LSATs Administered June 2011 NOSEDIVED Forum

[scammedhard]

LSAC data about the number of LSATs administered June 2011 shows a massive decrease (-18.7%) compared to last year.
http://lsac.org/LSACResources/Data/lsat ... stered.asp

[Bildungsroman]

Good.

[skers]

Good.

[SchopenhauerFTW]

Sweet! Less competition!

[shoeshine]

Maybe all the negative press about law school was good for something.

[bhan87]

Good.

[Hawkeye Pierce]

Good.

[txadv11]

Good.

[KevinP]

I think this upcoming cycle should be an interesting one. The drop in the number of test takers last year also coincided with a drop in the number of applicants across all LSAT scores ranges, not just those at the lower end.

[Tiago Splitter]

I think this upcoming cycle should be an interesting one. The drop in the number of test takers last year also coincided with a drop in the number of applicants across all LSAT scores ranges, not just those at the lower end.

Is there any data on the score breakdowns for the June test?

[MrBain_]

2 people retook a 180??!!??
What the?

[TatteredDignity]

2 people retook a 180??!!??
What the?

Prep companies and Robin Singh types.

[KevinP]

I think this upcoming cycle should be an interesting one. The drop in the number of test takers last year also coincided with a drop in the number of applicants across all LSAT scores ranges, not just those at the lower end.

Is there any data on the score breakdowns for the June test?

Not that I know of. The percentiles are calculated in 3 year batches but they've been fairly consistent. Still, that's not enough to determine the percentiles for a specific test.

LSAC did publish information on the number of 2010 versus 2011 number of applicants by LSAT score and they matched up accordingly with the drop in LSATs administered for the 2010-2011 cycle (LSAC did add a caveat because of the date of the report). I'm just hoping the pattern is unchanged this cycle as well.

[Tiago Splitter]

LSAC did publish information on the number of 2010 versus 2011 number of applicants by LSAT score and they matched up accordingly with the drop in LSATs administered for the 2010-2011 cycle (LSAC did add a caveat because of the date of the report). I'm just hoping the pattern is unchanged this cycle as well.

That would be nice.

[KevinP]

That would be nice.

--ImageRemoved--

Source: http://lsac.org/LSACResources/Publicati ... EC2010.pdf

[Real Madrid]

Interesting. Do you think schools pay attention to this from the beginning of the cycle, or is this something that will more likely help those on wait lists later on in the cycle?

[GeePee]

Schools will probably be cognizant of the effect of diminished applications. There are a fixed number of spots in, say, the T14. Whether there are the same percentage of people with >170 is irrelevant; it's the raw number that ultimately matters. Schools will have to dip further into the raw scores at every level as numbers of applicants decrease uniformly across LSAT levels, so long as schools continue to be LSAT-maximizing. Data provides no indication that schools' strong preference for higher LSAT scores has changed, meaning that it will be increasingly difficult for schools to maintain medians in the face of fewer applicants.

This can break two ways. Schools may decide to be more forgiving of splitters in an attempt to maintain LSAT and GPA medians (leading to more right-angle breakdowns -- see UVA and IU-B on LSN), or they may simply accept that medians will be lower without a change in their relative preference for LSAT and GPA.

[Wade LeBosh]

--ImageRemoved--

[buckilaw]

Schools will probably be cognizant of the effect of diminished applications. There are a fixed number of spots in, say, the T14. Whether there are the same percentage of people with >170 is irrelevant; it's the raw number that ultimately matters. Schools will have to dip further into the raw scores at every level as numbers of applicants decrease uniformly across LSAT levels, so long as schools continue to be LSAT-maximizing. Data provides no indication that schools' strong preference for higher LSAT scores has changed, meaning that it will be increasingly difficult for schools to maintain medians in the face of fewer applicants.

This can break two ways. Schools may decide to be more forgiving of splitters in an attempt to maintain LSAT and GPA medians (leading to more right-angle breakdowns -- see UVA and IU-B on LSN), or they may simply accept that medians will be lower without a change in their relative preference for LSAT and GPA.

+1. I have a feeling schools will opt to go the UVA route in case the applicant dip is temporary; it would also be risky to lower their targeted medians if other schools chased splitters. Schools might consciously ease up on their targeted medians if this trend persists over another 2-3 cycles.

Schools could also decrease their class sizes, but I don't see any pigs flying outside...

[Hawkeye Pierce]

It should definitely be an interesting cycle. Maybe my chances at Harvard have slightly increased now?

[Trequartista]

Back to 167 for Cornell?

[confusedlaw]

I hope cornell goes to 167

[Trequartista]

I hope cornell goes to 167

+1

[Bobeo]

Good.

[PDaddy]

Let's hope the momentum isn't counter-productive. Just as the typical law student tends to believe he will make the top-10% of his class, law students might see this as the perfect time to apply precisely because there are fewer applications...causing a spike in applications. It's only a matter of time before they are back up. So I must say paradoxically that, if you want to apply, this is the year to do it; yet it might not be the year to do it precisely because it is the year to do it.