Law School Applicant Pool Is Up—With Caveats
The number of people taking the LSAT this year increased more than 7%, yet more people are taking the test multiple times. The national law school applicant pool is up nearly 4%.
June 12, 2019 at 01:54 PM
3 minute read
The number of people taking the Law School Admission Test increased for the fourth straight year during the 2018-19 cycle—good news for law schools hoping for larger applicant pools and evidence that the so-called “Trump Bump” is more than a fleeting phenomenon. But that 7.3% growth fell short of the previous years' 18% surge in LSAT takers.
Altogether, 138,957 people sat for the exam between June 2018 and March 2019, marking the first time since 2010 that LSAT takers topped 130,000. (2009 was a high mark, when 171,514 took the entrance exam, before law school admissions headed into an eight-year slump.)
The increase in LSAT takers also is translating into more applicants. Thus far, the number of applicants to American Bar Association-accredited law schools for fall is up 3.7%. As with LSAT takers, that's more modest growth than the previous year, when applicants increased 7.6%. By this time last year, 95% of applications had been submitted, according to the Law School Admission Council.
While the number of LSATs administered increased this cycle, a larger percentage were repeat test-takers, according to Susan Krinsky, vice president and chief of staff and director of enrollment management at the council, which develops the test. Just 57% of those who took the LSAT this cycle were first-time takers, down from 61% the previous year. Even though the percentage of first-time test takers was smaller than the previous year, the actual number of those taking the test for the first time this cycle was several hundred higher, Krinsky noted.
One potential factor in the uptick of repeat test-takers is that the people now have more opportunities to sit for the exam. It was administered six times this cycle, up from the traditional four times annually. (It will soon expand to 10 administrations a year.) Moreover, the council in late 2017 did away with a rule limiting people from taking the test no more than three times over a two-year period.
“It's not possible to know whether the increase in repeaters is due to more tests, or our lifting the limit on the number of times you can take it,” Krinsky said.
But the rise in repeat test-takers means that significant increases in the number of LSATs administered won't necessarily result in a corresponding boost in the size of the national applicant pool. That was always the case, given that not everyone who takes the LSAT ultimately applies to law school, Krinsky said. But a rise in repeat test-takers makes it harder to predict applicant volumes based only on the number of times the LSAT is given.
Law schools also closely watch the LSAT score distribution of the applicant pool, and this year's numbers indicate that those with the highest scores aren't applying in the same numbers as the previous year. Thus far, the number of applicants with scores of 175 to 180 is down nearly 22%, while those with scores of 170 to 174 is down about 2%. (Those categories represent just a small slice of the overall applicant pool.) By contrast, every score category from 140 and below to 160 to 164 is up.
That's worrisome news for elite law schools that compete fiercely for applicants with top LSAT scores, and indicates that last year's spike in applicants with the highest LSAT scores may prove to be a temporary blip.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute readFederal Judge Weighs In on School's Discipline for 'Explicitly Copying AI-Generated Text' on Project
Trump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
4 minute read'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250