For the most recent admission cycle, there are close to 9k applicants with a score above 170 according to LSAC's official data. Yet class sizes at T14 only add up to about 4.5k. Considering most T14s have 25th percentiles below 170, this means that less than 40% of the 170+ scorers end up attending a T14.
Maybe a low GPA could account for some, but I find it hard to belief that 60% of 170+ scorers have a GPA so low that it raises a red flag. Moreover, I feel like most who score above a 170 should be competent enough to not bomb the soft factors too badly.
What are people's thoughts on this? Is it just that 173 or maybe even 175 is now the new 170, or have I overlooked some common pitfalls?
2
6 comments
I think the first thing that's important to understand is that schools give out way more acceptances than they have spots. This is because of their yield, ie. the amount of students who actually accept an offer. Some schools - such as Yale - have extremely high yield, almost 100%, and so they typically only send out a few more offer than there are spots in the class. Most T14s do not have that kind of yield - the average is probably 30-40% - so many of them will send out a total number of acceptances that are double or even triple the number of people in the class. Even if one considers that people get into multiple t14s, someone did an analysis of lsd a while back and found that the vast majority of people get accepted to only one or two, iirc. My point here is that there are more A's going out than the 4.5k number you brought up.
Low GPA, I agree that it's not 60%, but the LSA vibe that everyone has 4.0 and a 175 is a delusion. I can also promise you that a 170 in no way indicates competency, as I've known plenty of people who got that score but were, say, terrible writers. It's also important to understand that a significant amount of those scores are probably KJDs, and while I think the tax can be overstated, I do think there's a measurable impact that a lack of work experience can have on an application.
I also want to note that a high score has never been a guaranteed acceptance to a school. Plenty of people for years and years have been rejected even though they had high stats.
Interesting stats! I think I saw somewhere that T-14 schools have been putting more emphasis on work experience and essays? So maybe that could be one source of this discrepancy?
You have to remember though, that just because there are 9k applicants with a score above 170, it doesn't necessarily mean all of those students are accepting their admissions at those schools. There are many reasons why high-scorers would choose not go to a T14 (especially with the new student loan cap), and it could be true that a large proportion of them have received offers but decided not to accept. There are also great programs that might be location-specific that are not T14; or, like you mentioned, other factors like GPAs, essays, and softs that affect an overall application. I will also mention, that last year's cycle saw over 7.5k applicants with a score above 170. Given that there are more test-takers in general, it's hard to say definitively that T14s are increasingly exclusive and are solely considering scores above a certain threshold (beyond their current expectations).
It would be naive of me to say that there hasn't been some sort of spike in competition, especially when it comes to LSAT scores; however, I don't believe that these shifts are as pronounced as we expect them to be. Laws schools have always been competitive, and getting a 170 has never been a guaranteed acceptance to a T14 school, nor has anything lower been a guaranteed rejection.
If your question is why don't a higher percentage of the 170+ scorers attend T14s, I think you've hit part of it (ie, some applicants will have low GPAs, etc). @haena fills in a few other things down below (ie, they choose to attend another school outside the T14 because of scholarship/fit, etc). But there's a bigger piece of this puzzle that's important to consider - schools aren't interested in increasing their enrollment. They are enrolling the same size classes as they did before this big surge is apps started a few years ago. I can go into the why of that if anyone is so interested, but the relevant point for our discussion here is:
If more people are applying with 170+ scores,
And if T14s are enrolling the same number of students,
Then a lower percentage of that 170+ cohort are going to enroll at T14s.
So a big part of the answer to the question of "why don't more of this group enroll at T14s" is the simple "because there's just not enough space." And if there's not enough space, then all the other factors in the app (GPA, work history, personal background, fit for the school, etc) are also going to be really important.
I hope that helps!
@JacobBaska Thanks for the insight. Like you mentioned, in the current market where law schools have significantly more bargaining power. However, this power seems to raise the LSAT threshold only marginally; they have plenty of "fish" in the 170+ pool, yet still opted to take a considerable portion of people with a lower LSAT score. I do not think this is necessarily good or bad, just trying to understand what role exactly does the LSAT score play in admissions as of 2026.
@lastminlsat It's still an important part! It's just that admissions officers understand that the supply/demand curve in that area is such that there are so many high LSATs that they don't have to feel like they need to reach for the LSAT as much as they used to. That means a high LSAT alone isn't going to be enough, nor high stats alone, nor a great resume alone, etc. Applicants really need to have the whole package.
First thing that comes to my mind is that a 170 is a great score to get a full ride to many regional schools. Going to a T14 isn't the top choice for a lot of people! :)