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

[Smc1994]

Good news Harvard peeps. LSAT scores and applicants are down across the board: https://twitter.com/SpiveyConsult

Applicants:
Applicants DOWN 5.1% Applications DOWN 1.7%.

LSAT:
165-169 (-18.8%)
170-174 (-2.0%)
175-180 ( -25.4%)

This sort of makes me rethink my ED to NU idea though.

Outstanding! This will ripple forward to OCIs, clerkships, and our whole careers, really.

Why? Class sizes at top schools aren't going to go down because of this, and OCI/clerkships, etc. aren't evenly distributed among every law school. A potential point or two down on median LSAT at HYS/CCN isn't going to make clerkships less competitive. You're still competing against the same number of people, and federal judges aren't going to ask for your LSAT score.

I was taking the schools' word that the LSAT is indicative of 1L success rates. A class with fewer 175+s would presumably have a gentler curve.

I think that there's merit to this argument, provided that December and February scores don't offset the current data.

I find it hard to believe that a point or two difference above 170 (which we all know is a difference of a few questions) would = a curve "gentle" enough to impact clerkships.

I agree, but, if we accept that the LSAT is the greatest indicator of 1L success, then I think the significant decreases at the higher end of the LSAT bands may impact curves. That said, I think the LSAT's just one indicator of law school performance. Lower high scores may convince people in the lower 170s not to retake. I'd argue that those individuals have the same potential, regardless of the score with which they apply.

[canafsa]

.

[xn3345]

I wonder at what point/threshold a score difference starts to become reliably predictive of law school success. 3 points? 5? 10? Anyone know of data on this?

[jebbush2k20]

I could easily be overly optimistic, but I do think there is something especially extraordinary about 176+ applicants compared to a 172ish applicant. Whether that be intellect or work-ethic, who knows. A 25% drop is pretty significant, regardless.

However, I don't feel passionate enough about this topic to bear a pile-on, so consider my point withdrawn for the purposes of this thread, lol.

I wonder at what point/threshold a score difference starts to become reliably predictive of law school success. 3 points? 5? 10? Anyone know of data on this?

for me the difference between a 172 and 176 was just an easier games section lol

[acz26]

No jS1s for anyone today?

[ms9]

Good news Harvard peeps. LSAT scores and applicants are down across the board: https://twitter.com/SpiveyConsult

Applicants:
Applicants DOWN 5.1% Applications DOWN 1.7%.

LSAT:
165-169 (-18.8%)
170-174 (-2.0%)
175-180 ( -25.4%)

This sort of makes me rethink my ED to NU idea though.

Didn't Spivey's website say just a couple days ago that his application consulting business was at capacity because applications were up by so much this year? Kinda confused as to how to reconcile that with the Twitter post you're referencing...

I'd have to double check, but I don't think he mentioned an increase in overall applicants. Rather, I think there was a surge in interest for the services that his company offers.

This. I've said many times on many platforms I would know cycle data come mid-December. And now we know!

[Aquinas]

Good news Harvard peeps. LSAT scores and applicants are down across the board: https://twitter.com/SpiveyConsult

Applicants:
Applicants DOWN 5.1% Applications DOWN 1.7%.

LSAT:
165-169 (-18.8%)
170-174 (-2.0%)
175-180 ( -25.4%)

This sort of makes me rethink my ED to NU idea though.

Didn't Spivey's website say just a couple days ago that his application consulting business was at capacity because applications were up by so much this year? Kinda confused as to how to reconcile that with the Twitter post you're referencing...

I'd have to double check, but I don't think he mentioned an increase in overall applicants. Rather, I think there was a surge in interest for the services that his company offers.

This. I've said many times on many platforms I would know cycle data come mid-December. And now we know!

Thanks for sharing this with us all! It's certainly news that seems to have made the days of a lot of C/O 2020 applicants!

[Whittie]

Good news Harvard peeps. LSAT scores and applicants are down across the board: https://twitter.com/SpiveyConsult

Applicants:
Applicants DOWN 5.1% Applications DOWN 1.7%.

LSAT:
165-169 (-18.8%)
170-174 (-2.0%)
175-180 ( -25.4%)

This sort of makes me rethink my ED to NU idea though.

Didn't Spivey's website say just a couple days ago that his application consulting business was at capacity because applications were up by so much this year? Kinda confused as to how to reconcile that with the Twitter post you're referencing...

I'd have to double check, but I don't think he mentioned an increase in overall applicants. Rather, I think there was a surge in interest for the services that his company offers.

This. I've said many times on many platforms I would know cycle data come mid-December. And now we know!

Thanks for sharing this with us all! It's certainly news that seems to have made the days of a lot of C/O 2020 applicants!

Do we have the sense that this data will indicate a change in the read time for upper-level stats? That is, would schools wait until December LSAT scores to come out for splitters, and spend the bulk of their time before then reviewing applicants with GPA and LSAT above the median/75th percentile?

[VapidP]

Good news Harvard peeps. LSAT scores and applicants are down across the board: https://twitter.com/SpiveyConsult

Applicants:
Applicants DOWN 5.1% Applications DOWN 1.7%.

LSAT:
165-169 (-18.8%)
170-174 (-2.0%)
175-180 ( -25.4%)

This sort of makes me rethink my ED to NU idea though.

Didn't Spivey's website say just a couple days ago that his application consulting business was at capacity because applications were up by so much this year? Kinda confused as to how to reconcile that with the Twitter post you're referencing...

I'd have to double check, but I don't think he mentioned an increase in overall applicants. Rather, I think there was a surge in interest for the services that his company offers.

This. I've said many times on many platforms I would know cycle data come mid-December. And now we know!

Thanks for sharing this with us all! It's certainly news that seems to have made the days of a lot of C/O 2020 applicants!

Do we have the sense that this data will indicate a change in the read time for upper-level stats? That is, would schools wait until December LSAT scores to come out for splitters, and spend the bulk of their time before then reviewing applicants with GPA and LSAT above the median/75th percentile?

That seems likely, but I really do wonder how much of an effect this will have. Aren't all LSATs curved anyway to represent roughly the same difficulty. EDIT: Nvm its normalized over the past 3 years. Still, the Sept test has to be extraordinarily hard for it to make a big difference on the upper bounds of scoring.

All this data indicates to me that it seems like less people with really high LSATs are applying, which could be a sign of a good economy, risk aversion to law school debt or just other career paths.

[addie1412]

Good news Harvard peeps. LSAT scores and applicants are down across the board: https://twitter.com/SpiveyConsult

Applicants:
Applicants DOWN 5.1% Applications DOWN 1.7%.

LSAT:
165-169 (-18.8%)
170-174 (-2.0%)
175-180 ( -25.4%)

This sort of makes me rethink my ED to NU idea though.

Didn't Spivey's website say just a couple days ago that his application consulting business was at capacity because applications were up by so much this year? Kinda confused as to how to reconcile that with the Twitter post you're referencing...

I'd have to double check, but I don't think he mentioned an increase in overall applicants. Rather, I think there was a surge in interest for the services that his company offers.

This. I've said many times on many platforms I would know cycle data come mid-December. And now we know!

Thanks for sharing this with us all! It's certainly news that seems to have made the days of a lot of C/O 2020 applicants!

Do we have the sense that this data will indicate a change in the read time for upper-level stats? That is, would schools wait until December LSAT scores to come out for splitters, and spend the bulk of their time before then reviewing applicants with GPA and LSAT above the median/75th percentile?

I don't really see why splitters would have a slower cycle than usual. Nothing suggests there are more December takers relative to the general applicant pool this cycle than in any other cycle. If applications/LSAT scores are down across the board, I would imagine they'd be down in December proportionally.

[GoBucks6612]

Would have to think the September LSAT being "harder" has nothing to do with it - roughly the same percentages of people fall into each score band for every test. You are correct in suggesting that the only thing it would change is the number of applicants in the high LSAT range. I'm doing my best not to read into any of this data as a mild reverse splitter (171/4.0). Just hoping for the best!

On an unrelated note, does anybody know when admissions spreadsheets have gone up in the past, or are we all just waiting for someone else to do it?

[SybillAnnDorsett]

---

[unpetitpacifiste]

Just had my JS1 yesterday. Does anyone know if I need to send in a thank-you note? Also, I don't recall my interviewer's name...

[AJ1010]

Just had my JS1 yesterday. Does anyone know if I need to send in a thank-you note? Also, I don't recall my interviewer's name...

Some people send them and some people don't. It seems to be the general consensus that it definitely doesn't hurt you if you don't. I recently had the same dilemma. I interviewed Wednesday, and I haven't sent one.

[Mackgal]

Is the timeline really behind this year ?

I just read through some of the posts from the c/o 2019 applicants and it appears they were already accepting people around December 9th. Potential good sign for those of us without a JS1 yet?

[InsightfulComment]

I wonder at what point/threshold a score difference starts to become reliably predictive of law school success. 3 points? 5? 10? Anyone know of data on this?

There's a video by a UVA professor who worked/works for LSAC and he talks about the predictive ability of the LSAT somewhere on youtube. Apparently it's pretty hard to line it up too well because it's not like they take that stratified of a set of test takers, rather a good portion of the school will have pretty similar scores going in and success is in relation to those classmates rather than some objective standard.

[R. Jeeves]

Is the timeline really behind this year ?

I just read through some of the posts from the c/o 2019 applicants and it appears they were already accepting people around December 9th. Potential good sign for those of us without a JS1 yet?

Yeah they've pushed the timeline back this year. They said 1st acceptances won't go out til late dec/early jan.

[Goldie]

Good news Harvard peeps. LSAT scores and applicants are down across the board: https://twitter.com/SpiveyConsult

Applicants:
Applicants DOWN 5.1% Applications DOWN 1.7%.

LSAT:
165-169 (-18.8%)
170-174 (-2.0%)
175-180 ( -25.4%)

This sort of makes me rethink my ED to NU idea though.

Outstanding! This will ripple forward to OCIs, clerkships, and our whole careers, really.

Why? Class sizes at top schools aren't going to go down because of this, and OCI/clerkships, etc. aren't evenly distributed among every law school. A potential point or two down on median LSAT at HYS/CCN isn't going to make clerkships less competitive. You're still competing against the same number of people, and federal judges aren't going to ask for your LSAT score.

I was taking the schools' word that the LSAT is indicative of 1L success rates. A class with fewer 175+s would presumably have a gentler curve.

I think that there's merit to this argument, provided that December and February scores don't offset the current data.

I find it hard to believe that a point or two difference above 170 (which we all know is a difference of a few questions) would = a curve "gentle" enough to impact clerkships.

I agree, but, if we accept that the LSAT is the greatest indicator of 1L success, then I think the significant decreases at the higher end of the LSAT bands may impact curves. That said, I think the LSAT's just one indicator of law school performance. Lower high scores may convince people in the lower 170s not to retake. I'd argue that those individuals have the same potential, regardless of the score with which they apply.

Just an anecdote, but I'm a Harvard 3L whose highest LSAT was a 166 (transfer student) and I'm on track to graduate within the top 10%. I wouldn't read too much into lower LSAT scores.

[xn3345]

Outstanding! This will ripple forward to OCIs, clerkships, and our whole careers, really.

Why? Class sizes at top schools aren't going to go down because of this, and OCI/clerkships, etc. aren't evenly distributed among every law school. A potential point or two down on median LSAT at HYS/CCN isn't going to make clerkships less competitive. You're still competing against the same number of people, and federal judges aren't going to ask for your LSAT score.

I was taking the schools' word that the LSAT is indicative of 1L success rates. A class with fewer 175+s would presumably have a gentler curve.

I think that there's merit to this argument, provided that December and February scores don't offset the current data.

I find it hard to believe that a point or two difference above 170 (which we all know is a difference of a few questions) would = a curve "gentle" enough to impact clerkships.

I agree, but, if we accept that the LSAT is the greatest indicator of 1L success, then I think the significant decreases at the higher end of the LSAT bands may impact curves. That said, I think the LSAT's just one indicator of law school performance. Lower high scores may convince people in the lower 170s not to retake. I'd argue that those individuals have the same potential, regardless of the score with which they apply.

Just an anecdote, but I'm a Harvard 3L whose highest LSAT was a 166 (transfer student) and I'm on track to graduate within the top 10%. I wouldn't read too much into lower LSAT scores.

That's very interesting. What would you attribute your success to? Can you think of any of your pre-law school attributes that might've predicted your law school GPA?

[Goldie]

Just an anecdote, but I'm a Harvard 3L whose highest LSAT was a 166 (transfer student) and I'm on track to graduate within the top 10%. I wouldn't read too much into lower LSAT scores.

That's very interesting. What would you attribute your success to? Can you think of any of your pre-law school attributes that might've predicted you law school GPA?

It's hard to say. I think law school clicks for some people easier than others. I did have some decent writing and analytical thinking experience from a previous job, which I'm sure helped. And I've put in a whole lot of hours. Maybe it's actually helpful to feel like you have more to prove?

[TAD]

Just an anecdote, but I'm a Harvard 3L whose highest LSAT was a 166 (transfer student) and I'm on track to graduate within the top 10%. I wouldn't read too much into lower LSAT scores.

Was your 166 the best possible score you think you could have gotten though? Or did you just decide to apply with a 166?

[Goldie]

Just an anecdote, but I'm a Harvard 3L whose highest LSAT was a 166 (transfer student) and I'm on track to graduate within the top 10%. I wouldn't read too much into lower LSAT scores.

Was your 166 the best possible score you think you could have gotten though? Or did you just decide to apply with a 166?

Oh I think I could've done better. I went from a 157 to a 166 and didn't feel like I had maxed out. But I didn't think I needed to, since it was more than enough to get into the school I wanted to go to. (I honestly just didn't understand the importance of school rankings, etc at the time.)

Edit: So I guess maybe my anecdote is less relevant than I thought.

[TAD]

Just an anecdote, but I'm a Harvard 3L whose highest LSAT was a 166 (transfer student) and I'm on track to graduate within the top 10%. I wouldn't read too much into lower LSAT scores.

Was your 166 the best possible score you think you could have gotten though? Or did you just decide to apply with a 166?

Oh I think I could've done better. I went from a 157 to a 166 and didn't feel like I had maxed out. But I didn't think I needed to, since it was more than enough to get into the school I wanted to go to. (I honestly just didn't understand the importance of school rankings, etc at the time.)

Edit: So I guess maybe my anecdote is less relevant than I thought.

Lol, ya cause a retake could have easily put you 170+

[ohgosh]

Have any applicants with an LSAT just under the 25th and a GPA above the median received a JS1 yet? Or does this only happen later in the cycle?

[ReadyToStart]

Have any applicants with an LSAT just under the 25th and a GPA above the median received a JS1 yet? Or does this only happen later in the cycle?

+1