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

[Tiago Splitter]

LSAT medians have dropped, but so have the number of applicants who have high LSAT scores. Otherwise, the medians wouldn't be dropping like they are.

This. The largest % drops in people attending law schools are from the higher scoring groups. In fact, the people with TTT LSATs are actually increasing in attendance.

That was true last cycle. The opposite is true this cycle. 175+ are up 10% and 170+ are only down 2%

The percentages are misleading since the number in the 175+ bracket is so small.

That doesn't change the fact that the data indicates that the rapid decline in high scorers has stopped.

[altoid99]

That doesn't change the fact that the data indicates that the rapid decline in high scorers has stopped.

The rapid decline may have stopped but if i recall correctly the projected figures for 170+ is still supposed to decrease, albeit slightly. The T14 class size from c/o 2015 to c/o 2016 didn't change all that much. If that remains to be the case for the c/o 2017 I still think high scorers will be just as valued, if not valued more, than in previous years.

[Tiago Splitter]

That doesn't change the fact that the data indicates that the rapid decline in high scorers has stopped.

The rapid decline may have stopped but if i recall correctly the projected figures for 170+ is still supposed to decrease, albeit slightly. The T14 class size from c/o 2015 to c/o 2016 didn't change all that much. If that remains to be the case for the c/o 2017 I still think high scorers will be just as valued, if not valued more, than in previous years.

I don't know where you get these projected figures, but the real figures show no decline. Perhaps a disproportionate number of 170+ scorers decided to wait a cycle or two and are now coming back into the fold, which would explain why the number of people scoring 170+ is going down while the number of applicants with 170+ isn't.

[altoid99]

That doesn't change the fact that the data indicates that the rapid decline in high scorers has stopped.

The rapid decline may have stopped but if i recall correctly the projected figures for 170+ is still supposed to decrease, albeit slightly. The T14 class size from c/o 2015 to c/o 2016 didn't change all that much. If that remains to be the case for the c/o 2017 I still think high scorers will be just as valued, if not valued more, than in previous years.

I don't know where you get these projected figures, but the real figures show no decline. Perhaps a disproportionate number of 170+ scorers decided to wait a cycle or two and are now coming back into the fold, which would explain why the number of people scoring 170+ is going down while the number of applicants with 170+ isn't.

I meant the number of people scoring 170+ on the LSAT this cycle and not the number of people with those scores who've actually applied.

[lawschool22]

That doesn't change the fact that the data indicates that the rapid decline in high scorers has stopped.

The rapid decline may have stopped but if i recall correctly the projected figures for 170+ is still supposed to decrease, albeit slightly. The T14 class size from c/o 2015 to c/o 2016 didn't change all that much. If that remains to be the case for the c/o 2017 I still think high scorers will be just as valued, if not valued more, than in previous years.

I don't know where you get these projected figures, but the real figures show no decline. Perhaps a disproportionate number of 170+ scorers decided to wait a cycle or two and are now coming back into the fold, which would explain why the number of people scoring 170+ is going down while the number of applicants with 170+ isn't.

The number of applicants with 170+ is still down. It's 175+ that increased by about 30 applicants as of 12/6. We won't know until the cycle is over, but the number of 170+ applicants is still projected to be down this cycle (the projection is based off actuals as of 12/6).

[Tiago Splitter]

That doesn't change the fact that the data indicates that the rapid decline in high scorers has stopped.

The rapid decline may have stopped but if i recall correctly the projected figures for 170+ is still supposed to decrease, albeit slightly. The T14 class size from c/o 2015 to c/o 2016 didn't change all that much. If that remains to be the case for the c/o 2017 I still think high scorers will be just as valued, if not valued more, than in previous years.

I don't know where you get these projected figures, but the real figures show no decline. Perhaps a disproportionate number of 170+ scorers decided to wait a cycle or two and are now coming back into the fold, which would explain why the number of people scoring 170+ is going down while the number of applicants with 170+ isn't.

I meant the number of people scoring 170+ on the LSAT this cycle and not the number of people with those scores who've actually applied.

Yeah I realized that mid-post, which is why I included my own hypothesis unsolicited haha. The 170+ applicants were way down over the last couple of years and it's very possible those people are just now applying. Things are still much, much better than they were a few years ago,

The number of applicants with 170+ is still down. It's 175+ that increased by about 30 applicants as of 12/6. We won't know until the cycle is over, but the number of 170+ applicants is still projected to be down this cycle (the projection is based off actuals as of 12/6).

But isn't the 170-174 group only down like 2% when the number of people taking the LSAT is down more than 10%?

[altoid99]

But isn't the 170-174 group only down like 2% when the number of people taking the LSAT is down more than 10%?

I feel like this is an LSAT question haha but if the number of scorers in the 175+ bracket is only like 200 and the number of scorers in the 170-174 bracket is a 1500, then a 10% increase for the former and a 2% decrease for the latter more then offset one another (the actual numbers are different but the scenario remains the same).

[lawschool22]

But isn't the 170-174 group only down like 2% when the number of people taking the LSAT is down more than 10%?

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with your point that the bleeding at the top is slowing. I think that's definitely true. It'll be interesting to see the final bandwidth data though. Because if your theory (which I share), that part of the issue at the top is people jumping in this cycle who may have taken the test a year or two ago, is true, then I have another theory that tacks onto that one.

If your theory is true, then those applicants were likely prepared to submit this cycle very early, as they were not waiting on score releases. If that is the case, then it's possible that the rate of top-LSAT applicants was faster this cycle than last cycle. If that is true, then the data we have as of 12/6 may not be representative of what we will see by the time the cycle is over, and we may still see a larger drop off at the top then it appears to be at this point.

[altoid99]

Northwestern's median LSAT is 168 when including the 28 students enrolled in the Accelerated JD Program and the 27 students enrolled in the JD-MBA Program:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/admissi ... Report.pdf

Excluding these students, NU's median LSAT is 169:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/admissi ... ofile.html

Do we know which number US News uses?

Just in case this got lost in the conversation.

Northwestern is actually 168 now.

[cotiger]

Northwestern's median LSAT is 168 when including the 28 students enrolled in the Accelerated JD Program and the 27 students enrolled in the JD-MBA Program:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/admissi ... Report.pdf

Excluding these students, NU's median LSAT is 169:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/admissi ... ofile.html

Do we know which number US News uses?

Just in case this got lost in the conversation.

Northwestern is actually 168 now.

Threw out that much money and still dropped 2 points? Ouch.

[redsox]

But isn't the 170-174 group only down like 2% when the number of people taking the LSAT is down more than 10%?

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with your point that the bleeding at the top is slowing. I think that's definitely true. It'll be interesting to see the final bandwidth data though. Because if your theory (which I share), that part of the issue at the top is people jumping in this cycle who may have taken the test a year or two ago, is true, then I have another theory that tacks onto that one.

If your theory is true, then those applicants were likely prepared to submit this cycle very early, as they were not waiting on score releases. If that is the case, then it's possible that the rate of top-LSAT applicants was faster this cycle than last cycle. If that is true, then the data we have as of 12/6 may not be representative of what we will see by the time the cycle is over, and we may still see a larger drop off at the top then it appears to be at this point.

As someone jumping back into the game after taking the LSAT in 2010: We don't necessarily apply that early. LORs can be harder to get in a timely manner (from busy bosses or professors we haven't seen in years), and we have like...real jobs and lives and shit to deal with.

[lawschool22]

But isn't the 170-174 group only down like 2% when the number of people taking the LSAT is down more than 10%?

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with your point that the bleeding at the top is slowing. I think that's definitely true. It'll be interesting to see the final bandwidth data though. Because if your theory (which I share), that part of the issue at the top is people jumping in this cycle who may have taken the test a year or two ago, is true, then I have another theory that tacks onto that one.

If your theory is true, then those applicants were likely prepared to submit this cycle very early, as they were not waiting on score releases. If that is the case, then it's possible that the rate of top-LSAT applicants was faster this cycle than last cycle. If that is true, then the data we have as of 12/6 may not be representative of what we will see by the time the cycle is over, and we may still see a larger drop off at the top then it appears to be at this point.

As someone jumping back into the game after taking the LSAT in 2010: We don't necessarily apply that early. LORs can be harder to get in a timely manner (from busy bosses or professors we haven't seen in years), and we have like...real jobs and lives and shit to deal with.

Definitely a good point. I guess we can't discern all that much just yet . Will have to wait for the full data!

[jk148706]

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/2644-aba-required

Penn's medians are out:

Median LSAT = 169 (-1)
Median GPA = 3.89 (+0.02)

Omg. Just saw this.

[BigZuck]

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/2644-aba-required

Penn's medians are out:

Median LSAT = 169 (-1)
Median GPA = 3.89 (+0.02)

Omg. Just saw this.

Oh, wow.

I was way wrong. That really surprises me.

[jk148706]

Northwestern's median LSAT is 168 when including the 28 students enrolled in the Accelerated JD Program and the 27 students enrolled in the JD-MBA Program:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/admissi ... Report.pdf

Excluding these students, NU's median LSAT is 169:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/admissi ... ofile.html

Do we know which number US News uses?

And again.. Omg

[ms9]

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/2644-aba-required

Penn's medians are out:

Median LSAT = 169 (-1)
Median GPA = 3.89 (+0.02)

Omg. Just saw this.

Whoever predicted that months ago was a genius (who is wrong with a bunch of predictions too, and who might be having steak-ums for lunch today).

[JCougar]

And from the looks of their LSN profile, GeorgeTTTown is aiming for a 167 median this year...

[20141023]

.

[Lavitz]

On the topic of the "top scorers" on the LSAT, isn't it impossible for their ratio to rise or drop disproportionately to the rest of the test takers? I understand that the number of them who actually end up applying may be different, but because the LSAT is scored on a curve, there should always be a certain ratio of people at the 99th percentile (1% of the test takers), just like there are at every other percentile; the percentiles are then matched up with LSAT scores.

Probably because the LSAT isn't curved.

[20141023]

.

[Mal Reynolds]

I am actually very surprised you didn't know that.

[20141023]

.

[jas1503]

Never seen Regulus not in the know before

[ScottRiqui]

Regulus' question still makes sense, though - is it really possible for the number of scorers in a particular score band to change disproportionately compared to the other bands?

For the last 12 years, a 170 has always been between the 98th percentile and the 97.4th percentile. So it doesn't sound like one administration of the LSAT can have a disproportionate number of 170+ scorers compared to the previous or next administration.

[notalobbyist]

Never seen Regulus not in the know before

Its like watching Superman bleed...