New LSAT score vs number of applicants graph Forum

[Stupor]

This post is an updated, more detailed version of the one done by msoftceo:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=73412

If you want to see the graph that's most useful, without reading the graphs on how I calculated it, skip to the bottom of the post.

First: the number of LSATs taken per year from 04-05 to 08-09, calculated from LSAC's info, available here:
http://moststronglysupported.com/blog/l ... a-problem/
--ImageRemoved--

Next: based on the percentile to which each LSAT score corresponds and the total number of test-takers that year, we can calculate the number of applicants with a given score or higher per year. Tier and 1Ls refer to the number of spots at a given school/tier, which is taken from msoftceo's original post.
--ImageRemoved--

A problem: according to LSAC, 24.5% of all test-takers in 07/08 took the test twice, and 5.3% took it more than twice. This means that the numbers in the first graph is inflated.

Assuming that the 5.3% of test takers who took the test more than twice all took it only thrice, if there were X test-takers in a given year, there would be actually:
.702*X+ .24.5*2*X + 5.3*3*X = 135.1X tests taken that year. That means
35.1/135.1 = 25.98% of all tests in that year were re-tests. Thus:
--ImageRemoved--

It's reasonable to assume that the repeat % stays about the same from year to year. However, it cannot be assumed that the repeat % is the same for all scores. From the LSAC handbook, in one particular writing of the LSAT, there were 37449 re-takers. Of those, here were the re-takers with original scores of 160 or above:
--ImageRemoved--

Assuming that proportion, which is from a single sitting, applies across the entire year, we can calculate the number of re-takes per original score for any given year. As LSAT scores stay about the same across sittings (see LSAC handbook for this), let's assume that each re-taker at a particular score received the same score, which means we can subtract the number of re-tests at each score from the total number of that score, and arrive at a modified graph:
--ImageRemoved--

Obviously, the effects of eliminating re-testers does not produce much difference from the original graph, as only a tiny proportion of test takers with scores of 160+ retake.

Final note: from the first link, the number of September LSAT takers this year was 20% higher that it was last year. So there should be a significant increase in the number of applicants with each score or higher from last year.

[DoubleChecks]

i just have one thing to say...

in one year, there were two people who retook a 180?!

[jawsthegreat]

i just have one thing to say...

in one year, there were two people who retook a 180?!

People bet them they couldn't do it again.

[Ragged]

Quite interesting. But what does that mean for me?

[akw009]

this means WE ARE ALL F'D

[Trifles]

EVERYBODY PANIC --ImageRemoved--

[Gamecubesupreme]

i just have one thing to say...

in one year, there were two people who retook a 180?!

People bet them they couldn't do it again.

I wonder if getting two 180's will impress the adcomms or tip them off that you're probably crazy.

[Ragged]

i just have one thing to say...

in one year, there were two people who retook a 180?!

People bet them they couldn't do it again.

I wonder if getting two 180's will impress the adcomms or tip them off that you're probably crazy.

LMAO haha... thats a great comment. This should be a motto of the LSAT Prep and Disscusion Forum.

[vanwinkle]

i just have one thing to say...

in one year, there were two people who retook a 180?!

People bet them they couldn't do it again.

I wonder if getting two 180's will impress the adcomms or tip them off that you're probably crazy.

Wasn't one of the test prep companies founded by a guy who got a 180 four times in a row in an attempt to convince Yale to take him? They didn't, so to get his revenge he became a self-made millionaire teaching others how to do the same thing.

Or something like that.

[eserrur]

i just have one thing to say...

in one year, there were two people who retook a 180?!

People bet them they couldn't do it again.

I wonder if getting two 180's will impress the adcomms or tip them off that you're probably crazy.

Wasn't one of the test prep companies founded by a guy who got a 180 four times in a row in an attempt to convince Yale to take him? They didn't, so to get his revenge he became a self-made millionaire teaching others how to do the same thing.

Or something like that.

That sounds like a gimmicky story made up by someone who ran a prep company.

[JazzOne]

Robin Singh (founder of TM) has gotten a perfect score 12 times. I don't know about the Yale stuff, but Singh definitely made millions.

[Ishotthedeputy]

Robin Singh (founder of TM) has gotten a perfect score 12 times. I don't know about the Yale stuff, but Singh definitely made millions.

Well we can't all be Robin Singhs

[JazzOne]

Robin Singh (founder of TM) has gotten a perfect score 12 times. I don't know about the Yale stuff, but Singh definitely made millions.

Well we can't all be Robin Singhs

Of course, but I was just responding to the suggestion that the story is merely a gimmick. I mean, it surely is a gimmick, but I don't think many people doubt its veracity.

[MC Southstar]

If only I had looked at the time on that one section, sigh! Considering there's 4000+ seats in the T14, and many of those are under 170, it would seem that 170+ scores are still at a premium though.

[vanwinkle]

If only I had looked at the time on that one section, sigh! Considering there's 4000+ seats in the T14, and many of those are under 170, it would seem that 170+ scores are still at a premium though.

08-09 cycle there were 3700+ people with 170 or above in that test cycle according to the above numbers. In September of '09, for the 09-10 cycle, there was a 19% increase over the previous year (from 50,700 to 60,700 takers). If that happens again in the other tests in the 09-10 cycle, I predict ... after filtering out retakes, 4,461 distinct individuals achieving a 170+.

There are only about 4475 seats in the entire T14, and some of those seats are going to URMs or reverse splitters. Not only that, but Berkeley has never cared about 170+ LSAT scores (170 is currently at their 75th), meaning only perhaps 25% of their 270 students admitted will have 170s or higher. That means for the remaining non-Berkeley T14 schools, there are (4400 - 270) or 4,205 seats available and (4461 minus 67) or 4,469 people still competing for those seats.

As those thirteen remaining schools take URMs and also take reverse splitters to boost their GPA averages, that will continue to shrink the remaining pool of seats available to 170+ test-takers. Realistically, this year will be the first year there are more 170 applicants available than T14 seats for them to fill.

There is going to be a hard, hard line drawn between 169 and 170 at many schools this year.

[Ragged]

If only I had looked at the time on that one section, sigh! Considering there's 4000+ seats in the T14, and many of those are under 170, it would seem that 170+ scores are still at a premium though.

08-09 cycle there were 3700+ people with 170 or above in that test cycle according to the above numbers. In September of '09, for the 09-10 cycle, there was a 19% increase over the previous year (from 50,700 to 60,700 takers). If that happens again in the other tests in the 09-10 cycle, I predict ... after filtering out retakes, 4,461 distinct individuals achieving a 170+.

There are only about 4475 seats in the entire T14, and some of those seats are going to URMs or reverse splitters. Not only that, but Berkeley has never cared about 170+ LSAT scores (170 is currently at their 75th), meaning only perhaps 25% of their 270 students admitted will have 170s or higher. That means for the remaining non-Berkeley T14 schools, there are (4400 - 270) or 4,205 seats available and (4461 minus 67) or 4,469 people still competing for those seats.

As those thirteen remaining schools take URMs and also take reverse splitters to boost their GPA averages, that will continue to shrink the remaining pool of seats available to 170+ test-takers. Realistically, this year will be the first year there are more 170 applicants available than T14 seats for them to fill.

There is going to be a hard, hard line drawn between 169 and 170 at many schools this year.

w007 for 170! I just made it. Great post!

[Hattori Hanzo]

I like this post! Finally something to be happy about.

[luckyjd]

I tried to calculate this on my own but couldn't figure out how to discount the retakes. Googled and found this thread But at the same time it makes me sad... too many people with my score or higher.

[kacee]

This percentile chart makes me feel like a badass... can't wait to get my score. [Also posting in this for bookmarking purposes.] Thanks a lot for compiling! Very useful.

[lawls]

I thought I'd bump this. I was looking at LSN today, and figured I'd see how GPAs, rather than LSATs, are distributed. I only searched 176+ scorers, so this is definitely inflated (generally those with higher LSATs have higher GPAs, as my search confirmed)--I was curious because I was wondering how many applicants with 176+ have a shot at Harvard/Yale.

There were 155 176+ scores reported total (out of roughly 680 in the real world, so a good percentage are represented); 93 had a 3.7 or better; 62 had a 3.8 or better; 44 had a 3.9 or better.

So: 3.7+ = 60% of applicants
3.8+ = 40% of applicants
3.9+ = 28% of applicants

Anyways, not worth much, but it gives an indications of why the LSAT is used so heavily--there are a lot of great GPAs out there.