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

[DSman]

Anyone know how these work by country? Any chance this also applies to Canada?

lol I was wondering this too. Is there a country breakdown by any chance? Excluding the top US schools, law in general is still considered a safe investment in Canada so I wonder if these trends translated here too.

[LSATSCORES2012]

Out of curiosity, I took the data from mylsn.info to see if there was a correlation between the number of LSAT's taken in a year and the competitiveness of a year. As a sample of that, I took the minimum GPA necessary to have a 50% shot of getting into NYU with my LSAT score.

Interestingly, there is a very strong correlation - up until last year. Last year appears to be more competitive than any year on record. Which is odd, of course, given the anecdotal evidence of an easier cycle. Perhaps NYU is a fluke, because the trend does seem to hold generally, with other GPA's and LSAT's.

Right now I have the minimum number of samples set to 5 - I'm about to run a test with it set to 10, to see if that changes anything.

Thoughts?



Edit: I re-ran it with the change described above and the results are the same. I wonder if this is because people haven't updated their LSN accounts yet? Or perhaps more wait list activity is to come?

[TheThriller]

numbers at the bottom of the graph mean? Remember that most of the "easier" cycle talk comes from those who are at or below 25% of gpa/lsat and at or above 75% on the other

[LSATSCORES2012]

numbers at the bottom of the graph mean? Remember that most of the "easier" cycle talk comes from those who are at or below 25% of gpa/lsat and at or above 75% on the other

that's the number of LSAT takers that year. give me a few mins, I'll re-run it with .25 set as the margin

[LSATSCORES2012]

Okay, the top image is the 25% cutoff, the middle is the 50% cutoff, and the third is the 75% cutoff. The bottom is the chances of getting in for my specific GPA/LSAT.

All of this is by the number of LSAT takers per year.

You can see there's a definite correlation on all of them, but for each of them this year (the lowest number of test takers - the far left) is an anomaly.

[Betharl]

Right now I have the minimum number of samples set to 5 - I'm about to run a test with it set to 10, to see if that changes anything.

I mean, you've got the right idea and it's an interesting graph, but definetely take the results with a grain of salt. These schools get thousands of applications, it's hard to say how many of those applications are people with your stats and how many reported on LSN, but I have to believe you're working with a pretty small sample size.

[Lyov Myshkin]

i took the lsat administration datapoints from 1988 to 2012 and charted them out here (LinkRemoved). personally, i find that a good visual representation of raw data helps me test out hypotheses by allowing me check them against existing datapoints.

[CardinalLaw]

Does anyone have a link to a graph showing the trend of LSAT medians at certain schools?

[Tiago Splitter]

Down 5.9% for June.

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

[Dr. Filth]

Does anyone have a link to a graph showing the trend of LSAT medians at certain schools?

There was a thread that said at the beginning of this last cycle that tracked this.

[ahnhub]

Down 5.9% for June.

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

I'd bet that the trend of more retaking is still on the upswing (meaning there's actually fewer people taking the test than a 5.9% drop would suggest)

[spleenworship]

Down 5.9% for June.

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

I'd bet that the trend of more retaking is still on the upswing (meaning there's actually fewer people taking the test than a 5.9% drop would suggest)

They should really take people doing retakes out. But they probably won't.

[KevinP]

The 5.9% decline definitely doesn't line up with all of the talk from dean's about this cycle being an "anomaly."

This cycle's entering class stats should be especially revealing. Schools will start posting these stats in a few short weeks, and we'll get a clearer picture as to what extent the decline affected medians, class sizes, etc.

[lovejopd]

The 5.9% decline definitely doesn't line up with all of the talk from dean's about this cycle being an "anomaly."

This cycle's entering class stats should be especially revealing. Schools will start posting these stats in a few short weeks, and we'll get a clearer picture as to what extent the decline affected medians, class sizes, etc.

Alright~I am looking forward to seeing this results come out soon.
So you think the trend will continue and this cycle would be more favorable toward splitters/reverse splitters than the last cycle?

[Jeffort]

They should really take people doing retakes out. But they probably won't.

You mean snuff them out? Have a team of LSAT hit men go, in the middle of the night, to the homes of students that have retaken several times, still not achieved a good score, and have petitioned for an exception to the three times in two years limit to take it again? "Hey punk, you've passed the limit and used up all your chances. Sorry kid, you should have studied and prepared in better ways, maybe it was just not meant to be for you. Bummer, but now I have to rub you out. Just close your eyes, it will be fast and painless and your LSAT suffering will be over for good."

[justonemoregame]

Is it possible that the percentage of 170+ scorers from each admininstration this year will increase - for perhaps reasons similar to why less people are taking the exam? If part of the decrease is about bad press / financing law school, and people know they can improve their scores with dedicated study, does this make a greater percentage of 170s possible or does the curve somehow prevent this?

Also, can we begin speculating on what an across-the-board 6% decrease this year means - I think that would be ~125,000 LSATs administered? -

[Jeffort]

Is it possible that the percentage of 170+ scorers from each admininstration this year will increase - for perhaps reasons similar to why less people are taking the exam? If part of the decrease is about bad press / financing law school, and people know they can improve their scores with dedicated study, does this make a greater percentage of 170s possible or does the curve somehow prevent this?

Also, can we begin speculating on what an across-the-board 6% decrease this year means - I think that would be ~125,000 LSATs administered? -

Since it is a standardized test graded on an equated scale to make scores over years and different test forms comparable, not a test graded on a curve depending on how many people take it or how different groups of test takers perform, it is possible for everyone that takes it to achieve a 170+ score every administration, year after year if only people with 170+ ability/skill level take it.

The percentile ranking of each scaled score and volume of test takers that achieve any particular score per administration/per year is not forced the way people generally understand tests being graded on a curve to mean in the way it is done in many college and other classes.

The percentile rankings of achieved LSAT scores and number of people that score at or above a particular scaled score is a natural byproduct of the ability levels and performance of the people that take the test.

In the 2010-2011 testing year cycle when the big percentage drops in tests administered began, as of the December 2010 test, 170 was 97.4 percentile. As of the June 2012 test, 170 is 97.2 percentile. Very little changed in score distributions even after the significant percentage drops of tests administered in the 2011-2012 testing year in between.

The percentile rank of all other scaled scores changed very little, holding steady the way it always has due to natural selection, the ability level of people that take the test due to how well prepared and skilled they are with the logic, the various things the LSAT is designed to measure and how they perform on test day.

LSAC doesn't force a bunch of people to score in the 120s range with any sort of curve but many people achieve reported scores in that range every administration. Roughly 2600 people achieved a reported score below 130 in the 2011-2012 testing year. How and why baffles me since you only need to get 24-25 percent of the questions correct to hit 130 (which can be done almost just with blind guessing), but it happens every administration no matter how many people sit for the test.

[VasaVasori]

.

[2014]

The 5.9% decline definitely doesn't line up with all of the talk from dean's about this cycle being an "anomaly."

This cycle's entering class stats should be especially revealing. Schools will start posting these stats in a few short weeks, and we'll get a clearer picture as to what extent the decline affected medians, class sizes, etc.

Alright~I am looking forward to seeing this results come out soon.
So you think the trend will continue and this cycle would be more favorable toward splitters/reverse splitters than the last cycle?

Odds are that this coming cycle will be as friendly or more to high LSAT splitters in terms of admissions (no telling with reverse splitters, high GPAs are not commodities).

The unknowns are what will happen next year when admissions people should know what is coming unlike this year, and how scholarships are affected. Most people just assume that schools will pay more and more as apps go down, but ultimately they can't do that forever and so it's unclear where next year will stand in the spectrum. It also remains to be seen how many schools pull a Hastings and gash their class size while spiking tuition. If that happens they don't have to admit more people to maintain medians and so it might not actually be any easier next year.

[KevinP]

Alright~I am looking forward to seeing this results come out soon.
So you think the trend will continue and this cycle would be more favorable toward splitters/reverse splitters than the last cycle?

I think the trend will continue into next year. Although everyone should have an easier time getting into law school, splitters should be able to reap the biggest benefits because high LSATs are rarer than GPAs.

[spleenworship]

They should really take people doing retakes out. But they probably won't.

You mean snuff them out? Have a team of LSAT hit men go, in the middle of the night, to the homes of students that have retaken several times, still not achieved a good score, and have petitioned for an exception to the three times in two years limit to take it again? "Hey punk, you've passed the limit and used up all your chances. Sorry kid, you should have studied and prepared in better ways, maybe it was just not meant to be for you. Bummer, but now I have to rub you out. Just close your eyes, it will be fast and painless and your LSAT suffering will be over for good."

Not what I meant, but I would be OK with this.

[HarlandBassett]

Most top law schools still accepting applications for fall class
http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... pting.html

A couple of days ago a commenter noted that it appeared the University of Illinois might still be accepting applications for the fall class, more than four months after the school’s formal application deadline of March 15th, and less than a month before the start of 1L orientation.

This piqued another reader’s interest, who proceeded to call the admissions office of every top 50 law school, to see whether any of these schools were still accepting applications for the incoming class of 2012.
At the same time yet another reader, who was planning to start law school in 2013, but who began to rethink that plan, in part because he got a very high score on the June LSAT, emailed a number of high-ranked schools, inquiring if they might entertain an application at this late date from someone with his impressive credentials. He forwarded me some fascinating responses, and I asked him to email the rest of the top 50 as well. (In the wake of the responses he got he has decided not to apply, but not for the reasons one might assume).

The results of these inquiries are eye-opening. Given that part of a school’s USNWR ranking is determined by its yield rate – that is, the proportion between total applicants, total acceptances, and total matriculants – it would seem in a school’s interest to have a late application deadline (in addition, application fees are a source of revenue).

But this ignores the extent to which law schools use application deadlines as status-signaling devices. With a couple of exceptions, application deadlines are closely correlated with hierarchical status: high-ranked schools all have formal application deadlines in February or March, or at the latest early April, while low-ranked schools usually have much later deadlines. (The two exceptions to the former rule are Alabama and Indiana-Bloomington, which extend their formal application deadlines late into the summer).

As we are about to see, the key word in the previous paragraph is “formal.” Here is a list of top 50 schools who were still accepting applications for the 2012 class as of July 24th (The date next to the school’s name is the deadline for applications according to the school’s web site):

Chicago (2/1)
Michigan (2/15)
Northwestern (2/15)
Cornell: (2/1)
Georgetown (3/1)
Texas: (2/1)
UCLA: (2/1)
Vanderbilt: (3/15)
George Washington (4/5)
Minnesota: (4/1)
WUSL: (4/1)
Boston U (3/30)
Wisconsin (3/1)
Washington & Lee: (3/1)
Alabama: (8/8, i.e., formal deadline hasn’t passed)
Illinois: (3/1)
Emory: (3/1)
Indiana-Bloomington: (7/31, i.e., formal deadline hasn’t passed)
Fordham: (3/1)
Arizona State: (2/1)
William & Mary: (3/1)
George Mason: (4/1)
Brigham Young: (3/1)
Arizona: (2/15)
Wake Forest: (3/15)
Utah: (2/15)
Pepperdine: (2/1)
American: (3/1)

So 28 of the 50 top schools – including eight of the top 17 -- are still accepting applications for 2012. In all but two cases they’re doing so four to six months after their formally announced deadlines, and in some instances just three weeks before the beginning of the fall semester.

But the real story is more complicated, and more troubling. Ten of these 28 schools told my correspondent who called the admissions office that they were not accepting applications (This person, unlike the e-mailer, gave no information about his qualifications). These ten schools are Chicago, Michigan, Texas, UCLA, George Washington, Emory, Boston U, Arizona State, Fordham, and George Mason. (In addition, Wisconsin told the caller the answer was no, but that the school “might consider an exception.”).

What does all this tell us?

(1) Times are already harder in even the high-rent districts of legal academia than I would have guessed. What answer do you suppose somebody would have gotten two years ago if he had contacted Chicago and Michigan six months after their application deadlines and asked, can i still haz a look frm yr adcom plz?

(2) Do As I Say Not As I Do, Chapter 734. Law schools go on endlessly about “ethics” and “honor codes,” and “professional responsibility,” and the Rule of Law, but are once again willing to fold, spindle and mutilate their own rules with extreme prejudice should they find those rules in any way inconvenient to their own immediate interests. And again, lawyers can get in big trouble when they’re caught doing similar things.

(3) If you were on the wait list on one or more of these schools, how aggravated would you be to discover that your spot in the class might be taken by somebody who missed the application deadline by half a year?

(4) These sorts of shenanigans illustrate yet another unfair advantage possessed by people with enough cultural capital to understand that even at high-status institutions The Rules aren’t really the rules if you know how to work the system.

(5) Does this behavior raise any potential legal liability? My correspondent who called the schools wonders if at least the public institutions in the group who told him he couldn’t apply, while telling the e-mailer he could, might be violating certain procedural norms to an extent that could be actionable. (There’s a nice little con law hypo).

Leaving aside questions of strict legality, this kind of thing just smells bad. How hard is it for a law school to simply tell potential applicants the truth, even about something as supposedly straightforward as its application deadline? The answer to that question is both revealing and depressing.

[shifty_eyed]

Safe to say this is going to carry over into next cycle? Or will law schools start shrinking their class sizes deliberately?

[marcellus]

"Given that LSAC has estimated a decline of roughly 14.4% in the number of applicants for fall 2012, from 78500 to roughly 67000, and given that the decline has been greatest among those with higher LSAT scores, one should anticipate further declines in enrollment and further erosion of entering class LSAT/GPA profiles for fall 2012. The admit rate will be the highest it has been this millennium, probably exceeding 75% and possibly exceeding 80% (after increasing from 55% to 71% between 2004 and 2011)."

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalw ... hools.html

[HarlandBassett]

for applicants of the next cycle

As one measure of the shift in BigLaw, Leipold observes that starting salaries of $160,000 accounted for 25% of the NALP-reported salaries in 2009--but just 14% of those salaries in 2011. If we look at the total pool of graduates (since almost all $160,000 salaries are reported), we can translate those figures to these: About 4,878 members of the Class of 2009 secured salaries of $160,000; that's 11.1% of that year's graduates. In 2011, just 2,608 graduates obtained that entry-level salary--only 5.9% of the full class.

http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... mment-form