500, 200, 200, 400, 200, 400 students at HYSCCN respectively. That’s a total of 1900. Because I was too lazy to look beyond the out of date stats given on the LSN homepage, let’s say 1800-2000.
CCN total students = 1000
CCN 25% LSAT = 170
CCN admits above 25% LSAT = 750 obviously
Total applicants with 169+ = 1750 applicants ish
Of those 1750 applicants, approx 900 will be attending HYS
Applicants left for CCN with 170+ LSAT = 750 to fill 750 slots, many of whom are splitters with 0 chance.
Therefore, everyone with 170+ will be autoadmit to CCN
Therefore, I am depressed because I have a 168…
Good work, everyone. As long as we keep telling people the horrifying reality of law school we’ll all eventually have less competition in the job market. And yes, THANK YOU BASED GOD!
Only problem with the lowering median problem is the retake phenomenon. More and more people are retaking. So yes, on any given test a 170 is the 98th percentile (or whatever), but more and more applicants have at least one 170 because so many people retake.
Medians probably won’t fall too much (if at all), just like they didn’t last year.
But competition should still be slightly easier just because there are objectively fewer applicants, even if the number with high LSAT scores isn’t dropping. This will be especially true outside of the top schools.
The total number of LSATs administered dropped this year at roughly the same rate as the number of applicants. That would seem to contradict the theory that more are retaking.
The numbers account for retaking–these are numbers for total LSATs administered. A bunch of the October takers were certainly June retakers.
One thing you should remember is that the percentage of those scoring 170+ and 160+ has increased slightly since the early part of the decade. In June 170 put you above 97.3 percent of test-takers. Ten years ago I think a 170 usually was much closer to 98 percent. (There’s some give–for some reason June has the most high-scoring test-takers).
About retaking being on the rise–it certainly has been drastically on the rise since the ABA policy changed in 2006. And that makes perfect sense, since schools are basically taking highest score now. But the retaking phenomena should stabilize at a certain point, and we’re probably approaching that point. (What I mean is, and I’m totally making the numbers up–if in 2004 the average test-taker took the test 1.2 times, then maybe in 2011 the average test-taker takes it 1.4 times. But that number isn’t going to keep climbing–once the population understands the new risk-reward paradigm of a system which allows you to retake with impunity, it should start behaving predictably).
Not trying to be a downer, but you guys really need to consider the possibility the majority of the ones who didn’t test were the below 160 type who weren’t that serious about law school anyways.
I’m terrible at math, but that can’t be the case right? The percentage of people who got 170+ on October was similar to previous years. If you just cut out the bottom, then the the percentage of people with higher marks would rise…right?
The schools won’t admit less people. That would screw with their profits. The competition to get into schools has increased steadily through every single year represented on that chart, including all the “down” years for tests administered. The competition for jobs should never be fiercer than in the future.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the number of questions you could get wrong and achieve a certain score is fixed (as in, -12 = 170), but not the percentages for each given score. So it’s not a real “curve.”
