Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.5K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 35 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
Please clear this confusion - Too many people with high LSAT's?
Hey guys, so I have been reading a few posts about people asking about their "chances" at some schools. These are people with high 160's and even 170's who have written the FLEX. They seem worried about such high scores (170+) and claim there are too many people with those scores since Flex. This is really confusing me because I felt the scoring was meant to ensure that not many people would be able to get those high scores, isn't grading something on a curve meant to ensure that is not the case. Perhaps I am confused or misunderstanding this or the posters are mistaken. If someone would clear this up I would really appreciate it.
I had taken a massive hiatus and am looking to begin prepping again to hopefully write the test end of year and many people claiming those high scores have become normal is a bit concerning.
Comments
You're still talking about the top 2-3% of testers over the last (I believe) 3 years. It's just that a lot more people are taking the test now, while factors such as the new format, more at home study time, etc. have for various debatable reasons cause a bubble for 170+ scores this year in particular.
Personally, I think we may see lesser residual effects for another cycle or two but I doubt that kind of increase (and the resulting medians) are sustainable.
As compared to one year ago, current year applications are up 32.9%. As compared to two years ago, current year applications are up 34.3%. (US Applications to ABA Law Schools by Region/State)
As compared to one year ago, current year applicants are up 21.1%. As compared to two years ago, current year applicants are up 20.3%. (Applicants from Region/State of Permanent Residence)
Highest LSAT Last Year Current Year Percent Change
< 140 1,232 1,400 13.6%
140-144 2,323 2,458 5.8%
145-149 4,733 4,876 3.0%
150-154 7,335 7,792 6.2%
155-159 8,022 9,090 13.3%
160-164 6,920 8,675 25.4%
165-169 5,300 6,690 26.2%
170-174 2,637 4,042 53.3%
175-180 711 1,420 99.7%
According to Justin Kane this is the most competitive law school admissions cycle in 20+ years. How competitive? You could fill every single seat at the T50 with a 165+ scorer right now.
Stumbled onto this post, and at first glance, this doesn't seem to make any sense at all.
If the test is graded on a curve, then can law school applications be up ~30%, but 175+ scorers be up ~100%? How accurate is this data?
This is LSAC https://report.lsac.org/VolumeSummary.aspx?Format=PDF
Edit. As compared to one year ago, current year applications are up 32.9%. As compared to two years ago, current year applications are up 34.3%. (US Applications to ABA Law Schools by Region/State)
As compared to one year ago, current year applicants are up 21.1%. As compared to two years ago, current year applicants are up 20.3%. (Applicants from Region/State of Permanent Residence)
I haven't been keeping up with the percentile changes but do we see a big difference in those between regular tests and LSAT Flex?
Wow. So I just calculated it out:
175+ last year = 1.8% of test takers
175+ this year = 3.0% of test takers
This calculation alone shows they significantly relaxed the curve. And this seems to be the case across the top score ranges.
Also, another question, how could it be possible that I scored in the 84th percentile with only a 162? According to my back of the envelope calculation, on average this cycle, a 162 should be closer to the 64th percentile. Would that just mean that the particular test I took was either more difficult or less competitive?
I have no idea. But these are factors beyond our control as applicants.
Damn, does that mean it would be better to wait until another cycle if you get 170+? I have dream schools. Only certain schools at which I would be willing to pay the high price tag of a legal education.
I feel this "high scoring bubble" will deflate since an experimental section is being added. But according to Spivey the medians of most schools will be increasing by a point or two for sure.
Well I think this all boils down to competition. Even if the medians increase for a season, they will all increase at a similar rate. They will also deflate at a similar rate later if the so called bubble pops. However, during those seasons where the medians increase, that would indicate there are more high scoring candidates for the schools to choose from. Which is where the limited number of seats would effectively crunch candidates. The other thought is with so many high scoring candidates, whether the schools can increase the number of seats offered. (Thus potentially increasing their income significantly as well.)
More high score applications does not mean more people getting a certain score on a given LSAT. Think of it like an LR problem you're trying to solve. What assumptions are you making?
One assumption is that everyone that takes the LSAT and scores well applies to law school that year. Another is that they only take the test once.
I can't say if the curve has been relaxed, but it would defeat the whole point of the LSAT if they did it more than a little. It's an assessment written by very smart assessors. They create it very deliberately to differentiate between people and relaxing the curve too much would make it utterly worthless.
Not everyone who takes the test necessarily applies to law school.
I'm really disagree with you here. The previous poster got this data directly from LSAC. The data is headered: "Applicants' LSAT Scores."
The data reads:
"Highest LSAT:" and the jump was from 711 applicants last year to 1,420 applicants this year for the 175+ range, roughly double or in percentage terms, 99.7%
"Total" applicants only jumped 18%. Therefore, conclusively there is a much higher ratio (in addition to a much higher total number) of 175+ applicants this year, compared to last year. Meaning, the curve was relaxed significantly.
"Please note as defined in this report, an applicant is a candidate who submits one or more applications for any academic term."
This is the data that LSAC reported on.... So those people who took the test and didn't apply were not counted.
(Another explanation could be that there were many test-takers with the exact same number of missed questions. Similar to a tie-breaker in sports. Let's say there were 20 swimmers with a 50.0005 second race result. Suddenly there are 20 first-place winners, since they only measure down to that decimal. Perhaps this is what happened? With less questions overall, more people were likely to fall into the exact same number for raw scores?)
this is interesting. http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants?order=desc&sort=lsat
no.18 http://washu.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants?order=desc&sort=lsat
no.38 http://unc.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants?order=desc&sort=lsat
makes it more diff if you are hoping for a big scholly at a mid-ranked school with a generally decent score
I think you missed my point that the ratio of high scores to applicants only gives you half the equation. Not everyone who takes the test and scores high applies.
If 1,000 people in an average year (this is only an example number) score 175 and only 50% apply that year, with the rest deciding not to apply at all or to wait but this year there were 1500 high scorers, of which 90% apply and another 50% of those who did not apply the last two years but scored well apply, you're going to have numbers that seem like a huge percentage of people scored highly in a given year. In this case, 50% of 1000 ( 500 each of two years) plus 90% of 1500 this year. That adds up to, in this hypothetical, 2350 people with high scores applying, or 470% of normal. That's an extreme example, I would guess more than 50% of high scorers apply each year, and 175+ scores obviously aren't up 470%, but it makes my point clearly. We don't have the information to claim there is a different curve or ratio this year at all.
I will say that math dictates a greater tendency towards individual swings with fewer questions that may throw the curve off small amount, but assuming the highly skilled, highly experienced people at LSAC who's whole ability to exist is based on charging us for a successful, objective assessment on a given curve have decided to throw that mission out the window completely is hardly logically in their interests and humans and their organizations usually try to pursue their best interests.
Sorry, that should be 1850, but the point remains. We can't drive any statistically verifiable inferences about the percentage of high scores from the data we have.
to buy the claim that the curve was relaxed significantly this year, i'd like to see data that is lsat-flex focused (e.g., percentage breakdown of each score-range for lsat-flex).
like @Nice_home said, data on lsac is headered "Applicants' LSAT Scores."
but this is a combination of both lsat-flex and lsat scores who are applying this year; not only scores of tests that were taken this year.
we also need to take into account that a lot of people applied last year but did not attend due to the pandemic – and they are reapplying this year
is there data out there that shows the lsat-flex score percentage breakdowns?
A higher ratio of applicants in the top score band doesn't mean a relaxed curve. While admittedly a black box, LSAC denies curves have been changed and nothing else we can see from flex administrations indicates otherwise.
It could very well be the case that they did adjust scaling, (and I'll concede that LSAC does some shady shit) but that would jeopardize the consistency of their product (us with our scores) for the consumer (schools). It is to their benefit to maintain a nice normal distribution. Not sure what benefit they would get from taking sections that have been exhaustively vetted and scaled for consistency across any number of metrics—and in most cases already used to produce official LSAT scores, then relaxing the scale for some unknown reason... then lying about it.
I'd lean toward believing factors like multiple takes (that did not count toward retake limits through the summer), a shorter test, greater value per question, context and state dependent recall/performance, more available study time, economic and/or personal motivation, etc. combined with the influx of applicants are more likely culprits.
@canihazJD Is the curve predetermined? I've heard someone mention that they use the two weeks before score release to see how people do and decide the curve based on that
Let's use nice, round, fake numbers:
In a normal year, 10,000 people take the LSAT.
This year, 20,000 people take the LSAT.
On the curve, a 170 is 97th percentile (this varies; this year it's 97.1- last year it was 97.6, but let's say it's totally equal across the years at 97%. Idk why they do this, but I'd imagine it just breaks down such that you can't actually separate raw scores perfectly to maintain a to-the-decimal consistent curve, as you have to take everyone that got -5 and put them at the same scaled score, and the distribution of raw scores probably doesn't allow perfect consistency)
In a normal year, 300 people (3%) get a 170+ score.
This year, 600 people (3%) get a 170+ score.
I don't know about the drama and controversy and scandal about LSAC changing curves- I do know that putting the test on a curve changes the raw score requirements between tests: e.g. on a hard test you can get -10 for a 170, on an easier test you can only get -5 to get a 170 (again, fake numbers). Using the curve ensures that the scaled score remains a consistent metric of one's performance relative to all other test takers rather than giving higher scores to those who happen to take an easier test.
So the higher number of 170+ scores is the product of the curve. More test takers = more people in the pool = more people in the top 3%
Per LSAC it is predetermined. There is reason IMO to be suspicious of that but, thats what they've said.
The percentile of a given LSAT score is based off the last three years worth of scoring. It is not that this year for instance only 2% of people got a 172+. A given year's distribution can be way off... like this one probably is. The test is not "curved" in the sense that the top x percent get y score, with a specific mean and standard deviation. It is completely possible that no one gets a given score. The questions/tests are vetted beforehand to produce a normal distribution. This is why there is greater room for error if the factors they based that vetting on change in ways they didn't account for. I'll bet no one factored in a pandemic forcing people inside with no job to go to and all the time in the world to study for instance.
can someone let me know what this all means? how do we read this data and decide to apply based on them? does this mean that LSATs taken during flex are looked at more leniently, or are we just assuming more people took the exam this year?
Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it. Focus on what you can control: yourself. Have the best application package (numbers, essays, etc.) you can possibly achieve, compare to what are sure to be interesting forthcoming medians, and apply broadly.
Edit: good discussion going on currently here as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/lawschooladmissions/comments/lptr5r/cycle_volume_new_applicants_per_week/
This makes a lot of sense to me. So perhaps a lot of people were sitting on their high scores due to the pandemic, and unleashing mass applications (re-applications) this year. Of course these are all speculations with very little practical application (no pun intended!), but I am quite satisfied reading this explanation! Thanks!
@Nice_home I'm glad it helped. I typed it up on my phone, never a good idea for me, and looking at it now it's embarrassingly incoherent, but at least the point still got across.
I applied in February with a 164 so this is pretty scary...wtf.