Copyright

FAQ:
Choosing a Law School
US News Rankings
The Admissions Process
Application Trends
Diversity
Academic Factors
Sample Essays of All Sorts
Recs, Resumes,Essays and Addenda
How & When to Apply
Hearing from the
     Law Schools
Recent News

Other Departments:
LSAT and Admissions
     Services
Success Stories

Contact Us

With help from
Netscape Web Tutorial
by Charlton D. Rose
and David Chang

Application Trends

2002 -- Big Increases

 Law Services released some statistical breakdowns on who was overenrolled in 2002, and by how much.  ( Click here for all the gory details.)  With most schools finished receiving applications for the year, Law Services reported about 1/4 of the schools with increases of 10% or less, another 1/4 with increases of 10-19%, a third fourth with increases of 20-29%, and the last fourth with increases of 30% or more.  A dozen schools had increases of more than 50%!  As usual, there is no data published about which schools are which.  

These increases are way more than I -- or anyone else, from what I can tell -- anticipated.  For those bottom 20 or so schools, the admissions process was roughly the same as it had been in 2001.  For another 50, it wasn't too far off.  For the remaining 110, the roller coaster had started.    

At least 20 schools were seriously overenrolled, and made many fewer offers in 2003 than they did  in 2002.  The high yield rates, and resulting fewer offers, has continued.  Schools can make 100 fewer offers to fill a class of 300 than they did 5 years ago.  

The Numbers

When a school overenrolled significantly, its medians (as well as 25th and 75th percentile LSAT and GPA) were about the same as what was published in the Official Guide.  Of course, if the school underenrolls next year to compensate, the medians will increase.

Schools at the top couldn't generally push their 75th %ile numbers any higher; since there weren't a lot more applicants with those numbers. They could, and did, push their 25th percentile numbers higher.

Schools lower down had a lot more leeway. The commonest trend was a 2 point increase in 25th percentile and 1 point in 75th percentile LSAT, with an increase of less than .05 in gpa.

But this varied enormously. A few schools held their LSAT scores constant and increased their 75th percentile gpa by as much as .3.  A few (mostly those overenrolled schools) went lower.  And some just stayed the same.  

What's Happened in 2003?

• LSAT takers were way up.  The number rose from 107,000 in 2001 to 134,000 in 2002 to 148,000 in 2003.  That's a more-than-40% increase in two years.  Not all of them wind up applying to law school, of course; about 60% of them do.  But they tend to be the top half of the test takers.  And half of 150,000 is a lot more than half of 107,000, especially since the number of seats in all law schools stays constant at about 45,000.  
• Fewer schools are taking the higher LSAT; four years ago, 36 out of 146 reported always taking the higher.  In 2003, only 29 out of 160 reported always taking the higher.  
• A two or three point difference in your LSAT score can be crucial. The admissions officer from one top law school (who will not be named because I forgot to ask permission) said to one of my applicants, "You have to realize that there are over 4,000 applicants between 169 and 166 in our applicant pool."  What looks like a paltry few points from our side of the admissions desk looks like the difference between the top of the pool and the bottom of it from their side.  
• A few schools at the top have reported that there are proportionally more high LSAT scores than there were last year.  This means that a 167 this year is not as pretty as it was last year.  Only by a point or so, but people at or near last year's medians might find themselves on a wait list instead of getting accepted.  

2004 -- the Turning Point?

In 2004, LSATs administered were down .3% -- that's less than one percent, for those of you who are math-impaired.  For full data from Law Services, click here.

Applicants still increased year-to-date, but only by 2%; applications were up 7%.  The more important news is that a large minority of schools showed a decrease in apps -- see those blue bars on the graph?

Which schools?  Sorry, but Law Services doesn't publish that.  I gathered what data I could at the Law Forums, and saved it for you over here.

2005

Application volumes as of March 15 were slightly down, as were applicants.  But don't forget that baby boom we discussed; apps may drop very slowly instead of returning to their pre-millennial state, as reductions due to an improved economy are offset by increases in the number of college students.  

2006

Applications continue to decline slowly.  We're facing another year of 5% declines.  Two consecutive decreases may seem like a lot, but remember that we had three years on increases of 10% or more.  So apps are going down twice as slowly as they went up.

2007

The New 160

A few years ago, fashion mavens were saying "Brown is the new Black."  Well it seems to me that admissions officers are saying "159 is the new 160."  That dreaded below-160 number that drew so little notice a year or two ago got more than its share of attention this year.  And since I had four clients on the west coast with this LSAT score, I got to conduct a fairly broad survey.  

Another Applicant Pool Shift?  

The biggest news we gathered  this year is that there may be a shift in yields.  Applicants are declining by about 5% a year for the last three years.  Applications are declining only a hair -- maybe 1%.  So schools should find themselves with fewer matriculants and more wait list action; after all, no matter how many schools you apply to, you can only attend one.

But this isn't happening.  Schools are still overenrolling slightly, or admitting fewer people to stay at target. The only realistic explanation is that there are higher yield rates -- i.e., more people are attending than used to.  

What this means to you is that even though apps decline, it stays just as hard to get into a top school.  Higher yields have exactly the same effect as more applicants -- schools can fill their classes with people who have higher numbers than yours.

Not only are there no more seats, but even with early decision programs, decisions are being made later.  Why?   Because it's part of the competition.  Have you ever seen the velodrome bicycling races in the Olympics? Here's a good description:

[C]ycling track sprinters do not usually start sprinting the instant the starting gun is fired. The early parts of each race will often be highly tactical with riders pedalling slowly, as they carefully watch each other and try to get their rivals to make the first move. .... Just before the finish, the trailing rider pulls out of the slipstream, and using their fresher legs may be able to overtake their opponent just before the line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_%28cycling%29

That's what law school admissions is like these days. Each school is trying to outwait its opponents -- a/k/a/ "peer schools" -- in an effort to admit only those students who will actually enroll.  This causes the admissions process to take much longer than it used to when schools just admitted the folks they wanted.

What's so different these days?

US News Rankings.  Yield rates are one of the ranking factors. The more people a law school admits, the lower it goes in the US News ranking.  The goal is to admit as few people as possible to fill the class,  In fact, some schools have deliberately downsized in order to keep their median GPA and LSAT scores high.  The school wants to admit a minimum of people and still be accurate in predicting our yield.  

Two major factors in this waiting game are the increasing number of apps per student and the limits of its financial resources.    

1. More apps per student -- admissions officers know that there's more overlap than there used to be, so historic data about yields is not predictive. For instance, suppose that last year's May 1 overlap report shows that 100 people paid deposits to both Us and Them. Last year We got 30 and They got 70.  But this year there are more apps per student and the overlap is 120. Will We get the extra 20?  Will They? Will we split them?

We can't afford to be wrong in our predictions. Too many and we have folding chairs in the aisles.  Too few and we lose money. So we wait; maybe June's overlap report will make it clearer.  

2. Buying numbers for the US News ranking -- my friend Frank, who is no longer in admissions, once said that since the advent of US News rankings, the people with high numbers matter; everyone else is a second class citizen.  The early offers of admission go to applicants with high LSAT scores (preferably, but not necessarily, with high grades as well).  These people are offered scholarships to come to our school.  We wait for these scholarship offers to be accepted or rejected, then offer more scholarships.

Why not just admit all those top people now?  It would be faster, and we can still offer them money later.  There are two problems with that philosophy.  First, the people we admit now and offer money to later may feel like second-class citizens when they're not.  The second is that we don't have an unlimited amount of money.  If we have a million dollars to use to increase our rankings, what's the best way to use it?  Ten full three-year scholarships?  Thirty one-year scholarships?  A hundred partial scholarships?  Admissions officers make guesses, conduct studies, and invest their money.  

We're in the tactical part of that race now, waiting to see who pays deposits where; in late May or early June, the dash for the finish line will begin.  

What If I...?  

Appeal. Petition.  Send ten more recommendations, lists of awards, join three volunteer groups...

Nope. If you're not on the highest priority wait list the school has, nothing will work.  Listen, children: the school is full.  If you're not building the new classroom and hiring the new teachers, they aren't going to admit you because there's no room for you.  It doesn't matter how wonderful you are.  

Look, if you show up at the store and they're locking the doors, they say, "Sorry, we're closed."  It's not about your character, intelligence, or value. It's about their being closed.  

Am I being cruel here?  I don't think so; I think I'm trying to save you two more months of angst before you hear "no."  

I don't like being the forecaster of doom whose task it is to make you hear "no."  I far prefer hearing "yes."  That's why I'm so ecstatic that 100% of my applicants were offered at least one seat.  But I'm not gonna lie to you just because it's easier on me.  Sorry.