16.9% Decrease In October Test Takers(Detailed Stats Inside) Forum

[suspicious android]

Very interesting, hopefully good news for splitters. Maybe bad news for LSAT tutors?:)

Anyway, wanted to point out something about URM preference; this is a mandate from the ABA, it's not going away even if it means medians go down.

[justonemoregame]

I know we have a thread that has compiled changes in LSAT/GPA medians, but do we have one for changes in class sizes?

[evian1212]

Can somebody link the changes in LSAT and GPA medians over the years?

[justonemoregame]

Can somebody link the changes in LSAT and GPA medians over the years?

+1 for delegating authority. I was trying to be a little more subtle, but I like what you've done here.

[WhiteGuy5]

Very interesting, hopefully good news for splitters. Maybe bad news for LSAT tutors?:)

Anyway, wanted to point out something about URM preference; this is a mandate from the ABA, it's not going away even if it means medians go down.

What does that mean? They are mandated to keep a certain percentage of their class for minorities? I don't think so...

[sven]

Very interesting, hopefully good news for splitters. Maybe bad news for LSAT tutors?:)

Anyway, wanted to point out something about URM preference; this is a mandate from the ABA, it's not going away even if it means medians go down.

What does that mean? They are mandated to keep a certain percentage of their class for minorities? I don't think so...

Don't worry about it, WhiteGuy5.

[Strange]

I agree with the guy who said that this may not be the best cycle to ED. Definitely don't be overconfident either, but it seems there could be some real movement this year and you could be missing out on something if you commit yourself.

[WhiteGuy5]

Very interesting, hopefully good news for splitters. Maybe bad news for LSAT tutors?:)

Anyway, wanted to point out something about URM preference; this is a mandate from the ABA, it's not going away even if it means medians go down.

What does that mean? They are mandated to keep a certain percentage of their class for minorities? I don't think so...

Don't worry about it, WhiteGuy5.

lol oh i do worry.

[suspicious android]

What does that mean? They are mandated to keep a certain percentage of their class for minorities? I don't think so...

There's no quota system, but law schools have essentially obliged themselves to maintain a diverse student body. I believe I read that minority enrollment has actually dropped a bit in the last few years, so I doubt it's a specific % that they're requiring, but it is something they take seriously.

You can read about it on LSAC's websiite, if you can wade through pages of ass-covering, self-serving bullshit.

[auntjulia]

Thanks Hawkeye, for the numbers. They were interesting to look at.

My guess is there will be a significant drop in applicants and this will be a marginally easier cycle. Nothing extreme, but I do this decline means that some people will get in where they wouldn't have in past cycles.

This last cycle at Vanderbilt, applicants dropped to 3987 from a previous 4885. Such a hit in applicants was typical throughout the T20.

Vandy managed to maintain medians and class size but with another applicant drop like that, I imagine they'll be forced to make some choices.

How law schools will choose depends in a large part on what they expect from FUTURE cycles. If they expect continued decreases as word gets out about dismal employment prospects and the poor ROI on law school then they'll probably accept a decrease in medians in both LSAT and GPA. My thinking on this is that they'd rather eat median decreases than have to cut expenditures and trim faculty.

As for URMs, I think there may be some moderate and subtle efforts to reduce the URM effect on medians by admitting less. I do not, however, think this will be dramatic as it could result in major embarrassment to the school when URM group protests end up as the subject of Elie Mystal's posts at ATL. The schools probably don't give a shit about holding up their nebulous commitment to the LSAC but they do not, I guarantee, want to deal with the publicity fallout from allegations of discrimination in admissions.

Whatever way you look at it though, I'm convinced that what law schools expect from future cycles is going to have a major effect on how they deal with this drop. And I can guarantee you that law school administrators everywhere are scared, especially at the TTTs.

[KevinP]

Also, just to throw in some information. June has the largest percentage of high scorers, followed by October.

Even though December has the most retakers, December has second lowest number of high scorers (only February has a worse pool of applicants) and a large portion of the drop in test takers last cycle was fueled by the drop in December test takers.

Data:
High scorers are defined to be those who score at least a 170.
June (Mean = 151.68, SD = 10.51). Approximate result: A 170 is the 95.9th percentile, ~4.1% of June test takers score a 170+.
December (Mean = 150.11, SD = 9.92). Approximate result: A 170 is the 97.8th percentile, ~2.2% of December test takers score a 170+.*

*I used data from 2009-2010 for calculations

Hypothesis: This cycle is going to be the most unpredictable one in the last 20 years.

[Tim0thy222]

Also, just to throw in some information. June has the largest percentage of high scorers, followed by October.

Even though December has the most retakers, December has second lowest number of high scorers (only February has a worse pool of applicants) and a large portion of the drop in test takers last cycle was fueled by the drop in December test takers.

Data:
High scorers are defined to be those who score at least a 170.
June (Mean = 151.68, SD = 10.51). Approximate result: A 170 is the 95.9th percentile, ~4.1% of June test takers score a 170+.
December (Mean = 150.11, SD = 9.92). Approximate result: A 170 is the 97.8th percentile, ~2.2% of December test takers score a 170+.*

*I used data from 2009-2010 for calculations

Hypothesis: This cycle is going to be the most unpredictable one in the last 20 years.

Can you (or someone) please explain what the relevance of this is? I'm not understanding why it matters that June and October testing groups have a higher proportion of 170+ scores than the December and February groups.

[JPudding]

Also, just to throw in some information. June has the largest percentage of high scorers, followed by October.

Even though December has the most retakers, December has second lowest number of high scorers (only February has a worse pool of applicants) and a large portion of the drop in test takers last cycle was fueled by the drop in December test takers.

Data:
High scorers are defined to be those who score at least a 170.
June (Mean = 151.68, SD = 10.51). Approximate result: A 170 is the 95.9th percentile, ~4.1% of June test takers score a 170+.
December (Mean = 150.11, SD = 9.92). Approximate result: A 170 is the 97.8th percentile, ~2.2% of December test takers score a 170+.*

*I used data from 2009-2010 for calculations

Hypothesis: This cycle is going to be the most unpredictable one in the last 20 years.

Can you (or someone) please explain what the relevance of this is? I'm not understanding why it matters that June and October testing groups have a higher proportion of 170+ scores than the December and February groups.

Maybe it matters because they have the biggest drops (-18.7 June, -17 Oct, therefore even less 170+'s overall)

[Ti1Her0]

Also, just to throw in some information. June has the largest percentage of high scorers, followed by October.

Even though December has the most retakers, December has second lowest number of high scorers (only February has a worse pool of applicants) and a large portion of the drop in test takers last cycle was fueled by the drop in December test takers.

Data:
High scorers are defined to be those who score at least a 170.
June (Mean = 151.68, SD = 10.51). Approximate result: A 170 is the 95.9th percentile, ~4.1% of June test takers score a 170+.
December (Mean = 150.11, SD = 9.92). Approximate result: A 170 is the 97.8th percentile, ~2.2% of December test takers score a 170+.*

*I used data from 2009-2010 for calculations

Hypothesis: This cycle is going to be the most unpredictable one in the last 20 years.

Can you (or someone) please explain what the relevance of this is? I'm not understanding why it matters that June and October testing groups have a higher proportion of 170+ scores than the December and February groups.

I assume it's because the June/October crowd applies early in the cycle and thus schools that want high scores can already start making decisions on that pool of applicants without taking into consideration or waiting for the December/February group? I don't know.

[Strange]

Definitely makes this cycle unpredictable, is there any way this could make the cycle "worse" for us that anyone can think of? Or is the worst case scenario, no impact?

[soj]

One possible negative result is that schools might resort to the WL more because they're unsure what's going to happen this cycle.

[Tom Joad]

Definitely makes this cycle unpredictable, is there any way this could make the cycle "worse" for us that anyone can think of? Or is the worst case scenario, no impact?

It could be bad for non-splitters if the T6 decides to let in more splitterish people.

[Strange]

Definitely makes this cycle unpredictable, is there any way this could make the cycle "worse" for us that anyone can think of? Or is the worst case scenario, no impact?

It could be bad for non-splitters if the T6 decides to let in more splitterish people.

Yes.. that would be horrific .....

[Tom Joad]

Definitely makes this cycle unpredictable, is there any way this could make the cycle "worse" for us that anyone can think of? Or is the worst case scenario, no impact?

It could be bad for non-splitters if the T6 decides to let in more splitterish people.

Yes.. that would be horrific .....

Your numbers on your profile and I don't think you are really horrified.

[crumpetsandtea]

Definitely makes this cycle unpredictable, is there any way this could make the cycle "worse" for us that anyone can think of? Or is the worst case scenario, no impact?

It could be bad for non-splitters if the T6 decides to let in more splitterish people.

Yes.. that would be horrific .....

[KevinP]

Can you (or someone) please explain what the relevance of this is? I'm not understanding why it matters that June and October testing groups have a higher proportion of 170+ scores than the December and February groups.

Maybe it matters because they have the biggest drops (-18.7 June, -17 Oct)

Pretty much this. Especially when last cycle showed an increase in June and a smaller decrease in October.

Also, looking at LSAC's chart, it seems both the mean LSAT score and the percentage of high scorers actually increased in June/October of 2009-2010 during the massive application surge. I'm making a completely unwarranted conjecture, but I'm not so sure now that the decrease in test takers this cycle was disproportionately from those of the lower end.

[Robespierre]

Hawkeye? Where did you get the information that:

"Fall 2010 had 2479 applicants with a 170+
Fall 2011 had 2296 applicants with a 170+"?

If it's from the chart on pg. 2 of this thread, wasn't that as of early December in the cycle, i.e. incomplete?

Not challenging you, just curious, thanks.

[happyshapy]

Definitely makes this cycle unpredictable, is there any way this could make the cycle "worse" for us that anyone can think of? Or is the worst case scenario, no impact?

I wonder if this might hurt applicants who applied really early already. They might have been waitlisted, instead of accepted if schools have to drip below their 25%s.

[minnbills]

Another data set that is interesting (tantalizing really) is LSN's 07-08 and before data.

If the applicant pool decreases in size to a level similar to that time, and the proportion of ~170ish scorers stays the same, I wonder if we could see this cycle move toward the admission standards used before the surge?

[slacker]

I know everyone is discussing this cycle but does anyone think these numbers will cause an increase next cycle? People thinking there is less competition, looks to be more splitter friendly, etc. Or is there enough bad law school news going around that it'll be offset? I'm aware it's completely speculation but I'm just curious what everyone thinks.