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

[Jeffort]

Gail,

Try not to stress out about it much right now. It's still early in the cycle. Since application volumes are significantly down so far it's possible that admission committees are waiting for more applications to come in (the usual after the holiday season is over batches that roll in and go complete in January or later) to get a better/bigger picture of the applicant pool they have available to choose from.

It's unclear in your list of schools post in this thread. Were you officially rejected by some of those schools, put on the waiting list or are you still just in the waiting for an official decision holding pattern?

[bmili]

pure speculation on my part with no basis other than anecdotal but I feel like alot of schools are taking their time deciding with the large decrease in applicants. Anyone else have this feeling?

[phillyboy101]

On a semi-related note, if all of the statistics and presumptions are correct and that less people taking lsats this cycle => less applicants => less qualified applicants, is it possible that perhaps this year it could have been a disadvantage to apply to some schools earlier rather than later, especially with borderline numbers? In other words, could adcomms have rejected a borderline candidate in early november under the assumption that more qualified ones would be applying soon, but maybe due to the anamoly aspect of this cycle, those more qualified candidates never came into fruition? Therefore, applying later could have been better due to the adcomms scrambling to fill numbers? Unlikely, but just a thought.

[addy11]

On a semi-related note, if all of the statistics and presumptions are correct and that less people taking lsats this cycle => less applicants => less qualified applicants, is it possible that perhaps this year it could have been a disadvantage to apply to some schools earlier rather than later, especially with borderline numbers? In other words, could adcomms have rejected a borderline candidate in early november under the assumption that more qualified ones would be applying soon, but maybe due to the anamoly aspect of this cycle, those more qualified candidates never came into fruition? Therefore, applying later could have been better due to the adcomms scrambling to fill numbers? Unlikely, but just a thought.

Interesting thought, but it's doubtful. They seem to have been aware of the phenomenon, and I think that explains the paradox of lower # of applicants combined with stingier early admits and slower pace of admissions. It seems like they're being extra wary and will wait until they have all of the information in front of them (e.g., updated transcripts, not taking a chance on admitting someone until most ED cycles at peer schools have stopped, all December and maybe even February LSAT scorers accounted for).

[bmili]

On a semi-related note, if all of the statistics and presumptions are correct and that less people taking lsats this cycle => less applicants => less qualified applicants, is it possible that perhaps this year it could have been a disadvantage to apply to some schools earlier rather than later, especially with borderline numbers? In other words, could adcomms have rejected a borderline candidate in early november under the assumption that more qualified ones would be applying soon, but maybe due to the anamoly aspect of this cycle, those more qualified candidates never came into fruition? Therefore, applying later could have been better due to the adcomms scrambling to fill numbers? Unlikely, but just a thought.

Interesting thought, but it's doubtful. They seem to have been aware of the phenomenon, and I think that explains the paradox of lower # of applicants combined with stingier early admits and slower pace of admissions. It seems like they're being extra wary and will wait until they have all of the information in front of them (e.g., updated transcripts, not taking a chance on admitting someone until most ED cycles at peer schools have stopped, all December and maybe even February LSAT scorers accounted for).

Definately think many schools are waiting for Dec LSAT test takers apps. Logistically, I dont think they can wait for Feb LSAT test takers due to admitted student events, etc.

[KevinP]

pure speculation on my part with no basis other than anecdotal but I feel like alot of schools are taking their time deciding with the large decrease in applicants. Anyone else have this feeling?

I do. I feel as if many of the T14 schools are ignoring me.

Definately think many schools are waiting for Dec LSAT test takers apps. Logistically, I dont think they can wait for Feb LSAT test takers due to admitted student events, etc.

If my interaction with Columbia is even remotely representative, they definitely are.

Interesting thought, but it's doubtful. They seem to have been aware of the phenomenon, and I think that explains the paradox of lower # of applicants combined with stingier early admits and slower pace of admissions. It seems like they're being extra wary and will wait until they have all of the information in front of them (e.g., updated transcripts, not taking a chance on admitting someone until most ED cycles at peer schools have stopped, all December and maybe even February LSAT scorers accounted for).

I agree. I think they wary of the decrease in applicants, but they also don't want to over admit by accepting too many people early on either.

[JamMasterJ]

pure speculation on my part with no basis other than anecdotal but I feel like alot of schools are taking their time deciding with the large decrease in applicants. Anyone else have this feeling?

I do. I feel as if many of the T14 schools are ignoring me.

Definately think many schools are waiting for Dec LSAT test takers apps. Logistically, I dont think they can wait for Feb LSAT test takers due to admitted student events, etc.

If my interaction with Columbia is even remotely representative, they definitely are.

Interesting thought, but it's doubtful. They seem to have been aware of the phenomenon, and I think that explains the paradox of lower # of applicants combined with stingier early admits and slower pace of admissions. It seems like they're being extra wary and will wait until they have all of the information in front of them (e.g., updated transcripts, not taking a chance on admitting someone until most ED cycles at peer schools have stopped, all December and maybe even February LSAT scorers accounted for).

I agree. I think they wary of the decrease in applicants, but they also don't want to over admit by accepting too many people early on either.

I really hope this is all true and I'm not just a terrible applicant. Seriously, unless a school admits you ED, they don't have a ton to gain by letting you in earlier rather than later, and they can avoid low yield if they time things right

[swtlilsoni]

has anyone noticed any differences in the cycle so far? as in people with lower numbers getting in when they may not have otherwise?

[Errzii]

There have definitely been a lot more WL/deferrals this cycle from what I've observed. IMO probably due to hesitation on the part of adcomms.

[LSAT_Tutor]

7 quarters in a row of negative growth, mostly double digits = we are witnessing the bursting of a bubble.

[American_in_China]

7 quarters in a row of negative growth, mostly double digits = we are witnessing the bursting of a bubble.

Bad for your business, eh? Maybe you should become a GMAT teacher.

[LSAT_Tutor]

with the rate this goes, there is a good chance i will go to Law school myself. soon Harvard will be luring 173 with $100K

[iamrobk]

has anyone noticed any differences in the cycle so far? as in people with lower numbers getting in when they may not have otherwise?

Penn and Columbia in particular seem to be very slow, NYU and Michigan seem a little more lenient on GPA's. That's really just off the top of my head.

[Gail]

Gail,

Try not to stress out about it much right now. It's still early in the cycle. Since application volumes are significantly down so far it's possible that admission committees are waiting for more applications to come in (the usual after the holiday season is over batches that roll in and go complete in January or later) to get a better/bigger picture of the applicant pool they have available to choose from.

It's unclear in your list of schools post in this thread. Were you officially rejected by some of those schools, put on the waiting list or are you still just in the waiting for an official decision holding pattern?

Thanks, Jeffort. I'm just internet-hyper.

My schools ranged from Villanova and Chicago-Kent to Boston College (probably the best).

My targets were Tulane, UIUC, Iowa, Indiana, and Notre Dame.

[Jeffort]

Gail,

Try not to stress out about it much right now. It's still early in the cycle. Since application volumes are significantly down so far it's possible that admission committees are waiting for more applications to come in (the usual after the holiday season is over batches that roll in and go complete in January or later) to get a better/bigger picture of the applicant pool they have available to choose from.

It's unclear in your list of schools post in this thread. Were you officially rejected by some of those schools, put on the waiting list or are you still just in the waiting for an official decision holding pattern?

Thanks, Jeffort. I'm just internet-hyper.

My schools ranged from Villanova and Chicago-Kent to Boston College (probably the best).

My targets were Tulane, UIUC, Iowa, Indiana, and Notre Dame.

No worries, it's a stressful roller-coaster ride process that can drag out for months.

I took the LSAT and applied during the other previous time period with the most significant drop in test-taker and applicant volume since 1991. It took a long time that seemed like forever to receive decision letters from the 14 schools I applied to after submitting my completed applications early in the cycle. I didn't receive many of the decisions until April through June.

I finally received the acceptance package from my top choice school USC (University of Southern Caifornia, not the USC in South Carolina) in July via UPS red overnight delivery long after I had paid the required deposit $$, $500 I think, to GeorgeTown in DC and was working on the logistics and plans to move from the west coast to the east coast. When that big thick UPS envelope from USC arrived I jumped for joy, immediately sent in the deposit check to USC, notified Georgetown I was withdrawing my acceptance of their offer, celebrated a LOT and then put away all the moving boxes once my hangover wore off!

You just have to be patient and try not to stalk your mailman! Be nice to your postal worker. Since I wasn't working or in school during those agonizing months of waiting and lived in a nice beachfront condo, on many days I grabbed a cooler with food and drinks, a beach chair, a radio, a phone and sat by the mailboxes (they were way down a bunch of stairs) enjoyed the ocean view, some tunes, food and drinks, got a tan and waited for the mailman. I always made sure to have a sandwich or soda or whatever for him when he showed up so he wouldn't go postal and mace me or something. He was cool and knew what I was waiting for. The days I wasn't out there when something from a school came in he walked up the long stairs to the front door knocked and hand delivered it to me. Good times! That USPS worker got a really nice X-mas present from me that year.

Anyway, it's going to take time. To help students out and to calm them down, last cycle I called many law school admission offices and asked when they were going to be making and sending out the batches of decisions for regular applications. It varied by school, but one example I found interesting was that Cornell officially said they were not going to start sending out admissions decisions for standard applications until early April. Each school has a different routine. Try not to hassle or annoy them, but feel free to just call the admission offices and ask basic questions in a friendly way. As long as you are not rude or freaking out or anything they are typically pretty helpful with basic questions about these matters. They are used to law school applicants stressing out about admission decisions since they deal with it every year.

Good luck, I hope you receive some good news soon!

[KevinP]

LSAC just posted the exact decrease: -14.9%. This is on top of the -16.5% decrease from last year.

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Data/ ... stered.asp

[soj]

Wow, I'm liking what I see. I think one possible effect of these decreases is that applying early might not give you such a big advantage as it did in previous years, especially if schools are holding on to seats hoping for more applicants after the December or even February score release.

Jeffort, you're seriously an awesome poster. Your posts are always great additions.

[Jack Smirks]

Jeffort, you're seriously an awesome poster. Your posts are always great additions.

+1. Thanks for the analysis ITT.

[Jeffort]

Jeffort, you're seriously an awesome poster. Your posts are always great additions.

+1. Thanks for the analysis ITT.

for the compliments, I really appreciate it. Cheers!

[cogitoergosum]

So with the decrease, what past cycle is this year most likely to look like? 2007-2008?

[WhiteGuy5]

So with the decrease, what past cycle is this year most likely to look like? 2007-2008?

Statistically, yes. Realistically, we don't know--schools could be cutting class sizes, willing to take a hit in medians, etc., etc...

[ahnhub]

So with the decrease, what past cycle is this year most likely to look like? 2007-2008?

Statistically, yes. Realistically, we don't know--schools could be cutting class sizes, willing to take a hit in medians, etc., etc...

It looks like the number of test-takers is at a lower level than anything we've seen in the past decade....BUT there's so many new factors to consider. So many people retake now; more higher scores are being awarded; schools have a powerful incentive to hold on to their flashy 2010-11 medians. From how the cycle is going so far it seems like most schools are charging hard to hold on their flashy numbers, come hell or high water. We'll see if they can manage it. My guess is the numbers end up looking most like 2008-09 cycle.

[PDaddy]

Wow. Good news for everybody applying. That's the lowest October Test Count since 2000-2001.

This is going to be great for a lot of people. Take advantage of it.

[PDaddy]

On a semi-related note, if all of the statistics and presumptions are correct and that less fewer people taking lsats this cycle => less applicants => less qualified applicants, is it possible that perhaps this year it could have been a disadvantage to apply to some schools earlier rather than later, especially with borderline numbers? In other words, could adcomms have rejected a borderline candidate in early november under the assumption that more qualified ones would be applying soon, but maybe due to the anamoly aspect of this cycle, those more qualified candidates never came into fruition? Therefore, applying later could have been better due to the adcomms scrambling to fill numbers? Unlikely, but just a thought.

When you say "less qualified applicants", do you mean that the aggregate of actual test-takers is less qualified, or are you saying fewer of those applicants who happen to be qualified are taking the test? There's a huge difference, ahe sentence in question is unintelligible as is written.

Fewer test-takers also means potentially fewer of those so-called "less qualified" applicants. The best case scenario is that the dearth of available biglaw jobs naturally weeded out many of those more and less qualified applicants who were motivated to pursue law careers for the wrong reasons, as well as those who may have been less qualified and were just taking up space. But who are we to speculate about who is qualified and who isn't?

[phillyboy101]

I am speaking "qualified candidates" strictly in terms of lsat median numbers for law schools. So the chain of assumptions is that if test takers is down 15%, then the number of applicants with 180s is down 15%, the number with 179s is down 15%, the number with 178s is down 15%, etc., basically that the lsat decrease is dispersed evenly among scores, and not that the 15% of test takers who decided not to take the lsat this year would have scored 150 anyway, so it has no effect. So if 80% of test takers score 160+, then if we assume that this cycle, still only 80% of test takers score 160+, only that that number of test takers is down 15%, it seems that it would greatly behoove law schools to wait as long as possible to make admission decisions to minimize the damage that will be inflicted to either their class sizes, medians, or a combination thereof.