Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014) Forum

[drawstring]

Consensus seems to be that it doesn't, but this post suggests that retakes can have a negative impact.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 878&hilit=

[edwardt1988]

Is there no column in the spreadsheet regarding the number of times people took the LSAT?

Any JS1s/JS2s with multiple LSATs, and what was the difference between the scores? If anyone is willing to share that information but doesn't want to do it here, you can PM me

I took it three times, 164, 162, 176.

That's pretty similar to mine, took it three times, twice under 170, last one 177. I really hope they'll at least give me an interview at one point. I have to drive by that place 3-4 times a week to go to work, that will be a really depressing drive over the next 9 months if I don't even get a js1, lol

[mindarmed]

there is no way retakes matter with the drop in applicants and even larger drop of 99th percentile LSAT scorers applying to schools.

[lawschool22]

there is no way retakes matter with the drop in applicants and even larger drop of 99th percentile LSAT scorers applying to schools.

This is what I'm thinking. Much of the data analyzed in that thread comes from before the decline in apps when schools could be much more picky about LSAT scores. They do not have that luxury this time around.

[jingosaur]

Consensus seems to be that it doesn't, but this post suggests that retakes can have a negative impact.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 878&hilit=

Meh, I don't like how that study was done. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of lower scores not mattering and I'm yet to find any anecdotal evidence of someone getting hurt by retakes at a school other than Yale and Stanford. I'm a 3 time LSAT taker so I may have a different opinion after my cycle is over.

[armysgt]

When an asst. director of admissions at HLS came to my school back in October for an info session, she explicitly stated that they only look at the top score, unless the applicant took it more than 3 times.

[The-Specs]

When an asst. director of admissions at HLS came to my school back in October for an info session, she explicitly stated that they only look at the top score, unless the applicant took it more than 3 times.

Wow, my first time hearing this but this seems to back up what has been happening this cycle.

[jingosaur]

When an asst. director of admissions at HLS came to my school back in October for an info session, she explicitly stated that they only look at the top score, unless the applicant took it more than 3 times.

Wow, my first time hearing this but this seems to back up what has been happening this cycle.

+1. This is very consistent with the data we're seeing. This also makes me very happy.

[drawstring]

In the link above various factors (e.g. LSAT, GPA, time of application) were controlled for, meaning that people who didn't retake generally had better outcomes than others who were highly similar but had retaken. Those findings may not reflect what's actually the case, but even if they do it doesn't mean that a retaken 173 is considered inferior or equal to a first take 171, or that someone with a retaken 176 and a solid GPA should prepare for a disappointing cycle.

Given the drop is applicants, especially high scoring ones, it seems like retaking might be less of an issue than it may have been in the past anyway.

[NoDayButToday]

.

[Howl]

Just my two cents, but could other variables have been at play as to why one-time takers were more likely to be admitted? The study controls for GPA, etc but it can't control for softs. Maybe the one-time takers tend to be more naturally brilliant in class and therefore tended to get a better rec on average from their retaking peers (i.e. Differences like "he is the best student I've taught in my thirty years" vs "he is a top student"). Or maybe one-time takers tend to have slightly better PSs, or extracurric activities? These are less likely, but possible factors...

Not implying that one-time takers are inherently better or that retakers are not brilliant - just throwing my thoughts out into the open

[Kimikho]

Just my two cents, but could other variables have been at play as to why one-time takers were more likely to be admitted? The study controls for GPA, etc but it can't control for softs. Maybe the one-time takers tend to be more naturally brilliant in class and therefore tended to get a better rec on average from their retaking peers (i.e. Differences like "he is the best student I've taught in my thirty years" vs "he is a top student"). Or maybe one-time takers tend to have slightly better PSs, or extracurric activities? These are less likely, but possible factors...

Not implying that one-time takers are inherently better or that retakers are not brilliant - just throwing my thoughts out into the open

i actually would think it would be the opposite. retakers usually end up taking time off i've noticed.

[somuchwaiting]

Does anyone know the actual statistics about the decline in applicants/high LSAT scorers? Or is it just general knowledge that numbers for both have decreased?

[drawstring]

Per Spivey, here are some LSAT statistics for applicants who matriculated in 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
140–144 6,114 -7.2%
145–149 9,439 -7.4%
150–154 11,430 -10.6%
155–159 10,920 -15.9%
160–164 7,913 -15.0%
165–169 4,967 -16.1%
170–174 1,995 -24.6%
175–180 534 -20.7%

I'm liking those drops at the top

[somuchwaiting]

Per Spivey, here are some LSAT statistics for applicants who matriculated in 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
140–144 6,114 -7.2%
145–149 9,439 -7.4%
150–154 11,430 -10.6%
155–159 10,920 -15.9%
160–164 7,913 -15.0%
165–169 4,967 -16.1%
170–174 1,995 -24.6%
175–180 534 -20.7%

I'm liking those drops at the top

That is HUGE! Thank you!

[lawschool22]

Per Spivey, here are some LSAT statistics for applicants who matriculated in 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
140–144 6,114 -7.2%
145–149 9,439 -7.4%
150–154 11,430 -10.6%
155–159 10,920 -15.9%
160–164 7,913 -15.0%
165–169 4,967 -16.1%
170–174 1,995 -24.6%
175–180 534 -20.7%

I'm liking those drops at the top

Amen

[jingosaur]

Per Spivey, here are some LSAT statistics for applicants who matriculated in 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
140–144 6,114 -7.2%
145–149 9,439 -7.4%
150–154 11,430 -10.6%
155–159 10,920 -15.9%
160–164 7,913 -15.0%
165–169 4,967 -16.1%
170–174 1,995 -24.6%
175–180 534 -20.7%

I'm liking those drops at the top

Over 5000 people with sub-140 LSAT scores were accepted to and matriculated in ABA certified law schools. Whoa.

[btmoney84]

Just my two cents, but could other variables have been at play as to why one-time takers were more likely to be admitted? The study controls for GPA, etc but it can't control for softs. Maybe the one-time takers tend to be more naturally brilliant in class and therefore tended to get a better rec on average from their retaking peers (i.e. Differences like "he is the best student I've taught in my thirty years" vs "he is a top student"). Or maybe one-time takers tend to have slightly better PSs, or extracurric activities? These are less likely, but possible factors...

Not implying that one-time takers are inherently better or that retakers are not brilliant - just throwing my thoughts out into the open

What you would have to do is cluster. You would find people who are statistically similar in terms of GPA and softs, but one would have taken the LSAT multiple times, whereas the other only once. This would show the true difference, but could still be slightly biased due to tendencies that control unknown factors, such as quality of LOR's or quality personal statements.
For example, someone who was able to take the time to study enough for the LSAT so that they only had to take it once may be willing to (or simply able to) put more time into the other components of the application. This could bias the effect of the retake, but you would expect it to be minimal.

No matter what regression you run, it isn't going to be 100% accurate, but some will be pretty darn close.

[Howl]

Just my two cents, but could other variables have been at play as to why one-time takers were more likely to be admitted? The study controls for GPA, etc but it can't control for softs. Maybe the one-time takers tend to be more naturally brilliant in class and therefore tended to get a better rec on average from their retaking peers (i.e. Differences like "he is the best student I've taught in my thirty years" vs "he is a top student"). Or maybe one-time takers tend to have slightly better PSs, or extracurric activities? These are less likely, but possible factors...

Not implying that one-time takers are inherently better or that retakers are not brilliant - just throwing my thoughts out into the open

What you would have to do is cluster. You would find people who are statistically similar in terms of GPA and softs, but one would have taken the LSAT multiple times, whereas the other only once. This would show the true difference, but could still be slightly biased due to tendencies that control unknown factors, such as quality of LOR's or quality personal statements.
For example, someone who was able to take the time to study enough for the LSAT so that they only had to take it once may be willing to (or simply able to) put more time into the other components of the application. This could bias the effect of the retake, but you would expect it to be minimal.

No matter what regression you run, it isn't going to be 100% accurate, but some will be pretty darn close.

Right, it will never be exact because no one has the exact same set of softs... But I would love to see more detailed regressions too. Now if we just could get every single applicant/matriculant from 2010-2012 to fess up their softs on lsn!

Ah well, as a 3-time taker myself, I'm just happy that H has basically come out and said they only consider the top score.

[midwest17]

Just my two cents, but could other variables have been at play as to why one-time takers were more likely to be admitted? The study controls for GPA, etc but it can't control for softs. Maybe the one-time takers tend to be more naturally brilliant in class and therefore tended to get a better rec on average from their retaking peers (i.e. Differences like "he is the best student I've taught in my thirty years" vs "he is a top student"). Or maybe one-time takers tend to have slightly better PSs, or extracurric activities? These are less likely, but possible factors...

Not implying that one-time takers are inherently better or that retakers are not brilliant - just throwing my thoughts out into the open

What you would have to do is cluster. You would find people who are statistically similar in terms of GPA and softs, but one would have taken the LSAT multiple times, whereas the other only once. This would show the true difference, but could still be slightly biased due to tendencies that control unknown factors, such as quality of LOR's or quality personal statements.
For example, someone who was able to take the time to study enough for the LSAT so that they only had to take it once may be willing to (or simply able to) put more time into the other components of the application. This could bias the effect of the retake, but you would expect it to be minimal.

No matter what regression you run, it isn't going to be 100% accurate, but some will be pretty darn close.

I'm not sure why you would, a priori, expect the effect of a strong PS or strong LORs to be smaller than the effect of multiple LSATs. The point is that we simply don't have the data to put together a compelling design that answers this question.

[Pishee77]

Per Spivey, here are some LSAT statistics for applicants who matriculated in 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
140–144 6,114 -7.2%
145–149 9,439 -7.4%
150–154 11,430 -10.6%
155–159 10,920 -15.9%
160–164 7,913 -15.0%
165–169 4,967 -16.1%
170–174 1,995 -24.6%
175–180 534 -20.7%

I'm liking those drops at the top

Over 5000 people with sub-140 LSAT scores were accepted to and matriculated in ABA certified law schools. Whoa.

That's scary.

Is this difference between 2012 and 2013 or 2009 and 2013?
I wonder what kind of drop this cycle will have.

[drawstring]

Per Spivey, here are some LSAT statistics for applicants who matriculated in 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
140–144 6,114 -7.2%
145–149 9,439 -7.4%
150–154 11,430 -10.6%
155–159 10,920 -15.9%
160–164 7,913 -15.0%
165–169 4,967 -16.1%
170–174 1,995 -24.6%
175–180 534 -20.7%

I'm liking those drops at the top

Over 5000 people with sub-140 LSAT scores were accepted to and matriculated in ABA certified law schools. Whoa.

That's scary.

Is this difference between 2012 and 2013 or 2009 and 2013?
I wonder what kind of drop this cycle will have.

Difference between the LSATs of those matriculating in 2013 vs 2012.

[Pishee77]

Per Spivey, here are some LSAT statistics for applicants who matriculated in 2013:

Highest LSAT
Number of Applicants
Pct Chg YTD
< 140 5,016 -0.5%
140–144 6,114 -7.2%
145–149 9,439 -7.4%
150–154 11,430 -10.6%
155–159 10,920 -15.9%
160–164 7,913 -15.0%
165–169 4,967 -16.1%
170–174 1,995 -24.6%
175–180 534 -20.7%

I'm liking those drops at the top

Over 5000 people with sub-140 LSAT scores were accepted to and matriculated in ABA certified law schools. Whoa.

That's scary.

Is this difference between 2012 and 2013 or 2009 and 2013?
I wonder what kind of drop this cycle will have.

Difference between the LSATs of those matriculating in 2013 vs 2012.

Cray.

[drawstring]

Yep, and test-takers were down again this year, so there's a good chance of another drop-off in high scoring applicants. Spivey recently said that schools are in a 'free for all' for LSATs of 173 and over, which bodes well for many of us.

Crazy to think there were about 2x as many people matriculating with LSATs under 140 than with 170+ LSATs; shows you how unrepresentative this forum is.

[Howl]

Yep, and test-takers were down again this year, so there's a good chance of another drop-off in high scoring applicants. Spivey recently said that schools are in a 'free for all' for LSATs of 173 and over, which bodes well for many of us.

Woohooo