C/O 2017 Median LSAT/GPA/Class Size Forum

[Kimikho]

so can we start the rankings competition yet

Make it

nah I don't have any pistachios to give out

[whitespider]

Finished updating and correcting all the unranked schools. Dirigo has updated and verified all the ranked schools. So...

It's finished.

Please let Rigo or I know if you spot any typos/mistakes in the 2017 numbers and we'll get them fixed.

[Rigo]

Finished updating and correcting all the unranked schools. Dirigo has updated and verified all the ranked schools. So...

It's finished.

Please let Rigo or I know if you spot any typos/mistakes in the 2017 numbers and we'll get them fixed.

Weeeeeeee! Thanks spider!

I'm already ready for the class of 2018 stats. Too bad we'll have to wait several months/almost a year.

[Okie25]

According to LSAC there were 37,940 matriculants in the fall of 2013. If our numbers are right and there were 36,954 in 2014 that's a bit depressing considering there was a 3,500 student drop between 2012 and 2013 and 4,500 drop between 2011 and 2012. Barely 1,000 this time.

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... triculants

[03152016]

here's a good analysis
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/201 ... ue-decline

[chuckbass]

According to LSAC there were 37,940 matriculants in the fall of 2013. If our numbers are right and there were 36,954 in 2014 that's a bit depressing considering there was a 3,500 student drop between 2012 and 2013 and 4,500 drop between 2011 and 2012. Barely 1,000 this time.

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... triculants

I don't see how that's depressing; that's still good. It can't just drop at a rate as high as 4,000 per year indefinitely.

[Creditisgood]

Thank you Rigo/Spider!
You are MVPs!

[Paul Campos]

There were 39,675 1Ls in last year's entering class (the data on ethnicity of matrics is incomplete).

Thanks to the TLS ninjas for putting this together so fast.

[whitespider]

That would mean a ~7% decrease from 2013 to 2014.

Not too shabby.

[haus]

William Mitchell (MN) Law

149/152/156 (0/-1/-1)
2.98/3.25/3.59 (-.04/-.11/+.02)

169 Enrolled (-69)

http://web.wmitchell.edu/admissions/student-profile/

FINALLY they come down and start shedding 1Ls. Jesus. That's a huge cut.

Phenomenal job, Spidey. TY

Keep in mind WM is staring their hybrid program this Jan. I believe that the ABA capped enrollment around 90 for the incoming class. While I doubt that they will end up pushing that limit, I suspect that they will make to at least half of the limit.

[Okie25]

There were 39,675 1Ls in last year's entering class (the data on ethnicity of matrics is incomplete).

Thanks to the TLS ninjas for putting this together so fast.

In that case, praise The Lord

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... me-summary

I guess this information is more accurate

Thank you guys for putting this together, it really helps!

[Rigo]

Keep in mind that applicants are already way down this cycle from where they were as of December 5th last cycle. The decline in 165+ scorers is especially interesting after the rise in top scorers applying last cycle. The resurgence of 160-164 scorers applying is interesting. A higher proportion of 160-164 scorers are applying when you take into account that there were 6.2% less LSAT's administered last cycle.

http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/first- ... ion-cycle/

Unless there is a surge in late applicants, applicant totals are projected to be down over 8% from last year.

http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/full-2 ... ojections/

So all in all, another matriculant drop can be expected at least simply as a function of LSAT administrations being down.

[03152016]

A higher proportion of 160-164 scorers are applying when you take into account that there were 6.2% less LSAT's administered last cycle.

it's brain drain
talented students at the top ugs are thinking twice about law
it's no longer a place to hide out for three years b/c you don't know what else to do
getting too expensive and there's no longer a reasonable expectation a job will be waiting for you on the other side

[cannibal ox]

[Rigo]

A higher proportion of 160-164 scorers are applying when you take into account that there were 6.2% less LSAT's administered last cycle.

it's brain drain
talented students at the top ugs are thinking twice about law
it's no longer a place to hide out for three years b/c you don't know what else to do
getting too expensive and there's no longer a reasonable expectation a job will be waiting for you on the other side

Brain drain at the top. I don't understand the 160-164 "rise" though. They're the kind of scores where the people are obviously better than Cooley but foolish not to retake.
But fairly decent schools like Illinois are handing out full rides to 164's so I guess there are opportunities to be had.

[03152016]

i'm saying brain drain explains the "rise"
brain drain -> less top students applying -> decline in top scores
transparency -> less bottom students applying -> decline in bottom scores
decline in top scores + decline in bottom scores -> larger proportion in the middle

[03152016]

top students see stagnant salaries and the risk of striking out even at t14s, decide to go into finance, tech, w/e
bottom students see 40%, 50%, 60% rates of students not finding ft legal work at the schools they've been accepted to
i've had several ls-track friends decide not to go, on both ends of the spectrum

[Rigo]

i'm saying brain drain explains the "rise"
brain drain -> less top students applying -> decline in top scores
transparency -> less bottom students applying -> decline in bottom scores
decline in top scores + decline in bottom scores -> larger proportion in the middle

I get how that works generally in logic and math, but the year to year change is comparing the subset in 2013 against the same subset in 2014, independent of what the other subsets are doing.

[03152016]

ok, i got confused
you were calling it a rise
since the number of takers in that range fell, i assumed we were talking proportions

you can just reframe what i was saying and i still think it's a good theory
top students are taking their talents where they think they'll be better compensated
bottom students are not applying b/c of the awful employment statistics
there's less of an incentive not to go for the students in the middle

[foles]

.

[Rigo]

ok, i got confused
you were calling it a rise
since the number of takers in that range fell, i assumed we were talking proportions

Ah okay. Sorry for the confusion. I called it a "rise" in quotes because even though it was a 1.2% decline among 160-164, LSAT administrations declined 6.2% so any decline less than that could be viewed as a "rise" if you controlled for the decline in administrations. In short, it means that a higher proportion of people who scored a 160-164 are actually applying this cycle than last.

you can just reframe what i was saying and i still think it's a good theory
top students are taking their talents where they think they'll be better compensated
bottom students are not applying b/c of the awful employment statistics
there's less of an incentive not to go for the students in the middle

Sounds probable. Law school definitely isn't for the risk averse nowadays.

[03152016]

@foles
well, i think there's more visibility about the problems w/ legal education year over year
that might have a hand in it
maybe there are adjustments to the scale too, but i wouldn't know
i haven't been keeping up with lsat stuff lately

also just to put a different spin on my earlier point
i think you can also frame it in terms of how students perceive their opportunity/upward mobility
as a very, very broad generalization, a student who scores a 175 is likely to have more lucrative career opportunities than a student who scores a 160
bc, speaking very, very generally, they'll probably have gone to a better ug and had a higher gpa
so a student who would have been a top scorer had they taken the test decides not to bother
while the student who scores in that middle range might not have so many options
just to belabor the point, i'm painting with very broad brushstrokes here

[03152016]

ok, i got confused
you were calling it a rise
since the number of takers in that range fell, i assumed we were talking proportions

Ah okay. Sorry for the confusion. I called it a "rise" in quotes because even though it was a 1.2% decline among 160-164, LSAT administrations declined 6.2% so any decline less than that could be viewed as a "rise" if you controlled for the decline in administrations. In short, it means that a higher proportion of people who scored a 160-164 are actually applying this cycle than last.

you can just reframe what i was saying and i still think it's a good theory
top students are taking their talents where they think they'll be better compensated
bottom students are not applying b/c of the awful employment statistics
there's less of an incentive not to go for the students in the middle

Sounds probable. Law school definitely isn't for the risk averse nowadays.

got it
makes sense
numbers confuse me

[WichitaShocker]

A higher proportion of 160-164 scorers are applying when you take into account that there were 6.2% less LSAT's administered last cycle.

it's brain drain
talented students at the top ugs are thinking twice about law
it's no longer a place to hide out for three years b/c you don't know what else to do
getting too expensive and there's no longer a reasonable expectation a job will be waiting for you on the other side

Also worth noting that the 160-164 range had the third largest drop of all score ranges last year, and the largest drop amongst the 160+ ranges, with a drop of 8.8%. This year's small drop may just be a function of that range simply having "bottomed out" in applicants already.

[star fox]

When will we find out the total number of 1Ls starting in Fall 2014? Last year's total was the lowest since '77-'78.