Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=268533
Ehh. My friend and I interviewed at the same time (early feb) and he's a soft reverse splitter and I am an actual splitter and we both missed the last JS2 wave (feb 22nd). Faculty review takes a long time and the average wait time is like 40 days or something. But who knows, we might both get rejected.CHyde wrote:I think anyone who didn't make the cut-off for the last JS2 wave is at-risk, especially if you have a sub-173. Again, pure speculation, but the rationale for delay would most likely depend on whether HLS knew they were going to drop in rank ahead of time, whether they planned for a weaker class, and/or whether they thought Feb LSAT scores would save this current pool of applicants.LegalAAA wrote:Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.
Essentially, I'm not sure if HLS is being reactionary here to USNWR or a weak applicant pool that they didn't foresee until March.
yes but probably not a very good oneHarvardHopeful95 wrote:Does anyone who doesn't have a JS1 from Harvard have a shot at this point?
Law2020hopeful wrote:Ah I got a 174 on the February lsat and got my JS1 invite right after Score release and am waiting for the next JS2 wave with the rest of you. Now I'm even more impatient/have my hopes raised slightly if they're looking for above median lsats!
Of course softs play a big role. They're often diminished on this site, but when you get an admissions prediction (i.e. "60%") off of mylsn or other sites, they're essentially telling you the percent of people with similar numbers to yours who got in. The fact that it's hardly ever 0% or 100% means that it's hardly ever the case that softs aren't the breaking/deciding factors.CHyde wrote:True. But I have no idea if your experience is the norm or an exception. My speculation is definitely a case of the blind leading the blind since we have no sense of the total applicant pool aside from self-selecting posters in an already tiny subset (TLS) of the total applicant pool. LSN, while usually pretty accurate for chancing yourself, is not helpful either with these granular data distinctions that occur in "waves". From my understanding, LSN is usually pretty retrospective...and this cycle is much stranger than the last.CA1993 wrote:As a splitter with a >75 LSAT and a ~25th GPA (and no JS1) I feel like softs play a bigger role than we thinkCHyde wrote:Ok, based on a very limited data set (read a few PMs), it looks like HLS is still trying to boost their LSAT median through acceptance of splitters (read LSAT above 174, below 25th GPA).
I'm going to speculate that this may be related to their drop in ranking/dissatisfaction with current JS1 pool. Maybe they're running some statistical models as we speak.
This may explain why it has taken them so long to release this next wave of JS2s. Good news for splitters, bad news for below 173 lsat January and beyond applicants.
But who knows, I'm just BSing here.
In sum, WHO KNOWWWWWWSSSSSSSS.
Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?LegalAAA wrote:Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.
Same, if it was purely numbers and they want to raise lsat, I would probably get a JS1 by now.CA1993 wrote:As a splitter with a >75 LSAT and a ~25th GPA (and no JS1) I feel like softs play a bigger role than we thinkCHyde wrote:Ok, based on a very limited data set (read a few PMs), it looks like HLS is still trying to boost their LSAT median through acceptance of splitters (read LSAT above 174, below 25th GPA).
I'm going to speculate that this may be related to their drop in ranking/dissatisfaction with current JS1 pool. Maybe they're running some statistical models as we speak.
This may explain why it has taken them so long to release this next wave of JS2s. Good news for splitters, bad news for below 173 lsat January and beyond applicants.
But who knows, I'm just BSing here.
In terms of who is actually applying.HonestlyThough wrote:Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?LegalAAA wrote:Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.
My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.Rigo wrote:In terms of who is actually applying.HonestlyThough wrote:Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?LegalAAA wrote:Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/
What we are saying is that less people with those numbers are APPLYING. As in, they get their score and they choose not to apply to law school. This has absolutely nothing to do with how the LSAT is equated.LHS17 wrote:My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.Rigo wrote:In terms of who is actually applying.HonestlyThough wrote:Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?LegalAAA wrote:Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah. I think it's curved to like the scores from the last 5 tests or somethingLHS17 wrote:My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.Rigo wrote:In terms of who is actually applying.HonestlyThough wrote:Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?LegalAAA wrote:Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Last 5 cyles (read:years).VapidP wrote:Yeah. I think it's curved to like the scores from the last 5 tests or somethingLHS17 wrote:My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.Rigo wrote:In terms of who is actually applying.HonestlyThough wrote:Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?LegalAAA wrote:Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I find it hard to believe there is a 26% drop in APPLICATIONS from the 175-180 cohort attributable solely to their decision not to apply. Why invest so much in getting such a good score not to even see what it will yield? What am I missing?Rigo wrote:What we are saying is that less people with those numbers are APPLYING. As in, they get their score and they choose not to apply to law school. This has absolutely nothing to do with how the LSAT is equated.LHS17 wrote:My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.Rigo wrote:In terms of who is actually applying.HonestlyThough wrote:Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?LegalAAA wrote:Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
These are likely already really smart and capable people who have other great options.LHS17 wrote:
I find it hard to believe there is a 26% drop in APPLICATIONS from the 175-180 cohort attributable solely to their decision not to apply. Why invest so much in getting such a good score not to even see what it will yield? What am I missing?
Some people are super smart and can get a 175 after taking 2-3 preptests. These same super smart people are increasingly avoiding law school. There's been news articles about how the highest scorers aren't applying for 5+ years now.LHS17 wrote:I find it hard to believe there is a 26% drop in APPLICATIONS from the 175-180 cohort attributable solely to their decision not to apply. Why invest so much in getting such a good score not to even see what it will yield? What am I missing?Rigo wrote:What we are saying is that less people with those numbers are APPLYING. As in, they get their score and they choose not to apply to law school. This has absolutely nothing to do with how the LSAT is equated.LHS17 wrote:My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.Rigo wrote:In terms of who is actually applying.HonestlyThough wrote:Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?LegalAAA wrote:Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Because there are so few people with those scores anyway, even just a handful of them deciding not to apply would shift the numbers enough to result in percentage point drops. The economy is good, law school is expensive, people with good scores who get a good job might just stick with their job instead of going to school. You saw law school applications rise sharply during the financial crisis, probably because a bunch of super smart kids were out of luck. No they aren't. I don't think this is the sole attributor to the decline in 175+ scores, but I do think it could be a factor.LHS17 wrote:I find it hard to believe there is a 26% drop in APPLICATIONS from the 175-180 cohort attributable solely to their decision not to apply. Why invest so much in getting such a good score not to even see what it will yield? What am I missing?Rigo wrote:What we are saying is that less people with those numbers are APPLYING. As in, they get their score and they choose not to apply to law school. This has absolutely nothing to do with how the LSAT is equated.LHS17 wrote:My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.Rigo wrote:In terms of who is actually applying.HonestlyThough wrote:Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?LegalAAA wrote:Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah...fuck.User avatarCHyde
Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)
Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:13 pm
LegalAAA wrote:
Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.
I think anyone who didn't make the cut-off for the last JS2 wave is at-risk, especially if you have a sub-173. Again, pure speculation, but the rationale for delay would most likely depend on whether HLS knew they were going to drop in rank ahead of time, whether they planned for a weaker class, and/or whether they thought Feb LSAT scores would save this current pool of applicants.
Essentially, I'm not sure if HLS is being reactionary here to USNWR or a weak applicant pool that they didn't foresee until March.
What is this blog basing it on? I find it very odd that there are more than 2x 177s applying than 176. Is this self-reporting or what?LHS17 wrote:I find it hard to believe there is a 26% drop in APPLICATIONS from the 175-180 cohort attributable solely to their decision not to apply. Why invest so much in getting such a good score not to even see what it will yield? What am I missing?Rigo wrote:What we are saying is that less people with those numbers are APPLYING. As in, they get their score and they choose not to apply to law school. This has absolutely nothing to do with how the LSAT is equated.LHS17 wrote:My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.Rigo wrote:In terms of who is actually applying.HonestlyThough wrote:Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?LegalAAA wrote:Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Am I the only one that thinks HYS are not going to be phased all that much by the current applicants' LSAT scores? There are more than enough to maintain all 3 schools' high medians and 75 percentiles. Assuming that many of those applicants will also have respectable GPAs (above each school's medians), I just don't see this cycle being all that numerically different from the past. Timing has been atypical, but I don't think we'll see that much of a shift in the class profiles.Rigo wrote:In terms of who is actually applying.HonestlyThough wrote:Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?LegalAAA wrote:Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/
Spivey uses the numbers provided by LSAC. For a few of the recent test administrations, it was not possible to score a 176 due to the curve.HonestlyThough wrote:
What is this blog basing it on? I find it very odd that there are more than 2x 177s applying than 176. Is this self-reporting or what?