When will December LSAT statistics come out? Forum

[NorCalBruin]

Does anyone know (or can anyone reasonably guess) when we'll find out how many people took the December LSAT? Another -10-15% drop would be welcome.

[Sandro]

they are out. search.

[r6_philly]

they are out. search.

No the official, final data

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Data/ ... stered.asp

[Sandro]

they are out. search.

No the official, final data

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Data/ ... stered.asp

Not sure how "official" this is but it doesnt seem to be made up out of thin air

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=145639

[r6_philly]

It's out on LSAC's site. Down 16.5%.

PROFIT!!!!!

[NorCalBruin]

It's out on LSAC's site. Down 16.5%.

PROFIT!!!!!

HUZZAH!

Thanks for the update r6!~

[r6_philly]

It's out on LSAC's site. Down 16.5%.

PROFIT!!!!!

HUZZAH!

Thanks for the update r6!~

This year's late cycle action and WL is bound to be good... everyone don't give up hope yet!

[Sandro]

I feel like, and other have commented, that schools are going a bit slower this cycle. Indeed we could see some late action as schools realize that wave of late apps isnt going to be as big.

[r6_philly]

I feel like, and other have commented, that schools are going a bit slower this cycle. Indeed we could see some late action as schools realize that wave of late apps isnt going to be as big.

If they are working on last year's yield curve (to use a financial term for lack of admissions lingo), it makes sense why they are moving slower and less acceptances are reported. Of course late cycle + WL will correct this as they struggle to fill seats as expected.

We may even see more $$ offered to late applicants/WL accepts.

[dr123]

I'm soo glad im applying next cycle

[r6_philly]

I'm soo glad im applying next cycle

This does not compute. You should be glad to be applying to this cycle.

[Sandro]

Bigger applicant pool = easier to raise bar. So maybe now with that in mind schools who still want to aggressively raise their #s will have to get freaky with scholarships


AND I think this increases splitter's value. FOR A FACT!!! wooooo

[dr123]

I'm soo glad im applying next cycle

This does not compute. You should be glad to be applying to this cycle.

meh, I didn't want to give up my job. I just figured apps were trending downward and next year there would be an even bigger decrease. c'mon now, let a brother dream

[r6_philly]

Bigger applicant pool = easier to raise bar. So maybe now with that in mind schools who still want to aggressively raise their #s will have to get freaky with scholarships


AND I think this increases splitter's value. FOR A FACT!!! wooooo

Actually they will need to work (Take more splitters) to maintain LSAT medians since we now have 160 less people with 170 or more. MVP take note!

[chasgoose]

Bigger applicant pool = easier to raise bar. So maybe now with that in mind schools who still want to aggressively raise their #s will have to get freaky with scholarships


AND I think this increases splitter's value. FOR A FACT!!! wooooo

Actually they will need to work (Take more splitters) to maintain LSAT medians since we now have 160 less people with 170 or more. MVP take note!

Yeah, I imagine this situation benefits splitters (particularly those with 175+ and at least a 3.5) as there are going to be fewer high scorers to keep those medians where they are...

[dabbadon8]

I feel as though the decrease will not make much of a difference. I think the reduction of test takes isn't going to be evenly distributed. I think most of the decrease will come out of from the those who wouldn't of scored a 170+

That all the decrease will come from 170+ takers and columbia will magically let me in.

[r6_philly]

I feel as though the decrease will not make much of a difference. I think the reduction of test takes isn't going to be evenly distributed. I think most of the decrease will come out of from the those who wouldn't of scored a 170+

That all the decrease will come from 170+ takers and columbia will magically let me in.

You do realize they have the option to adjust the equalizing process to normalize the distribution right? It should be close to normal. It's still 50000 data points.

[dabbadon8]

I feel as though the decrease will not make much of a difference. I think the reduction of test takes isn't going to be evenly distributed. I think most of the decrease will come out of from the those who wouldn't of scored a 170+

That all the decrease will come from 170+ takers and columbia will magically let me in.

You do realize they have the option to adjust the equalizing process to normalize the distribution right? It should be close to normal. It's still 50000 data points.

My post was was made on nothing more then a hunch. I really don't expect schools policies to change. Last year many schools overenrolled. I think the schools being cautious not to do so again will lead to more use of the WL rather then the decrease in test takers. I have this hunch because I feel the increase last year was due to the economy and I feel those people who would try to go to law school because of a poor economy may not take the lsat seriously. This though can be refuted a million different ways. Either way, it benefits me to be wrong so if you would like rebut my poor logic and make me feel better about my chances at NYU and Columbia, please do

[javancho]

I feel as though the decrease will not make much of a difference. I think the reduction of test takes isn't going to be evenly distributed. I think most of the decrease will come out of from the those who wouldn't of scored a 170+

That all the decrease will come from 170+ takers and columbia will magically let me in.

For people as obsessive as you, you guys do lots of speculating and very little research. All the data you want can be found online. Look at December 2010 LSAC report:

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

On page 4 there is a table that summarizes the applicant pool (YTD 12/3/2010) from last year vs this year. As you can see, the distribution of LSATs is pretty much the same, and the only thing that has changed is the overall number of applicants. This year, the number of applicants seems to be tanking. So, if that trend continues AND school take about the same number of students (and they always do-that data is also online), then schools will have lower standards vs last year.

[dabbadon8]

I feel as though the decrease will not make much of a difference. I think the reduction of test takes isn't going to be evenly distributed. I think most of the decrease will come out of from the those who wouldn't of scored a 170+

That all the decrease will come from 170+ takers and columbia will magically let me in.

For people as obsessive as you, you guys do lots of speculating and very little research. All the data you want can be found online. Look at December 2010 LSAC report:

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

On page 4 there is a table that summarizes the applicant pool (YTD 12/3/2010) from last year vs this year. As you can see, the distribution of LSATs is pretty much the same, and the only thing that has changed is the overall number of applicants. This year, the number of applicants seems to be tanking. So, if that trend continues AND school take about the same number of students (and they always do-that data is also online), then schools will have lower standards vs last year.

Ha, it is much easier to throw out wild speculations and then have the research done for you...

btw: 183 less 170+ applicants as of 12/3

[chasgoose]

I feel as though the decrease will not make much of a difference. I think the reduction of test takes isn't going to be evenly distributed. I think most of the decrease will come out of from the those who wouldn't of scored a 170+

That all the decrease will come from 170+ takers and columbia will magically let me in.

Well I mean the percentiles reflect actual numbers. I looked at my copy of the December 2009 practice test and my score was at the same percentile that it was at on that test. So in theory that means there are 16.5% fewer people that received the same score as I did and you can probably extend that to other scores regardless of if they are 170+ or not. For this reason this actually probably impacts super high scorers more than other scores. Based on my math there were about 1000-1100 people who scored 175+ last year. Lets say we end this year with a 10% decrease, that would leave us with about 900 175+ scorers. When you consider the fact that based on their 75% LSAT percentiles, somewhere around 400-500 175+ scorers attended Harvard, Yale, NYU, and Columbia alone (the only schools with 175+ as their 75% LSAT), that 100 person decrease has a pretty hefty affect. That means that last year there were only 600-700ish 175+ scorers to go around after those schools were done. Given that other top schools like Stanford, U of C, MVP, etc also had a decent amount of 175+ scorers attend, there aren't that many left to go around. When you consider that all of those schools had to accept more 175+ scorers than actually attended, that 100 person drop becomes even more significant. Also, when you factor in extreme splitters whose GPA's are too much to overcome and those who decide not to go to law school (I know at least a few 175+ scorers who got a job offer that made 150k in debt less than appealing, plus there are always a few LSAT tutors who take the test and score 175+) that means there are even fewer than 900 175+ scorers for the top schools to compete over. While there are still enough 175+ scorers out there for Harvard, Yale, NYU, and Columbia to maintain their stats, they will probably be more willing to dip a little lower GPA wise than usual in order to make sure that enough of them attend and their numbers stay the same.

[chasgoose]

I feel as though the decrease will not make much of a difference. I think the reduction of test takes isn't going to be evenly distributed. I think most of the decrease will come out of from the those who wouldn't of scored a 170+

That all the decrease will come from 170+ takers and columbia will magically let me in.

For people as obsessive as you, you guys do lots of speculating and very little research. All the data you want can be found online. Look at December 2010 LSAC report:

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

On page 4 there is a table that summarizes the applicant pool (YTD 12/3/2010) from last year vs this year. As you can see, the distribution of LSATs is pretty much the same, and the only thing that has changed is the overall number of applicants. This year, the number of applicants seems to be tanking. So, if that trend continues AND school take about the same number of students (and they always do-that data is also online), then schools will have lower standards vs last year.

Based on those numbers I was far too generous in my earlier post... Based on the data for the class of 2013, 140 students with a 176+ went to Harvard, 51 went to Yale, 112 with a 175+ went to NYU, and 101 went to Columbia. That means that of the 567 applicants last year with a 175+, only 163 didn't go to one of those four schools. If there was around a 10% drop in applicants this year (and even assuming that that 10% drop doesn't affect 175+ scorers as much) that means that there will be somewhere around 500-525 (give or take) applicants with a 175+ this year. Since none of the schools are shrinking their class sizes significantly, that would imply that only 100-125 won't be attending those schools.

[FlanAl]

going to tag this because it gives me hope!

[r6_philly]

I feel as though the decrease will not make much of a difference. I think the reduction of test takes isn't going to be evenly distributed. I think most of the decrease will come out of from the those who wouldn't of scored a 170+

That all the decrease will come from 170+ takers and columbia will magically let me in.

For people as obsessive as you, you guys do lots of speculating and very little research. All the data you want can be found online. Look at December 2010 LSAC report:

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

On page 4 there is a table that summarizes the applicant pool (YTD 12/3/2010) from last year vs this year. As you can see, the distribution of LSATs is pretty much the same, and the only thing that has changed is the overall number of applicants. This year, the number of applicants seems to be tanking. So, if that trend continues AND school take about the same number of students (and they always do-that data is also online), then schools will have lower standards vs last year.

I quoted this in another thread. This was out before the final number of december takers were released. TT refers to the actual Dec. data released yesterday. I do not believe there has been any official analysis yet.

[r6_philly]

Since none of the schools are shrinking their class sizes significantly, that would imply that only 100-125 won't be attending those schools.

Most of those would be splitters. You see why the picture seems rosier.