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

[soj]

A low correlation would mean lots of splitters, lots of reverse splitters (surprisingly common outside TLS--if I had to guess, there are more of these than splitters IRL), and fewer people high in both stats. For people shooting for the top schools, this would be a better scenario than a high correlation between LSAT and GPA.

I'm using "high" and "low" relatively, of course.

[minnbills]

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.

+1,000,000

Trying to figure out what's going to happen with this drop in applicants is far more important than having the URM debate for the umpteenth time.

[Curious1]

OK I did some analysis very crudely: here's the data from last year on LSN:

170: 151 Scores
54 3.8+
54 3.5-3.8
43 <3.5
Median: 3.6

171: 95 Scores
38 3.8+
31 3.5-3.8
26 <3.5
Median: 3.7

172: 89 Scores
40 3.8+
28 3.5-3.8
21 <3.5
Median: 3.7

173: 71 Scores
31 3.8+
23 3.5-3.8
17 <3.5
Median: 3.7

174: 53 Scores
25 3.8+
16 3.5-3.8
12 <3.5
Median: 3.7

175: 37 Scores
17 3.8+
11 3.5-3.8
9 <3.5
Median: 3.7

176: 27 Scores
12 3.8+
11 3.5-3.8
4 <3.5
Median: 3.7

177: 45 Scores
20 3.8+
18 3.5-3.8
7 <3.5
Median: 3.7

178+: 42 Scores
26 3.8+
4 3.5-3.8
12 <3.6
Median: 3.8

So it would seem that there IS a pretty high correlation, especially at the higher end of the 170+'s. The median is pretty consistently at 3.7, but 3.8+ are almost always the most frequently occurring. Can anyone glean any other conclusions from this data? I'm afraid this is as much as I know how to do.

Because of a potential self-reporting bias on LSN--people with higher GPAs are more likely to list them--reality might be (wishful thinking here) better than this.

Soj: Reverse splitters are much be more common by definition--there are an infinite number of high GPAs out there, but a fixed and small number of high LSAT scores. But this data also shows that true splitters are pretty rare too at the high end.

[dailygrind]

Just a heads up, AA debates are verboten on the on-topic boards. There's a thread in the lounge they're confined to, and if you want to hash out your ideas you're free to find it and do it there. Further debates in this thread will be met with a ban.

[20121109]

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.

I like this guy.

[minnbills]

Curious, so you think the high lsat/gpa correlation (at least from LSN) suggests that the drop in app #s will favor high lsats before high gpas?

[Curious1]

Curious, so you think the high lsat/gpa correlation (at least from LSN) suggests that the drop in app #s will favor high lsats before high gpas?

I think so, because high GPA's are easily found among the high LSAT scores--it's the high LSAT scores themselves that are scarce. So after trying to fill their classes with people with high LSATs AND GPA's, they've got to prioritize and lock up high LSATs first--because those are rarer than high GPA's.

What I thought the data shows is this:

About half of high scorer are superstars who have it going on in GPA too--these people will of course be given first priority.

After that, assuming schools haven't filled their classes yet, they have a choice between splitters and reverse splitters. Because splitters are rarer than reverse splitters, priority should go to splitters first to snap up the high LSATs to fill their median/75th LSATs, with the GPA deficit being made up by reverse splitters at the end to shore up their 25th/median GPAs.

Therefore, because a drop in takers means fewer high scorers (both superstars and splitters), schools will find it harder to fill up with superstars, and have to turn to fewer splitters sooner and more heavily.

[Samara]

I'm very interested in this topic, but very uninterested in reading seven pages that may or may not be full of URM herpderp. Anyone willing to tl;dr this thread for me?

[Curious1]

I'm very interested in this topic, but very uninterested in reading seven pages that may or may not be full of URM herpderp. Anyone willing to tl;dr this thread for me?

Fewer takers = good for splitters.

[Samara]

I'm very interested in this topic, but very uninterested in reading seven pages that may or may not be full of URM herpderp. Anyone willing to tl;dr this thread for me?

Lower takers = good for splitters.

haha, is that all we've gleaned? I've been promoting that since the release of the June stats. Oh well, good to know I'm not crazy.

[paul34]

.

[Samara]

Curious, so you think the high lsat/gpa correlation (at least from LSN) suggests that the drop in app #s will favor high lsats before high gpas?

I think so, because high GPA's are easily found among the high LSAT scores--it's the high LSAT scores themselves that are scarce. So after trying to fill their classes with people with high LSATs AND GPA's, they've got to prioritize and lock up high LSATs first--because those are rarer than high GPA's.

What I thought the data shows is this:

About half of high scorer are superstars who have it going on in GPA too--these people will of course be given first priority.

After that, assuming schools haven't filled their classes yet, they have a choice between splitters and reverse splitters. Because splitters are rarer than reverse splitters, priority should go to splitters first to snap up the high LSATs to fill their median/75th LSATs, with the GPA deficit being made up by reverse splitters at the end to shore up their 25th/median GPAs.

Therefore, because a drop in takers means fewer high scorers (both superstars and splitters), schools will find it harder to fill up with superstars, and have to turn to fewer splitters sooner and more heavily.

Do we have any idea how many people may be applying with scores from earlier test dates? I imagine that a lot of people with high LSAT scores would be inclined to wait a cycle or two during the worst of the economic panicking. Now that things have kind of settled on that front, perhaps some of those people will be applying this cycle. I don't think it's enough to completely offset the above analysis, but I do think it is a mitigating factor.

[Samara]

I'm very interested in this topic, but very uninterested in reading seven pages that may or may not be full of URM herpderp. Anyone willing to tl;dr this thread for me?

we're all going to harvard!!

Sweet! This analysis is actually part of the reason why I ponied up the app fee for Harvard. This cycle, all bets are off!

[Curious1]

I'm very interested in this topic, but very uninterested in reading seven pages that may or may not be full of URM herpderp. Anyone willing to tl;dr this thread for me?

Lower takers = good for splitters.

haha, is that all we've gleaned? I've been promoting that since the release of the June stats. Oh well, good to know I'm not crazy.

Well, don't want to be too optimistic. There's a lot of data in this thread, look at it and see what else you can conclude. The URM herpderp only started in the last page and was quickly snuffed out.

[paul34]

.

[Curious1]

Do we have any idea how many people may be applying with scores from earlier test dates? I imagine that a lot of people with high LSAT scores would be inclined to wait a cycle or two during the worst of the economic panicking. Now that things have kind of settled on that front, perhaps some of those people will be applying this cycle. I don't think it's enough to completely offset the above analysis, but I do think it is a mitigating factor.

If anything, wouldn't the recent and ongoing anti-law school media circus dissuade the people who were waiting to see improvement even more?

I would think that for this cycle, lots of people who took the test THIS YEAR and did well may end up waiting. (wishful thinking again).

[Curious1]

I think our biggest issue is probably one of skewed perspective. TLS really represents only a minority of law school applicants, possibly including even top law schools.

I would actually think it is the other way around. People who want to "wait out" the economy would go back to school to do so, not stay out of school.

Skewed perspective in what way? That we're gung-ho about law school or pessimistic about it? I think those camps are both well represented here.

As for that second part, that's definitely a possibility too--grad school applications in general have been going up--but I have to think the anti-law school media circus right now is making at least some people reconsider. Perhaps those two forces cancel each other out?

[omninode]

I wonder how far schools (particularly T14) will lower their standards before they simply decrease their class sizes. I suspect it depends on whether they expect the drop to be a long-term trend rather than just one or two bad seasons.

[ThreeRivers]

I'm very interested in this topic, but very uninterested in reading seven pages that may or may not be full of URM herpderp. Anyone willing to tl;dr this thread for me?

I'll sum it up for you... 3 posts about URM, about 20 like this ^ that are the ones taking away from the thread, and the rest is real discussion

[minnbills]

I wonder how far schools (particularly T14) will lower their standards before they simply decrease their class sizes. I suspect it depends on whether they expect the drop to be a long-term trend rather than just one or two bad seasons.

They had been increasing class sizes for a while too, which gives them some breathing room now.

[ThreeRivers]

I wonder how far schools (particularly T14) will lower their standards before they simply decrease their class sizes. I suspect it depends on whether they expect the drop to be a long-term trend rather than just one or two bad seasons.

They'll make sure they stay on top / highest standard. If other schools start lowering their sizes / reaching levels of T14 medians then T14 will cut class sizes to stay ahead. If every school lowers their medians and keep the same, then they will too

[Samara]

I wonder how far schools (particularly T14) will lower their standards before they simply decrease their class sizes. I suspect it depends on whether they expect the drop to be a long-term trend rather than just one or two bad seasons.

They had been increasing class sizes for a while too, which gives them some breathing room now.

Yeah, but a lot of schools significantly decreased class size last cycle. There's only so far you can go. The top schools probably have large enough endowments to weather the storm longer without lowering medians, but maybe the state schools, MVB, will have less ability to cover for the lost revenue?

[minnbills]

Yeah, but a lot of schools significantly decreased class size last cycle. There's only so far you can go. The top schools probably have large enough endowments to weather the storm longer without lowering medians, but maybe the state schools, MVB, will have less ability to cover for the lost revenue?

Yeah, it would be interesting to see how a comprehensive data set detailing how much schools decreased their class sizes, and what class sizes were before the applicant surge.

[Curious1]

Yeah, but a lot of schools significantly decreased class size last cycle. There's only so far you can go. The top schools probably have large enough endowments to weather the storm longer without lowering medians, but maybe the state schools, MVB, will have less ability to cover for the lost revenue?

Yeah, it would be interesting to see how a comprehensive data set detailing how much schools decreased their class sizes, and what class sizes were before the applicant surge.

Man we are really on top of things. I hope the adcomms are watching this.

[JamMasterJ]

I'm very interested in this topic, but very uninterested in reading seven pages that may or may not be full of URM herpderp. Anyone willing to tl;dr this thread for me?

we're all going to harvard!!

Sweet! This analysis is actually part of the reason why I ponied up the app fee for Harvard. This cycle, all bets are off!

didn't apply, lol



might have to change that