the people who should be going to law school are applying.


I dunno, I don't think of the legal field as suffering a dearth of intelligent people. Typically the bigger problem has been that the legal field sops up too much of the talent that could have more productive uses.


Perhaps but my point was that this means more of the pool is going to Tier 1 schools and fewer to Cooley and its peers ilk (I hope).

Also, we should have seen this coming. People who had killer numbers but didn't apply last year were likely to be smart enough to come back this year wit the drop in applicants if Law was their dream in the first place.

ETA: 700th Post :)
Last edited by The-Specs on Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Trig
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby Trig » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:21 pm

.
Last edited by Trig on Thu Dec 12, 2013 9:05 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 2:22 pm

redsoxfan1989 wrote:
cotiger wrote:So for 170+, at this time last year there were 1230+315=1545
This year there have been 1173+353=1526

Overall decline of 1.2%


Relevant question here is what % of 170+ scores had already applied at this point historically.


Yeah - we don't quite know how the raw numbers stack up in terms of overall total applicants at the end of the day. We could still see more of a reduction and/or increase when all is said and done.

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 2:24 pm

The-Specs wrote:
cotiger wrote:
The-Specs wrote:
cotiger wrote:So it looks like there were 315 at this point last year vs 353 this year. Not bad, but still not what you want to see.


Maybe not good for those of us applying but great news for the legal field as a whole. This means that more of the people who should be going to law school are applying.


I dunno, I don't think of the legal field as suffering a dearth of intelligent people. Typically the bigger problem has been that the legal field sops up too much of the talent that could have more productive uses.


Perhaps but my point was that this means more of the pool is going to Tier 1 schools and fewer to Cooley and its peers ilk (I hope).


For sure. I added this after: The composition of the applicant pool is indeed better, but I don't think an absolute increase in any subgroup is what is needed.

Relevant question here is what % of 170+ scores had already applied at this point historically.


Mike, do you know if the year-end bandwidth data from last year is available anywhere?

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 2:25 pm

Matriculating class from 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
140–144 6,114 -7.2%
145–149 9,439 -7.4%
150–154 11,430 -10.6%
155–159 10,920 -15.9%
160–164 7,913 -15.0%
165–169 4,967 -16.1%
170–174 1,995 -24.6%
175–180 534 -20.7%

User avatar
nothingtosee
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 12:08 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby nothingtosee » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:29 pm

outlawscr10 wrote:Matriculating class from 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
...


You should take this down.
The man posts it on his Twitter and blog (and NOT here) intentionally. Throw him a follow, and send him the Twitter traffic.

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 2:30 pm

nothingtosee wrote:
outlawscr10 wrote:Matriculating class from 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
...


You should take this down.
The man posts it on his Twitter and blog (and NOT here) intentionally. Throw him a follow, and send him the Twitter traffic.


This is from page 59 on this thread... posted by Mike.
Last edited by outlawscr10 on Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:31 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 2:30 pm

nothingtosee wrote:
outlawscr10 wrote:Matriculating class from 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
...


You should take this down.
The man posts it on his Twitter and blog (and NOT here) intentionally. Throw him a follow, and send him the Twitter traffic.


This isn't this year's data.

User avatar
nothingtosee
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 12:08 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby nothingtosee » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:32 pm

lawschool22 wrote:
nothingtosee wrote:
outlawscr10 wrote:Matriculating class from 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
...


You should take this down.
The man posts it on his Twitter and blog (and NOT here) intentionally. Throw him a follow, and send him the Twitter traffic.


This isn't this year's data.

My bad :oops:

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 2:34 pm

outlawscr10 wrote:Matriculating class from 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
140–144 6,114 -7.2%
145–149 9,439 -7.4%
150–154 11,430 -10.6%
155–159 10,920 -15.9%
160–164 7,913 -15.0%
165–169 4,967 -16.1%
170–174 1,995 -24.6%
175–180 534 -20.7%


So last year, 59% of 175+s and 61% of 170+s had applied by this point.

Let's call it 60%. We can expect ~590 175+s and ~2540 170+s this cycle.

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 2:37 pm

cotiger wrote:
outlawscr10 wrote:Matriculating class from 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
140–144 6,114 -7.2%
145–149 9,439 -7.4%
150–154 11,430 -10.6%
155–159 10,920 -15.9%
160–164 7,913 -15.0%
165–169 4,967 -16.1%
170–174 1,995 -24.6%
175–180 534 -20.7%


So last year, 59% of 175+s and 61% of 170+s had applied by this point.

Let's call it 60%. We can expect ~590 175+s and ~2540 170+s this cycle.


That's frightening.

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 2:38 pm

cotiger wrote:
outlawscr10 wrote:Matriculating class from 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
140–144 6,114 -7.2%
145–149 9,439 -7.4%
150–154 11,430 -10.6%
155–159 10,920 -15.9%
160–164 7,913 -15.0%
165–169 4,967 -16.1%
170–174 1,995 -24.6%
175–180 534 -20.7%


So last year, 59% of 175+s and 61% of 170+s had applied by this point.

Let's call it 60%. We can expect ~590 175+s and ~2540 170+s this cycle.


We'll have to see what the number of December takers looks like this year. I think someone earlier mentioned that they thought perhaps many people who had top scores sat out last year, and jumped in this year to take advantage of declining apps. If that's the case then they would have presumably submitted by now as they didn't need to take the test again in October or December. So its possible the percentage of total applicants is higher now at this point than it was last year.

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 2:43 pm

Is 2540 the right number there? That's a significant increase.

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 2:44 pm

lawschool22 wrote:
cotiger wrote:
outlawscr10 wrote:Matriculating class from 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
140–144 6,114 -7.2%
145–149 9,439 -7.4%
150–154 11,430 -10.6%
155–159 10,920 -15.9%
160–164 7,913 -15.0%
165–169 4,967 -16.1%
170–174 1,995 -24.6%
175–180 534 -20.7%


So last year, 59% of 175+s and 61% of 170+s had applied by this point.

Let's call it 60%. We can expect ~590 175+s and ~2540 170+s this cycle.


We'll have to see what the number of December takers looks like this year. I think someone earlier mentioned that they thought perhaps many people who had top scores sat out last year, and jumped in this year to take advantage of declining apps. If that's the case then they would have presumably submitted by now as they didn't need to take the test again in October or December. So its possible the percentage of total applicants is higher now at this point than it was last year.


True. All the same, it looks like the cycle will be about the same as last cycle for 170+s, not markedly better. Which is to say, still pretty damn good!

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 2:45 pm

outlawscr10 wrote:Is 2540 the right number there? That's a significant increase.


2540 includes both 170-174 and 175-180. The overall 170+ bracket has a y/y decrease of 1.2%.
Last edited by cotiger on Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:45 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 2:45 pm

cotiger wrote:
outlawscr10 wrote:Is 2540 the right number there? That's a significant increase.


2540 includes both 175-180 and 170-174.


And I'm exhaling.

redsoxfan1989
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby redsoxfan1989 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:47 pm

outlawscr10 wrote:
cotiger wrote:
outlawscr10 wrote:Is 2540 the right number there? That's a significant increase.


2540 includes both 175-180 and 170-174.


And I'm exhaling.

Deleted. Bad at math.

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 2:52 pm

outlawscr10 wrote:Is 2540 the right number there? That's a significant increase.


Somehow I got slightly different numbers. I think it's due to rounding.

I came up with a projection for 2013 of:

170-174: 1,903 (-92)
175-180: 598 (+64)
Total: 2,501 (-28)

Compared to 2012:

170-174: 1,995
175-180: 534
Total: 2,529


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest