Is EDing as a splitter still the recommended route? Forum

[meegee]

Wasn't really sure where to post this. This really only applies to splitters.

With the massive drop in people with a score of 170+, is the conventional TLS wisdom of "ED UVA" still as applicable today as it was in the past? Obviously this is contingent on actual numbers, and to a certain degree your other factors (the rest of that application stuff). But in the past, it was generally accepted that if you had a GPA between 3.0-3.5, and an LSAT above 170, the correct answer was usually "ED UVA." This guide for splitters from two years ago places an emphasis on "maximizing your EDs."

But I think the scenario has slightly changed now. First of all, there has been a significant drop in applicants in general. The drop is also a trend, and not just a one year thing. I believe numbers have been dropping since 2010? And, as mentioned before, there has been an even more significant drop in people with LSAT above 170. There has been quite a few T-14 schools that have either 1) shrunk class size or 2) dropped their median LSAT (or, as LSAT logic has taught us, a combination of both). For instance, UVA's LSAT median has dropped from a 170 to 169 (its class size has also shrunk). Click here for more info regarding changing medians and changing class sizes.

So I think the whole idea of splitters "EDing" in general needs to be reassessed. EDing usually means paying sticker. One poster on TLS, who was a splitter, outlined her reasoning for not EDing. Instead of EDing, she just RDed a bunch of schools. Eventually, she got in to a T-14 with some scholarship money (I don't know the exact amount). Finally, another interesting point she raised was that, if she didn't get accepted, worst comes to worst, she EDs the next cycle. While I can def see her line of reasoning, but is "losing" one year worth it? Obviously there are many factors involved (like will you get a job), but if you go to law school earlier, and you get a job earlier, wouldn't that "extra" year's worth of salary be worth more than the one year "lost?" Relevant to this is, how much scholarship money do splitters even get, if any? I remember seeing one mylsn profile where the person got like 30k total in scholarship from a T14. Would the chance of receiving some scholarship money (and the ability to negotiate if you did receive some scholarship) outweigh the advantages given by the near-sure chance of getting admitted with ED at sticker? I understand a problem with this question is that everyone has differing ideas of what counts as good, fair, or bad amount of scholarship money.

TL;DR - Have circumstances become favorable enough that splitters no longer need to ED?

I may have been wrong about some of the details regarding the aforementioned TLSer's application process, but the general idea is the same.
I can't find the link that talks about the drop in number of applicants by LSAT percentile range, but I've seen a couple of threads on TLS talk about it. And we all know everything TLS says is the holy truth.

EDIT: Thank you MoMetta for the link.

[MoMettaMonk]

I won't chime in on the wisdom of RD vs. ED for splitters, but the info on admission drop percentages sorted by LSAT scores was on Mike Spivey's website http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/aba-ap ... 213-cycle/

[Clearly]

Just keep in mind that some speculate dropping lsat scores actually hurts splitters, as a 169 is now as good to medians as a 170 was last cycle, actually decreasing the value of high scores... Of course the percentage drops are so severe that even including 169s, the total number of high scores are down.

[meegee]

Just keep in mind that some speculate dropping lsat scores actually hurts splitters, as a 169 is now as good to medians as a 170 was last cycle, actually decreasing the value of high scores... Of course the percentage drops are so severe that even including 169s, the total number of high scores are down.

Since the LSAT is one of the factors determining a law school's ranking and since the most likely factors the Deans of Admissions can affect are the LSAT and GPA in order to boost their ranking (Check out this video of a UVA law professor who used to serve on the Dean of Admissions. He talks about LSAT/GPA and Deans of Admissions trying to change their ranking) wouldn't a higher LSAT score be in even more demand then?

With medians dropping, if a law school can somehow maintain their median, or even boost it by one point, it increases its chances to jump in the rankings.

But your point is still valid. If a law school decides that their median is 169 this year (AKA they decide they can't get it to 170) then a person with a 169 and a good GPA would be better than a 170 splitter.

I guess it really depends on how law schools choose to game the median.

[Tiago Splitter]

I think the TLS conventional wisdom at this point is that you should not ED. Obviously that's not true for everyone, but for the typical 3.3/172 splitter there is a presumption against EDing. There is enough potential for real money at places like NU, GULC, and UVA.

[Ramius]

I think the TLS conventional wisdom at this point is that you should not ED. Obviously that's not true for everyone, but for the typical 3.3/172 splitter there is a presumption against EDing. There is enough potential for real money at places like NU, GULC, and UVA.

There are still caveats (personally, military types with below median numbers comes too mind), this is absolutely TCR.