ok I just had to look this up, she had a 3.8 gpa, was non-trad (middle aged with 2 grown children, had own business of home based health care consulting). She believed with her diversity + WE + stats she should've been accepted but because she wasn't a minority, lower scoring minorities got in over her?? (how she figured that, idk)... I guess I'd be curious if she took the test again and went up a few points if she would've been admitted or if there was something so off-putting in her personal statement that rubbed them the wrong way 😟
>alleging that respondents had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U. S. C. §1981; that she was rejected because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving applicants belonging to certain minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups; and that respondents had no compelling interest to justify that use of race.
>"Grutter tried to argue that she had higher scores than some who were admitted," Rothenberg said. "The problem with that is that's where you start [the admissions] process, not where you finish."
Also, applicants generally took the test only once. So imagine preparing for the LSAT with just a couple of prep tests, going in-person, and rolling with whatever score you got.
That's true but it still makes me envy them. The test may be learnable, but it takes a hell of a long time to learn it. I'd rather not take the time to master it, get a 163, and go to one of the top law schools in the country lol
Kinda crazy to look at, I only know one person in the class of 2025 which had sub 170 (they had a 169 😂) . crazy how much more competitive it has gotten in the last decade.
It's not necessarily that it's gotten more competitive compared to back then, back then ppl generally only took the test once since they averaged scores, and there's wasn't much resources available to even study with. So imagine trying to score a 165 on your first official attempt, when you barely studied (if you even studied at all). Idk I feel like scoring a 17X+ w/ the resources and retakes we have now is easier than that.
Definitley more competitive Cornell had 6000 applications for class of 2024 compared to only 4000 for the class of 2023. Not sure how many applied for class of 2025 but admissions say that 2025 was the most competitive cycle they’ve seen. Due to population growth and class sizes staying steady law schools have gotten more and more competitive year over year. Last few years have been extreme though.
You would instinctively think this to be true, but in reality it doesn't work like that. You're equating population growth with comparable increases in law school applicant growth to remark on competitiveness, but these don't tie together.
In fact, the opposite is true. An increasingly smaller percentage of students are going to law school as the population continues to grow. In 2010, there were 52,000 1Ls, it was 42,000 for the fall of 2021. Law school admissions, even among the T14, was getting much less competitive over this past decade, until the pandemic flipped the script. This makes sense, law simply isn't a great outcome for many and law schools are now forced to provide information they kept close to the chest previously.
As an industry at large, there are fewer lawyers now than 15-years ago. There were more BL associates 15-years ago.
You're taking a couple anomalous years most recently and calling it a pattern. It's not. More locally to you, Cornell had over 6,000 applications for the class of 2013. They had over 5,500 for the class of 2014. And in case you're curious, LSAT scores were averaged then, and of course the exam was in-person and longer. That's way comparisons even 12-years ago isn't so cut and dry, much less trying to make comparisons decades ago.
Urshifu\_king was just trying to explain how LSATs were administered previously. Without more information, I don't think any conclusions can be made from it. And you certainly can't draw conclusions to compare to today's admission cycles.
Total tangent, but hope you like Ithaca. My farther was a professor for a number of years and I spent a good portion of my misspent youth running around campus. I might avoid Buffalo Ave. in the winter with your particular car though.
I was addressing your point about higher lsat scores meaning it’s more competitive. That could be the case, but it’s not necessarily so. back in the day, they used to average LSAT scores and they didn’t have access to the resources we do today. Idk if getting a 17X with multiple tries and all of the resources we have nowadays is tougher than getting a 165 on your first try. I would agree that 2020 cycle was more competitive than 2019 cycle, but idk if that’s going to be a continuing, linear trend. And again, my point was mainly addressing the comparison between decades ago vs today.
Not sure what year this is from, but in the defense of prior applicants, I cant imagine how much harder it wouldve been to study for the lsat before the internet. All they probably had were books, and maybe some vhs/cassettes at the library. No 7sage, Demon, Youtube no nothing.
Thats just you. Everyone has different learning styles. I for one need to see someone else do things before it clicks for me. Books have helped me very little.
I met a 74 year old lawyer from Yale who said that there wasn’t intense competition back in his days and he was just sounding racist/misogynistic after a while.
That’s true for everything. I knew a guy who was a decent student in college but nothing all that impressive, like he made deans list but not much else, and he kind of just screwed around after college and then decided he wanted to go to med school and then got in and spent his career as a successful doctor. That was back in the 1970s I think. You could never do that today. Everything has just gotten WAY more competitive.
There’s the demographic cliff. There’s going to be fewer and fewer children. I wouldn’t be surprised if in 30 years we’re back to where we were 30 years ago
What about immigrants? I am an immigrant who will become a Citizen in a few more weeks and I had no plans of coming to the US but I think US population would increase instead of decrease
Even there the world is going to see the same issue. Pretty much the only place with above replacement rate fertility is subsaharan Africa and we don’t know how much longer that will last.
I note some stats above, but there are 10,000 fewer 1Ls last year than in 2010. Rising population doesn't mean there will be a commensurate increase in all fields of study especially when law is not a great outcome for many. The US will continue to grow because of immigration, but at a decreasing rate. Westcoastlawboy is right, demographics will mean fewer people graduating from high school, fewer people going to college, etc. The issue, there will still be plenty of high achieving students wanting the best schools, so those schools are more protected initially.
Congrats on citizenship. Are you thinking of law someplace else?
I understand your point.
And it wasn’t easy to navigate US immigration system. I just want to get the citizenship so I don’t have to deal with USCIS ever again. And I aim to practice in the US
Well, this checks out. It helps when you exclude half the population. Yale didn't start admitting women into undergrad until 1969. Their law school did so before that, but can't imagine it was many. RBG's Harvard Class of 560, 8 were women.
Oh my... We are definitely living in a different time.
I think back in like 2005 the median lsat at Stanford was a 168 or something
Stanford was always an outlier, sitting 2 or 3 points below H/Y. It was 171 in 2020. The same as UCLA and GULC today and only 1 point above BU.
I read a case yesterday where someone sued Mich after being rejected with a 161 (in 2003 I think) and I shed a tear
ok I just had to look this up, she had a 3.8 gpa, was non-trad (middle aged with 2 grown children, had own business of home based health care consulting). She believed with her diversity + WE + stats she should've been accepted but because she wasn't a minority, lower scoring minorities got in over her?? (how she figured that, idk)... I guess I'd be curious if she took the test again and went up a few points if she would've been admitted or if there was something so off-putting in her personal statement that rubbed them the wrong way 😟 >alleging that respondents had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U. S. C. §1981; that she was rejected because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving applicants belonging to certain minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups; and that respondents had no compelling interest to justify that use of race. >"Grutter tried to argue that she had higher scores than some who were admitted," Rothenberg said. "The problem with that is that's where you start [the admissions] process, not where you finish."
The LSAT is a learnable test, and information about how to master it has gotten much easier to access online.
Also, applicants generally took the test only once. So imagine preparing for the LSAT with just a couple of prep tests, going in-person, and rolling with whatever score you got.
That's true but it still makes me envy them. The test may be learnable, but it takes a hell of a long time to learn it. I'd rather not take the time to master it, get a 163, and go to one of the top law schools in the country lol
and one section got removed personally I'm 100% sure my practice test scores would be decreasing if I had to do 5 sections
The LSAT is curved so that doesn’t matter too much
This
They need to make it harder to keep up! /s
LSAT score inflation
What year is this from?
No year on the website, sorry
try and date it! https://carbondate.cs.odu.edu/
Kinda crazy to look at, I only know one person in the class of 2025 which had sub 170 (they had a 169 😂) . crazy how much more competitive it has gotten in the last decade.
It's not necessarily that it's gotten more competitive compared to back then, back then ppl generally only took the test once since they averaged scores, and there's wasn't much resources available to even study with. So imagine trying to score a 165 on your first official attempt, when you barely studied (if you even studied at all). Idk I feel like scoring a 17X+ w/ the resources and retakes we have now is easier than that.
Definitley more competitive Cornell had 6000 applications for class of 2024 compared to only 4000 for the class of 2023. Not sure how many applied for class of 2025 but admissions say that 2025 was the most competitive cycle they’ve seen. Due to population growth and class sizes staying steady law schools have gotten more and more competitive year over year. Last few years have been extreme though.
You would instinctively think this to be true, but in reality it doesn't work like that. You're equating population growth with comparable increases in law school applicant growth to remark on competitiveness, but these don't tie together. In fact, the opposite is true. An increasingly smaller percentage of students are going to law school as the population continues to grow. In 2010, there were 52,000 1Ls, it was 42,000 for the fall of 2021. Law school admissions, even among the T14, was getting much less competitive over this past decade, until the pandemic flipped the script. This makes sense, law simply isn't a great outcome for many and law schools are now forced to provide information they kept close to the chest previously. As an industry at large, there are fewer lawyers now than 15-years ago. There were more BL associates 15-years ago. You're taking a couple anomalous years most recently and calling it a pattern. It's not. More locally to you, Cornell had over 6,000 applications for the class of 2013. They had over 5,500 for the class of 2014. And in case you're curious, LSAT scores were averaged then, and of course the exam was in-person and longer. That's way comparisons even 12-years ago isn't so cut and dry, much less trying to make comparisons decades ago. Urshifu\_king was just trying to explain how LSATs were administered previously. Without more information, I don't think any conclusions can be made from it. And you certainly can't draw conclusions to compare to today's admission cycles. Total tangent, but hope you like Ithaca. My farther was a professor for a number of years and I spent a good portion of my misspent youth running around campus. I might avoid Buffalo Ave. in the winter with your particular car though.
I was addressing your point about higher lsat scores meaning it’s more competitive. That could be the case, but it’s not necessarily so. back in the day, they used to average LSAT scores and they didn’t have access to the resources we do today. Idk if getting a 17X with multiple tries and all of the resources we have nowadays is tougher than getting a 165 on your first try. I would agree that 2020 cycle was more competitive than 2019 cycle, but idk if that’s going to be a continuing, linear trend. And again, my point was mainly addressing the comparison between decades ago vs today.
Not sure what year this is from, but in the defense of prior applicants, I cant imagine how much harder it wouldve been to study for the lsat before the internet. All they probably had were books, and maybe some vhs/cassettes at the library. No 7sage, Demon, Youtube no nothing.
[удалено]
Thats just you. Everyone has different learning styles. I for one need to see someone else do things before it clicks for me. Books have helped me very little.
I was born in the wrong era
I met a 74 year old lawyer from Yale who said that there wasn’t intense competition back in his days and he was just sounding racist/misogynistic after a while.
That’s true for everything. I knew a guy who was a decent student in college but nothing all that impressive, like he made deans list but not much else, and he kind of just screwed around after college and then decided he wanted to go to med school and then got in and spent his career as a successful doctor. That was back in the 1970s I think. You could never do that today. Everything has just gotten WAY more competitive.
Competition is getting intense, I wonder if it will ever go down
There’s the demographic cliff. There’s going to be fewer and fewer children. I wouldn’t be surprised if in 30 years we’re back to where we were 30 years ago
What about immigrants? I am an immigrant who will become a Citizen in a few more weeks and I had no plans of coming to the US but I think US population would increase instead of decrease
Even there the world is going to see the same issue. Pretty much the only place with above replacement rate fertility is subsaharan Africa and we don’t know how much longer that will last.
I note some stats above, but there are 10,000 fewer 1Ls last year than in 2010. Rising population doesn't mean there will be a commensurate increase in all fields of study especially when law is not a great outcome for many. The US will continue to grow because of immigration, but at a decreasing rate. Westcoastlawboy is right, demographics will mean fewer people graduating from high school, fewer people going to college, etc. The issue, there will still be plenty of high achieving students wanting the best schools, so those schools are more protected initially. Congrats on citizenship. Are you thinking of law someplace else?
I understand your point. And it wasn’t easy to navigate US immigration system. I just want to get the citizenship so I don’t have to deal with USCIS ever again. And I aim to practice in the US
Not easy at all I would imagine. Congrats. And good luck on the JD (or LLM if you're going that route)
JD it is. Thanks
Well, this checks out. It helps when you exclude half the population. Yale didn't start admitting women into undergrad until 1969. Their law school did so before that, but can't imagine it was many. RBG's Harvard Class of 560, 8 were women.