URM 2015-2016 Cycle Thread Forum

[alpha kenny body]

This seems a bit overshot.

Quoting for posterity, and to say I told you so. Black applicants overall are down 3.5% and male applicants overall are down as well.

Where is this info available?

Spivey Consulting website

[YungJedi]

This seems a bit overshot.

Quoting for posterity, and to say I told you so. Black applicants overall are down 3.5% and male applicants overall are down as well.

Where is this info available?

Spivey Consulting website

But does that guarantee that there are less high-gpa/high-scoring Black applicants? If there are less Black applicants overall, but highly qualified Black applicants are still applying at the same rate, one's chances at HYS don't change much.

[180kickflip]

Your hypo is technically possible, but having black test takers down and black LSAT scores the same or higher would basically mean black test takers broke the LSAT (since it's designed to have a sort of bell curve score distribution). That may have happened, but it's a lot more likely that the past trends have continued, and lower test takers will mean fewer high scoring black applicants.

The big question is to what extent will law schools be willing to accept lower LSAT scores from black applicants when they have a significantly larger (and possibly growing) pool of high scoring non-blacks to choose from.

[bellanoche2019]

Just as an update: I decided to go through the application cycle this year as opposed to retaking the LSAT.

In at
Duke
GULC
UGA (with scholarship offer)
Boston College

Applied to
Columbia
HLS
Northwestern
WUSTL
UNC
William and Mary
UCLA
Berkeley
Cornell
IU
NYU
Vandy (thinking about applying to Law Scholars Program)

May still apply to
Penn
Emory
GSU

[seashell.economy]

Just as an update: I decided to go through the application cycle this year as opposed to retaking the LSAT.

In at
Duke
GULC
UGA (with scholarship offer)
Boston College

Applied to
Columbia
HLS
Northwestern
WUSTL
UNC
William and Mary
UCLA
Berkeley
Cornell
IU
NYU
Vandy (thinking about applying to Law Scholars Program)

May still apply to
Penn
Emory
GSU

Nice! Are you leaning towards a certain school at this point?
My list is pretty similar to yours, but none of my apps will be processed until my December LSAT score comes in.

[bellanoche2019]

Just as an update: I decided to go through the application cycle this year as opposed to retaking the LSAT.

In at
Duke
GULC
UGA (with scholarship offer)
Boston College

Applied to
Columbia
HLS
Northwestern
WUSTL
UNC
William and Mary
UCLA
Berkeley
Cornell
IU
NYU
Vandy (thinking about applying to Law Scholars Program)

May still apply to
Penn
Emory
GSU

Nice! Are you leaning towards a certain school at this point?
My list is pretty similar to yours, but none of my apps will be processed until my December LSAT score comes in.

I'm leaning toward GULC because of locale, but Duke has been sending me correspondence since I received my LSAT score back in late October, and I feel I can get more scholarship money from Duke. GULC and Duke are 1a and 1b, but my preferences honestly change each day. I know your apps aren't processed yet, but do you have a school that is your top choice?

[AnonymousApplicant]

This seems a bit overshot.

Quoting for posterity, and to say I told you so. Black applicants overall are down 3.5% and male applicants overall are down as well.

Where is this info available?

Spivey Consulting website

But does that guarantee that there are less high-gpa/high-scoring Black applicants? If there are less Black applicants overall, but highly qualified Black applicants are still applying at the same rate, one's chances at HYS don't change much.

More likely is that there's been a decline in black applicants across the board but that the decline in high scoring black test takers has been less steep than the decline in low scoring black test takers. It may be as you say, however, but then that would only mean that while the odds at getting into HYS are the same, the odds at getting into every other school are higher.

[180kickflip]

This seems a bit overshot.

Quoting for posterity, and to say I told you so. Black applicants overall are down 3.5% and male applicants overall are down as well.

Where is this info available?

Spivey Consulting website

But does that guarantee that there are less high-gpa/high-scoring Black applicants? If there are less Black applicants overall, but highly qualified Black applicants are still applying at the same rate, one's chances at HYS don't change much.

More likely is that there's been a decline in black applicants across the board but that the decline in high scoring black test takers has been less steep than the decline in low scoring black test takers. It may be as you say, however, but then that would only mean that while the odds at getting into HYS are the same, the odds at getting into every other school are higher.

This all assumes schools will be more willing to accept relatively low scoring URMs over higher scoring non-URMs (since every school will have a larger pool of high scorers to pick from this year). That's possible, but I think it's at least as likely that the schools will capitalize on the increase in 170 scorers and raise their LSAT medians by just accepting fewer URMs.

[AnonymousApplicant]

This seems a bit overshot.

Quoting for posterity, and to say I told you so. Black applicants overall are down 3.5% and male applicants overall are down as well.

Where is this info available?

Spivey Consulting website

But does that guarantee that there are less high-gpa/high-scoring Black applicants? If there are less Black applicants overall, but highly qualified Black applicants are still applying at the same rate, one's chances at HYS don't change much.

More likely is that there's been a decline in black applicants across the board but that the decline in high scoring black test takers has been less steep than the decline in low scoring black test takers. It may be as you say, however, but then that would only mean that while the odds at getting into HYS are the same, the odds at getting into every other school are higher.

This all assumes schools will be more willing to accept relatively low scoring URMs over higher scoring non-URMs (since every school will have a larger pool of high scorers to pick from this year). That's possible, but I think it's at least as likely that the schools will capitalize on the increase in 170 scorers and raise their LSAT medians by just accepting fewer URMs.

This is a possibility. But it seems more likely that they would accept the same amount or slightly less of URMs as they always do and then make up for the decline in URM test scores by taking the highest scoring non-URMs. In this way they would be able to boost their numbers without having to accept a less diverse incoming class. It isn't as if they take that many URMs anyway, so it really wouldn't make that much of a difference if, say, the 35 or so AAs that enroll at Columbia each year have LSAT scores 2 or 3 points lower than usual, assuming that their incoming non-URMs have LSAT scores that are 1, 2 or 3 points higher than they were last year, which will likely be the case given that there is an increase in high scoring non-URMs this cycle. After all, there's been a decline in the number of high scoring URMs over the past 4 or 5 cycles and, at least until now, there hasn't been a corresponding decrease in URMs at any of these top schools, so I see no reason why there would be a change now.

[Oskosh]

I thought the correct response was that schools having a larger crop of high scorers to choose form translated to their being able to accept more URMs? That being said, I think it's very difficult to predict URMs outcomes (barring high LSAT, high GPA urms).

[AnonymousApplicant]

I thought the correct response was that schools having a larger crop of high scorers to choose form translated to their being able to accept more URMs? That being said, I think it's very difficult to predict URMs outcomes (barring high LSAT, high GPA urms).

If you look at the number of AAs enrolling at each of the top schools each year, the numbers are pretty constant, and I suspect the same is true for other URM groups. For example, for the past 5 years or so there have about 14 AAs at Yale each year, about 50 at Harvard, about 14 at Stanford, about 35 at Columbia, etc. Therefore, it seems to me that URM outcomes are very much predictable. The schools would never admit this of course, but it seems as if they are setting quotas. With that said, the question that needs to be asked is whether they would ever accept less URMs in a cycle in which URMs have less competitive test scores than is normally the case, or whether they are intent on filling their quotas no matter what, and are willing to give URMs with less competitive test scores places at their schools rather than having less URMs in their incoming classes. My view is that they will do the latter for the simple fact that that's what they've been doing for the past few cycles, in which they've been accepting the same number of URM applicants despite the fact that they seem to have by and large had less competitive test scores than has previously been the case.

I should add as a caveat however that according to Spivey's numbers, the number of URM applicants has increased for every group except AAs, so what I've been saying is really only applicable to AAs and not to other URM groups.

[180kickflip]

This is a possibility. But it seems more likely that they would accept the same amount or slightly less of URMs as they always do and then make up for the decline in URM test scores by taking the highest scoring non-URMs. In this way they would be able to boost their numbers without having to accept a less diverse incoming class. It isn't as if they take that many URMs anyway, so it really wouldn't make that much of a difference if, say, the 35 or so AAs that enroll at Columbia each year have LSAT scores 2 or 3 points lower than usual, assuming that their incoming non-URMs have LSAT scores that are 1, 2 or 3 points higher than they were last year, which will likely be the case given that there is an increase in high scoring non-URMs this cycle. After all, there's been a decline in the number of high scoring URMs over the past 4 or 5 cycles and, at least until now, there hasn't been a corresponding decrease in URMs at any of these top schools, so I see no reason why there would be a change now.

Unfortunately, the data I've seen (including that posted in the black by the numbers thread) suggests this isn't accurate. There has been a substantial decrease in the number of URMs at T14s, and those declines have been continuous through last year. Where have you seen indications that the numbers have been constant? Also, if URM LSAT scores went down by 2-3 points, just accepting non-URMs with 2-3 point higher LSATs wouldn't have the same impact that replacing a lower scoring URM with a high scoring non-URM would have (since they go by medians rather than mean scores).

Example:
165 165 165 167 170 170 170 -say this is last year...165 URMs, 170 non-URMS, and a 167
163 163 163 167 172 172 172 - a model of your suggestion for this year..163 URMs, 172 non-URMS, and a 167
**this school would still have a 167 median, so they gained nothing from the stronger applicant pool

163 163 167 172 172 172 172- what I imagine happening..163 URMs, 172 non-URMS, a 167
**now this school would have a 5 point increase in their median because they replaced a low scorer instead of just finding a high scorer to balance them

I thought the correct response was that schools having a larger crop of high scorers to choose form translated to their being able to accept more URMs? That being said, I think it's very difficult to predict URMs outcomes (barring high LSAT, high GPA urms).

I think this would be the most likely scenario if it weren't for the recent numbers indicating a decrease in black test takers, but with an increase in high scorers (but a decrease in black test takers), I think there will just be tougher non-URM competition. I can't imagine any reason why schools would accept more blacks if they had fewer blacks to choose from, fewer high scoring blacks, and more 170+ scorers in general

[jnwa]

I think this would be the most likely scenario if it weren't for the recent numbers indicating a decrease in black test takers, but with an increase in high scorers (but a decrease in black test takers), I think there will just be tougher non-URM competition. I can't imagine any reason why schools would accept more blacks if they had fewer blacks to choose from, fewer high scoring blacks, and more 170+ scorers in general

For purely self serving reasons...i hope you're wrong. Youre probably not, but I hope you are.

[180kickflip]

I think this would be the most likely scenario if it weren't for the recent numbers indicating a decrease in black test takers, but with an increase in high scorers (but a decrease in black test takers), I think there will just be tougher non-URM competition. I can't imagine any reason why schools would accept more blacks if they had fewer blacks to choose from, fewer high scoring blacks, and more 170+ scorers in general

For purely self serving reasons...i hope you're wrong. Youre probably not, but I hope you are.

You're good. 170+ URMs will continue to rule the world regardless of whether I'm right or wrong =)

[AnonymousApplicant]

This is a possibility. But it seems more likely that they would accept the same amount or slightly less of URMs as they always do and then make up for the decline in URM test scores by taking the highest scoring non-URMs. In this way they would be able to boost their numbers without having to accept a less diverse incoming class. It isn't as if they take that many URMs anyway, so it really wouldn't make that much of a difference if, say, the 35 or so AAs that enroll at Columbia each year have LSAT scores 2 or 3 points lower than usual, assuming that their incoming non-URMs have LSAT scores that are 1, 2 or 3 points higher than they were last year, which will likely be the case given that there is an increase in high scoring non-URMs this cycle. After all, there's been a decline in the number of high scoring URMs over the past 4 or 5 cycles and, at least until now, there hasn't been a corresponding decrease in URMs at any of these top schools, so I see no reason why there would be a change now.

Unfortunately, the data I've seen (including that posted in the black by the numbers thread) suggests this isn't accurate. There has been a substantial decrease in the number of URMs at T14s, and those declines have been continuous through last year. Where have you seen indications that the numbers have been constant? Also, if URM LSAT scores went down by 2-3 points, just accepting non-URMs with 2-3 point higher LSATs wouldn't have the same impact that replacing a lower scoring URM with a high scoring non-URM would have (since they go by medians rather than mean scores).

Example:
165 165 165 167 170 170 170 -say this is last year...165 URMs, 170 non-URMS, and a 167
163 163 163 167 172 172 172 - a model of your suggestion for this year..163 URMs, 172 non-URMS, and a 167
**this school would still have a 167 median, so they gained nothing from the stronger applicant pool

163 163 167 172 172 172 172- what I imagine happening..163 URMs, 172 non-URMS, a 167
**now this school would have a 5 point increase in their median because they replaced a low scorer instead of just finding a high scorer to balance them

I thought the correct response was that schools having a larger crop of high scorers to choose form translated to their being able to accept more URMs? That being said, I think it's very difficult to predict URMs outcomes (barring high LSAT, high GPA urms).

I think this would be the most likely scenario if it weren't for the recent numbers indicating a decrease in black test takers, but with an increase in high scorers (but a decrease in black test takers), I think there will just be tougher non-URM competition. I can't imagine any reason why schools would accept more blacks if they had fewer blacks to choose from, fewer high scoring blacks, and more 170+ scorers in general

If you look at the statistics provided by the ABA, the link to which is below, you find that there's been remarkable consistency in the numbers of URMs at the top law schools from the period of 2009 to 2013, and the numbers given by the ABA are more or less the same as the ones I suggested above. If anything, actually, my numbers were too low for some schools--for example, Harvard seems to be taking about 55 AAs per cycle instead of 50. In any case, if there really has been a substantial decrease in URM enrollment at top schools as you say, it must have begun with the past 2 cycles, either in 2014 or 2015. As far as I know, however, there's no evidence for that, but if there is and you know where to find it, I'd be interested in having a look.

Either way, your suggestion that top schools will seek to up their numbers by reducing URM enrollment is begging the question, the question being that if they really wanted to do something like that, why haven't they done so before? It isn't exactly a secret that URMs have never done particularly well on the LSAT, and schools could always have just reduced their URM enrollment in order to up their numbers so as to overtake other schools in the rankings, but they haven't done this. So why would they do so now, especially given the fact that in this cycle there will be plenty of high scoring non-URMS to compensate for the AAs who will likely have slightly lower LSAT scores than is normal?

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal ... stics.html

[180kickflip]

This is a possibility. But it seems more likely that they would accept the same amount or slightly less of URMs as they always do and then make up for the decline in URM test scores by taking the highest scoring non-URMs. In this way they would be able to boost their numbers without having to accept a less diverse incoming class. It isn't as if they take that many URMs anyway, so it really wouldn't make that much of a difference if, say, the 35 or so AAs that enroll at Columbia each year have LSAT scores 2 or 3 points lower than usual, assuming that their incoming non-URMs have LSAT scores that are 1, 2 or 3 points higher than they were last year, which will likely be the case given that there is an increase in high scoring non-URMs this cycle. After all, there's been a decline in the number of high scoring URMs over the past 4 or 5 cycles and, at least until now, there hasn't been a corresponding decrease in URMs at any of these top schools, so I see no reason why there would be a change now.

Unfortunately, the data I've seen (including that posted in the black by the numbers thread) suggests this isn't accurate. There has been a substantial decrease in the number of URMs at T14s, and those declines have been continuous through last year. Where have you seen indications that the numbers have been constant? Also, if URM LSAT scores went down by 2-3 points, just accepting non-URMs with 2-3 point higher LSATs wouldn't have the same impact that replacing a lower scoring URM with a high scoring non-URM would have (since they go by medians rather than mean scores).

Example:
165 165 165 167 170 170 170 -say this is last year...165 URMs, 170 non-URMS, and a 167
163 163 163 167 172 172 172 - a model of your suggestion for this year..163 URMs, 172 non-URMS, and a 167
**this school would still have a 167 median, so they gained nothing from the stronger applicant pool

163 163 167 172 172 172 172- what I imagine happening..163 URMs, 172 non-URMS, a 167
**now this school would have a 5 point increase in their median because they replaced a low scorer instead of just finding a high scorer to balance them

I thought the correct response was that schools having a larger crop of high scorers to choose form translated to their being able to accept more URMs? That being said, I think it's very difficult to predict URMs outcomes (barring high LSAT, high GPA urms).

I think this would be the most likely scenario if it weren't for the recent numbers indicating a decrease in black test takers, but with an increase in high scorers (but a decrease in black test takers), I think there will just be tougher non-URM competition. I can't imagine any reason why schools would accept more blacks if they had fewer blacks to choose from, fewer high scoring blacks, and more 170+ scorers in general

If you look at the statistics provided by the ABA, the link to which is below, you find that there's been remarkable consistency in the numbers of URMs at the top law schools from the period of 2009 to 2013, and the numbers given by the ABA are more or less the same as the ones I suggested above. If anything, actually, my numbers were too low for some schools--for example, Harvard seems to be taking about 55 AAs per cycle instead of 50. In any case, if there really has been a substantial decrease in URM enrollment at top schools as you say, it must have begun with the past 2 cycles, either in 2014 or 2015. As far as I know, however, there's no evidence for that, but if there is and you know where to find it, I'd be interested in having a look.

Either way, your suggestion that top schools will seek to up their numbers by reducing URM enrollment is begging the question, the question being that if they really wanted to do something like that, why haven't they done so before? It isn't exactly a secret that URMs have never done particularly well on the LSAT, and schools could always have just reduced their URM enrollment in order to up their numbers so as to overtake other schools in the rankings, but they haven't done this. So why would they do so now, especially given the fact that in this cycle there will be plenty of high scoring non-URMS to compensate for the AAs who will likely have slightly lower LSAT scores than is normal?

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal ... stics.html

The link you provided is great (and something I haven't looked at before). I took the info in the black by the numbers thread at its word, and that may have been a mistake. Still, I don't see how accepting higher scoring non-urms would work to balance out low scoring urms. For my sake, I hope it works out like that, but I just don't see it.

[AnonymousApplicant]

This is a possibility. But it seems more likely that they would accept the same amount or slightly less of URMs as they always do and then make up for the decline in URM test scores by taking the highest scoring non-URMs. In this way they would be able to boost their numbers without having to accept a less diverse incoming class. It isn't as if they take that many URMs anyway, so it really wouldn't make that much of a difference if, say, the 35 or so AAs that enroll at Columbia each year have LSAT scores 2 or 3 points lower than usual, assuming that their incoming non-URMs have LSAT scores that are 1, 2 or 3 points higher than they were last year, which will likely be the case given that there is an increase in high scoring non-URMs this cycle. After all, there's been a decline in the number of high scoring URMs over the past 4 or 5 cycles and, at least until now, there hasn't been a corresponding decrease in URMs at any of these top schools, so I see no reason why there would be a change now.

Unfortunately, the data I've seen (including that posted in the black by the numbers thread) suggests this isn't accurate. There has been a substantial decrease in the number of URMs at T14s, and those declines have been continuous through last year. Where have you seen indications that the numbers have been constant? Also, if URM LSAT scores went down by 2-3 points, just accepting non-URMs with 2-3 point higher LSATs wouldn't have the same impact that replacing a lower scoring URM with a high scoring non-URM would have (since they go by medians rather than mean scores).

Example:
165 165 165 167 170 170 170 -say this is last year...165 URMs, 170 non-URMS, and a 167
163 163 163 167 172 172 172 - a model of your suggestion for this year..163 URMs, 172 non-URMS, and a 167
**this school would still have a 167 median, so they gained nothing from the stronger applicant pool

163 163 167 172 172 172 172- what I imagine happening..163 URMs, 172 non-URMS, a 167
**now this school would have a 5 point increase in their median because they replaced a low scorer instead of just finding a high scorer to balance them

I thought the correct response was that schools having a larger crop of high scorers to choose form translated to their being able to accept more URMs? That being said, I think it's very difficult to predict URMs outcomes (barring high LSAT, high GPA urms).

I think this would be the most likely scenario if it weren't for the recent numbers indicating a decrease in black test takers, but with an increase in high scorers (but a decrease in black test takers), I think there will just be tougher non-URM competition. I can't imagine any reason why schools would accept more blacks if they had fewer blacks to choose from, fewer high scoring blacks, and more 170+ scorers in general

If you look at the statistics provided by the ABA, the link to which is below, you find that there's been remarkable consistency in the numbers of URMs at the top law schools from the period of 2009 to 2013, and the numbers given by the ABA are more or less the same as the ones I suggested above. If anything, actually, my numbers were too low for some schools--for example, Harvard seems to be taking about 55 AAs per cycle instead of 50. In any case, if there really has been a substantial decrease in URM enrollment at top schools as you say, it must have begun with the past 2 cycles, either in 2014 or 2015. As far as I know, however, there's no evidence for that, but if there is and you know where to find it, I'd be interested in having a look.

Either way, your suggestion that top schools will seek to up their numbers by reducing URM enrollment is begging the question, the question being that if they really wanted to do something like that, why haven't they done so before? It isn't exactly a secret that URMs have never done particularly well on the LSAT, and schools could always have just reduced their URM enrollment in order to up their numbers so as to overtake other schools in the rankings, but they haven't done this. So why would they do so now, especially given the fact that in this cycle there will be plenty of high scoring non-URMS to compensate for the AAs who will likely have slightly lower LSAT scores than is normal?

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal ... stics.html

The link you provided is great (and something I haven't looked at before). I took the info in the black by the numbers thread at its word, and that may have been a mistake. Still, I don't see how accepting higher scoring non-urms would work to balance out low scoring urms. For my sake, I hope it works out like that, but I just don't see it.

First of all, we need to remember that there are more applications from every other URM group. The exception are AAs. At Harvard, the 55 or so AAs make up about 7-9 percent of the incoming class. We can use this as a template for every other top law school. If we do this, it becomes easy to see how a slightly lower LSAT average among AAs can be compensated for by an LSAT average among the other URM groups and non-URMs that is the same or higher compared to the past few cycles. Of course, there are limits. At a certain point, schools will begin to cut back AA enrollments if AA test scores are bad enough. But it doesn't seem as if we've reached that point yet. And even if we do, it would only be relevant to AAs with sub-160 LSAT scores or something along those lines. After all, given that Harvard is accepting 55 AAs per year, we have to assume that a non-trivial number of those AAs, probably close to half of them to be honest, had LSATs in the 160 to 165 range. It stands to reason, then, that schools like CCN are taking AAs with those scores and lower. So it doesn't seem as if they are going to cut back AA enrollment any time soon.

[GreekOmega12]

Just got my first acceptance of the cycle! A great way to start 2016. This is a huge relief

[ltowns1]

Just got my first acceptance of the cycle! A great way to start 2016. This is a huge relief

Congrats man, you worked extremely hard.

[Iam3hunna]

Congratulations to everyone so far. Was finally able to apply with Dec. LSAT yesterday. We will see how it goes!

[lawschoolspeaks]

Just got my first acceptance of the cycle! A great way to start 2016. This is a huge relief

Congrats! Do you mind sharing where you got in and when you applied?

[lawschoolspeaks]

Just got my first acceptance of the cycle! A great way to start 2016. This is a huge relief

Congrats! Do you mind sharing where you got in and when you applied?

O and stats

[vorely]

Just got my first acceptance of the cycle! A great way to start 2016. This is a huge relief

Congrats!

[GreekOmega12]

How's everyone cycle going?

[cdotson2]

How's everyone cycle going?

Slower than I want it to