C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size Forum

[TheThriller]

I'm still of the belief that T-14 schools (preferably 3.0 and above GPA) will be open to taking whatever 170+applicants that are left. I found a thread from two years ago where it was guessed that about ~2500 170+ applicants were in that cycle. With the current numbers showing a huge decline in the 170+ category, you're probably looking at ~1500 170+ applicants. It is such a rare commodity that IMO top schools will still try to lock up as many as possible.

brilliant analysis

[bimmer11]

I'm still of the belief that T-14 schools (preferably 3.0 and above GPA) will be open to taking whatever 170+applicants that are left. I found a thread from two years ago where it was guessed that about ~2500 170+ applicants were in that cycle. With the current numbers showing a huge decline in the 170+ category, you're probably looking at ~1500 170+ applicants. It is such a rare commodity that IMO top schools will still try to lock up as many as possible.

brilliant analysis

I realize the numbers aren't solid, I'm just trying to expand on the other analysis.

Here is the thread, looks like I was off a little on the numbers: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=199581

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I'm still of the belief that T-14 schools (preferably 3.0 and above GPA) will be open to taking whatever 170+applicants that are left. I found a thread from two years ago where it was guessed that about ~2500 170+ applicants were in that cycle. With the current numbers showing a huge decline in the 170+ category, you're probably looking at ~1500 170+ applicants. It is such a rare commodity that IMO top schools will still try to lock up as many as possible.

Not quite that rare. This cycle had 2,529 170+ students this cycle, which was a decline of 20%+ from last year alone, per Spivey. Still down somewhere in the 40-50% vicinity from the 2010 cycle.

[bimmer11]

I'm still of the belief that T-14 schools (preferably 3.0 and above GPA) will be open to taking whatever 170+applicants that are left. I found a thread from two years ago where it was guessed that about ~2500 170+ applicants were in that cycle. With the current numbers showing a huge decline in the 170+ category, you're probably looking at ~1500 170+ applicants. It is such a rare commodity that IMO top schools will still try to lock up as many as possible.

Not quite that rare. This cycle had 2,529 170+ students this cycle, which was a decline of 20%+ from last year alone, per Spivey. Still down somewhere in the 40-50% vicinity from the 2010 cycle.

Thanks for this. I missed the applicants versus admitted students in the original thread.

[ms9]

Repost from last year:

That picture made me laugh so hard I need to tweet it. Is that okay?

[longlivetheking]

I'm still of the belief that T-14 schools (preferably 3.0 and above GPA) will be open to taking whatever 170+applicants that are left. I found a thread from two years ago where it was guessed that about ~2500 170+ applicants were in that cycle. With the current numbers showing a huge decline in the 170+ category, you're probably looking at ~1500 170+ applicants. It is such a rare commodity that IMO top schools will still try to lock up as many as possible.

Not quite that rare. This cycle had 2,529 170+ students this cycle, which was a decline of 20%+ from last year alone, per Spivey. Still down somewhere in the 40-50% vicinity from the 2010 cycle.

Thanks for this. I missed the applicants versus admitted students in the original thread.

this is assuming most of the 170+ students apply after getting their lsat score. i think kevinP had hard stats that a significant number of them are not applying.

[KevinP]

I'm still of the belief that T-14 schools (preferably 3.0 and above GPA) will be open to taking whatever 170+applicants that are left. I found a thread from two years ago where it was guessed that about ~2500 170+ applicants were in that cycle. With the current numbers showing a huge decline in the 170+ category, you're probably looking at ~1500 170+ applicants. It is such a rare commodity that IMO top schools will still try to lock up as many as possible.

Not quite that rare. This cycle had 2,529 170+ students this cycle, which was a decline of 20%+ from last year alone, per Spivey. Still down somewhere in the 40-50% vicinity from the 2010 cycle.

Thanks for this. I missed the applicants versus admitted students in the original thread.

this is assuming most of the 170+ students apply after getting their lsat score. i think kevinP had hard stats that a significant number of them are not applying.

These are applicants; but historically a nontrivial number end up not enrolling. Also, while 2.5k might seem like a lot of applicants, it probably is a small enough number that it has probably become mathematically impossible for t14 to maintain medians and class sizes from their 2011ish height if historic factors such as those who end up not enrolling remain constant.

[bimmer11]

These are applicants; but historically a nontrivial number end up not enrolling. Also, while 2.5k might seem like a lot of applicants, it probably is a small enough number that it has probably become mathematically impossible for t14 to maintain medians and class sizes from their 2011ish height if historic factors such as those who end up not enrolling remain constant.

To expand on this...would it be too much to assume 40-50% of the eligible 170+ takers (3.0 and above) end up at HYSCCN? That leaves the rest of the T14 with ~1200 applicants and we know not all of them enroll in a T-14.

[2x2Matrix]

Given that 25th/75ths don't go into rankings, would HLS or CLS's 25th dropping to a 169 help those applicants with a 169 at all?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Repost from last year:

That picture made me laugh so hard I need to tweet it. Is that okay?

Sure thing.

[ms9]

That picture made me laugh so hard I need to tweet it. Is that okay?

Sure thing.

Thanks, I want to make sure my two followers get to lol.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

These are applicants; but historically a nontrivial number end up not enrolling. Also, while 2.5k might seem like a lot of applicants, it probably is a small enough number that it has probably become mathematically impossible for t14 to maintain medians and class sizes from their 2011ish height if historic factors such as those who end up not enrolling remain constant.

I think the non-enrollment for applicants is somewhere between 10-20%, but someone should double-check that. Do we have any statistics that show how many distinct 170+ scorers there are, past the LSAT score reports not accounting for people who score 170+ multiple times? I'd guess the percentage of 170+ scorers who don't apply is lower than those who get more disappointing scores, but I don't know anymore, because I also would've guessed the 170+ crowd would've declined less than the <140 crowd, and that turned out to be very wrong.

These are applicants; but historically a nontrivial number end up not enrolling. Also, while 2.5k might seem like a lot of applicants, it probably is a small enough number that it has probably become mathematically impossible for t14 to maintain medians and class sizes from their 2011ish height if historic factors such as those who end up not enrolling remain constant.

To expand on this...would it be too much to assume 40-50% of the eligible 170+ takers (3.0 and above) end up at HYSCCN? That leaves the rest of the T14 with ~1200 applicants and we know not all of them enroll in a T-14.

Based on last year's percentiles, we know Yale gets around 150, Harvard around 420, Stanford around 90, Columbia around 270, Chicago around probably 115, and NYU around 275 (all rough estimates). Sum that up and you get around 1300. There were 3,200-ish applicants with 170+ that year, and a quick LSN search approximates about 95% of 170+ will have a 3.0. That would leave you with just over 3,000 "eligible" students, so yeah, 40-50% sounds like a good estimate from a back-of-the-envelope perspective.

ETA caveat: When we get the percentiles for this year, those numbers will likely decrease. Certainly NYU got fewer of them. But given that CLS and NYU had to lower their GPA floors, perhaps a greater percentage (although likely not a greater number) went T6 this year.

Given that 25th/75ths don't go into rankings, would HLS or CLS's 25th dropping to a 169 help those applicants with a 169 at all?

Wouldn't "help" so much as it would indicate those schools were taking 169 non-URMs in the first place. Both schools only take 169 students in fairly unique circumstances--the "normal" non-URM floor for both is a 170. So yes, it would help because it would mean they're open to it, but not because the number itself meant anything to them intrinsically.

[bimmer11]

Based on last year's percentiles, we know Yale gets around 150, Harvard around 420, Stanford around 90, Columbia around 270, Chicago around probably 115, and NYU around 275 (all rough estimates). Sum that up and you get around 1300. There were 3,200-ish applicants with 170+ that year, and a quick LSN search approximates about 95% of 170+ will have a 3.0. That would leave you with just over 3,000 "eligible" students, so yeah, 40-50% sounds like a good estimate from a back-of-the-envelope perspective.

ETA caveat: When we get the percentiles for this year, those numbers will likely decrease. Certainly NYU got fewer of them. But given that CLS and NYU had to lower their GPA floors, perhaps a greater percentage (although likely not a greater number) went T6 this year.

It'll be interesting to see how low NYU will go for a 170+, given they dropped to a 3.1 this year. It just seems that once you take HYSCCN out, there are only so many 169 and 170+ applicants to keep the medians at 169/170. IMO as long as a splitter is willing to pay sticker he/she will still be in a great position.

Also if Penn somehow holds their 170, it will be interesting to see how UVA reacts. It would give further credence to the CCNP grouping.

[longlivetheking]

Based on last year's percentiles, we know Yale gets around 150, Harvard around 420, Stanford around 90, Columbia around 270, Chicago around probably 115, and NYU around 275 (all rough estimates). Sum that up and you get around 1300. There were 3,200-ish applicants with 170+ that year, and a quick LSN search approximates about 95% of 170+ will have a 3.0. That would leave you with just over 3,000 "eligible" students, so yeah, 40-50% sounds like a good estimate from a back-of-the-envelope perspective.

ETA caveat: When we get the percentiles for this year, those numbers will likely decrease. Certainly NYU got fewer of them. But given that CLS and NYU had to lower their GPA floors, perhaps a greater percentage (although likely not a greater number) went T6 this year.

It'll be interesting to see how low NYU will go for a 170+, given they dropped to a 3.1 this year. It just seems that once you take HYSCCN out, there are only so many 169 and 170+ applicants to keep the medians at 169/170. IMO as long as a splitter is willing to pay sticker he/she will still be in a great position.

Also if Penn somehow holds their 170, it will be interesting to see how UVA reacts. It would give further credence to the CCNP grouping.

Sauce?

Also ditto on the sticker splitter. i think one has a great shot at columbia+nyu if u're a SS.

[bouleversement]

The c/o 2015 25th drop leads me to believe Penn will lose the 170.

[ms9]

The c/o 2015 25th drop leads me to believe Penn will lose the 170.

I believe so too based on some numbers I have seen...

[longlivetheking]

The c/o 2015 25th drop leads me to believe Penn will lose the 170.

I believe so too based on some numbers I have seen...

Mike, it seems that Penn had rejected quite a number of 170s with decent GPAs (above 3.3) in the ED1 and ED2 rounds, which in previous cycles were practically shoo-ins.

also, NYU seemed to have rejected quite a number of high LSAT/but low GPA (<3.3), but is now pulling people below both medians from the waitlist. is this shortsightedness by the adcoms? could you offer an explanation for both schools? genuinely puzzled and curious.

[bimmer11]

The c/o 2015 25th drop leads me to believe Penn will lose the 170.

I believe so too based on some numbers I have seen...

Mike, it seems that Penn had rejected quite a number of 170s with decent GPAs (above 3.3) in the ED1 and ED2 rounds, which in previous cycles were practically shoo-ins.

also, NYU seemed to have rejected quite a number of high LSAT/but low GPA (<3.3), but is now pulling people below both medians from the waitlist. is this shortsightedness by the adcoms? could you offer an explanation for both schools? genuinely puzzled and curious.

The NYU data was on LSN by the way. As far as Penn, where did you see the rejections coming from? I looked at mylsn and didn't see any rejections for the past 2 cycles for ED. Stats I used were 170-180 and 3.0-4.0.

[longlivetheking]

The c/o 2015 25th drop leads me to believe Penn will lose the 170.

I believe so too based on some numbers I have seen...

Mike, it seems that Penn had rejected quite a number of 170s with decent GPAs (above 3.3) in the ED1 and ED2 rounds, which in previous cycles were practically shoo-ins.

also, NYU seemed to have rejected quite a number of high LSAT/but low GPA (<3.3), but is now pulling people below both medians from the waitlist. is this shortsightedness by the adcoms? could you offer an explanation for both schools? genuinely puzzled and curious.

The NYU data was on LSN by the way. As far as Penn, where did you see the rejections coming from? I looked at mylsn and didn't see any rejections for the past 2 cycles for ED. Stats I used were 170-180 and 3.0-4.0.

i have been following penn's ED program quite closely and before this cycle, a GPA above 3.2 with a 170 lsat is a guarantee admit. but this cycle, i have seen multiple examples on TLS (some cases are not on LSN) of those folks being waitlisted, and later rejected (or lack of admit). i believe LSN also doesn't fully show ED applicants because of the 'upgrade' from the older site. there should be WAY more ED apps on LSN than it is showing now.

[longlivetheking]

The c/o 2015 25th drop leads me to believe Penn will lose the 170.

I believe so too based on some numbers I have seen...

Mike, it seems that Penn had rejected quite a number of 170s with decent GPAs (above 3.3) in the ED1 and ED2 rounds, which in previous cycles were practically shoo-ins.

also, NYU seemed to have rejected quite a number of high LSAT/but low GPA (<3.3), but is now pulling people below both medians from the waitlist. is this shortsightedness by the adcoms? could you offer an explanation for both schools? genuinely puzzled and curious.

The NYU data was on LSN by the way. As far as Penn, where did you see the rejections coming from? I looked at mylsn and didn't see any rejections for the past 2 cycles for ED. Stats I used were 170-180 and 3.0-4.0.

which nyu data are you referring to?

[bimmer11]

i have been following penn's ED program quite closely and before this cycle, a GPA above 3.2 with a 170 lsat is a guarantee admit. but this cycle, i have seen multiple examples on TLS (some cases are not on LSN) of those folks being waitlisted, and later rejected (or lack of admit). i believe LSN also doesn't fully show ED applicants because of the 'upgrade' from the older site. there should be WAY more ED apps on LSN than it is showing now.

Oh ok. I was actually counting on those examples since my stats will most likely be in that ballpark. I'd be interested to hear Mike's opinion.

[bimmer11]

which nyu data are you referring to?

LSN for the 3.1 admits

[Dmini7]

I figured I would add to this with a school that people like to see as controversial. Here is UCI's numbers.

http://www.law.uci.edu/admission/class-profile.html

LSAT 25/75= 162-166
GPA25/75= 3.33-3.7

[Ti Malice]

Also if Penn somehow holds their 170, it will be interesting to see how UVA reacts. It would give further credence to the CCNP grouping.

Penn's LSAT median has nothing to do with whether CCNP is a thing. That conversation is strictly about placement power.

[isuperserial]

Also if Penn somehow holds their 170, it will be interesting to see how UVA reacts. It would give further credence to the CCNP grouping.

Penn's LSAT median has nothing to do with whether CCNP is a thing. That conversation is strictly about placement power.

Penn's biglaw placement perhaps suggests a similar thing. For the class of 2012, more biglaw and federal clerkship placements came out of Penn than Columbia and NYU. I think this is not insignificant. However, I think it's a pretty meaningless debate at any rate. Penn has superlative employment statistics, and scrounging for the extra ounce of prestige that comes from grouping it with Chicago, NYU and Columbia seems to be petty at best.