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

[lrslayer]

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.

i think no person except for those on this site give a shit about these numbers.

[WhiteGuy5]

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?

And what were the admissions standards used before the surge?

And why are people assuming the level of 170+ers has gone up/stayed the same. If the overall size of the applicant pool goes down, doesn't that mean that the number of people scoring in the top 1% should go down too? It IS an equated curve...

[Ti1Her0]

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?

And what were the admissions standards used before the surge?

And why are people assuming the level of 170+ers has gone up/stayed the same. If the overall size of the applicant pool goes down, doesn't that mean that the number of people scoring in the top 1% should go down too? It IS an equated curve...

I thought we were assuming exactly the opposite of that, i.e., there will less people scoring 170+ thus the reasoning that it would be a better cycle for high scorers?

[JPudding]

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?

And what were the admissions standards used before the surge?

And why are people assuming the level of 170+ers has gone up/stayed the same. If the overall size of the applicant pool goes down, doesn't that mean that the number of people scoring in the top 1% should go down too? It IS an equated curve...

I thought we were assuming exactly the opposite of that, i.e., there will less people scoring 170+ thus the reasoning that it would be a better cycle for high scorers?

I think that was his point

[Tom Joad]

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?

And what were the admissions standards used before the surge?

And why are people assuming the level of 170+ers has gone up/stayed the same. If the overall size of the applicant pool goes down, doesn't that mean that the number of people scoring in the top 1% should go down too? It IS an equated curve...

I thought we were assuming exactly the opposite of that, i.e., there will less people scoring 170+ thus the reasoning that it would be a better cycle for high scorers?

I think Gringo5 is confused because people brought up stats that higher scorers have been slightly beating the pre-equated curve in the last few administrations, so there are proportionately more 170+ scores but still less total 170+ scores.

[minnbills]

And what were the admissions standards used before the surge?

And why are people assuming the level of 170+ers has gone up/stayed the same. If the overall size of the applicant pool goes down, doesn't that mean that the number of people scoring in the top 1% should go down too? It IS an equated curve...

Standards were more loose. So for example, an applicant with my #s was a WL/reject at Cornell last cycle, whereas in 07/08 that applicant would have been WL/accept or accepted outright.

If you go to LSN and compare recent graphs to older ones it's clear that admissions have become more competitive over the past few years, because of the surge in applicant #s.

As far as the level of ~170ers, I'm not assuming anything. The point being discussed is that we haven't established that the total number has gone down, since there could be more ~170ers joining the game in Dec/Feb.

[WhiteGuy5]

I think that was his point

Yes, poorly phrased. Sorry.

I think Gringo5 is confused because people brought up stats that higher scorers have been slightly beating the pre-equated curve in the last few administrations, so there are proportionately more 170+ scores but still less total 170+ scores.

No, see above.

But that type of analysis is based on so many assumptions I don't think it stands.

In any event...there are other things to consider, like whether people who took the LSAT awhile ago will be applying this cycle--and what kinds of people are they (good scorers vs. bad scorers).

Also, if schools DO decide to maintain their URM percentiles AND medians, that would make it harder for white folk to get in.

So much to think about =).

[WhiteGuy5]

As far as the level of ~170ers, I'm not assuming anything.

I wasn't referring to you.

The point being discussed is that we haven't established that the total number has gone down, since there could be more ~170ers joining the game in Dec/Feb.

On account of what? The number of people taking the LSAT in Dec. increasing?

[lionelmessi]

Has anyone seen a chart of historical medians?

Obviously LSN gives you an idea, but a quick summary of the medians over the past decade would be interesting.

[Tom Joad]

Also, if schools DO decide to maintain their URM percentiles AND medians, that would make it harder for white folk to get in.

You seem strangely obsessed with URM admissions. As a fellow ORM, I don't really see how it truly affects admissions very much. Be between a school's medians or above one and under one and you have a chance most likely.

Oh maybe you a joking, but you should probably make it more obvious since some people are sensitive about the issue. I want to go to a law school that is as diverse as possible, even if a few of my classmates scored 2 points lower on the LSAT than me.

[ahnhub]

Has anyone seen a chart of historical medians?

Obviously LSN gives you an idea, but a quick summary of the medians over the past decade would be interesting.

Link to 25-75s for last 8 years. No medians, though: http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index. ... sc/LSATLow

[suspicious android]

Bottom line, this cycle could be significantly different. Dare I say it, I think the new motto of TLS should become "Re-take, RD to UVA".

[citykitty]

Bottom line, this cycle could be significantly different. Dare I say it, I think the new motto of TLS should become "Re-take, RD to UVA".

I only took once, but I think RD to UVA is a good idea.

[lionelmessi]

Has anyone seen a chart of historical medians?

Obviously LSN gives you an idea, but a quick summary of the medians over the past decade would be interesting.

Link to 25-75s for last 8 years. No medians, though: http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index. ... sc/LSATLow

Thanks!

Hopefully 2012 magically looks like 2003 when only the T6 had 75th of 170 or above.

This coming from a 3.78/169 who would love for MVPBDNCG to have a really, really hard time hitting their medians from the last few cycles.

I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I do think particularly DNG could face an uphill battle to stay at 170. And Michigan was already at 169 and Berkeley already didn't care.

Or, I might just be dreaming. At least I have a few days left with my dreams.

[ThreeRivers]

Also, if schools DO decide to maintain their URM percentiles AND medians, that would make it harder for white folk to get in.

You seem strangely obsessed with URM admissions. As a fellow ORM, I don't really see how it truly affects admissions very much. Be between a school's medians or above one and under one and you have a chance most likely.

Oh maybe you a joking, but you should probably make it more obvious since some people are sensitive about the issue. I want to go to a law school that is as diverse as possible, even if a few of my classmates scored 2 points lower on the LSAT than me.

Post isn't directed at me, but I am fine with URM status / affirmative action in general, but I really feel it should go more by SES than race. It should be for those who had the lowest chance of succeeding, which imo a white kid from the trailer park has less odds than a black child from Beverley Hills. Just my opinion though, and not one that I get that upset about or anything

[omninode]

Also, if schools DO decide to maintain their URM percentiles AND medians, that would make it harder for white folk to get in.

You seem strangely obsessed with URM admissions. As a fellow ORM, I don't really see how it truly affects admissions very much. Be between a school's medians or above one and under one and you have a chance most likely.

Oh maybe you a joking, but you should probably make it more obvious since some people are sensitive about the issue. I want to go to a law school that is as diverse as possible, even if a few of my classmates scored 2 points lower on the LSAT than me.

Post isn't directed at me, but I am fine with URM status / affirmative action in general, but I really feel it should go more by SES than race. It should be for those who had the lowest chance of succeeding, which imo a white kid from the trailer park has less odds than a black child from Beverley Hills. Just my opinion though, and not one that I get that upset about or anything

Yeah, those black kids from Beverly Hills ruin everything.

[Bildungsroman]

Yes, affirmative action debate.

[ThreeRivers]

Also, if schools DO decide to maintain their URM percentiles AND medians, that would make it harder for white folk to get in.

You seem strangely obsessed with URM admissions. As a fellow ORM, I don't really see how it truly affects admissions very much. Be between a school's medians or above one and under one and you have a chance most likely.

Oh maybe you a joking, but you should probably make it more obvious since some people are sensitive about the issue. I want to go to a law school that is as diverse as possible, even if a few of my classmates scored 2 points lower on the LSAT than me.

Post isn't directed at me, but I am fine with URM status / affirmative action in general, but I really feel it should go more by SES than race. It should be for those who had the lowest chance of succeeding, which imo a white kid from the trailer park has less odds than a black child from Beverley Hills. Just my opinion though, and not one that I get that upset about or anything

Yeah, those black kids from Beverly Hills ruin everything.

Lol, which is why I stated twice that I don't have problem with it / am generally in favor of it because in MOST cases it serves its purpose... I just wish it was slightly adjusted to account for SES

True story, I have a black friend who grew up a millionaire (got a BMW on his 16th birthday type) / a white friend who grew up in extreme poverty who have similar numbers this cycle... One is applying to a higher caliber of schools due to his status as URM. I feel like affirmative action should be adjusted to account for these uncommon instances, but in general affirmative action serves a correct purpose.

[soj]

No. one. cares.

[omninode]

Lol, which is why I stated twice that I don't have problem with it / am generally in favor of it because in MOST cases it serves its purpose... I just wish it was slightly adjusted to account for SES

True story, I have a black friend who grew up a millionaire (got a BMW on his 16th birthday type) / a white friend who grew up in extreme poverty who have similar numbers this cycle... One is applying to a higher caliber of schools due to his status as URM. I feel like affirmative action should be adjusted to account for these uncommon instances, but in general affirmative action serves a correct purpose.

Yeah, I agree there should be some boost for economic background, but that would probably be far more difficult to administer than the URM boost, which is pretty straightforward. I mean, where do you draw the line and say someone is economically disadvantaged or not? That could get very complicated.

[noleknight16]

Affirmative action will likely end soon, as it should.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/sunda ... wanted=all

[noleknight16]

For the record of my opinion, gender and race shouldn't even be on an application if we truly want equal opportunity in admissions.

[Kring345]

Everyone: STFU about URM status boosts. In EVERYONE'S eyes, it's one of the most obnoxious/overdone topics on this board, and, in this instance, its detracting from an otherwise interesting discussion.

[ThreeRivers]

Lol, which is why I stated twice that I don't have problem with it / am generally in favor of it because in MOST cases it serves its purpose... I just wish it was slightly adjusted to account for SES

True story, I have a black friend who grew up a millionaire (got a BMW on his 16th birthday type) / a white friend who grew up in extreme poverty who have similar numbers this cycle... One is applying to a higher caliber of schools due to his status as URM. I feel like affirmative action should be adjusted to account for these uncommon instances, but in general affirmative action serves a correct purpose.

Yeah, I agree there should be some boost for economic background, but that would probably be far more difficult to administer than the URM boost, which is pretty straightforward. I mean, where do you draw the line and say someone is economically disadvantaged or not? That could get very complicated.

Then it looks like we're in complete agreement *Handshake*. This is probably why ses isn't considered

Also I find it funny there has been about 3 posts on urm that ended in am agreement and about 8 about "noooo takes away from Thread / over discussed, etc.." seems like those posts are hi jacking thread more than very brief discussion, ironic

Anyways back on subject, which I agree is good one

[Curious1]

...OK so back on track.

I wonder what the correlation between LSAT and GPA is--can any tech wizards do some kind of quick analysis? I imagine there WOULD be some kind of correlation, but how prevalent is it?

I would hypothesize that:

If correlation is LOW--meaning lots of splitters, high GPA becomes a commodity, and schools would protect their GPA median first

If correlation is HIGH--meaning few splitters, schools would protect their LSAT medians first.