December LSAT #s and Applicant Volume Forum

[bdubs]

Where did the statistics come from indicating that the 175+ scoring applicants are down by 23%?

+1

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Publi ... EC2010.pdf

[The Real Jack McCoy]

Where did the statistics come from indicating that the 175+ scoring applicants are down by 23%?

+1

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Publi ... EC2010.pdf

Thanks. Kind of strange the drop isn't uniform across scores or an easily discernible pattern (e.g. lower scores dropping at a higher rate).

If the rates hold, we'll basically have 500 fewer 175+ LSAT applicants cycle as compared to last (~2050 v. ~1550).

[icpb]

Where did the statistics come from indicating that the 175+ scoring applicants are down by 23%?

+1

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Publi ... EC2010.pdf

Thanks. Kind of strange the drop isn't uniform across scores or an easily discernible pattern (e.g. lower scores dropping at a higher rate).

If the rates hold, we'll basically have 500 fewer 175+ LSAT applicants cycle as compared to last (~2050 v. ~1550).

Isn't there suppose to be around 400-600 applicants whose highest score is 175+ each cycle? How can you have 500 fewer 175+ this cycle?

[bdubs]

Thanks. Kind of strange the drop isn't uniform across scores or an easily discernible pattern (e.g. lower scores dropping at a higher rate).

If the rates hold, we'll basically have 500 fewer 175+ LSAT applicants cycle as compared to last (~2050 v. ~1550).

Isn't there suppose to be around 400-600 applicants whose highest score is 175+ each cycle? How can you have 500 fewer 175+ this cycle?

There were that many that had applied as of early December. I would imagine that there are ~1000 total since the December LSAT is generally the last one for the cycle and there may be some stragglers from October who haven't applied by early December yet.

[swampthang]

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Publi ... EC2010.pdf

Thanks. Kind of strange the drop isn't uniform across scores or an easily discernible pattern (e.g. lower scores dropping at a higher rate).

If the rates hold, we'll basically have 500 fewer 175+ LSAT applicants cycle as compared to last (~2050 v. ~1550).

Isn't there suppose to be around 400-600 applicants whose highest score is 175+ each cycle? How can you have 500 fewer 175+ this cycle?

I don't think that number for 175+/cycle is correct since p. 4 of the linked LSAC reports shows that the 2010 cycle saw 567 people with 175+ apply before 12/3. Add in December and February LSATs and just later applications and I'm sure the number was closer to 2000 last year (can't say for certain, don't know where TRJMC got that figure from).

Still, I think it's fair to assume that a 25%, even a 15% drop in top-scoring applicants is going to have a significant trickle-down effect, if not so much at HYS, then at the schools immediately behind them in LSAT ranges. Schools won't want to lose their medians, and with less applicants overall, less top-scoring applicants as well, it'll be very interesting to see how the cycle plays out in the coming months. It's too bad we don't have YoY application volume data from individual schools- I think that would be incredibly interesting to see how they're doing. Of course, those statistics could be confounded as well by blatantly transparent selectivity pushes, but at least it would give us an idea of what effect this is having and where.

[The Real Jack McCoy]

Yah, the "if the rates hold" was a big assumption; it's clear from the numbers that one shouldn't expect the rates to hold and that--for one--higher LSAT scorers are probably more likely to apply early in the cycle than are lower scorers. Although it is possible that the percentile charts are a little off (my LSAT chart has 175 as 99.5 percentile, meaning there should be less than 1,000 175+s even in a boom year).

I got the 2050-1550=500 number simply by using the percentage of 175+ scorers in the 12/3/10 LSAC chart (p.4 as noted above) and then multiplying it by the likely total applicant pool (2.3%*86000 or something close and 2%*77000 or something close). I just approximated the numbers but it should be pretty close.

[bdubs]

Yah, the "if the rates hold" was a big assumption; it's clear from the numbers that one shouldn't expect the rates to hold and that--for one--higher LSAT scorers are probably more likely to apply early in the cycle than are lower scorers. Although it is possible that the percentile charts are a little off (my LSAT chart has 175 as 99.5 percentile, meaning there should be less than 1,000 175+s even in a boom year).

I got the 2050-1550=500 number simply by using the percentage of 175+ scorers in the 12/3/10 LSAC chart (p.4 as noted above) and then multiplying it by the likely total applicant pool (2.3%*86000 or something close and 2%*77000 or something close). I obviously just eyeballed the numbers but it should be pretty close.

I would think that 175+ scorers have a tendency to apply earlier in the cycle. Remember that TTT schools have deadlines that extend well into the spring.

[icpb]

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Publi ... EC2010.pdf

Thanks. Kind of strange the drop isn't uniform across scores or an easily discernible pattern (e.g. lower scores dropping at a higher rate).

If the rates hold, we'll basically have 500 fewer 175+ LSAT applicants cycle as compared to last (~2050 v. ~1550).

Isn't there suppose to be around 400-600 applicants whose highest score is 175+ each cycle? How can you have 500 fewer 175+ this cycle?

I don't think that number for 175+/cycle is correct since p. 4 of the linked LSAC reports shows that the 2010 cycle saw 567 people with 175+ apply before 12/3. Add in December and February LSATs and just later applications and I'm sure the number was closer to 2000 last year (can't say for certain, don't know where TRJMC got that figure from).

Still, I think it's fair to assume that a 25%, even a 15% drop in top-scoring applicants is going to have a significant trickle-down effect, if not so much at HYS, then at the schools immediately behind them in LSAT ranges. Schools won't want to lose their medians, and with less applicants overall, less top-scoring applicants as well, it'll be very interesting to see how the cycle plays out in the coming months. It's too bad we don't have YoY application volume data from individual schools- I think that would be incredibly interesting to see how they're doing. Of course, those statistics could be confounded as well by blatantly transparent selectivity pushes, but at least it would give us an idea of what effect this is having and where.

I don't see how the number of people applying with 175+ could be around 2000. Since, 175 corresponds with the 99.5 percentile, the total number of 175+ scores given out when around 170000 people taking the LSAT last year would be around 1000. If we assume there where 2000 applying with 175+, how did the other 1000 applying with 175+ get their score without pushing down 175's the percentile?

[Hank Chill]

I haven't read any of the other posts, just wanted to +1 the topic and article.

[swampthang]

Yah, the "if the rates hold" was a big assumption; it's clear from the numbers that one shouldn't expect the rates to hold and that--for one--higher LSAT scorers are probably more likely to apply early in the cycle than are lower scorers. Although it is possible that the percentile charts are a little off (my LSAT chart has 175 as 99.5 percentile, meaning there should be less than 1,000 175+s even in a boom year).

I got the 2050-1550=500 number simply by using the percentage of 175+ scorers in the 12/3/10 LSAC chart (p.4 as noted above) and then multiplying it by the likely total applicant pool (2.3%*86000 or something close and 2%*77000 or something close). I obviously just eyeballed the numbers but it should be pretty close.

I would think that 175+ scorers have a tendency to apply earlier in the cycle. Remember that TTT schools have deadlines that extend well into the spring.

Perhaps, but two potential mitigating factors are 1. less urgency to apply early if you've got good numbers and 2. some of those 175+ scorers aren't 175+ scorers until after the December and February LSATs. Someone can run the math and see how many people scored 175+ on the last two administrations- probably safe to assume they weren't in that pool before because no one would reasonably retake with a 175+ so those are all new scorers who weren't in the applicant pool when LSAC's report was generated.

Was anyone else suprised to see Yale extend their deadline? They tried to spin it as "oh, we've always had a real deadline that was later than our published 'soft deadline' so we just wanted to formalize it" but my first thought was that the drop in applications is hitting even them. And it must be pretty significant for them to extend their deadline. I can only imagine this will be a WL-heavy cycle as schools try every trick they can to keep medians and selectivity high till the end.

[bdubs]

Yah, the "if the rates hold" was a big assumption; it's clear from the numbers that one shouldn't expect the rates to hold and that--for one--higher LSAT scorers are probably more likely to apply early in the cycle than are lower scorers. Although it is possible that the percentile charts are a little off (my LSAT chart has 175 as 99.5 percentile, meaning there should be less than 1,000 175+s even in a boom year).

I got the 2050-1550=500 number simply by using the percentage of 175+ scorers in the 12/3/10 LSAC chart (p.4 as noted above) and then multiplying it by the likely total applicant pool (2.3%*86000 or something close and 2%*77000 or something close). I obviously just eyeballed the numbers but it should be pretty close.

I would think that 175+ scorers have a tendency to apply earlier in the cycle. Remember that TTT schools have deadlines that extend well into the spring.

Perhaps, but two potential mitigating factors are 1. less urgency to apply early if you've got good numbers and 2. some of those 175+ scorers aren't 175+ scorers until after the December and February LSATs. Someone can run the math and see how many people scored 175+ on the last two administrations- probably safe to assume they weren't in that pool before because no one would reasonably retake with a 175+ so those are all new scorers who weren't in the applicant pool when LSAC's report was generated.

Was anyone else suprised to see Yale extend their deadline? They tried to spin it as "oh, we've always had a real deadline that was later than our published 'soft deadline' so we just wanted to formalize it" but my first thought was that the drop in applications is hitting even them. And it must be pretty significant for them to extend their deadline. I can only imagine this will be a WL-heavy cycle as schools try every trick they can to keep medians and selectivity high till the end.

February administrations aren't even considered by most top schools (although they might make exceptions, especially this cycle).

Seriously though, how many Yale worthy applicants are going to apply up to two weeks after the initial deadline? I doubt they are going to expand their pool of considered candidates much by doing that. I still haven't seen much evidence of a decline in the top applicant pool other than some more foot dragging in terms of decisions.

[The Real Jack McCoy]

I think bdubs is right.

175+ scorers have to apply at a higher rate earlier in the cycle if the percentile chart/number of applicants+test takers data is correct. Otherwise one gets my numbers above, that there would be 1500 175+ scorers this cycle, and 2000 175+ scorers last cycle. There simply aren't that many 175+ scorers to go around, let around 175+ scorers who then go on to apply to law schools.

If you add the December LSAT 175+ scorers to the data in the chart we're talking about, you get a very good approximation of how many 175+ scorers one might have in any given cycle. So it looks like 175+ applicants with October or earlier LSATs tend to apply very early in the cycle--in other words, the evidence suggests they don't wait around because they have good numbers. There are probably a few reasons for this--e.g. you often need to apply earlier at the top schools, and students with lower LSATs are often contemplating a retake--but the data is pretty clear: the majority of the 175+ scorers apply 12/3/10 or earlier. Unless the percentile chart and total applicant volume is being misreported.

[Bumi]

Everyone who got 175+ is on TLS right? Why don't we just ask them all?

[2014]

I'm a 175+ scorer who didn't apply this cycle, so I'm contributing to the statistic I suppose.

[bdubs]

I'm a 175+ scorer who didn't apply this cycle, so I'm contributing to the statistic I suppose.

I would highly doubt that the application yield for 175+ scorers is near 100% in any cycle or for any one administration.

[T6Hopeful]

This is awesome. Who knows we might not have to close down 100+ schools?

No, I think we should still do that...