Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Just had a meeting with Anna Ivey. Here's what she said about 06-07 cycle  (Read 3676 times)

r.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1208
  • Hey psycho stalker spy!
    • View Profile


THIS OP IS COMPLETE AND UTTER FLAME. I can't afford Anna. I do think most of this flame is sound advice for all of the 06-07 applicants. Good luck!!
Byron's Don Juan:  Booker T. Washington Elementary School
Milton's Paradise Lost: Middle School

jfields32

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
    • Email
is this a joke??? Do must people know about the rule change???

245

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
    • View Profile
--Retake in September, December and February or until you have a 175+

--2000+ extra 170-180 scorers predicted for the coming app cycle. She says that is about 4 entering classes at GULC. LSAC registering re-testers at rrecord rates for Sept. already and more test centers are being rented by LSAC now. (she's got connections!)

--GPA becomes increasingly important as more LSATS are bunched over 170. She predicts lower T14 25th GPAs to increase by about .2-.25 points

--After GPA, soft factors will also increase in T14 importance, with so many students bunched in the 170-180 range

--She recommends turning in up to 5 recommendations if the school posts no limit and you want a chance at standing out. She said to contact profs TODAY

--She recommends applying to 4 safeties instead of the standard two as things will be the most unpredicatable this cycle

That will be $475

So there will now be approx 5000 people applying with 170 or higher?  That doesn't make any sense, unless 170 drops to the 96.5 percentile.
SLS '10 and now working.  PM me if you want to get in touch!

jfields32

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
    • Email
how many score 170 or higher as of now per yesr???

245

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
    • View Profile
how many score 170 or higher as of now per yesr???

I think there are about 3,000 per year, given that approx 140,000 take the test and it lies at about the 98 percentile.
SLS '10 and now working.  PM me if you want to get in touch!

nixon plays checkers

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
    • View Profile
    • agitated treatment of modern discourse
I'm sure now that there are 10 million more 170+ applicants, every adcomm is going to meticulously examine all the 5 LORs you submit to LSAC.

Thanks for restoring the nervousness of the pre-score release period.

245

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
    • View Profile
Lets go out on a limb and assume that a 170 drops down to a 97.5 percentile. I don't think it will, but lets use it as a benchmark.

Currently, there are 3000 people who get 170+, out of roughly 140000 test takers. Seeing how the trend has been going downwards for the past several years in number of individual test takers it probably will continue for this year, but we'll assume that it doesn't and look only at the required increase in retakers required for "2000 more 170+ scorers". We'll also assume that every person who scores above a 170 does not retake, so that we'll have the highest number of individual 170+ possible.

5000/.025= 200,000

This would require a 60,000 test increase.

Or, to put it another way, the number of people who retake the exam would have to triple. And this entire sample pool would have to perform at a level of improvement that we currently see with the fairly self-selected pool of retakers.

To me, this seems a little ridiculous.

Maybe Anna Ivey is trying to drum up some extra business?
SLS '10 and now working.  PM me if you want to get in touch!

squirt10

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
    • View Profile
Lets go out on a limb and assume that a 170 drops down to a 97.5 percentile. I don't think it will, but lets use it as a benchmark.

Currently, there are 3000 people who get 170+, out of roughly 140000 test takers. Seeing how the trend has been going downwards for the past several years in number of individual test takers it probably will continue for this year, but we'll assume that it doesn't and look only at the required increase in retakers required for "2000 more 170+ scorers". We'll also assume that every person who scores above a 170 does not retake, so that we'll have the highest number of individual 170+ possible.

5000/.025= 200,000

This would require a 60,000 test increase.

Or, to put it another way, the number of people who retake the exam would have to triple. And this entire sample pool would have to perform at a level of improvement that we currently see with the fairly self-selected pool of retakers.

To me, this seems a little ridiculous.

Maybe Anna Ivey is trying to drum up some extra business?

HA, great point.  It's absolutely in her industry's interest for the admissions process NOT to be a numbers game.  Still, I don't see why someone who knows they can do better wouldn't retake, even for just one or two points.

By the way, it was very generous of you to share this information with us, even though it may be biased.  Thanks.

nixon plays checkers

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
    • View Profile
    • agitated treatment of modern discourse
Right.  I don't see why LSAC wouldn't just make the scales correspondingly more difficult.  If the LSAT is learnable to the point that 175+ is a reasonable goal for all T14 matriculates, then maybe the LSAT needs to bring back the logic games of 1995 and before.  If everyone gets "bunched" around 170-173, then LSAT seems to lose much of its validity as a predictor of law school success.

goodnews

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
  • We're moving to where??
    • View Profile
god damn I really wish they hadnt made this change, this really hurts my chances before I even take the frigging LSAT the first time.

The scale for september will be super steep from retakers... add that into the fact that my GPA isnt so stellar, and is now being counted as more important... and Im not so happy right now

I wouldn't be so concerned.  There are tons of retakers at every administration of the test, every year.  Sure there may be slightly more in September, but retaking isn't just walking into the room 3 months later and automatically expecting a higher score.  There will still be people who don't think it's worth the time and effort to retake, even with the new policy.  You still have to study again.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to be a W O L V E R I N E