stratocophic wrote:+1 If small, private schools' undergrad admissions can get through 25k apps and pick 1600 without the use of rolling admissions, I don't see why law schools are unable to get through 10k apps and pick 1,000 without it. Granted I'm a splitter, but this cycle seems to have been ridiculous for lots of people.
I suspect that this is the case because the top law schools can afford to do so. People tend to pick higher-ranked schools above those that are ranked lower. Thus, there is a downward-wave effect as you move down the rankings: as individuals accept offers at the top schools, they free up spaces at the lower-ranked schools. If you are in charge of admissions at a lower-ranked school, it is to your school's advantage to not
have rolling admissions, because you are likely to see greater perambulations in your candidate pool as some accept offers at higher-ranked schools and others accept greater scholarship offers from schools ranked lower than yours.
Also, rolling admissions has the side-effect of allowing schools to more effectively gauge the relative interest of applicants. Someone who submits an application within the first week that it is available is likely to be more interested in the school or is at least a highly-motivated individual. Regardless, chances are that the school would like to capture as many of these applicants as they can, assuming that these applicants meet the school's baseline requirements (such as with GPA/LSAT, not having a history of offenses, etc.). In this way, applying early in a cycle is like having a decent soft factor.