Applicants are up 14%, possibly around 50% with 170+ Forum

[JamesBlahDeBlah]

Another contributing factor to more high scoring applicants could be LSAC allowing for unlimited testing attempts. I scored a 172 in September on my 4th try, and my first 3 were all sub 170. Not sure how many other applicants may be in that situation

Wasn't September the first test that allowed a fourth take though? That means only one tests worth of fourth takes could be taken into account by this data, and only people who previously took three but didn't just apply and go with those numbers would have potentially taken advantage. That seems like a small group of people... Though that would help explain why high scores are more affected

[A. Nony Mouse]

Not to get controversial, but the Trump bump could affect high scorers more if there’s, hmm, let’s call it a test-scoring gap between Trump supporters and Trump non-supporters.

[throwaway1919]

Not to get controversial, but the Trump bump could affect high scorers more if there’s, hmm, let’s call it a test-scoring gap between Trump supporters and Trump non-supporters.

Wink wink There should be some LawSchoolNumbers analysis on this...

[181plz]

Another contributing factor to more high scoring applicants could be LSAC allowing for unlimited testing attempts. I scored a 172 in September on my 4th try, and my first 3 were all sub 170. Not sure how many other applicants may be in that situation

Wasn't September the first test that allowed a fourth take though? That means only one tests worth of fourth takes could be taken into account by this data, and only people who previously took three but didn't just apply and go with those numbers would have potentially taken advantage. That seems like a small group of people... Though that would help explain why high scores are more affected

I don’t think it’s the whole story, but likely a contributing factor. I don’t think all of the 350ish additional high scorers share my predicament but maybe 20? 50? Idk. The trump bump may be another contributing factor and there may be others we haven’t thought of.

[icechicken]

Not to get controversial, but the Trump bump could affect high scorers more if there’s, hmm, let’s call it a test-scoring gap between Trump supporters and Trump non-supporters.

I don't think that explains the numbers we're seeing, though. Even if we grant that Trump-opposers are smarter on average than the rest of the population, they'd probably still be distributed normally around that higher mean. So it's weird to see a huge spike at 175-180 and a biggish one at 165-169 but a medium one at 170-174.

[cavalier1138]

For those of you playing along at home, here's how things stand so far:

Leading the pack is the end-of-all-things scenario. It's pretty clear that a 14% rise in applications and a bump in high LSAT scores signals the coming of the End Times, as prophesied in Revelations. All are doomed!

In a close second, this is all just a lead-up to the next Great Depression. Economic masterminds have conferred and concluded that the only possible meaning of more law school applicants is the forthcoming collapse of the global economy. All are doomed!

And trailing behind but making a real run for it, people don't like Trump. This dark horse seemed like it wasn't going to even show its head, but damned if it isn't making a strong showing. Clearly, the bump in applications is due to the anti-Christ himself occupying the White House. All are doomed!

[Johann]

the people who used to get high lsats were smart enough to avoid law school. now those smart test takers, which there are roughly the same number of, are actually applying at higher rates because something has changed their calculus to where law school/law is a better outcome (fight trump, biglaw raises, more and morel awyers going into startups now, etc).

[saraduboi1995]

But do they test shitty analogies?

That poster has now qualified that they meant "only" in the sense of their only applying at this exact moment in time (instead of later, I guess). But the initial post definitely didn't read that way and was completely unrelated to your weird alarm-clock-garbage-truck stuff.

I mean, they do test shitty analogies too. If I keep working on my shitty analogy game I might even get a job writing LSAT questions.

I thought the original post clearly communicated that Trump was an inciting factor, but not a core reason OP was attending law school. Obviously you all read it differently.

Recall the LR question about the doctors who did research on patients whom did NOT complain of back pain and half of them had 'slipped disks', the doctors (wrongly) concluded that slipped disks could not lead to back pain. This was a type 4f question: flawed method of reasoning: presuming, without warrant, that slipped disks whilst in itself not sufficient for back pain, can nonetheless contribute to back pain (lets say in patients with bad posture). In the abstract form it would basically be: a + b = c. Where a is slipped disks, b is the other contributing factor and c is back pain.
Now imagine you have a case of B, in this case A is sufficient to lead to back pain.

In any case I think it's quite clear for those who have their sufficient/necessary down that OP made PERFECT sense.

[cavalier1138]

In any case I think it's quite clear for those who have their sufficient/necessary down that OP made PERFECT sense.

Since this thread is mostly useless anyway, let me try to help out all the 0Ls who think that their sweet LSAT skills are totally useful here. Please read the actual sentence you're trying to misconstrue:

"I'm probably only applying because of Trump." (emphasis added for the people who apparently didn't read that word)

It didn't say anything about timing. It didn't say, "I'm applying because of Trump and a number of other factors." It literally said that the person was only applying to law school because of Trump. It's not an issue of people misreading it, and it's not your bullshit classification from that 7Sage course your took. It's an issue of someone not writing what they intended to and then passing it off as other people's misinterpretation.

[rowdy]

In any case I think it's quite clear for those who have their sufficient/necessary down that OP made PERFECT sense.

Since this thread is mostly useless anyway, let me try to help out all the 0Ls who think that their sweet LSAT skills are totally useful here. Please read the actual sentence you're trying to misconstrue:

"I'm probably only applying because of Trump." (emphasis added for the people who apparently didn't read that word)

It didn't say anything about timing. It didn't say, "I'm applying because of Trump and a number of other factors." It literally said that the person was only applying to law school because of Trump. It's not an issue of people misreading it, and it's not your bullshit classification from that 7Sage course your took. It's an issue of someone not writing what they intended to and then passing it off as other people's misinterpretation.

Excuse me, did you not see that it is type 4f

[JamesBlahDeBlah]

We are also pretending like that one sentence was given devoid of all context (that of the rest of the post and the thread as a whole).

Personally I could not care less, I know what I meant and was a bit snippy when people not inside my head made comments suggesting they read it a different way. I thought the context of this thread and what was trying to be explained implied I was talking about this cycle, but probably should have clarified given the confusion. Please carry on

[edcat]

I can only speak for myself, but as a high lsat / high gpa applicant, I'm probably only applying because of Trump. I was always thinking about going but needed a push. I can definitely make more money not going to law school (programmer), so I was hesitant but feel like I should be doing something more useful (wanting to go into non profit law). Hence my thinking these numbers reflect others thinking the same way (this would also mean a likely increase in older candidates, so that might be a check).

You know that we elect a new president every four years or so, right?

I'm not saying to not go. But if your sole reason for getting a JD is Trump, then you're going to be really aimless when you graduate and someone else is in office.

I'm not sure how you read that post and see that his sole reason for getting a JD is Trump. He literally said Trump was just a little push. He also said he sees non-profit law as more useful than programming. Right or not, that is definitely another reason he has to go into law. Further all the evidence suggests non-profit lawyers are more satisfied and less aimless than their corporate counterparts. They are just poor.

At the same time, I still don't see how any of the rationale James lists wouldn't equally apply to lower scoring candidates. Why wouldn't they feel a push to finally apply to law school too as a result of Trump?

We need to explain that disparity. Why are high score applications climbing so much faster than low and middle score apps? A recession explains it, since hiring dries up for everyone and high scoring applicants generally have easier access to other jobs in the economy. Therefore, when those jobs start to dry up, they flock to law school and graduate school where there are the same number of available spots as normal. There may be other explanations for the disparity, but none have been offered here yet.

Edit: Upon rereading he did say that he didn't think he would be going if not for Trump.

My man. Remember your LSAT lessons -- just because something is a potential explanation does not mean it is even a feasible one. I promise you, from the bottom of my heart, the thousands of law school applicants are not genius economists who can for-see a recession coming.

I think it is someone else's logic(yours) that needs work. No applicant needs to see a recession coming for the explanation to work. Therefore, your promise should provide no comfort at all to anyone.

Let us go over it again. Applicants simply must need to struggle to find a job or promotion due to an upcoming slow down in entry level or near entry level hiring. If applicants who ordinarilly would have been able to secure jobs they preferred to law school for next summer or fall do not see good prospects, they turn to other options including law school. This is always true but usually smart applicants can find jobs more easilly than others. During or preceding a recession, they suddenly can't because noone can. We don't have the statistics for next year's or even this quarter's hiring numbers yet, because the decisions haven't even been fully made yet and even after that there will be a lag in reporting(but nonetheless 0Ls could have tested the water and pulled back when they got bad signs).

Finally, I obviously noted there could be other explanations. In fact, I requested any others that explain both the increase in applications and the fact that the increase is concentrated among high scorers. I also noted that it could be that there is something causing high LSAT applicants to apply early this cycle and there may not even be more of them total in the cycle. Nonethelss, nothing about the recession explanation demands for anyone to be a genius or an economist.They have to be smart enough to get above a 175 on the LSAT and have to be able to tell that the job market isn't responding favorably to them.

[UVA2B]

This thread is the epitome of admissions cancer.

[Veil of Ignorance]

This thread is the epitome of admissions cancer.

What does that phrase mean? I can't figure it out.

[UVA2B]

This thread is the epitome of admissions cancer.

What does that phrase mean? I can't figure it out.

Naturally occurring, albeit influenced by outside factors, resulting in the most insufferable symptoms of 0L conjecture.

The rise in applicants likely means something for admissions, but the symptoms of the rise are likely much worse than the reality, much like paraneoplastic syndrome.

[unicorntamer666]

[whoops - posted accidentally]

[unicorntamer666]

[whoops - posted accidentally]

[unicorntamer666]

Might the ballooning number of high-scoring applicants have something to do with larger numbers of test takers finagling ridiculous amounts of extra time because of their "attention deficit disorder"?

LSAC settled an ADA lawsuit about this in 2014. The remedies - including a "streamlined process" for securing extra time - are probably just taking effect.

See: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/law-scho ... le-justice

Or does it not work that way, because of the curve ensuring score distributions remain stable year-to-year?

Either way, I mostly just wanted to bitch about the accommodations abuse that is surely occurring in the wake of this ADA suit's resolution.

[unicorntamer666]

[whoops - posted accidentally]

[Platopus]

.

[Zero Hedge]

This thread is the epitome of admissions cancer.

+1000000000

[icechicken]

Might the ballooning number of high-scoring applicants have something to do with larger numbers of test takers finagling ridiculous amounts of extra time because of their "attention deficit disorder"?

If this started messing with the shape of the curve (in the way that a 87% increase in 175-180 scorers implies) then LSAC would presumably swiftly respond by either adjusting scoring scales or altering the sort of accommodations granted. Do you have a specific reason to believe this issue is real?

I mostly just wanted to bitch about the accommodations abuse that is surely occurring in the wake of this ADA suit's resolution.

nvm lol

[edcat]

Might the ballooning number of high-scoring applicants have something to do with larger numbers of test takers finagling ridiculous amounts of extra time because of their "attention deficit disorder"?

If this started messing with the shape of the curve (in the way that a 87% increase in 175-180 scorers implies) then LSAC would presumably swiftly respond by either adjusting scoring scales or altering the sort of accommodations granted. Do you have a specific reason to believe this issue is real?

I mostly just wanted to bitch about the accommodations abuse that is surely occurring in the wake of this ADA suit's resolution.

nvm lol

Exactly, there hasn't been a rise in high scorers, but has been a rise in highscoring applications.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Might the ballooning number of high-scoring applicants have something to do with larger numbers of test takers finagling ridiculous amounts of extra time because of their "attention deficit disorder"?

LSAC settled an ADA lawsuit about this in 2014. The remedies - including a "streamlined process" for securing extra time - are probably just taking effect.

See: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/law-scho ... le-justice

Or does it not work that way, because of the curve ensuring score distributions remain stable year-to-year?

Either way, I mostly just wanted to bitch about the accommodations abuse that is surely occurring in the wake of this ADA suit's resolution.

Frankly this seems speculative and unfair.

[cavalier1138]

Might the ballooning number of high-scoring applicants have something to do with larger numbers of test takers finagling ridiculous amounts of extra time because of their "attention deficit disorder"?

LSAC settled an ADA lawsuit about this in 2014. The remedies - including a "streamlined process" for securing extra time - are probably just taking effect.

See: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/law-scho ... le-justice

Or does it not work that way, because of the curve ensuring score distributions remain stable year-to-year?

Either way, I mostly just wanted to bitch about the accommodations abuse that is surely occurring in the wake of this ADA suit's resolution.

Frankly this seems speculative and unfair.

Unlike the other theories raised in this thread, which are all based in reality...