LSAT Tea-Leaf Reading

LSAT Tea-Leaf Reading: February 2017 Edition

Make that three administrations in a row that the number of LSAT takers has risen. At last, the LSAC has published the results of the February 2017 LSAT. 21,400 people took the test, up 5.4 percent from a year ago (20,301).

The four-period moving sum of LSAT administrations rose 1 percent to 109,354. By comparison, this administration year comes in slightly lower than 2012-13 (112,515). At the same time, the number of applicants is falling from last year, 1.9 percent lower than this time in 2016. As of now 55,100 people are projected to apply to law schools this year, but there may be a late surge in applicants as has tended to be the case in recent years. The number may be higher.

Although I’m still baffled why so many people would be interested in going to law school after such negative news in 2016, it’s even more surprising that more LSATs translates into fewer applicants. Perhaps LSAT takers are more strategic about their scores, which cautions against the hypothesis that the “wrong people” aren’t applying to law school (because, obviously, only high-LSAT scorers make good lawyers). So far, there’s no evidence of a Trump-induced surge in law-school interest. I’m confident that’s premature, but it’s something to bear in mind when the June LSAT takes place.

LSAT Tea-Leaf Reading: December 2016 Edition

The number of December LSAT takers grew to 31,340 (+7.6 percent) this administration. It’s the second period with growth after small drops in February and June 2016.

no-lsat-takers-4-testing-period-moving-sum

The four-period moving sum, which is identical to the calendar-year total, rose to 108,255 (+2.1 percent). The growth rate is a hair less than in September/October 2015 (2.2 percent). The ABA Journal summarizes the discussion of whether the jump in test takers is increased interest in law school or a result of pushing the September/October administration earlier. Ultimately, the trend speaks to more interest in law school no matter how it’s distributed. We’ll learn more someday when the LSAC publishes data on first-time test takers.

I did not predict this result. As I said about the September/October 2016 LSAT administration, I thought the New York Times article on law schools earlier this summer would reduce interest in law school. However, as I discovered a few weeks ago, many applicants appear interested solely in highly regarded law schools, so even if there’s a bump in applicants, most law schools might not hear from any of them.

Speaking of which, the LSAC reports that applicants are down about 4.2 percent compared to last year. That still puts us on track to ~53,800 applicants. Last year 56,126 people applied to law school. With the back-loaded LSAT and later application deadlines, it’s possible that more people will apply than currently predicted. Again, I recommend caution because they may not distribute their applications evenly.

LSAT Tea-Leaf Reading: September/October 2016 Edition

It only took the LSAC 40 days since the September/October LSAT administration to update its Web site, which is a noticeable improvement over June and February. Frankly, I’m finding that more interesting than the actual numbers: 33,563 for September/October, up 1.0 percent from last year.

no-lsat-takers-4-testing-period-moving-sum

Because of the rise in test takers, The four-period moving sum budged up 0.3 percent to 106,030. Essentially, the trend is flat, but I thought it would continue falling because of the New York Times article a few months back. I think it’s safe to say that if the Times can’t discourage people from law school, then the low-hanging fruit of easily dissuaded potential applicants has been exhausted.

Still, we don’t know anything about people who don’t choose to take the LSAT because they think it’s a bad idea. I question whether that’s a logically valid category. On the whole, we can expect another poor haul for law schools. Maybe others will consider going the Indiana Tech route.

Speaking of Indiana Tech, I recommend reading J-Dog’s gloating on the subject. He earned the privilege.

LSAT Tea-Leaf Reading: June 2016 Edition

Whoo-ey! Took long enough. As with February, the LSAC took its sweet time posting the number of people who sat for the most recent LSAT. In June 23,051 people took the test, down 0.8 percent from last year (23,238).

No. LSAT Takers, 4-Testing Period Moving Sum

The four-period moving sum fell trivially again by 0.2 percent to 105,696. My December speculation that LSATs are trending downward again appears to be holding, but these numbers are really, really flat.

Meanwhile LSAC data indicate that 1 percent more people are applying to law school this year. I can see this number falling next year because of the latest round of New York Times coverage on law school, but until then, I’m still curious what the application distribution will be for this year. September/October will probably be more insightful.

Anyway, a year ago I joked that law school was becoming a thing again, but that trend appears blunted. That’s where we are.

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.

LSAT Tea-Leaf Reading: December 2015 Edition

The LSAC was oddly slow putting up December LSAT data, but that’s okay because I have little to say about it. The number of LSAT takers has grown for five consecutive testing periods, but things slowed down this time.

No. LSAT Takers, 4-Testing Period Moving Sum

29,115 people took the LSAT in December, up a mere 1.9 percent over last year. The four-period moving sum grew a mere half a percent to 105,940.

I have no insight into whether this slowdown means anything or is just a blip. I’ll speculate after the February or June administrations.

LSAT Tea-Leaf Reading: October 2015 Edition

Halloween happens this weekend and the LSAC is celebrating by giving us yet another increase in LSAT takers. Gaze upon your zombie apocalypse:

No. LSAT Takers, 4-Testing Period Moving Sum

33,229 people took the October LSAT this year, up 7.4 percent from September 2014. The four-period moving sum is up to 105,410 (2.2 percent), just higher than December 2013.

As I hypothesized in June, more people might be taking the LSAT because of the media coverage saying now is the best time ever to go to law school. I happen to think this is a silly position: There really are far more people going to law school than there are indefinite-duration professional jobs available, but at least some lucky people might get strong scholarship opportunities. The catch is that someone has to pay for those scholarships, and that might also be people who borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars believing now is the best time ever to go to law school.

Maybe the recent NYT editorial will have an impact for the future, but regardless, it appears prospective law school applicants are a fickle bunch, easily swayed by mainstream media articles leaning one way or the other.

On the other hand, interest in medical school is at an all-time high. We certainly need doctors more than we need JDs.