Is EDing as a splitter still the recommended route?
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:22 am
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.
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.