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

[Revolver066]

Woo!!!!

and +2 for Mr. Burns.

[SchopenhauerFTW]

Good work, everyone. As long as we keep telling people the horrifying reality of law school we'll all eventually have less competition in the job market. And yes, THANK YOU BASED GOD!

[duckmoney]

Only problem with the lowering median problem is the retake phenomenon. More and more people are retaking. So yes, on any given test a 170 is the 98th percentile (or whatever), but more and more applicants have at least one 170 because so many people retake.

Medians probably won't fall too much (if at all), just like they didn't last year.

But competition should still be slightly easier just because there are objectively fewer applicants, even if the number with high LSAT scores isn't dropping. This will be especially true outside of the top schools.

[Kring345]

So basically youre saying Im auto-admit to Yale?

[tennisking88]

Only problem with the lowering median problem is the retake phenomenon. More and more people are retaking. So yes, on any given test a 170 is the 98th percentile (or whatever), but more and more applicants have at least one 170 because so many people retake.

I'd like to see some data on this

[cubbiesyear]

My prediction is a drop in gpa medians. I think schools will guard those lsat medians like crazy and lower gpa standards to do it.


anyone else glad they didn't ED?

[omninode]

Only problem with the lowering median problem is the retake phenomenon. More and more people are retaking. So yes, on any given test a 170 is the 98th percentile (or whatever), but more and more applicants have at least one 170 because so many people retake.

I'd like to see some data on this

Check this out: http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Data/ ... ummary.asp

The total number of LSATs administered dropped this year at roughly the same rate as the number of applicants. That would seem to contradict the theory that more are retaking.

[ahnhub]

The numbers account for retaking--these are numbers for total LSATs administered. A bunch of the October takers were certainly June retakers.

One thing you should remember is that the percentage of those scoring 170+ and 160+ has increased slightly since the early part of the decade. In June 170 put you above 97.3 percent of test-takers. Ten years ago I think a 170 usually was much closer to 98 percent. (There's some give--for some reason June has the most high-scoring test-takers).

About retaking being on the rise--it certainly has been drastically on the rise since the ABA policy changed in 2006. And that makes perfect sense, since schools are basically taking highest score now. But the retaking phenomena should stabilize at a certain point, and we're probably approaching that point. (What I mean is, and I'm totally making the numbers up--if in 2004 the average test-taker took the test 1.2 times, then maybe in 2011 the average test-taker takes it 1.4 times. But that number isn't going to keep climbing--once the population understands the new risk-reward paradigm of a system which allows you to retake with impunity, it should start behaving predictably).

[FryBreadPower]

My prediction is a drop in gpa medians. I think schools will guard those lsat medians like crazy and lower gpa standards to do it.


anyone else glad they didn't ED?

wouldn't that benefit splitters then?

[noleknight16]

Not trying to be a downer, but you guys really need to consider the possibility the majority of the ones who didn't test were the below 160 type who weren't that serious about law school anyways.

I think that's likely the case.

[80eight]

Not trying to be a downer, but you guys really need to consider the possibility the majority of the ones who didn't test were the below 160 type who weren't that serious about law school anyways.

I think that's likely the case.

I'm terrible at math, but that can't be the case right? The percentage of people who got 170+ on October was similar to previous years. If you just cut out the bottom, then the the percentage of people with higher marks would rise...right?

[MrAnon]

The schools won't admit less people. That would screw with their profits. The competition to get into schools has increased steadily through every single year represented on that chart, including all the "down" years for tests administered. The competition for jobs should never be fiercer than in the future.

[noleknight16]

Not trying to be a downer, but you guys really need to consider the possibility the majority of the ones who didn't test were the below 160 type who weren't that serious about law school anyways.

I think that's likely the case.

I'm terrible at math, but that can't be the case right? The percentage of people who got 170+ on October was similar to previous years. If you just cut out the bottom, then the the percentage of people with higher marks would rise...right?

I thought the curve was pre-made before we even take the test?

[tyro]

I was expecting a drop but not a significant one

[80eight]

Not trying to be a downer, but you guys really need to consider the possibility the majority of the ones who didn't test were the below 160 type who weren't that serious about law school anyways.

I think that's likely the case.

I'm terrible at math, but that can't be the case right? The percentage of people who got 170+ on October was similar to previous years. If you just cut out the bottom, then the the percentage of people with higher marks would rise...right?

I thought the curve was pre-made before we even take the test?

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the number of questions you could get wrong and achieve a certain score is fixed (as in, -12 = 170), but not the percentages for each given score. So it's not a real "curve."

[RaleighStClair]

Not trying to be a downer, but you guys really need to consider the possibility the majority of the ones who didn't test were the below 160 type who weren't that serious about law school anyways.

I think that's likely the case.

The "below 160 type"? Then why are the percentile cutoffs for 155, 160, 165, 170, etc essentially the same (give or take a small amoutn of variation) for this October and June as they were for the last couple of years?

If there's less total # of test takers and the percentiles are basically the same as before, then there will be less people total in each score bracket. If that doesn't equate to mid-ranked schools taking less people to maintain medians OR lowering medians in general, then I don't know what would.

[lrslayer]

Only problem with the lowering median problem is the retake phenomenon. More and more people are retaking. So yes, on any given test a 170 is the 98th percentile (or whatever), but more and more applicants have at least one 170 because so many people retake.

Medians probably won't fall too much (if at all), just like they didn't last year.

But competition should still be slightly easier just because there are objectively fewer applicants, even if the number with high LSAT scores isn't dropping. This will be especially true outside of the top schools.

if you look at the retake stats at lsac though you will see that they are typically not successful. there are a couple of lucky people (myself included with a 12 point jump) but as per their stats, most people don't increase more than 5 points. So, except for those that had a say 166 and increased to a 171 and the extreme increases, retakes will not present that much more competition in the 170+ market. or im completely wrong.. lol

[minnbills]

if you look at the retake stats at lsac though you will see that they are typically not successful. there are a couple of lucky people (myself included with a 12 point jump) but as per their stats, most people don't increase more than 5 points. So, except for those that had a say 166 and increased to a 171 and the extreme increases, retakes will not present that much more competition in the 170+ market. or im completely wrong.. lol

Yeah I think it's been established that most retakers don't improve more than a few points, some do worse as well.

[lrslayer]

if you look at the retake stats at lsac though you will see that they are typically not successful. there are a couple of lucky people (myself included with a 12 point jump) but as per their stats, most people don't increase more than 5 points. So, except for those that had a say 166 and increased to a 171 and the extreme increases, retakes will not present that much more competition in the 170+ market. or im completely wrong.. lol

Yeah I think it's been established that most retakers don't improve more than a few points, some do worse as well.

i wish i could have said it so easily in one sentence

[ahnhub]

That would be nice.

--ImageRemoved--

Source: http://lsac.org/LSACResources/Publicati ... EC2010.pdf

Bear with me: chart shows number of applicants by highest LSAT score (with a December cut-off date, so this accounts for June and October LSATs) in 2009-10 and 10-11 cycles. Total number of applicants with a 170+ went down 8%, from 2479 to 2296.

Combined June and October LSATs administered in 09-10 to 10-11 fell from 93,341 to 87,318, or 7%. So for the last two cycles a 7% drop in total tests administered corresponded with a 8% drop in 170+ scores.

I would have totally thought the vast majority of people not taking the test would have been sub-par scorers myself, but the drop seems to be across the board. This may be accounted for by the fact that the LSAT is equated AND curved. "Equated" refers to the pre-set curve, because it is established by the experimental sections which came before. But after the results are compiled there has to be a meaningful curve as well. If a huge chunk of low scorers decide not to take the test, the test still has to be forced into a bell curve.

[minnbills]

i wish i could have said it so easily in one sentence

lol well you will do better come exam time.

[180asBreath]

I don't get it. Wouldn't one assume that only the number of weaker applicants has gone down? Do you really think that the people who did not apply were the 3.9/170+ students? Do you think this would make it easier on someone applying for t14?

[MrKappus]

Of course everyone in this thread sees this as a good thing and their own logic in going to law school's unassailable. Just as many of you will strike out at OCI.

[minnbills]

I don't get it. Wouldn't one assume that only the number of weaker applicants has gone down? Do you really think that the people who did not apply were the 3.9/170+ students? Do you think this would make it easier on someone applying for t14?

I would bet that weaker applicants drop off in bigger numbers, since their prospects are more bleak than somebody coming in with a 3.7. or wtv.

At the same time, the loads of bad press surrounding law school have probably had an effect across the board. High achieving undergrads who were thinking about taking the LSAT may have decided to go in a different direction, we don't know.

The class sizes getting smaller last cycle may suggest that schools had to bring in fewer people to protect their medians, the UIUC scandal suggests the same.

We just won't know until we start seeing results, I guess.

[MrAnon]

Just as many people with good chances for admissions to good schools will drop out. The dumb people still may think law is the key to joining the middle class and pile in. People who could score well on the LSAT either are looking beyond being middle class or realize law school is simply a lottery game that enriches the school administrators. they will go elsewhere to make money.