16.9% Decrease In October Test Takers(Detailed Stats Inside) Forum

[LSAT Blog]

There likely won't be too many 170+-scorers applying in the remainder of this cycle. Here's the breakdown of what happened last cycle:



This year is the first that LSAC provided the YTD number of applicants by 5-point LSAT ranges, as you can see from the archives:

http://www.lsac.org/Members/Data/curren ... chives.asp

As such, we can only look at the numbers from last cycle to this one, and compare them with the final applicant numbers by LSAT range from last cycle.

For the following score ranges, LSAC had the following % of the preliminary applicant count by 3/30 last year:

97.5% of applicants with highest LSAT scores of 165-169.
98.7% of applicants with highest LSAT scores of 170-174.
99.3% of applicants with highest LSAT scores of 175-180.

(explanation edited for clarity)

[cogitoergosum]

Spent the last few hours doing further calculations / analysis related to the impact on admission prospects at top 14 law schools.

Thoughts?

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/ad ... asier.html

I would love to know if we could try to ball park the number of 173+ and 3.91+, which represent the highest medians in the country, just to try to calculate the number of kids really competitive for HYS. I'd ballpark that at most there are 1400 kids with a 173+ and of those, probably 25% (at most) have 3.91s or above. So maybe there are 350 kids applying that are at or above every median? Anyone think these numbers are off?

>2012
>still referring to people as kids
>I seriously hope you guys don't do this

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kid

Not a big deal. Most of us are young people.

Though it looks like some are cranky like old people.

Yeah, FWIW, as a lateish twentysomething, I kind of like still being called a kid... it's comforting in a weird way.

[Jeffort]

Given the data that is in now, it's likely to be a long cycle of waiting for splitters and applicants with marginal numbers that applied to tier one schools since the admission committees are going to be waiting to hear back/get commitments from the first rounds of admits and waiting until deposit/decision deadlines pass before making firm decisions about many applicants.

Splitters and marginal numbers applicants for top schools, strap yourselves in and hold on for a possibly long nail biting ride ahead through spring and possibly into early summer.

[Easy-E]

Given the data that is in now, it's likely to be a long cycle of waiting for splitters and applicants with marginal numbers that applied to tier one schools since the admission committees are going to be waiting to hear back/get commitments from the first rounds of admits and waiting until deposit/decision deadlines pass before making firm decisions about many applicants.

Splitters and marginal numbers applicants for top schools, strap yourselves in and hold on for a possibly long nail biting ride ahead through spring and possibly into early summer.

Are you saying that for this current cycle, or predicting for next year (or both)?

[Jeffort]

Given the data that is in now, it's likely to be a long cycle of waiting for splitters and applicants with marginal numbers that applied to tier one schools since the admission committees are going to be waiting to hear back/get commitments from the first rounds of admits and waiting until deposit/decision deadlines pass before making firm decisions about many applicants.

Splitters and marginal numbers applicants for top schools, strap yourselves in and hold on for a possibly long nail biting ride ahead through spring and possibly into early summer.

Are you saying that for this current cycle, or predicting for next year (or both)?

This current cycle. With the significant changes in LSAT takers and current applicant volume right now, before fall when this admission cycle is over, the final data comes out and people can see how law schools dealt with the current applicant pool, it's impossible to make any predictions about future LSAT volume and next cycle admissions that would be anything other than total wild arse guesses.

As of right now the schools are in the midst of trying to figure out what to do with what is the case right now with the current applicant pool given the significant change in pool characteristics from prior years, scratching their heads, contemplating which factors to put more weight/priority on with admission decisions and hedging their bets.

[agcl0913]

I'm crossing my fingers that the numbers continue going down next cycle

[Mal Reynolds]

FWIW, I just read in the Harvard applicants thread that all decisions will be released by the end of May, be it accepts, waitlists, or denies. This definitely jives with Jefforts predictions. The wait might suck but my marginal numbers will make the wait worth it.

[LSAT Blog]

LSAT Blog,

What might a score breakdown by date look like? What I mean is, what is the spread of applicants who haven't applied yet likely to look like?

Might it hold true that a higher proportion of higher scorers have already applied, whereas perhaps a lower proportion of lower scorers have not?

Would it be possible to create a chart including a spread of 5 point LSAT ranges and number of applications by date?

I would be very interested to see where most 170+ scorers are applying, or whether it is bimodal, or even if there is no statistically significant correlation at all.

Great questions, MLBrandow. As one would expect, it is the case that a greater % of high scorers have already applied. I mentioned this briefly at the top of this page but wanted to give a fuller picture.

Below is a graph depicting the breakdown for all score ranges. It's based on LSAC's (presumed) applicant count by 1/6/11 and 3/30/11 (based upon LSAC's reports for 1/6/12 and 3/30/12), as % of total applicant count for the 2010-11 cycle:

(I assume folks are more interested in applicant count than application count, and I assume you mean *when* most 170+ scorers are applying as opposed to *where.* We already have a pretty good idea of where, don't we?)




1/6/12 is the first date that LSAC included breakdowns by score range, so it's the one I chose to analyze. I used the information provided in that report to determine LSAC's count of 2011 applicants by 1/6/11. Next cycle, we'll presumably have more information about what happens over the course of a cycle.

[kennethellenparcell]

^
I take argument with some his premises. (1) The 2495 is gained by using the most conservative estimate possible for each school, with the exception of Chicago and a few others. (2) As you said, the GPA breakdown isn't known. Last year, approximately 30% of the applicant pool with 170+ scores had less than a 3.5 GPA (Source: LSAC National Decision Profile 2011). (3) The data also don't tell us how many of the 170+ applicant pool enroll that get accepted, how many have criminal convictions, etc.

Additionally, he takes the numbers that LSAC posted to be the total number of 170+ applicants while it only reflects data through 3/30. Doesn't project it at all.

Yes, but wouldn't this mean that there will likely be more (perhaps only slightly more) 170+ applicants then? That goes to the conclusion that there are still more 170+ applicants than the t14 take. I mean, some schools (like Northwestern and arguably NYU) like splitters. Other schools like Stanford and Berkeley don't have super high LSAT medians and so this downward trend of applicants probably won't affect them that much. I don't think things will be much easier, unless the decrease is much more significant than it currently is.

But of course this is all speculation and we won't know until this cycle's final stats come out. From my perspective as a fairly extreme splitter (GPA less than 3.5, LSAT greater than 175), this cycle hasn't been easy at all. We'll see what happens when schools start to take people off waitlists though.

[LSAT Blog]

wouldn't this mean that there will likely be more (perhaps only slightly more) 170+ applicants then? That goes to the conclusion that there are still more 170+ applicants than the t14 take. I mean, some schools (like Northwestern and arguably NYU) like splitters. Other schools like Stanford and Berkeley don't have super high LSAT medians and so this downward trend of applicants probably won't affect them that much. I don't think things will be much easier, unless the decrease is much more significant than it currently is.

But of course this is all speculation and we won't know until this cycle's final stats come out. From my perspective as a fairly extreme splitter (GPA less than 3.5, LSAT greater than 175), this cycle hasn't been easy at all. We'll see what happens when schools start to take people off waitlists though.

As indicated in the graphs above, all but a tiny % of 170+ applicants have likely applied by now.

Although we don't have the data on this, perhaps there's been a big drop in high-GPA applicants just as there's been a big drop in high-LSAT applicants. If so, then even schools that aren't big on splitters would be affected as well...

[KevinP]

Just to add to what LSAT blog said, if you look at the LSAC national decision profiles, something like 14% (estimate) of the 170+ scrorers that got accepted ended up not going that year. That's a pretty significant percentage of applicants imo.

[thelawyler]

Just to add to what LSAT blog said, if you look at the LSAC national decision profiles, something like 14% (estimate) of the 170+ scrorers that got accepted ended up not going that year. That's a pretty significant percentage of applicants imo.

That is indeed significant.

[kennethellenparcell]

Well, I'll let you guys know what ends up happening with my cycle. Seems like I'm supposed to be the type of applicant benefitting from the decrease in applications...?

The only occurrence worth mentioning is that Northwestern offerred me scholarship money. I've analyzed previous cycles on TLS and LSN and it appears that the school does not typically offer scholarship money to splitters. However, this could be due to other reasons - increased scholarship funds perhaps. I also put quite a bit of work into my essays.

ETA: I've collected many, many waitlists. But, looking at previous splitter cycles - doesn't seem like my cycle is out of the ordinary. Usually splitters with 175+ LSATs tend to get one of CCN off the waitlist anyway (usually N). If I get Columbia from reserve, then I will believe that the decrease is really affecting schools.

[Br3v]

Admittedly didn't read through this thread.

Anyone credible want to give me the general synopsis as to what TLS thinks this means going into next cycle?

[nkp007]

Admittedly didn't read through this thread.

Anyone credible want to give me the general synopsis as to what TLS thinks this means going into next cycle?

Cool

[Kafka]

Admittedly didn't read through this thread.

Anyone credible want to give me the general synopsis as to what TLS thinks this means going into next cycle?

Cool

Story

[StarLightSpectre]

Admittedly didn't read through this thread.

Anyone credible want to give me the general synopsis as to what TLS thinks this means going into next cycle?

Cool

Story

BRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yes

[cogitoergosum]

Something to add to our mix of statistics and conjecture, this is fresh off Kathryn Espiritu's Twitter (she's Director of Admissions @ Fordham):

4/16 has come and gone - deposits were aplenty. what does this mean for WL candidates? email update to go out tomorrow.

I don't know... it's just not what I would have expected if there's such a dearth of qualified applicants. And to be honest, I was surprised by how non-aggressive Fordham is with scholarship funds etc. If they're sitting pretty, is this the beginning of the end of our dream of an epic cycle? Thoughts?

[jkpolk]

Something to add to our mix of statistics and conjecture, this is fresh off Kathryn Espiritu's Twitter (she's Director of Admissions @ Fordham):

4/16 has come and gone - deposits were aplenty. what does this mean for WL candidates? email update to go out tomorrow.

I don't know... it's just not what I would have expected if there's such a dearth of qualified applicants. And to be honest, I was surprised by how non-aggressive Fordham is with scholarship funds etc. If they're sitting pretty, is this the beginning of the end of our dream of an epic cycle? Thoughts?

Even if only a handful of people deposited at Fordham I'd assume the admissions director would issue a vague statement. That said, I would love to read the "Shit Shit WE ARE ADMITTING THE WHOLE WAITLIST!!!! PLEASE DEPOSIT!!!!" twitter post from a few schools.

[cogitoergosum]

Something to add to our mix of statistics and conjecture, this is fresh off Kathryn Espiritu's Twitter (she's Director of Admissions @ Fordham):

4/16 has come and gone - deposits were aplenty. what does this mean for WL candidates? email update to go out tomorrow.

I don't know... it's just not what I would have expected if there's such a dearth of qualified applicants. And to be honest, I was surprised by how non-aggressive Fordham is with scholarship funds etc. If they're sitting pretty, is this the beginning of the end of our dream of an epic cycle? Thoughts?

Even if only a handful of people deposited at Fordham I'd assume the admissions director would issue a vague statement. That said, I would love to read the "Shit Shit WE ARE ADMITTING THE WHOLE WAITLIST!!!! PLEASE DEPOSIT!!!!" twitter post from a few schools.

Well, she didn't have to say anything. It's not like she was put on the spot and had to give an answer - In that case I'd be suspicious of a person bluffing a little. But this was an unsolicited comment... To me it looks more like it's legit and she's just trying to soften the blow for those waiting.

I hope, for the sake of our much anticipated WL acceptances to YHS etc., that I'm wrong, but it looks like a possible leading indicator that this cycle might be business as usual.

[PARTY]

Something to add to our mix of statistics and conjecture, this is fresh off Kathryn Espiritu's Twitter (she's Director of Admissions @ Fordham):

4/16 has come and gone - deposits were aplenty. what does this mean for WL candidates? email update to go out tomorrow.

I don't know... it's just not what I would have expected if there's such a dearth of qualified applicants. And to be honest, I was surprised by how non-aggressive Fordham is with scholarship funds etc. If they're sitting pretty, is this the beginning of the end of our dream of an epic cycle? Thoughts?

nobody wants to seem needy.

[Br3v]

Admittedly didn't read through this thread.

Anyone credible want to give me the general synopsis as to what TLS thinks this means going into next cycle?

Cool

Story

BRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yes

Come on man, you gotta act like you've been there before haha

[thelawyler]

She won't know till the deposits are due at other schools. The entire idea is that the cycle should look different after the WLs play out.

[cogitoergosum]

She won't know till the deposits are due at other schools. The entire idea is that the cycle should look different after the WLs play out.

Yeah, this is true... Okay, I'm optimistic again.

[thelawyler]

You're welcome. Keeping up the illusion of hope.