Top Law Schools

KevinP wrote:

MLBrandow wrote: Thanks a lot for proving this link. According to this data, there are 7.4% fewer applicants in the 170+ range up to Dec 3, 2011 than there were as of Dec 3, 2010. This is a far cry from 15%, although it does lend credence that there may be some effect. Certainly my hypothesis appears invalid.

Remember, this is from last cycle, and therefore this is a 7.4% decrease in 170+ test takers among a national wide drop of 9% LSAT test takers. If you look at the data closer, you'll notice that the drop in the 170+ applicants was mostly fueled by the 175+ applicants (decrease of 23.28%). If anything, the limited data suggest that the absolute top scorers 175+ are the most likely group (in terms of percentage decrease as measured by applicants) to forgo law school.

@Everyone else
I think we won't notice the actual effects of the drop for this cycle until we get some waitlist movement. One thing that really stuck out to me is that the applications/applicant ratio is significantly higher than normal. In turn, this will translate into far more overlap between schools fighting for top candidates. Also, I've noticed GULC and NYU have been more lenient this admissions process.

For example: Generally the competition with (170/3.8+) candidates have been more limited to MVP in the previous cycles. However, NYU has been digging deeper into its applicant pool. Now MVP will be competing more with NYU over applicants.

(2010-2011)
http://nyu.lawschoolnumbers.com/applica ... ,8&type=jd

(2011-2012)
http://nyu.lawschoolnumbers.com/applica ... ,8&type=jd

Do you have the exact stats of how many schools per applicant this year v. how many schools per applicant last/in previous years?

Gail wrote: Acceptance rates might balloon, but there are no shortage of qualified candidates and now they have even more time to check every little flaw in your application.

I disagree. I have seen the profiles from the past 10 yrs on LSN of basically everyone who had around my numbers (170, 3.8+), and out of 50 I would say all 50 got into at least one T-14. Passing a certain threshold almost guarantees an acceptance at a certain range of schools, which further suggests that schools have never been that picky as long as you have the numbers. If literally everyone with a 170/3.8 was getting T-14, and there are suddenly 15% less people with those credentials, it has to have some affect on the process.

I would argue NYU, Michigan and Georgetown have been noticeably more lenient this cycle. Everyone else is acting stuck-up, but if they thought they could admit the same people as before and retain their yield they're wrong. There is either going to be a big wave of acceptances at the end of the cycle, or some serious WL movement.

I hope you are right. NYU has been ignoring me and I think typically they accept people with my numbers (at least based on LSN). I do have multiple retakes though...and NYU is one of those schools that claims to still average.

ahnhub wrote:

Gail wrote: Acceptance rates might balloon, but there are no shortage of qualified candidates and now they have even more time to check every little flaw in your application.

I disagree. I have seen the profiles from the past 10 yrs on LSN of basically everyone who had around my numbers (170, 3.8+), and out of 50 I would say all 50 got into at least one T-14. Passing a certain threshold almost guarantees an acceptance at a certain range of schools, which further suggests that schools have never been that picky as long as you have the numbers. If literally everyone with a 170/3.8 was getting T-14, and there are suddenly 15% less people with those credentials, it has to have some affect on the process.

I would argue NYU, Michigan and Georgetown have been noticeably more lenient this cycle. Everyone else is acting stuck-up, but if they thought they could admit the same people as before and retain their yield they're wrong. There is either going to be a big wave of acceptances at the end of the cycle, or some serious WL movement.

ahnhub wrote:

Gail wrote: Acceptance rates might balloon, but there are no shortage of qualified candidates and now they have even more time to check every little flaw in your application.

I disagree. I have seen the profiles from the past 10 yrs on LSN of basically everyone who had around my numbers (170, 3.8+), and out of 50 I would say all 50 got into at least one T-14. Passing a certain threshold almost guarantees an acceptance at a certain range of schools, which further suggests that schools have never been that picky as long as you have the numbers. If literally everyone with a 170/3.8 was getting T-14, and there are suddenly 15% less people with those credentials, it has to have some affect on the process.

I would argue NYU, Michigan and Georgetown have been noticeably more lenient this cycle. Everyone else is acting stuck-up, but if they thought they could admit the same people as before and retain their yield they're wrong. There is either going to be a big wave of acceptances at the end of the cycle, or some serious WL movement.

ahnhub,

I think the ultimate factor here is that these schools place a premium on their USN rankings. In an uncertain cycle, it may be possible to do some real moving. That said, for those schools that place a high value on USN rankings, selectivity accounts for 25% of the ranking, while acceptance merely accounts for only 2%.

If the law school applications in general are down at a university, I expect either all of the schools valuing USN rankings to drop in selectivity, or none of them to. And I don't see a reason these top schools won't just admit fewer applicants.

As you said earlier though, I think those unwilling to see their class sizes diminish will have a lot of wait-list movement. The underlying point I'm getting at though is that these schools, seeing fewer applications, are being even more selective.

Where is the February data?! The suspense is killing me. Frickin' Tampa.

nkp007 wrote:Where is the February data?! The suspense is killing me. Frickin' Tampa.

I love how we all thought that page was going to be the first thing to update and it still hasn't changed.

bernaldiaz wrote:

nkp007 wrote:Where is the February data?! The suspense is killing me. Frickin' Tampa.

I love how we all thought that page was going to be the first thing to update and it still hasn't changed.

Just checked: Feb LSAT numbers are out. Looks like that iteration saw test takers down 13.7%. If my math is correct, and we factor in repeat takers (data for which is avalailable in the pdf. link on the same LSAC page), there were less than 100,000 distinct test takers this cycle. All in all, it looks like this cycle should then be most similar to 2000-2001. Note: I realize this requires some assumptions, one of which is that there aren't more applicants from previous cycles in this cycle than there were applicants from previous years in the 2000-2001 cycle. But the number of applicants from previous cycles seems like it should be fairly constant, to my mind. Someone can correct me if I'm thinking about it incorrectly.

It's funny how we all thought this was going to have a huge impact on the cycle in a good way, but so far all it's done, if anything, is made it the most stressful cycle in recent memory.

WhiteGuy5 wrote:It's funny how we all thought this was going to have a huge impact on the cycle in a good way, but so far all it's done, if anything, is made it the most stressful cycle in recent memory.

Yeah, a lot of 'group-think' wishful thinking has been going around due to the LSATs administered volume stats.

As I argued before in this and other threads (and sometimes got criticized for saying), my position remains the same. The top T1 and higher end T2 law schools are not going to have to lower their admission standards or cut back class sizes to build their Fall 2012 1L entering classes. There is no shortage of 90%+ LSAT + high GPA applicants.

There are still far more applicants than available seats at ABA schools and matriculation volume has not dropped over the years. It has remained stable and slightly increased, even in the previous cycles going back more than 15 years when there were significant drops in LSATs administered volume and applicant volumes.

It does make it more stressful than the application process always is if one obsesses about these things though. I'll concede that point.

My other view also remains the same. Due to the drop in LSAT takers and application volume so far this cycle, I believe admission committees are taking their time making decisions other than with auto-admit for top numbers applicants and auto-reject for no chance in hell with those numbers applicants while they wait to see the full pool of applications they have to choose from.

Notice that many schools, even many T14 schools, no longer have a drop dead application submission deadline. Until recently that type of policy never existed.

Other than the obvious stuff about having the best GPA and LSAT score (and hopefully a fairly unblemished LSAT CAS record), I think, based on the circumstances, it is even more important for admission chances than before to have everything in your application package (personal statement, LORs, etc.) very well done and polished as best as possible.

My reasoning for this is based on common sense. Since schools are receiving fewer applications, the admission committees have more time to thoroughly read and review every piece of each application beyond just looking at the GPA & LSAT numbers.

Overall, I think it is a good thing since it gets somewhat past mainly just judging people by their numbers, but it does also place a greater burden on students to write well (personal statement, addenda if necessary) have good LOR's and other good soft factors. I think that is good as well for the law school admission process and legal profession in general. Reading, writing and grammar skills are really important in law school and beyond.

Also, some people seeking law school admission have attitudes/character issues, agendas and ethical predispositions that make them unsuitable to be a lawyer that would uphold the law and play fair even though they can ace a test and somehow earn a high GPA. The current application systems, data collection/reporting systems, and disclosure requirements in applications have been designed partially to weed out such miscreants.

That's my $0.02 and rant for now.

Jeffort being awesome as always.

Tom Joad wrote:Jeffort being awesome as always.

Ditto!

I still think it is too early to tell what effect the drop has had.

NYCLSATTutor wrote: Do you have the exact stats of how many schools per applicant this year v. how many schools per applicant last/in previous years?

.

Ratio as of January 2012 is 7.33. I've included the historic ratios.



Image Source: https://lawschooltuitionbubble.wordpres ... ants-down/

Tagging because I am tired of always having to search for this epic thread.

KevinP wrote:I still think it is too early to tell what effect the drop has had.

NYCLSATTutor wrote: Do you have the exact stats of how many schools per applicant this year v. how many schools per applicant last/in previous years?

.

Ratio as of January 2012 is 7.33. I've included the historic ratios.



Image Source: https://lawschooltuitionbubble.wordpres ... ants-down/

This is certainly "not nothing," so to speak. If you have a decreased # of applicants, but increased applications per applicant, then schools (in the aggregate) should have lower yield. Now, I'm sure this won't hurt YHS's yield much, but the degree to which it will affect MVP, Cornell, Georgetown, etc. remains to be seen.

And if it's a yield thing, then I don't think we'd be seeing the effects yet, unless schools were anticipating the lower yield and making more admits already. I am still hopeful, as many have predicted, that we will see a lot of waitlist movement in the next few months.

cogitoergosum wrote:

I am still hopeful, as many have predicted, that we will see a lot of waitlist movement in the next few months.

I expect that it will happen, but it is just going to take time. Weeks and months of tortuous time stalking the mailman everyday to see if he has a cool big envelope to hand you.

Just try to have a little Patience

As I posted way back in this thread and in other threads, I applied during the cycle that previously had the largest drop in LSATs administered and applicant volume and percentages in the last twenty years.

I was in wait list purgatory for many months with several schools while other schools decided to just take their sweet time to respond with anything. I'm talking all the way to May, June and early July to get responses from some schools about waiting list or to get any response to my application at all.

Harvard had me on what the people in the admissions office called the 'unofficial' waiting list. I hadn't heard anything from them for a long time so I called and nagged them until I got somebody from the admissions committee on the phone. She looked up my app and told me I was in the holding pattern unofficial waiting list stack while they figured things out.

Yale waited until May to finally send me a rejection letter after I hassled them on the phone a few times to make sure they even received my application since it had been so long and I had heard nothing. The lady on the phone told me they decided not to cash my application fee check since they kept me waiting for soo long. I would have preferred being accepted though.

I got my acceptance to my top choice school, University of Southern California (USC) via UPS overnight delivery in I think early July IIRC.

The cycle was long and drawn out. Many students in my entering class didn't get their acceptances until mid to late spring, and some didn't get them until summer.

One guy got his acceptance less than two weeks before classes started in August. He had already enrolled and started at another lower ranked school in another state and had to suddenly move and deal with all that. He made it to Socal and into our class section the middle of the first week of 1L. He looked really worn out when he showed up!

Luckily, I was living beachfront at the time and had plenty of $$ from previous work and wasn't working much, so I pretty much just hung out, got a tan and stalked the mailman everyday.

I've told the story before. On some days I took a cooler and beach chair out to where the mailboxes for the condo were. It was a cool spot with an ocean view. I had beverages, snacks and sandwiches in the cooler and brought down a radio too. Then I just sat there by the mailboxes eating and drinking, getting a tan while waiting for the mailman. Did that many days once spring hit, especially once it was May and I was still in the dark with many schools.

Got a great tan, listened to cool tunes, got to know my mailman well, never got maced, had a spare sandwich and soda in the cooler for him each time and it was good times!

Just hang in there guys and be patient. Try not to chew off your fingernails. If you've got everything submitted, complete and in, find some sort of diversion to keep you occupied and distracted while you wait. You can stalk the mailman, watch shows on Hulu or Netflix, wander the streets, chase and play with cats and dogs, jog, read books, eat books, watch movies, go out and flirt with strangers, do community service, whatever.

And again, in case you missed the link above, the main point is Have a little Patience

Feb numbers are out. Wow.

Tens of thousands realize law school is a terrible investment/idea in most cases.

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/fe ... years.html

What's that noise?

Oh, just the sound medians across the country make as the creak under the weight of empty promises and broken dreams.

Picked up by the NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/busin ... -year.html

I wonder if this increased publicity about LSATs administered hitting a 10 year low is going to send people piling back into law school again.

TatNurner wrote:I wonder if this increased publicity about LSATs administered hitting a 10 year low is going to send people piling back into law school again.

Since a bunch of uniformed people will probably mistakenly believe that it will make 'the curve' easier and admission standards at top law schools to go down, the idea likely has some merit for future cycles.

Jeffort wrote:

TatNurner wrote:I wonder if this increased publicity about LSATs administered hitting a 10 year low is going to send people piling back into law school again.

Since a bunch of uniformed people will probably mistakenly believe that it will make 'the curve' easier and admission standards at top law schools to go down, the idea likely has some merit for future cycles.

PLEASE GOD NO.

Ded Precedent wrote:

Jeffort wrote:

TatNurner wrote:I wonder if this increased publicity about LSATs administered hitting a 10 year low is going to send people piling back into law school again.

Since a bunch of uniformed people will probably mistakenly believe that it will make 'the curve' easier and admission standards at top law schools to go down, the idea likely has some merit for future cycles.

PLEASE GOD NO.

"Everything that has happened before will happen again."

-Cylons
Battlestar Galactica

Jeffort wrote:

Ded Precedent wrote:

Jeffort wrote:

TatNurner wrote:I wonder if this increased publicity about LSATs administered hitting a 10 year low is going to send people piling back into law school again.

Since a bunch of uniformed people will probably mistakenly believe that it will make 'the curve' easier and admission standards at top law schools to go down, the idea likely has some merit for future cycles.

PLEASE GOD NO.

"Everything that has happened before will happen again."

-Cylons
Battlestar Galactica

i endorse this sort of comment!

TatNurner wrote:I wonder if this increased publicity about LSATs administered hitting a 10 year low is going to send people piling back into law school again.

I think we have some more plummeting to go before people have a change of heart. Seems like applications are still in the free fall state.