Day: 2016/03/31

LSAT Tea-Leaf Reading: February 2016 Edition

…And why it took until the last week of March for the LSAC to put the data up is not known at this time.

20,301 people took the LSAT in February 2016, down a trivial 0.3 percent from last year (20,358).

No. LSAT Takers, 4-Testing Period Moving Sum

The four-period moving sum fell an even more trivial 0.1 percent to 105,883 tests. The last time LSATs were this low was … last year (105,940), so I’ll not regale you with what was on the pop charts as in the past.

Rereading December’s tea-leaf-reading post, I said something about how LSATs might be trending downward again after a bump. The February 2016 administration appears to be validating that hypothesis, but at this point only barely so.

Indeed, last year I thought the growth in LSAT’s was generated by people gunning for high-ranking law schools, but the 509 information reports didn’t bear that out, to my surprise. I had a hunch it’ll happen this year because there was such a surge in applications per applicant early off, but as your chief tasseographer, I ask for patience.

Speaking of applicants, I’d chart this year’s crop compared to last year’s, but they look nearly identical, so there’s no benefit. By whatever math you use, there will probably be around 56,000 applicants this year—that’s for all academic terms, not just fall.


Finally, Cornell Law School informs me that it misreported its graduate debt this year. I thank Cornell for its diligence, and the corrected figure now appears on the “debt rankings” post. As with the Idaho, I was unable to rebuild the HTML table as I’ve already deleted the master. Thus, corrections are inline only.