The “below 160 type”? Then why are the percentile cutoffs for 155, 160, 165, 170, etc essentially the same (give or take a small amoutn of variation) for this October and June as they were for the last couple of years?
If there’s less total # of test takers and the percentiles are basically the same as before, then there will be less people total in each score bracket. If that doesn’t equate to mid-ranked schools taking less people to maintain medians OR lowering medians in general, then I don’t know what would.
if you look at the retake stats at lsac though you will see that they are typically not successful. there are a couple of lucky people (myself included with a 12 point jump) but as per their stats, most people don’t increase more than 5 points. So, except for those that had a say 166 and increased to a 171 and the extreme increases, retakes will not present that much more competition in the 170+ market. or im completely wrong.. lol
Bear with me: chart shows number of applicants by highest LSAT score (with a December cut-off date, so this accounts for June and October LSATs) in 2009-10 and 10-11 cycles. Total number of applicants with a 170+ went down 8%, from 2479 to 2296.
Combined June and October LSATs administered in 09-10 to 10-11 fell from 93,341 to 87,318, or 7%. So for the last two cycles a 7% drop in total tests administered corresponded with a 8% drop in 170+ scores.
I would have totally thought the vast majority of people not taking the test would have been sub-par scorers myself, but the drop seems to be across the board. This may be accounted for by the fact that the LSAT is equated AND curved. “Equated” refers to the pre-set curve, because it is established by the experimental sections which came before. But after the results are compiled there has to be a meaningful curve as well. If a huge chunk of low scorers decide not to take the test, the test still has to be forced into a bell curve.
I don’t get it. Wouldn’t one assume that only the number of weaker applicants has gone down? Do you really think that the people who did not apply were the 3.9/170+ students? Do you think this would make it easier on someone applying for t14?
Of course everyone in this thread sees this as a good thing and their own logic in going to law school’s unassailable. Just as many of you will strike out at OCI.
I would bet that weaker applicants drop off in bigger numbers, since their prospects are more bleak than somebody coming in with a 3.7. or wtv.
At the same time, the loads of bad press surrounding law school have probably had an effect across the board. High achieving undergrads who were thinking about taking the LSAT may have decided to go in a different direction, we don’t know.
The class sizes getting smaller last cycle may suggest that schools had to bring in fewer people to protect their medians, the UIUC scandal suggests the same.
We just won’t know until we start seeing results, I guess.
Just as many people with good chances for admissions to good schools will drop out. The dumb people still may think law is the key to joining the middle class and pile in. People who could score well on the LSAT either are looking beyond being middle class or realize law school is simply a lottery game that enriches the school administrators. they will go elsewhere to make money.
I love how almost everybody on TLS seems to agree that law school is terrible and a waste of time, yet presumably they are here because they plan to attend/already attend law school?
Besides easier admission to good schools due to less competition, it’s good that a lot of people are coming to understand that attending the majority of law schools is a very risky life choice.
The assumption being that most law school applicants are below the middle class? Seems unlikely. If anything, I think more people see it as their key to the upper class.
To the people saying “well this could just mean fewer lower scoring people took the test” you do not understand the test. I am horrendous at math, but the test is scored on a bell curve. Each percentile representing a point on the curve. Thus fewer people taking the test simply results in fewer people in each percentile.
