.
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:41 pm
.
because no one knows if it'll pick up next yearLSTfan wrote:First-time test takers down by 16% for December exam.
With a trend like this, why not wait a year?
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=201348
because no one knows if it'll pick up next yearLSTfan wrote:First-time test takers down by 16% for December exam.
With a trend like this, why not wait a year?
LSTfan wrote:First-time test takers down by 16% for December exam.
With a trend like this, why not wait a year?
Because no one knows if they'll continue to fall off a cliff. Law school matriculants still haven't seen much of a decline, despite falling applications. Schools are just admitting people with worse stats than years prior. Therefore there will still be roughly 20000 newly minted JDs each year tha fail to find jobs that require said degree. Until the supply of labor weakens, or demand for it significantly picks up, applications will likely still decline in the years to come.dingbat wrote:because no one knows if it'll pick up next yearLSTfan wrote:First-time test takers down by 16% for December exam.
With a trend like this, why not wait a year?
skri65 wrote:I don't know where this guy is getting this from. LSAC hasn't released any such information about December LSAT test takers yet. Correct me if I'm wrong but I can't find anything.
More and more people are becoming aware of stats, even after they go to a school, and are opting out of going to the school. Whether pro or con, I think this is a good sign.stillwater wrote:The conspiracy is about to be blown open. The fat cats at the ABA, LSAC and law school deans are about to find themselves out of a job.
LSAC released prelim info as part of the Dec. newsletter (said registrations were on pace to be down 15% over last Dec.) but I don't recall any specific info about first-time takers or much detail at all, really. As for this clown, he isn't credible. Follow the links - he had to make a correction to a correction because he misinterpreted (straightforward) info from October.skri65 wrote:I don't know where this guy is getting this from. LSAC hasn't released any such information about December LSAT test takers yet. Correct me if I'm wrong but I can't find anything.
If you look at the earlier posts he notes that the info on OCT came from data made available to law schools but not the public. Leiter is a professor at Chicago and the other blogger Filler is an associate dean at Drexel.skri65 wrote:I don't know where this guy is getting this from. LSAC hasn't released any such information about December LSAT test takers yet. Correct me if I'm wrong but I can't find anything.
So far number of accepted applicants and number of matriculating students have not decreased (hasn't reached 10 year low; classes of 2014 and 2013 were unusually large)dkb17xzx wrote:New December data:
http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... stered.asp
-15.6% change
dingbat wrote:So far number of accepted applicants and number of matriculating students have not decreased (hasn't reached 10 year low; classes of 2014 and 2013 were unusually large)dkb17xzx wrote:New December data:
http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... stered.asp
-15.6% change
Where do you get these numbers?Paul Campos wrote: Class of 2015 was 44,481. That's nearly 10% off the previous ten-year low.
Tiago Splitter wrote:Where do you get these numbers?Paul Campos wrote: Class of 2015 was 44,481. That's nearly 10% off the previous ten-year low.
10 year dataPaul Campos wrote:dingbat wrote:So far number of accepted applicants and number of matriculating students have not decreased (hasn't reached 10 year low; classes of 2014 and 2013 were unusually large)dkb17xzx wrote:New December data:
http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... stered.asp
-15.6% change
Class of 2015 was 44,481. That's nearly 10% off the previous ten-year low. Class of 2016 will be a lot smaller than that, given that the applicant pool is down 22% over last year's numbers, which were 15% off the previous year, which were 10% off the year before that.
Huh. Those numbers are very different from the LSAC Volume Summary. If these new ones are true, then things aren't as rosy as we thought.Paul Campos wrote:Tiago Splitter wrote:Where do you get these numbers?Paul Campos wrote: Class of 2015 was 44,481. That's nearly 10% off the previous ten-year low.
http://www.legalnews.com/macomb/1370004/
To answer the question about big law hiring, the drop in law school class sizes may start having a marginal effect in a couple of years. A much bigger factor will be what's happening with big law firms of course.
The LSAC volume summary doesn't list the matrics for the class of 2012 yet (only the total number of applicants), but the numbers have been reported to the ABA, which is what the linked article is referencing.Tiago Splitter wrote:Huh. Those numbers are very different from the LSAC Volume Summary. If these new ones are true, then things aren't as rosy as we thought.Paul Campos wrote:Tiago Splitter wrote:Where do you get these numbers?Paul Campos wrote: Class of 2015 was 44,481. That's nearly 10% off the previous ten-year low.
http://www.legalnews.com/macomb/1370004/
To answer the question about big law hiring, the drop in law school class sizes may start having a marginal effect in a couple of years. A much bigger factor will be what's happening with big law firms of course.
What I find problematic is that the linked article says 52,488 matriculated in the fall of 2010, but the Volume Summary says it was only 49,700. Either way it looks like the number of matriculants is coming down, but the peak seems to be higher than I realized.Paul Campos wrote: The LSAC volume summary doesn't list the matrics for the class of 2012 yet (only the total number of applicants), but the numbers have been reported to the ABA, which is what the linked article is referencing.
I made the same mistake and wrote out something but caught it before postingTiago Splitter wrote:What I find problematic is that the linked article says 52,488 matriculated in the fall of 2010, but the Volume Summary says it was only 49,700. Either way it looks like the number of matriculants is coming down, but the peak seems to be higher than I realized.Paul Campos wrote: The LSAC volume summary doesn't list the matrics for the class of 2012 yet (only the total number of applicants), but the numbers have been reported to the ABA, which is what the linked article is referencing.
ETA: Nevermind. Just realized I should have kept reading down the page.
dingbat wrote:10 year dataPaul Campos wrote:dingbat wrote:So far number of accepted applicants and number of matriculating students have not decreased (hasn't reached 10 year low; classes of 2014 and 2013 were unusually large)dkb17xzx wrote:New December data:
http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... stered.asp
-15.6% change
Class of 2015 was 44,481. That's nearly 10% off the previous ten-year low. Class of 2016 will be a lot smaller than that, given that the applicant pool is down 22% over last year's numbers, which were 15% off the previous year, which were 10% off the year before that.