Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017) Forum

[Law2020hopeful]

Ah I got a 174 on the February lsat and got my JS1 invite right after Score release and am waiting for the next JS2 wave with the rest of you. Now I'm even more impatient/have my hopes raised slightly if they're looking for high lsats!

[VapidP]

Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?

I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.

I think anyone who didn't make the cut-off for the last JS2 wave is at-risk, especially if you have a sub-173. Again, pure speculation, but the rationale for delay would most likely depend on whether HLS knew they were going to drop in rank ahead of time, whether they planned for a weaker class, and/or whether they thought Feb LSAT scores would save this current pool of applicants.

Essentially, I'm not sure if HLS is being reactionary here to USNWR or a weak applicant pool that they didn't foresee until March.

Ehh. My friend and I interviewed at the same time (early feb) and he's a soft reverse splitter and I am an actual splitter and we both missed the last JS2 wave (feb 22nd). Faculty review takes a long time and the average wait time is like 40 days or something. But who knows, we might both get rejected.

I don't think it means that much if you missed the last JS2 wave. Just like I don't think Harvard is trying that hard to find 172/173+ people. I think there are way more than enough high scorers for them to maintain their medians (someone did the math earlier). I think the weaker earlier pool just threw them off their game and they got started later.

[dietcoke1]

Does anyone who doesn't have a JS1 from Harvard have a shot at this point?

yes but probably not a very good one

[kiwi50]

.

[Law2020hopeful]

Ah I got a 174 on the February lsat and got my JS1 invite right after Score release and am waiting for the next JS2 wave with the rest of you. Now I'm even more impatient/have my hopes raised slightly if they're looking for above median lsats!

[CHyde]

.

[dddddd90]

Ok, based on a very limited data set (read a few PMs), it looks like HLS is still trying to boost their LSAT median through acceptance of splitters (read LSAT above 174, below 25th GPA).

I'm going to speculate that this may be related to their drop in ranking/dissatisfaction with current JS1 pool. Maybe they're running some statistical models as we speak.

This may explain why it has taken them so long to release this next wave of JS2s. Good news for splitters, bad news for below 173 lsat January and beyond applicants.

But who knows, I'm just BSing here.

As a splitter with a >75 LSAT and a ~25th GPA (and no JS1) I feel like softs play a bigger role than we think

True. But I have no idea if your experience is the norm or an exception. My speculation is definitely a case of the blind leading the blind since we have no sense of the total applicant pool aside from self-selecting posters in an already tiny subset (TLS) of the total applicant pool. LSN, while usually pretty accurate for chancing yourself, is not helpful either with these granular data distinctions that occur in "waves". From my understanding, LSN is usually pretty retrospective...and this cycle is much stranger than the last.

In sum, WHO KNOWWWWWWSSSSSSSS.

Of course softs play a big role. They're often diminished on this site, but when you get an admissions prediction (i.e. "60%") off of mylsn or other sites, they're essentially telling you the percent of people with similar numbers to yours who got in. The fact that it's hardly ever 0% or 100% means that it's hardly ever the case that softs aren't the breaking/deciding factors.

Now please everyone jump on me for violating the forum dogma.

[HonestlyThough]

Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?

I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.

Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?

Also, do these hypotheses mean I'm likely just waiting for a JS2? I had a 177 LSAT and interviewed on 3/1. The wait has been driving me slowly mad with speculation....

[jjcorvino]

Ok, based on a very limited data set (read a few PMs), it looks like HLS is still trying to boost their LSAT median through acceptance of splitters (read LSAT above 174, below 25th GPA).

I'm going to speculate that this may be related to their drop in ranking/dissatisfaction with current JS1 pool. Maybe they're running some statistical models as we speak.

This may explain why it has taken them so long to release this next wave of JS2s. Good news for splitters, bad news for below 173 lsat January and beyond applicants.

But who knows, I'm just BSing here.

As a splitter with a >75 LSAT and a ~25th GPA (and no JS1) I feel like softs play a bigger role than we think

Same, if it was purely numbers and they want to raise lsat, I would probably get a JS1 by now.

[Rigo]

Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.

Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?

In terms of who is actually applying.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/

[LHS17]

Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.

Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?

In terms of who is actually applying.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/

My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Rigo]

Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.

Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?

In terms of who is actually applying.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/

My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

What we are saying is that less people with those numbers are APPLYING. As in, they get their score and they choose not to apply to law school. This has absolutely nothing to do with how the LSAT is equated.

[VapidP]

Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.

Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?

In terms of who is actually applying.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/

My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah. I think it's curved to like the scores from the last 5 tests or something

[CHyde]

.

[Rigo]

Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.

Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?

In terms of who is actually applying.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/

My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah. I think it's curved to like the scores from the last 5 tests or something

Last 5 cyles (read:years).
But moot discussion.

[LHS17]

Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.

Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?

In terms of who is actually applying.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/

My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

What we are saying is that less people with those numbers are APPLYING. As in, they get their score and they choose not to apply to law school. This has absolutely nothing to do with how the LSAT is equated.

I find it hard to believe there is a 26% drop in APPLICATIONS from the 175-180 cohort attributable solely to their decision not to apply. Why invest so much in getting such a good score not to even see what it will yield? What am I missing?

[Rigo]

I find it hard to believe there is a 26% drop in APPLICATIONS from the 175-180 cohort attributable solely to their decision not to apply. Why invest so much in getting such a good score not to even see what it will yield? What am I missing?

These are likely already really smart and capable people who have other great options.
The economy is healthy, so less incentive to take yourself out of the marketplace and go into likely debt for school again.

[Smc1994]

Ugh

[etramak]

Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.

Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?

In terms of who is actually applying.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/

My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

What we are saying is that less people with those numbers are APPLYING. As in, they get their score and they choose not to apply to law school. This has absolutely nothing to do with how the LSAT is equated.

I find it hard to believe there is a 26% drop in APPLICATIONS from the 175-180 cohort attributable solely to their decision not to apply. Why invest so much in getting such a good score not to even see what it will yield? What am I missing?

Some people are super smart and can get a 175 after taking 2-3 preptests. These same super smart people are increasingly avoiding law school. There's been news articles about how the highest scorers aren't applying for 5+ years now.

[VapidP]

Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.

Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?

In terms of who is actually applying.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/

My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

What we are saying is that less people with those numbers are APPLYING. As in, they get their score and they choose not to apply to law school. This has absolutely nothing to do with how the LSAT is equated.

I find it hard to believe there is a 26% drop in APPLICATIONS from the 175-180 cohort attributable solely to their decision not to apply. Why invest so much in getting such a good score not to even see what it will yield? What am I missing?

Because there are so few people with those scores anyway, even just a handful of them deciding not to apply would shift the numbers enough to result in percentage point drops. The economy is good, law school is expensive, people with good scores who get a good job might just stick with their job instead of going to school. You saw law school applications rise sharply during the financial crisis, probably because a bunch of super smart kids were out of luck. No they aren't. I don't think this is the sole attributor to the decline in 175+ scores, but I do think it could be a factor.

From a previous discussion, doesn't Harvard seemingly have a hard GPA floor of 3.5? Do people think that will hold up this year.

[LegalAAA]

User avatarCHyde
Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)
Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:13 pm

LegalAAA wrote:
Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?

I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.


I think anyone who didn't make the cut-off for the last JS2 wave is at-risk, especially if you have a sub-173. Again, pure speculation, but the rationale for delay would most likely depend on whether HLS knew they were going to drop in rank ahead of time, whether they planned for a weaker class, and/or whether they thought Feb LSAT scores would save this current pool of applicants.

Essentially, I'm not sure if HLS is being reactionary here to USNWR or a weak applicant pool that they didn't foresee until March.

Yeah...fuck.

I think you're probably right, though I don't think that necessarily puts at risk those with sub-173 that already got a JS1. If you assume that the class size is constant from year to year, wouldn't the fear about the median just mean that you're more likely to get accepted if you're 173+? The median freak out wouldn't affect those below it, since to hold the median they presumably take the same number of <173 from year to year.

[HonestlyThough]

Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.

Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?

In terms of who is actually applying.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/

My interpretation based on what I've read, and I haven't looked at the language recently, is that the test is pre-curved to represent what percentile a score should represent over a normalized time horizon. That's how you get specific score drops on any one exam.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

What we are saying is that less people with those numbers are APPLYING. As in, they get their score and they choose not to apply to law school. This has absolutely nothing to do with how the LSAT is equated.

I find it hard to believe there is a 26% drop in APPLICATIONS from the 175-180 cohort attributable solely to their decision not to apply. Why invest so much in getting such a good score not to even see what it will yield? What am I missing?

What is this blog basing it on? I find it very odd that there are more than 2x 177s applying than 176. Is this self-reporting or what?

[texteach]

Do you mean applicants in January on or JS1 in Jan on?
I agree with your hypothesis, especially given the drop in high 172+ scorers this year. It's messing with the admissions committee at HYS for sure.

Can you explain more? What do you mean drop in high 172+? I thought LSAT scores were curved so that approx the same number of people got top scores on each test?

In terms of who is actually applying.
http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... -02-03-17/

Am I the only one that thinks HYS are not going to be phased all that much by the current applicants' LSAT scores? There are more than enough to maintain all 3 schools' high medians and 75 percentiles. Assuming that many of those applicants will also have respectable GPAs (above each school's medians), I just don't see this cycle being all that numerically different from the past. Timing has been atypical, but I don't think we'll see that much of a shift in the class profiles.

[Anon.y.mousse.]

What is this blog basing it on? I find it very odd that there are more than 2x 177s applying than 176. Is this self-reporting or what?

Spivey uses the numbers provided by LSAC. For a few of the recent test administrations, it was not possible to score a 176 due to the curve.

[Rigo]

Yeah there have been articles the last several years about the law school brain drain.
If someone just wants a stable career and money, there are much better avenues.
Law school isn't the sure fire path to success and social mobility it was when our parents were our age.