December LSAT figures are in...numbers are down again

[Ramrod]

It also doesn't include who is/isn't applying.

Even more importantly, people seem to think it is better to apply in a down season -- I don't neccessarily agree, I believe it all evens out.  Though the number of tests administered is down (as people have shown due to the economy), this means that mainly those whom intend on law (not just looking for a job) are taking the test, and also not those whom want to see how they will due. 

I also wholeheartedly believe this is why you see the scale becoming so damn hard.  The majority of people whom would do well on the test are continuing to take the test as before, but those whom are more of the bottom feeders looking for a different career or to see how they are doing aren't taking the test.  Hence less of a pool, and the more competition for the top spots.

Some may not agree, but it is very feasible, which is also why admissions are talking about how it is more competitive that ever in the top schools.

So as for me, I'll encourage every idiot in the world to take the test.

[UseYourHead]

Though the number of tests administered is down (as people have shown due to the economy), this means that mainly those whom intend on law (not just looking for a job) are taking the test, and also not those whom want to see how they will due.

Is that Latin?

I agree that the LSAT numbers for most schools will probably be slightly lower this year. However, one factor that needs to be considered is the percentage of test takers who received each score--a number that varies slightly from test to test but has been steadily changing over time. For example, 3.5% of those who took the October test (the biggest session) had an LSAT of 168 (96.5% scored below), but in past years this number has typically been 3.3%. Thus, with 145,000 testers last year, there would be 4,785 people who scored 168 or higher (145,000*0.033), but this year, with 138,000 tester, there might be 4,830 (138,000*0.035). Thus, the fact that there were fewer testers doesn't necessarily mean there are fewer people with your LSAT or better.

[JES]

Interesting...do you have the stats on how many more people scored 155-160?

[pipskicks]

Plus, some of you are not factoring in the number of retakes (we cant tell from the LSAC stats), but the number we are interested inis the actual # of persons, not number of tests taken.  Technically, there could be a whole lot less people going to LS in the fall....

In addition to this:
The number of people taking classes for the LSAT has gone up from what I've heard, this might mean more people being better prepared, and less likely to retake.

[vitaminwater]

yes, i did hear that app are down, which does mean better chances for little puppy dogs like me.

[UseYourHead]

JES: Here is a summary of the theory:

http://www.deloggio.com/how&when/newcurve.htm

[omachoomar]

There is way too much overanalyzing going on in this thread.  Yes, The number of retakes is a factor. But I doubt the % of retakes is varying a whole lot from year to year. Yes It is possible that more people will actually apply even though less people took the test. But unlikely.  It is possible that when less people take the test most of the people who did'nt take it were the ones who would have done badly.  But that does'nt explain why it got much harder to get in over the years that the number of tests administered went up. Less test takers and the improving economy probably means it will be a little easier to get into law school this year.  People are more likely to go to graduate school when they are having trouble finding a job after the senior year of college.

Mister big: Lose the ego. To the best of my knowledge he or she used the word whom correctly, and I don't think spy456 was trying to impress anyone by using it. Life is gonna gonna be difficult for you if you spend it attacking people for no reason.  I wish you luck.

[vitaminwater]

this is my year!