TLS c/o 2020 - In #Squad We Trust Forum

[Instrumental]

Sending in apps is so exciting. Even just getting acknowledgement that they've been received is a good feeling. Being a splitter, here's to hoping my LSAT score and relevant softs can take me places.

[brinicolec]

Man if that 160-169 drop holds some medians are going to get wrecked.

would pretty much save my cycle tbh

*fingers crossed*

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

Man if that 160-169 drop holds some medians are going to get wrecked.

Could almost become a bad thing for high scorers honestly. Considering its medians schools like NYU could end up eating the loss and spreading money to 160s as opposed to giving out $$$$ to fewer high 170s.

If the goal is median maintenance it be may better not to "waste" money on a single higher score which won't provide much benefit.

[NotAGolfer]

Man if that 160-169 drop holds some medians are going to get wrecked.

Could almost become a bad thing for high scorers honestly. Considering its medians schools like NYU could end up eating the loss and spreading money to 160s as opposed to giving out $$$$ to fewer high 170s.

If the goal is median maintenance it be may better not to "waste" money on a single higher score which won't provide much benefit.

Don't ruin this for me

[Gitaroo_Dude]

Man if that 160-169 drop holds some medians are going to get wrecked.

Could almost become a bad thing for high scorers honestly. Considering its medians schools like NYU could end up eating the loss and spreading money to 160s as opposed to giving out $$$$ to fewer high 170s.

If the goal is median maintenance it be may better not to "waste" money on a single higher score which won't provide much benefit.

I hear r/LSAT cackling in the distance.

[brinicolec]

Man if that 160-169 drop holds some medians are going to get wrecked.

Could almost become a bad thing for high scorers honestly. Considering its medians schools like NYU could end up eating the loss and spreading money to 160s as opposed to giving out $$$$ to fewer high 170s.

If the goal is median maintenance it be may better not to "waste" money on a single higher score which won't provide much benefit.

Don't ruin this for me

Eh, the other side of that is that schools may want to make sure they can maintain their median by attracting higher scorers and offering them MORE money with hopes that more money will outweigh offers from HYS.

[sorence]

Man if that 160-169 drop holds some medians are going to get wrecked.

Could almost become a bad thing for high scorers honestly. Considering its medians schools like NYU could end up eating the loss and spreading money to 160s as opposed to giving out $$$$ to fewer high 170s.

If the goal is median maintenance it be may better not to "waste" money on a single higher score which won't provide much benefit.

Don't ruin this for me

Eh, the other side of that is that schools may want to make sure they can maintain their median by attracting higher scorers and offering them MORE money with hopes that more money will outweigh offers from HYS.

plz yes

[dclaw93]

FYI this: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... of-1-5-17/ breaks the score data (so far) down further.

Looks like all the increase in the 170-174 range is coming from 170 scorers being way up (+58%).

[Keilz]

FYI this: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... of-1-5-17/ breaks the score data (so far) down further.

Looks like all the increase in the 170-174 range is coming from 170 scorers being way up (+58%).

Two things I wonder about:

Was a score of 169/171 not possible on a recent LSAT making the particular score of a 170 more likely?

These are from applicants, not just LSAC regarding LSAT, correct? So I'm sure a lot of people who just got their scores back haven't handed in apps yet.

I'm so thankful to spivey that we have this data though

[bloomsday]

.

[Rubbishdump]

FYI this: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... of-1-5-17/ breaks the score data (so far) down further.

Looks like all the increase in the 170-174 range is coming from 170 scorers being way up (+58%).

So, 170-174 range is up from last year? Yikes. Not the news I wanted to hear. Is this updated with Dec data now?

[Thelaw23]

These stats don't contain a majority of the December LSAT takers though, right?

They could change everything.

[Stephylynette]

Can someone please explain what all these Spivey numbers mean??? Ya girl is confused. How would it affect someone with a low 60 score?

[pleasesendhelp]

Can someone please explain what all these Spivey numbers mean??? Ya girl is confused. How would it affect someone with a low 60 score?

To sum it up, if your LSAT is at or slightly below the school's median, you're likely to see a boost in your admissions chances because there are less higher LSAT scores to go around. In conjunction with lower # of applicants, less high LSAT scores means better chances for those below 174 at schools outside of HYS. Opposite is true for those with 174(+) at HYS.

I think that a low 160 will perform as expected or slightly better. TBH I don't think these numbers have as significant an impact as we might think. Probably affects individuals on the borderline of acceptance/denial most. The data also does not contain any of the December test scores, and from what I've seen, all the missing 174+ scores have returned.

[Rubbishdump]

Can someone please explain what all these Spivey numbers mean??? Ya girl is confused. How would it affect someone with a low 60 score?

To sum it up, if your LSAT is at or slightly below the school's median, you're likely to see a boost in your admissions chances because there are less higher LSAT scores to go around. In conjunction with lower # of applicants, less high LSAT scores means better chances for those below 174 at schools outside of HYS. Opposite is true for those with 174(+) at HYS.

I think that a low 160 will perform as expected or slightly better. TBH I don't think these numbers have as significant an impact as we might think. Probably affects individuals on the borderline of acceptance/denial most. The data also does not contain any of the December test scores, and from what I've seen, all the missing 174+ scores have returned.

Hopefully this means mid to high 160s will perform better than expected then.

[Keilz]

We should have a speculation/conspiracy theory board

[proteinshake]

this is the cycle everyone gets into their reaches

[brinicolec]

this is the cycle everyone gets into their reaches

don't jinx us!!!!

[dg1090]

FYI this: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... of-1-5-17/ breaks the score data (so far) down further.

Looks like all the increase in the 170-174 range is coming from 170 scorers being way up (+58%).

I think there have to be mistakes in this, though. Now it's saying the number of 180s is 15, whereas in the update last month there were 22. I don't see how they could've possibly gone down.

That's a really good point. Numbers are actually weird for Aa lot of the brackets.

[pretzeltime]

FYI this: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... of-1-5-17/ breaks the score data (so far) down further.

Looks like all the increase in the 170-174 range is coming from 170 scorers being way up (+58%).

I think there have to be mistakes in this, though. Now it's saying the number of 180s is 15, whereas in the update last month there were 22. I don't see how they could've possibly gone down.

That's a really good point. Numbers are actually weird for Aa lot of the brackets.

Paging numbers geek Jeeves.................

Is this new set of data still as whacked as the last one?

[R. Jeeves]

Paging numbers geek Jeeves.................

Is this new set of data still as whacked as the last one?

So based on the comparison between the % changes for each score and those for each score band, it looks like this set of % changes was calculated as (Current#-Previous#)/Previous# ... which is correct.

But idk how to explain results like the # of 180s dropping from 22 to 15

eta: but Mr. Spivey has said before:

Every year there are a few weird percentage results, and every years LSAC has an explanation for them fyi (different dates compared, different metric, etc). So *likely* they aren't as weird as they seem

[Thomas Hagan, ESQ.]

this is the cycle everyone gets into their reaches

I have 2 sets of reaches, which one are you talking about??

1. Will name my firstborn child the name of the school/worse chances than my winning the megamillion lottery/why did I even apply here??? (HSCCN)
2. Regular reach school.

[Keilz]

this is the cycle everyone gets into their reaches

I have 2 sets of reaches, which one are you talking about??

1. Will name my firstborn child the name of the school/worse chances than my winning the megamillion lottery/why did I even apply here??? (HSCCN)
2. Regular reach school.

My reaches are Columbia and Chicago. NYU, which I didn't initially think of as a reach, has yet to get back to me I would be happier to get into there than my traditional "reaches" as I don't even have my hopes set that high on them

[Pozzo]

Paging numbers geek Jeeves.................

Is this new set of data still as whacked as the last one?

So based on the comparison between the % changes for each score and those for each score band, it looks like this set of % changes was calculated as (Current#-Previous#)/Previous# ... which is correct.

But idk how to explain results like the # of 180s dropping from 22 to 15

eta: but Mr. Spivey has said before:

Every year there are a few weird percentage results, and every years LSAC has an explanation for them fyi (different dates compared, different metric, etc). So *likely* they aren't as weird as they seem

There are a number of other drops: 169 (507 to 323!), 171, 174, 176

Will be interested to see if an explanation is offered.

[ashrice13]

this is the cycle everyone gets into their reaches

I have 2 sets of reaches, which one are you talking about??

1. Will name my firstborn child the name of the school/worse chances than my winning the megamillion lottery/why did I even apply here??? (HSCCN)
2. Regular reach school.

My thoughts every single time I go to the Harvard thread.