Fewer Quality Law School Applicants in 2012 Forum

[99.9luft]

Quality of applicants down = firms don't even bother with lower T14 anymore = gives firms excuse to hire even fewer students = students at lower T14 unable to find jobs

I disagree that firms won't bother with the lower T14. I think only Cornell would be affected now that the lowest of the T14 and therefore outed as the TTT it is really is. GULC, since it is now a T13 and will therefore attract new firms in droves, should be safe.

Wouldn't Cornell and Penn's ivy league prestige mitigate this effect somewhat?

Absolutely. It's much the same with Princeton Law's renown PI program.

[dingbat]

I've been thinking about this. While many schools may have chosen to decrease class size last year, I don't think this will be a continuing trend.
A law school is a business. While it might make sense to take in a smaller class one year if the quality of applicants is down, to preserve reputation, this cannot be sustained.
However, it's not easy to absorb such a decrease in revenue year over year.
It's not like they can suddenly renegotiate professor salaries, and layoffs would most likely run a school's reputation.
A handful of schools may choose to again decrease the class size, but eventually they'll have to bounce back to normal enrollment levels. If the number of quality applicants doesn't rebound, the school will need to lower their admissions standards.

From a game theory perspective, if all schools do this, then it won't affects school's relative ranking, although some of the bottom feeders might be in trouble.
If the downshift is permanent, a few law schools may be able to improve their rankings by playing chicken re smaller class sizes, but it is financially risky
Note that law schools do have access to LSAC data, so they ard able see the trend before making a final decision on whether to lower their admissions criteria or their class sizes.

This would give the advantage to smaller schools like Yale, Stanford and Chicago while being more problematic for larger schools like Harvard, Columbia and NYU

[ashika2212]

Interestingly enough HLS has still been super picky with < 3.9 GPA > 170 LSATs.

[timbs4339]

additionally it offers firms an excuse to lower pay. They are no longer competing for top talent. Top talent is off in other industries.

They will never lower pay (although some firms could get away with it and still fill their classes with top 14 kids). It's an ego thing by the partners. They will cut classes but being seen as a market paying firm is really important to them.

[NR3C1]

additionally it offers firms an excuse to lower pay. They are no longer competing for top talent. Top talent is off in other industries.

They will never lower pay (although some firms could get away with it and still fill their classes with top 14 kids). It's an ego thing by the partners. They will cut classes but being seen as a market paying firm is really important to them.

Oh yeah, never...

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... e_country/

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... _2010_cut/

[tennisking88]

I call BS
Firms hire based on their need (demand) not the availability of talent (supply).

Correct

[timbs4339]

additionally it offers firms an excuse to lower pay. They are no longer competing for top talent. Top talent is off in other industries.

They will never lower pay (although some firms could get away with it and still fill their classes with top 14 kids). It's an ego thing by the partners. They will cut classes but being seen as a market paying firm is really important to them.

Oh yeah, never...

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... e_country/

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... _2010_cut/

Some of those firms have already gone back to 160. Pillsbury, Kaye Scholer that both have large NYC offices have done so. Most of the firms that have decreased have very small or no NY presence and their attorneys will still be making much more than 160K when you take into account CoL. Obviously Howrey hasn't gone back but that proves my point- lowering salaries is considered a sign of weakness not a smart business move.

[bernaldiaz]

Interestingly enough HLS has still been super picky with < 3.9 GPA > 170 LSATs.

I'm thinking that they'll have to be less pick with those above both medians, though, so the 3.95+ and 174+, hopefully, they won't be able to be as picky with as they have in the past.

[splitbrain]

Curious as to which schools saw the greatest rises and drops in apps (besides the obvious UCI)

[ashika2212]

Interestingly enough HLS has still been super picky with < 3.9 GPA > 170 LSATs.

I'm thinking that they'll have to be less pick with those above both medians, though, so the 3.95+ and 174+, hopefully, they won't be able to be as picky with as they have in the past.

Historically people with those numbers don't get rejected (at least on LSN), maybe 1 will get waitlisted.

[KevinP]

Posted this in another thread. Figured some of you would like a more thorough breakdown, so I'll repost here.

Here are specific data for the rest of you who are wondering how the breakdown looked last year and how it looked over the course of two years.

Percentage change in applicants by highest LSAT score.

key:
Δ2010/2011 = change in applicants by LSAT score from Fall 2010 to Fall 2011.
Δ2011/2012 YTD* = change in applicants by LSAT score from Fall 2011 to Fall 2012 year to date.
Δ2010/2012 YTD* = change in applicants by LSAT score from Fall 2010 to Fall 2012. This portion assumes that the YTD percentages remain constant.
(Σ Δ) / n = overall decline. E.g. for last year (delta 2010-2011), overall apps decreased by 10.7%. (Sum of deltas divided by the number of deltas)
YTD=03/30 = Numbers for this year as of March 30th 2012.

[KevinP]

Absolutely. It's much the same with Princeton Law's renown PI program.

Subtle Dartmouth University Law Center trolling.

[dingbat]

Absolutely. It's much the same with Princeton Law's renown PI program.

Subtle Dartmouth University Law Center trolling.

I go to Brown University School of Law

[TIKITEMBO]

.

[LSAT Blog]

I just put together a chart showing the number of law school applicants over the past 10 years. (2012 is the cycle ending now). I also did a new post on the topic.

[Aeroneous]

I just put together a chart showing the number of law school applicants over the past 10 years. (2012 is the cycle ending now). I also did a new post on the topic.

It would be interesting to see this bumped up against the respective JD employment data for each year. I might have to do this when I get home later.

[NR3C1]

It would be interesting to see this bumped up against the respective JD employment data for each year. I might have to do this when I get home later.

Please tell us where in the world is that data! Other than things seem really bad and the NALP data, no one knows the true state of legal employment, right?

[Aeroneous]

It would be interesting to see this bumped up against the respective JD employment data for each year. I might have to do this when I get home later.

Please tell us where in the world is that data! Other than things seem really bad and the NALP data, no one knows the true state of legal employment, right?

I'm just referring to the available resources like NALP. It would just be interesting to see if there was any form of correlation.

EDIT: Actually there probably wouldn't be a really significant observation now that I think about it. It would likely be more interesting to see the number of students admitted to JD programs each year compared with the number of applicants.

[LSAT Blog]

It would likely be more interesting to see the number of students admitted to JD programs each year compared with the number of applicants.

Yes, it would:

[NR3C1]

LSATBlog,

And even more telling would be the ratio of Admitted/Applicants. I think that shows the extend to which selectivity for law school has decreased.

[LSAT Blog]

Absolutely. Working on it.

[LSAT Blog]

Here we go:

[NoleMatt]

So this obviously means we're all going to T14's, right? See you guys in New Haven.

[LSAT Blog]

Haha, it doesn't mean that *everyone* is. However, I think it'll be significantly easier with the shrinking pool of 170+ scorers.

Edit: Chart by KevinP:

()

[bernaldiaz]

Haha, it doesn't mean that *everyone* is. However, I think it'll be significantly easier with the shrinking pool of 170+ scorers.

I really hope this means I can't strike out at HYS now.