December LSAT #s and Applicant Volume Forum

[bdubs]

Just posted recently by another user in another thread. Thought it deserved its own thread.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... ions-fall/

As of Jan. 14, the number of law school applications for the following autumn was down 12.5 percent from the period a year ago (and at this time last year, about half of the final application volume had already come in). A single applicant can apply to multiple schools, and the number of total applications submitted has fallen 12.2 percent from the previous year, according to Wendy Margolis, director of communications for the Law School Admission Council.
...
The number of people taking the Law School Admission Test is also down. For the December 2010 test, the number of test-takers fell 16.5 percent from the previous year, to 42,096.
...
For December 2010, 47% had previously taken the test. This is up from 44% of test takers in December 2009.

So total test takers are down, retakers are up, and total applications are down. If the trend for # of applications per applicant continues (as TLS seems to corroborate) there may be a significantly smaller number of total applicants this year.

I hope this means that the delays in decisions by highly ranked schools means they are considering a wider swath of applicants this year.

[sarahlawg]

Just posted recently by another user in another thread. Thought it deserved its own thread.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... ions-fall/

As of Jan. 14, the number of law school applications for the following autumn was down 12.5 percent from the period a year ago (and at this time last year, about half of the final application volume had already come in). A single applicant can apply to multiple schools, and the number of total applications submitted has fallen 12.2 percent from the previous year, according to Wendy Margolis, director of communications for the Law School Admission Council.
...
The number of people taking the Law School Admission Test is also down. For the December 2010 test, the number of test-takers fell 16.5 percent from the previous year, to 42,096.
...
For December 2010, 47% had previously taken the test. This is up from 44% of test takers in December 2009.

So total test takers are down, retakers are up, and total applications are down. If the trend for # of applications per applicant continues (as TLS seems to corroborate) there may be a significantly smaller number of total applicants this year.

I hope this means that the delays in decisions by highly ranked schools means they are considering a wider swath of applicants this year.

thanks for this! someone quoted it before and I was wondering where they got the numbers. Maybe schools will be taking from the WL this year.

[Miracle]

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

[Sandro]

this is awesome

[CanadianWolf]

The reader comments after the NYT article are interesting.

[bdubs]

The reader comments after the NYT article are interesting.

They sound like some of the most irritating and pessimistic posters on TLS.... perhaps they are those same posters.

[androstan]

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

With the scamblogs, LST, etc. getting the word out there simple free market forces may just do the work on their own!

[bdubs]

Update FRL: Just got back from the GULC early ASW. Dean Cornblatt said that application volume overall is down (and implied that GULC application volume is down), however he said application quality is up. That could have been BS or a result of GULCs stinginess with fee waivers (only high #s got them). Either way I thought it was good to hear an admissions dean confirm these facts at this stage in the cycle.

[soullesswonder]

I really don't understand how this happened. The idea that we could go from double digit increases to a double digit decrease in the wake of an effort to make student loans more accessible makes no sense to me. I know for a fact that some TTT admins are blaming the bad outcomes of previous graduates on "predatory" private lenders. Surely the angry blogs and a few MSM articles haven't turned the tide by themselves.

[bdubs]

I really don't understand how this happened. The idea that we could go from double digit increases to a double digit decrease in the wake of an effort to make student loans more accessible makes no sense to me. I know for a fact that some TTT admins are blaming the bad outcomes of previous graduates on "predatory" private lenders. Surely the angry blogs and a few MSM articles haven't turned the tide by themselves.

What goes up, must come down.... unless it's tuition, that only goes up.

[soullesswonder]

I really don't understand how this happened. The idea that we could go from double digit increases to a double digit decrease in the wake of an effort to make student loans more accessible makes no sense to me. I know for a fact that some TTT admins are blaming the bad outcomes of previous graduates on "predatory" private lenders. Surely the angry blogs and a few MSM articles haven't turned the tide by themselves.

What goes up, must come down.... unless it's tuition, that only goes up.

WTF does that even mean? Why would a bubble in law school admissions deflate, even temporarily, when other indicators would appear to favor the further development of the bubble?

[bdubs]

I really don't understand how this happened. The idea that we could go from double digit increases to a double digit decrease in the wake of an effort to make student loans more accessible makes no sense to me. I know for a fact that some TTT admins are blaming the bad outcomes of previous graduates on "predatory" private lenders. Surely the angry blogs and a few MSM articles haven't turned the tide by themselves.

What goes up, must come down.... unless it's tuition, that only goes up.

WTF does that even mean? Why would a bubble in law school admissions deflate, even temporarily, when other indicators would appear to favor the further development of the bubble?

Demand for extraordinarily expensive intangible services is finite. Even if someone is willing to lend you money to do something dumb, it doesn't mean lots of people will take them up on it. Also, the realization that debt is non-dischargeable is probably getting through to people.

[Near]

Let this downtrend continue into next year!

[Miracle]

Let this downtrend continue into next year!

and the year after, and the year after that...

[TommyK]

Do y'all think this will mean fewer students matriculating or just more lower qualified (numerically) students matriculating?

[robotclubmember]

Do y'all think this will mean fewer students matriculating or just more lower qualified (numerically) students matriculating?

If anything, I think the high performers, in terms of GPA and LSAT, aren't going to be dissuaded from sending their apps, but those with lower GPA's and lower LSAT's may re-evaluate the choice to go to law school ITE. I think (and hope) that these statistics suggest there will be less "lower qualified" students matriculating.

That, or it could mean all the smart people picked another profession ;p

[Bumi]

Why would a bubble in law school admissions deflate, even temporarily, when other indicators would appear to favor the further development of the bubble?

Law school admissions, like business school admissions, generally track with unemployment rate. The economy is picking up and people are getting jobs, so people are deciding not to go back to school. The unemployment rate in December is the lowest it's been since May of 2009. Sure it's still high, but application volumes are still going to be incredibly high this year. It's just that both numbers are starting to come down.

[javancho]

Why would a bubble in law school admissions deflate, even temporarily, when other indicators would appear to favor the further development of the bubble?

Law school admissions, like business school admissions, generally track with unemployment rate. The economy is picking up and people are getting jobs, so people are deciding not to go back to school. The unemployment rate in December is the lowest it's been since May of 2009. Sure it's still high, but application volumes are still going to be incredibly high this year. It's just that both numbers are starting to come down.

Wrong. A few weeks ago LSAC published data showing that applicants for the YTD were -12.5% vs last year. So, if the trend continues: 87500*0.875 = 76560. There is no reason to believe that this year will be different than the historical norm. That is not minor a decrease: it would be biggest drop in applicants to law school EVER and set applicant numbers back to the level of the Fall of 2001.

About the economy, very few jobs have been created since recession ended. Most of the decline in the unemployment rate is because workers have left the workforce and are no longer looking for jobs, possibly because they realize it's a lost cause.

So, it does look like the Law school bubble is deflating fast.

To further validate that hypothesis, LSAC is also reporting the number of first-time test-takers for the LSAT in December was down a whopping 22%, again an unprecedented drop.

[swampthang]

Why would a bubble in law school admissions deflate, even temporarily, when other indicators would appear to favor the further development of the bubble?

Law school admissions, like business school admissions, generally track with unemployment rate. The economy is picking up and people are getting jobs, so people are deciding not to go back to school. The unemployment rate in December is the lowest it's been since May of 2009. Sure it's still high, but application volumes are still going to be incredibly high this year. It's just that both numbers are starting to come down.

Wrong. A few weeks ago LSAC published data showing that applicants for the YTD were -12.5% vs last year. So, if the trend continues: 87500*0.875 = 76560. There is no reason to believe that this year will be different than the historical norm. That is not minor a decrease: it would be biggest drop in applicants to law school EVER and set applicant numbers back to the level of the Fall of 2001.About the economy, very few jobs have been created since recession ended. Most of the decline in the unemployment rate is because workers have left the workforce and are no longer looking for jobs, possibly because they realize it's a lost cause.

So, it does look like the Law school bubble is deflating fast.

To further validate that hypothesis, LSAC is also reporting the number of first-time test-takers for the LSAT in December was down a whopping 22%, again an unprecedented drop.

So the $200,000 question is, if this trend, coupled with the information that 175+ scoring applicants are down 23%, does this mean ranges drop back to 2001 levels where a 170 was median at Harvard? Obviously that's a stretch and a half, but we're talking a highly significant drop in top test scorers (with 170-174 only decreasing slightly): what effect does that have on admissions and medians this year? Do Harvard and Yale emerge unscathed while Columbia and NYU face tough choices? Or does this have a greater impact across the board?

[2014]

Why would a bubble in law school admissions deflate, even temporarily, when other indicators would appear to favor the further development of the bubble?

Law school admissions, like business school admissions, generally track with unemployment rate. The economy is picking up and people are getting jobs, so people are deciding not to go back to school. The unemployment rate in December is the lowest it's been since May of 2009. Sure it's still high, but application volumes are still going to be incredibly high this year. It's just that both numbers are starting to come down.

Wrong. A few weeks ago LSAC published data showing that applicants for the YTD were -12.5% vs last year. So, if the trend continues: 87500*0.875 = 76560. There is no reason to believe that this year will be different than the historical norm. That is not minor a decrease: it would be biggest drop in applicants to law school EVER and set applicant numbers back to the level of the Fall of 2001.About the economy, very few jobs have been created since recession ended. Most of the decline in the unemployment rate is because workers have left the workforce and are no longer looking for jobs, possibly because they realize it's a lost cause.

So, it does look like the Law school bubble is deflating fast.

To further validate that hypothesis, LSAC is also reporting the number of first-time test-takers for the LSAT in December was down a whopping 22%, again an unprecedented drop.

So the $200,000 question is, if this trend, coupled with the information that 175+ scoring applicants are down 23%, does this mean ranges drop back to 2001 levels where a 170 was median at Harvard? Obviously that's a stretch and a half, but we're talking a highly significant drop in top test scorers (with 170-174 only decreasing slightly): what effect does that have on admissions and medians this year? Do Harvard and Yale emerge unscathed while Columbia and NYU face tough choices? Or does this have a greater impact across the board?

I would take the 175+ state with a grain of salt. There are less than 1,000 175's given out in a year and take out some of those as duplicates (yeah people still retake high scores), test prep teachers (the testmasters guy has gotten like 6 180's I think), etc, and you are looking at not a whole lot of applicants in the first place, so it takes much fewer people to produce what looks like a whopping statistic when you are in those upper ranges.

[swampthang]

So the $200,000 question is, if this trend, coupled with the information that 175+ scoring applicants are down 23%, does this mean ranges drop back to 2001 levels where a 170 was median at Harvard? Obviously that's a stretch and a half, but we're talking a highly significant drop in top test scorers (with 170-174 only decreasing slightly): what effect does that have on admissions and medians this year? Do Harvard and Yale emerge unscathed while Columbia and NYU face tough choices? Or does this have a greater impact across the board?

I would take the 175+ state with a grain of salt. There are less than 1,000 175's given out in a year and take out some of those as duplicates (yeah people still retake high scores), test prep teachers (the testmasters guy has gotten like 6 180's I think), etc, and you are looking at not a whole lot of applicants in the first place, so it takes much fewer people to produce what looks like a whopping statistic when you are in those upper ranges.

The metric measured applicants with a 175+, not test scores that were 175+ (thus repeats are impossible since it's tied to the individual). And I'm aware that it's a small number. Which means when you take a small pool and then remove a quarter of it, you're talking an even smaller number which is highly relevant for schools like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and NYU where 1/4 of their incoming class scored in that range.

[bdubs]

I think that the increasing number of retakes will still drive up the number of 170+ applicants, so it is unlikely that HYS will see much drop in medians (remember that all have medians less than 175).

[Sandro]

IMO this drop in test takers is a godsend for splitters next cycle, if not this cycle. While the t14 might be able to be more choosy for splitters, the t20-30 is going to fight hard not to drop and give high LSAT $$$

[Miracle]

Why would a bubble in law school admissions deflate, even temporarily, when other indicators would appear to favor the further development of the bubble?

Law school admissions, like business school admissions, generally track with unemployment rate. The economy is picking up and people are getting jobs, so people are deciding not to go back to school. The unemployment rate in December is the lowest it's been since May of 2009. Sure it's still high, but application volumes are still going to be incredibly high this year. It's just that both numbers are starting to come down.

Wrong. A few weeks ago LSAC published data showing that applicants for the YTD were -12.5% vs last year. So, if the trend continues: 87500*0.875 = 76560. There is no reason to believe that this year will be different than the historical norm. That is not minor a decrease: it would be biggest drop in applicants to law school EVER and set applicant numbers back to the level of the Fall of 2001.About the economy, very few jobs have been created since recession ended. Most of the decline in the unemployment rate is because workers have left the workforce and are no longer looking for jobs, possibly because they realize it's a lost cause.

So, it does look like the Law school bubble is deflating fast.

To further validate that hypothesis, LSAC is also reporting the number of first-time test-takers for the LSAT in December was down a whopping 22%, again an unprecedented drop.

So the $200,000 question is, if this trend, coupled with the information that 175+ scoring applicants are down 23%, does this mean ranges drop back to 2001 levels where a 170 was median at Harvard? Obviously that's a stretch and a half, but we're talking a highly significant drop in top test scorers (with 170-174 only decreasing slightly): what effect does that have on admissions and medians this year? Do Harvard and Yale emerge unscathed while Columbia and NYU face tough choices? Or does this have a greater impact across the board?

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

[The Real Jack McCoy]

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

+1