So you made a 170+... What now? Forum

[TripTrip]

Why is vandy in this list?

Did you read?

You include berkeley and cornell, but leave off Texas. It's nice to do the math, but, there's parts missing. How many past test takers sat out a cycle? How many 170+ers go to other schools? Will schools reduce their incoming class size? (I'm looking at you, Georgetown), etc., etc.

I'd say the number of people who sat out to apply this cycle should roughly equal the number of people sitting out until next cycle, so that's a wash.

The rest he covered already.

[wert3813]

.

[dingbat]

(this is what happens when I see an odd discrepancy, but am too busy to actually read the thread)

[Dmini7]

Why is vandy in this list?

Did you read?

You include berkeley and cornell, but leave off Texas. It's nice to do the math, but, there's parts missing. How many past test takers sat out a cycle? How many 170+ers go to other schools? Will schools reduce their incoming class size? (I'm looking at you, Georgetown), etc., etc.

I felt he covered that pretty well. He was very conservative with his numbers, and suggesting what would occur if class sizes did stay the same. It would be too hard to predict the numbers for students at UT UCLA USC etc etc for the reason we cannot see where the 170 falls on it. I guess someone could try to use LSN, and extrapolate the data to figure out the percentage of top students who utilized the site to post data and try to break it down that way, but it would be far too difficult and riddled with errors if you ask me.

[wert3813]

.

[ncc5]

One thing I have done during the more obsessive parts of my wait is look at the original data given by regalus and see how schools have reacted when their numbers are this low. For example, UVA's numbers are probably going to be very similar to what they were in 2006-2007 (IIRC), so the acceptance rate and medians of then are probably going to be similar to what it is now. Not a foolproof way of looking at it, but certainly comforting

[LRGhost]

Yeah, looking at the numbers of applicants/admits/matriculants over the past few years, I don't know how precise schools can be with shrinking class sizes? It seems like it's sort of hard to predict if ten admits are going to matriculate or not and that can be a notable percentage for some smaller classes.

[wert3813]

.

[LRGhost]

Yeah, looking at the numbers of applicants/admits/matriculants over the past few years, I don't know how precise schools can be with shrinking class sizes? It seems like it's sort of hard to predict if ten admits are going to matriculate or not and that can be a notable percentage for some smaller classes.

I think they can be fairly precise. That's why schools have a 50 person waitlist for 3 spots.

To reiterate the point above I doubt any admissions dean has the power to shrink class sizes on their own. 10 less students is half a million one year for three years.

What I would do is keep my medians and cut my class sizes by 7-8 percent (20 students at mythical wert3813 law school). Id get that revenue back on transfers. Id play this game till the market recovers or I see what my peers have decided.

I guess they could lean heavier on the WL, you're right.

[bbsg]

A fair bit (couple hundred, maybe?) of 170+ people go to Canadian schools and fly completely off your radar. The median at UofT is around 168, for example. Anecdotally I know six people at Osgoode Law and four of them scored above 170.

[wert3813]

.

[moonman157]

Also, Harvard just issued their first holds and, as best as I could tell, every single person is below both medians. Not a single splitter or person above median.

Hello there

[wert3813]

.

[HarlandBassett]

Yeah, looking at the numbers of applicants/admits/matriculants over the past few years, I don't know how precise schools can be with shrinking class sizes? It seems like it's sort of hard to predict if ten admits are going to matriculate or not and that can be a notable percentage for some smaller classes.

I think they can be fairly precise. That's why schools have a 50 person waitlist for 3 spots.

To reiterate the point above I doubt any admissions dean has the power to shrink class sizes on their own. 10 less students is half a million one year for three years.

What I would do is keep my medians and cut my class sizes by 7-8 percent (20 students at mythical wert3813 law school). Id get that revenue back on transfers. Id play this game till the market recovers or I see what my peers have decided.

or increase 2L tuition

[Micdiddy]

Why is Vandy included?





Nah, just kidding
But did I get you for a moment?

[HarlandBassett]

Why is Vandy included?





Nah, just kidding
But did I get you for a moment?

[wert3813]

.

[LRGhost]

Just bumping to say that KevinP posted in the other thread that with December, 170s are down around 25% and not 30% anymore.

[muskies970]

From what I've read on this website LSAC decides the curve for every LSAT before the test is taken (by proctors). If that is the case, how would we have anyway of knowing if the real number of 170's is actually 2%ish of test takers?

[wert3813]

.

[wert3813]

.

[poichi]

From what I've read on this website LSAC decides the curve for every LSAT before the test is taken (by proctors). If that is the case, how would we have anyway of knowing if the real number of 170's is actually 2%ish of test takers?

Quote or it didn't happen

[wert3813]

.

[LRGhost]

From what I've read on this website LSAC decides the curve for every LSAT before the test is taken (by proctors). If that is the case, how would we have anyway of knowing if the real number of 170's is actually 2%ish of test takers?

Quote or it didn't happen

The curve is decided before the test. That's why you take an experimental section.

The question still makes no sense.

I think the person is saying since the test is equated prior to administration, a certain test group could put more than have, say, 4% of people scoring 170s by some anomaly. Or, in our case, having there be less than 2% of test takers scoring 170, if I understand the stats correctly.

Also, yeah, I didn't mean to suggest you should redo numbers. It's probably an extra couple hundred at most so what, 2500 170s?

[wert3813]

.