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

User avatar
omninode
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:09 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby omninode » Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:38 pm

MrAnon wrote: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.



I love how almost everybody on TLS seems to agree that law school is terrible and a waste of time, yet presumably they are here because they plan to attend/already attend law school?

That's internet logic, I guess.

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:23 am

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby tyro » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:03 pm

MrAnon wrote:The dumb people still may think law is the key to joining the middle class and pile in.

:shock:

User avatar
180asBreath
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:47 am

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby 180asBreath » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:16 pm

ahnhub wrote:
CastleRock wrote:
KevinP wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
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.


I don't know how significant it is but that's 200 less people that will be competitive for T6 schools, so that is better than an increase.

Brassica7
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:06 am

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby Brassica7 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:18 pm

FryBreadPower wrote:Probably the most n00b question I've ever asked. And yes, I realize I could conduct a lengthy search to discover the answer to this question; but because I'm lazy at the moment: why is this awesome?



Besides easier admission to good schools due to less competition, it's good that a lot of people are coming to understand that attending the majority of law schools is a very risky life choice.

American_in_China
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:19 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby American_in_China » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:20 pm

So can we call 2012 "The rise of the splitters"?

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18426
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby bk1 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:27 pm

omninode wrote:I love how almost everybody on TLS seems to agree that law school is terrible and a waste of time, yet presumably they are here because they plan to attend/already attend law school?


That's not the TLS general consensus at all. But whatevs.

User avatar
omninode
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:09 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby omninode » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:29 pm

MrAnon wrote:The dumb people still may think law is the key to joining the middle class and pile in.


The assumption being that most law school applicants are below the middle class? Seems unlikely. If anything, I think more people see it as their key to the upper class.
Last edited by omninode on Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
omninode
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:09 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby omninode » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:31 pm

bk1 wrote:
omninode wrote:I love how almost everybody on TLS seems to agree that law school is terrible and a waste of time, yet presumably they are here because they plan to attend/already attend law school?


That's not the TLS general consensus at all. But whatevs.


Yeah, I was exaggerating. I just feel like I see that opinion expressed at least once in every thread. Even when MTal is not around.

jnordlander
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:08 am

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby jnordlander » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:37 pm

To the people saying "well this could just mean fewer lower scoring people took the test" you do not understand the test. I am horrendous at math, but the test is scored on a bell curve. Each percentile representing a point on the curve. Thus fewer people taking the test simply results in fewer people in each percentile.

User avatar
ColtsFan88
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:05 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby ColtsFan88 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:05 pm

jnordlander wrote:To the people saying "well this could just mean fewer lower scoring people took the test" you do not understand the test. I am horrendous at math, but the test is scored on a bell curve. Each percentile representing a point on the curve. Thus fewer people taking the test simply results in fewer people in each percentile.


Not necessarily. The test is equated, not curved.

ahnhub
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:14 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby ahnhub » Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:20 pm

jnordlander wrote:To the people saying "well this could just mean fewer lower scoring people took the test" you do not understand the test. I am horrendous at math, but the test is scored on a bell curve. Each percentile representing a point on the curve. Thus fewer people taking the test simply results in fewer people in each percentile.


That's essentially right, but the bell curve is adjusted to account for differences in test-taking populations. Remember, the test is curved AND equated (equated meaning that a score of 170 on any given test should indicate a person of equal ability to someone who scored a 170 on a previous test). If you were to hypothetically remove the worst-scoring 20% from the test-taking pool, the test-scorers will have a big problem on their hands--they were probably expecting 2% of the test-takers to get -12 or better, but now maybe 3% get -12 or better. The curve is generally set before a test is administered, from how previous testers responded in experimental sections. I don't know how they deal with this--where there are big discrepancies they may actually adjust the curve.

The score and percentile rank you receive are not an exact cut-off for that test. A 170 puts you above 97.3% of test-takers for the past 3 years. Generally there has been a slight push downward on that percentage--five years ago a 170 may have put you above 97.6%, meaning they are giving out slightly more high scores. They are not only trying to create a bell curve, but also "equate" scores to each other--meaning LSAC has become slightly more generous in giving out high scores, because it seems to believe there are slightly more people of high ability.

I'm kind of confusing myself with this, but basically I'm saying the LSAT is not strictly a bell-curve type of thing like law school is (where top 10% get an A, etc., with strict cutoffs). A 170 doesn't just mean you are in the top 2.5% of whoever took the test, although the percentages generally work out pretty close historically.

User avatar
Rawlberto
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby Rawlberto » Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:15 am

I think the "URM Boost" is going to take a kick to the nads this cycle. Really happy i'm retaking.

User avatar
TrojanHopeful
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:37 am

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby TrojanHopeful » Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:41 am

ColtsFan88 wrote:
jnordlander wrote:To the people saying "well this could just mean fewer lower scoring people took the test" you do not understand the test. I am horrendous at math, but the test is scored on a bell curve. Each percentile representing a point on the curve. Thus fewer people taking the test simply results in fewer people in each percentile.


Not necessarily. The test is equated, not curved.


Yes, the test is equated. People are given percentile scores. If you score in the 96th percentile, you scored higher than 96 percent of people taking the test. Therefore, the way it is supposed to work out is if there are less people taking the test, there will be less people scoring in each percentile. Less 170s, less 160s, less 150s.

User avatar
TrojanHopeful
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:37 am

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby TrojanHopeful » Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:42 am

Rawlberto wrote:I think the "URM Boost" is going to take a kick to the nads this cycle. Really happy i'm retaking.


Why do you think this?

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby minnbills » Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:44 am

TrojanHopeful wrote:
Rawlberto wrote:I think the "URM Boost" is going to take a kick to the nads this cycle. Really happy i'm retaking.


Why do you think this?


Probably because schools might be forced to choose between protecting their medians and keeping high URM numbers.

iamrobk
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby iamrobk » Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:48 am

minnbills wrote:
TrojanHopeful wrote:
Rawlberto wrote:I think the "URM Boost" is going to take a kick to the nads this cycle. Really happy i'm retaking.


Why do you think this?


Probably because schools might be forced to choose between protecting their medians and keeping high URM numbers.

Really good point. Probably the best way for schools to keep up their medians.

User avatar
TrojanHopeful
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:37 am

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby TrojanHopeful » Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:52 am

minnbills wrote:
TrojanHopeful wrote:
Rawlberto wrote:I think the "URM Boost" is going to take a kick to the nads this cycle. Really happy i'm retaking.


Why do you think this?


Probably because schools might be forced to choose between protecting their medians and keeping high URM numbers.


Yes, good point. However, did URMs not get boosts in 2000 and prior? Because we are still set to have a greater number of applicants than in those years. Further, I would imagine that schools still want to maintain diversity throughout their classes.

User avatar
noleknight16
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:09 am

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby noleknight16 » Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:54 am

TrojanHopeful wrote:Further, I would imagine that schools still want to maintain diversity throughout their classes.


Not at the expense of losing desired medians.

User avatar
TrojanHopeful
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:37 am

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby TrojanHopeful » Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:00 am

noleknight16 wrote:
TrojanHopeful wrote:Further, I would imagine that schools still want to maintain diversity throughout their classes.


Not at the expense of losing desired medians.


So "School A" has kept their median of 168 but they now have 70% caucasian, 29% asian, .5% AA, and .5% MA. Yup, that's good publicity.

I'm in the frame of mind that they continue to provide boosts to URMs. If all medians drop, it won't affect any of the schools' rankings.

User avatar
omninode
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:09 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby omninode » Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:02 am

noleknight16 wrote:
TrojanHopeful wrote:Further, I would imagine that schools still want to maintain diversity throughout their classes.


Not at the expense of losing desired medians.


But if all schools take a hit to their medians, it will have no effect on the rankings, correct?

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby minnbills » Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:03 am

TrojanHopeful wrote:So "School A" has kept their median of 168 but they now have 70% caucasian, 29% asian, .5% AA, and .5% MA. Yup, that's good publicity.

I'm in the frame of mind that they continue to provide boosts to URMs. If all medians drop, it won't affect any of the schools' rankings.


Yeah maybe they will collude lol.

I think at this point there are just so many factors up in the air, all we can really do is wait.

User avatar
TrojanHopeful
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:37 am

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby TrojanHopeful » Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:15 am

minnbills wrote:
TrojanHopeful wrote:So "School A" has kept their median of 168 but they now have 70% caucasian, 29% asian, .5% AA, and .5% MA. Yup, that's good publicity.

I'm in the frame of mind that they continue to provide boosts to URMs. If all medians drop, it won't affect any of the schools' rankings.


Yeah maybe they will collude lol.

I think at this point there are just so many factors up in the air, all we can really do is wait.


...and hope for some favorable outcomes!

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby minnbills » Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:19 am

TrojanHopeful wrote:...and hope for some favorable outcomes!


hell yeah man!

Curious1
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:54 pm

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby Curious1 » Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:29 am

minnbills wrote:
TrojanHopeful wrote:...and hope for some favorable outcomes!


hell yeah man!


This thread will make me sleep easier this weekend.

User avatar
Ernert
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:35 am

Re: 16.9% Drop in October Test Takers

Postby Ernert » Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:34 am

Curious1 wrote:
minnbills wrote:
TrojanHopeful wrote:...and hope for some favorable outcomes!


hell yeah man!


This thread will make me sleep easier this weekend.


+1




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests