LSAC: Applicants: -15.9% Forum

[Tiago Splitter]

What is the reasoning for this? The lower performers wait till February to take the LSAT?

Or they take it earlier and are just too lazy to apply until later in the cycle. You have to figure that someone who only put forth enough effort to get a 140 on the LSAT probably hasn't thought through the importance of timing very much, so when they see that the deadline isn't until the spring, they probably figure that as long as they get their applications in by the cutoff then they'll be good.

While this makes sense, we're looking at year over year data, so your point shouldn't make any difference in how these new numbers are viewed.

[cotiger]

What is the reasoning for this? The lower performers wait till February to take the LSAT?

Or they take it earlier and are just too lazy to apply until later in the cycle. You have to figure that someone who only put forth enough effort to get a 140 on the LSAT probably hasn't thought through the importance of timing very much, so when they see that the deadline isn't until the spring, they probably figure that as long as they get their applications in by the cutoff then they'll be good.

While this makes sense, we're looking at year over year data, so your point shouldn't make any difference in how these new numbers are viewed.

Exactly. Unless the high scores are applying on average even earlier this year than last year, the fact that high scorers apply earlier than low scorers makes no difference in how you interpret this year over year data.

[20141023]

.

[cotiger]

There are updated volume counts. Holding pretty steady at -12.4% applicants and -14.1% applications as of 1/17/14.

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... ear-volume

[prezidentv8]

There are updated volume counts. Holding pretty steady at -12.4% applicants and -14.1% applications as of 1/17/14.

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... ear-volume

awesome

[BillsFan9907]

I see. So that ptc change is between last year and this year. Not to mention 175 + is 99.4% and above of all test takers--which means they are not that many to begin with. So even a slight increase of the number in that score range group could give us a false impression.

Nice. A real-life number and percentage trick.
Unlikely to play against us. I think.

This isn't a trick, and its not flawed...it's the nature of statistics at the margins...

Exactly. My statistics prof used to call it "the tyranny of small numbers".

But overall can we know if there are less 170+ scorers?

[ScottRiqui]

I see. So that ptc change is between last year and this year. Not to mention 175 + is 99.4% and above of all test takers--which means they are not that many to begin with. So even a slight increase of the number in that score range group could give us a false impression.

Nice. A real-life number and percentage trick.
Unlikely to play against us. I think.

This isn't a trick, and its not flawed...it's the nature of statistics at the margins...

Exactly. My statistics prof used to call it "the tyranny of small numbers".

But overall can we know if there are less 170+ scorers?

With the 170-174 band experiencing a drop, and the 175-180 band experiencing an increase, I don't think you can say for certain one way or the other what the 170-180 band did as a whole, at least not from the data linked to in this thread.

EDIT - Just saw that you were talking about scorers, not applicants. Yes, the number of 170+ scorers has almost certainly gone down this cycle.

[BillsFan9907]

Wouldn't it just take some simple number crunching? With the percentiles and the number of test-takers, shouldn't we be able to determine how many people got a 170+ for the 2012-2013 cycle and the 2013-2014 cycle (excluding feb tests of course).

Let's say that for June 2012 169 is 97th percentile (I don't know the actual numbers). So we would know that 3% of all test takers got a 170 or above. If we know the number of test takers, we would know the number who got a 170 or above. Then wouldn't it just be a matter of adding up all the data from cycle 1, doing the same for cycle 2 and comparing?

[ScottRiqui]

Wouldn't it just take some simple number crunching? With the percentiles and the number of test-takers, shouldn't we be able to determine how many people got a 170+ for the 2012-2013 cycle and the 2013-2014 cycle (excluding feb tests of course).

Let's say that for June 2012 169 is 97th percentile (I don't know the actual numbers). So we would know that 3% of all test takers got a 170 or above. If we know the number of test takers, we would know the number who got a 170 or above. Then wouldn't it just be a matter of adding up all the data from cycle 1, doing the same for cycle 2 and comparing?

I just saw that you were asking about 170+ scorers and not 170+ applicants. Yes, the method you described will tell you roughly how big the decline in 170+ scorers will be this cycle compared to last cycle (and it's certainly a decline), but that won't tell you anything about how many 170+ scorers are actually applying to schools compared to last year.

[Paul Campos]

Latest LSAC volume summary:

Applicants down 14.5% year over year through the end of January. (58% of the final applicant pool had applied by 1/31/2013).

Projects to 51,110 total applicants this cycle. For comparison purposes, ABA law schools admitted 60,400 out of 87,900 applicants in 2010.

This suggests total first year enrollment will be down to about 35,000 this fall.

[redbull12]

Latest LSAC volume summary:

Applicants down 14.5% year over year through the end of January. (58% of the final applicant pool had applied by 1/31/2013).

Projects to 51,110 total applicants this cycle. For comparison purposes, ABA law schools admitted 60,400 out of 87,900 applicants in 2010.

This suggests total first year enrollment will be down to about 35,000 this fall.

What will 2015 entail?

[Creditisgood]

Redbull


Carpe Diem

[redbull12]

I wonder if in 10-15 years Paul Campos will be seen as a prophet that saved an entire generation.

[cotiger]

Wow, if this 14.5% decrease holds up, this year will have the largest percentage decline yet.

The previous three cycles had applicant declines of 10.7%, 13.5%, and 12.3%.

No indication of a bottom so far.

[jk148706]

Wow, if this 14.5% decrease holds up, this year will have the largest percentage decline yet.

The previous three cycles had applicant declines of 10.7%, 13.5%, and 12.3%.

No indication of a bottom so far.

So I wonder what the % drop is this year when compared to 4 years ago.

ETA: if we get 51,000 applicants, that'd be a drop of like 42% since 2010, no?

[jk148706]

Latest LSAC volume summary:

Applicants down 14.5% year over year through the end of January. (58% of the final applicant pool had applied by 1/31/2013).

Projects to 51,110 total applicants this cycle. For comparison purposes, ABA law schools admitted 60,400 out of 87,900 applicants in 2010.

This suggests total first year enrollment will be down to about 35,000 this fall.

What will 2015 entail?

Bout to take the cycle off, not retake, just hope a decline in applicants helps me

[jenesaislaw]

Bout to take the cycle off, not retake, just hope a decline in applicants helps me

I actually think this strategy makes a lot of sense. I think we're about to see tuition drop at more than a few schools.

[NYstate]

I wonder if in 10-15 years Paul Campos will be seen as a prophet that saved an entire generation.

And maybe some of the lawsuits against schools for blatantly misrepresenting numbers will get more traction. I just hope people remember that the reason applications are plummeting is that more realistic employment numbers are available. So more people are realizing that law school isn't worth it. LST has made a big impact.

Meanwhile schools raise tuition.

[NYstate]

Bout to take the cycle off, not retake, just hope a decline in applicants helps me

I actually think this strategy makes a lot of sense. I think we're about to see tuition drop at more than a few schools.

Lol. You mean for the next cycle?. As far as I know most schools had some increase for the upcoming year 2014_-15.

Edit: I was laughing here because I just posted the exact opposite thought. Not at your post.

[hung jury]

Wow, if this 14.5% decrease holds up, this year will have the largest percentage decline yet.

The previous three cycles had applicant declines of 10.7%, 13.5%, and 12.3%.

No indication of a bottom so far.

Also of note: Last cycle schools extended the cycle for applications. This caused the decline in applications to slow, on a year over year basis, as the cycle advanced into months that used to be dead months for recruiting. But since this is a YOY analysis, the extended 2012-2013 campaign for tuition dollars is now baked into the comparison.

The short of it is that we're unlikely to see the same YOY late-year growth in applications this cycle.

[ScottRiqui]

Wow, if this 14.5% decrease holds up, this year will have the largest percentage decline yet.

The previous three cycles had applicant declines of 10.7%, 13.5%, and 12.3%.

No indication of a bottom so far.

Also of note: Last cycle schools extended the cycle for applications. This caused the decline in applications to slow, on a year over year basis, as the cycle advanced into months that used to be dead months for recruiting. But since this is a YOY analysis, the extended 2012-2013 campaign for tuition dollars is now baked into the comparison.

The short of it is that we're unlikely to see the same YOY late-year growth in applications this cycle.

That's a good point - there were stories from the June 2013 LSAT of takers being reminded (right before the test) by representative of the local law schools that they could still use their June score to apply for the Fall 2013 incoming class.

[Skump]

Wow, if this 14.5% decrease holds up, this year will have the largest percentage decline yet.

The previous three cycles had applicant declines of 10.7%, 13.5%, and 12.3%.

No indication of a bottom so far.

So I wonder what the % drop is this year when compared to 4 years ago.

ETA: if we get 51,000 applicants, that'd be a drop of like 42% since 2010, no?

What's frightening is that this is still far too many applicants. We've seen multiple year on year declines, and we're still in a bubble.

[cotiger]

What's frightening is that this is still far too many applicants. We've seen multiple year on year declines, and we're still in a bubble.

I don't think that's correct.

Assuming that C/O 2016 has a normal attrition rate, they should graduate around 35,300 students, lowest since 1983. If this cycle has another 8% drop in enrollments (as looks likely), then C/O 2017 should end up with around 32,500 graduates, the lowest since 1976.

C/O 2012 found 30,453 LTFT positions that were either bar passage required or JD-advantage. From 1998-2008, the percentage of grads who got one of those positions hovered around 75%. If you consider that the historical equilibrium (and the number of positions holds steady), then we'll get back to normal with the class of 2015.

Since NALP began tracking in 1985, the highest ever employment percentage was 84.5%. If the number of jobs holds steady, C/O 2017 would see 93.7%.

It seems like we're in the overcorrection phase of a bursted bubble, which is a nice place to be.

[jk148706]

It seems like we're in the overcorrection phase of a bursted bubble, which is a nice place to be.

Man I hope you are correct

[cotiger]

It seems like we're in the overcorrection phase of a bursted bubble, which is a nice place to be.

Man I hope you are correct

Even if you take out present-day JD-advantage jobs as not being "real" legal jobs (keep in mind that now you would not be comparing apples to apples for those percentages), C/O 2017 would have an 80.2% employment rate--which is on the high side of the historical average.

One thing to note is that even with a significantly above average hiring market, that doesn't necessarily mean that the value of a JD is also currently above average. The very high tuition compared to twenty years ago means that someone who gets a 40k lawyer job this year can be in a much worse off financial situation than someone who couldn't find a job in 1994. They do, however, get to be a lawyer, which is assumedly the reason they went to law school in the first place.