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

[VasaVasori]

.

[moonman157]

They just posted the number of test takers for June. Another 6% decrease

[Colonel Angus]

This is very good motivation to work on my ps.

[Dr. Filth]

They just posted the number of test takers for June. Another 6% decrease

Is that a 6% decrease from last June or from February?

[Kurst]

They just posted the number of test takers for June. Another 6% decrease

Is that a 6% decrease from last June or from February?

It is a 6% decrease from last June: 26,812 to 25,223.

[2014]

Can't possibly say how this affects next cycle without seeing whether another drop happens in October, but this is certainly a positive sign for you all.

They just posted the number of test takers for June. Another 6% decrease

Is that significant? Enough to make a difference in this cycle?

I don't think it would be alone.

But let's say that this continues for the whole cycle.

That would mean that over three cycles, law schools have lost nearly 30% of their applicants30% less people are now taking the LSAT than were 3 cycles ago.

This cycle the drop in test takers averaged to like 15% and apps were down at between 20 and 25% at most schools, so you are possibly looking at even greater than 30% next year even if its only a 30% drop in test administrations.

[Colonel Angus]

EPIC CYCLE WILL BE EPIC

[nkp007]

EPIC CYCLE WILL BE EPIC

The decline continues. It's not earth shattering, but it's still a significant drop on top of a previous drop of -18.7%.

[Colonel Angus]

EPIC CYCLE WILL BE EPIC

The decline continues. It's not earth shattering, but it's still a significant drop on top of a previous drop of -18.7%.

YOUR WHORE MOUTH

[HarlandBassett]

They just posted the number of test takers for June. Another 6% decrease

Is that a 6% decrease from last June or from February?

It is a 6% decrease from last June: 26,812 to 25,223.

nice. i wonder what the breakdown of the LSAT scores are. i only care about the 170+ range

[nkp007]

EPIC CYCLE WILL BE EPIC

The decline continues. It's not earth shattering, but it's still a significant drop on top of a previous drop of -18.7%.

YOUR WHORE MOUTH

Don't misunderestimate me.

This cycle will be epic.

The drop in test takers should impact the upcoming cycle much more than it did this past cycle.

[VasaVasori]

.

[nkp007]

My concern is that the trend will reverse because of all stuff going around about it easier to get into law school. Or that people who failed to get in during the past few cycles will start to apply again, thus returning the levels to their previous numbers.

But I would also agree that if the trend continues there will be a bigger effect. Schools can go one cycle and keep their margins up by reducing class sizes or taking more transfers. But I think that as numbers stay down or continue to decrease they'll have to start to dig even more into their applicant pools.

Fortunately, the noise about how law school is a terrible investment currently far outweighs any noise about how it may be getting easier to get into law school.

[bernaldiaz]

My concern is that the trend will reverse because of all stuff going around about it easier to get into law school. Or that people who failed to get in during the past few cycles will start to apply again, thus returning the levels to their previous numbers.

But I would also agree that if the trend continues there will be a bigger effect. Schools can go one cycle and keep their margins up by reducing class sizes or taking more transfers. But I think that as numbers stay down or continue to decrease they'll have to start to dig even more into their applicant pools.

I think that if you look at this cycle, almost all of the "epicness" (Jesus, I hate that word) came off the waitlist (look at the Harvard thread). My theory for this is that schools tried to continue business as usual, despite the drop in test takers. For example, Harvard may have thought, "well there may be 15% less 173+ scorers, but we can still get ours." Obviously, this didn't happen, and it just wasn't possible for the T14s to keep their standards up for admissions. I think that now that they realize what the new normal might be, we won't need to wait until the waitlist to see it next year.

[skova]

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

[2014]

The drop in test takers should impact the upcoming cycle much more than it did this past cycle.

No way, this cycle blind sided administrators, with the benefit of information from this year they will go into next year with a better plan.

It should still be a good year to apply by all means, but I wouldn't say "much more" than the current cycle which featured a complete shit show of scholarships off of WLs to people who a year or two ago would be attending schools entire tiers lower.

[sunynp]

As long as we are speculating about next year, here are my thoughts:

Every one is going to ride every wait list they are on from now forward. There is very little cost involved in staying on waitlists from schools. You just have to stay flexible .

Schools may not yield protect so much next cycle and just straight out admit the people they want. This cycle has had to be complete chaos for every admission office. I would rather take the hit to selectivity - which they can always increase on the end of the cycle by offering tons of fee waivers (plus little incentives like itunes cards) to people they know they are unlikely to admit - then end up in this numbers scramble.

It has to hurt morale at schools when people know they are paying more than people admitted off the waitlist with worse numbers. People who were told there was no more financial aid have seen the schools offer "merit" scholarships to people off waitlist. That can't be good. Schools need to avoid that situation next year.

[theprophet89]

Would it be incorrect for me to assume that a decline in test takers (which, according to LSAC policy, should mean there is a decrease in interested law school hopefuls) will result in T14 schools being more liberal about awarding scholarships to the students they need want? I'm referencing the mysterious Rutgers $18k scholarships as my evidence.

[99.9luft]

This is great news. I think June decreases correlate to October decreases (I guess because both concern the new fall cycle or for other reasons). Even if the Oct administration decreases by any amount or even stays the same, that's still lower than any October administration in the past 11 years.

I am also curious how this is going to affect class sizes, selectivity, the amount of merit-based aid awarded, and waitlists...

Either way, those of us taking it in Oct need to bust our asses (let's assume the "curve" is going to be -10 for a 170 just to overestimate) and get those mid-high 170s (forgive my blatant self-encouragement here).

ETA: I love the idea of decreases (too many people go to too many shiTTTy law schools for shiTTTy reasons). Let's bring back 1988 (only 36k October lsat takers)!!!

[Betharl]

It will be interesting to see what happens to schools' medians when they start reporting in a couple months. The year before this year there was also a decrease in apps, but most t14s kept the same numbers and decreased class sizes slightly. When schools report I'm hoping to see smaller class sizes (less competition for employment down the road) and small GPA decreases. I really doubt any t14 will let their LSAT median slip, at least not this cycle...

[moonman157]

Out of curiosity, is there a reason schools do more to protect their LSAT medians as opposed to their GPA medians? There's obviously much more of a correlation between high LSAT and the top schools (Alabama supposedly having a higher median GPA than Columbia), but why is that?

[bernaldiaz]

Out of curiosity, is there a reason schools do more to protect their LSAT medians as opposed to their GPA medians? There's obviously much more of a correlation between high LSAT and the top schools (Alabama supposedly having a higher median GPA than Columbia), but why is that?

Fewer high LSATs to go around. So many 3.9+ out there, finite number of 170+ scorers.

[HarlandBassett]

Out of curiosity, is there a reason schools do more to protect their LSAT medians as opposed to their GPA medians? There's obviously much more of a correlation between high LSAT and the top schools (Alabama supposedly having a higher median GPA than Columbia), but why is that?

Fewer high LSATs to go around. So many 3.9+ out there, finite number of 170+ scorers.

aka grade inflation, and easy majors

[99.9luft]

Out of curiosity, is there a reason schools do more to protect their LSAT medians as opposed to their GPA medians? There's obviously much more of a correlation between high LSAT and the top schools (Alabama supposedly having a higher median GPA than Columbia), but why is that?

Fewer high LSATs to go around. So many 3.9+ out there, finite number of 170+ scorers.

aka grade inflation, and easy majors

yup, easy majors at easy schools.

[moonman157]

Out of curiosity, is there a reason schools do more to protect their LSAT medians as opposed to their GPA medians? There's obviously much more of a correlation between high LSAT and the top schools (Alabama supposedly having a higher median GPA than Columbia), but why is that?

Fewer high LSATs to go around. So many 3.9+ out there, finite number of 170+ scorers.

aka grade inflation, and easy majors

yup, easy majors at easy schools.

Makes sense. It is the great equalizer. Thanks everyone!