Search the Lounge


« In Memoriam: Judge Blane Michael | Main | Pace Law School Seeks to Hire Assistant Dean of Environmental Program »

March 30, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


You could even compare 2001 to 2004 and the differences would be significant. There was a huge spike in admissions in 2003-2005.


The important question is whether the number of applications from folks at the top of the credential pool has declined as much as the overall pool. If the top has stayed the same, or declined less, then the top schools will still be able to fill themselves with high-numbered students. This, in turn, will allow the schools lower in the pecking order to retain more of their relatively high-numbered students, etc.


Here's what I'm wondering, as my jaw drops at the scores at the top schools: Does a 176, or a 174, mean anything appreciable and relevant, compared to a 168? To be sure, it's lovely that top students have even higher LSAT scores than they did a decade ago -- nice work, folks! With these ever-increasing scores, I'm pretty sure than neither I nor 2/3 of my law school class would have gotten in. But are these LSAT-rich students really that much better, in any meaningful sense, as these higher scores appear to suggest?

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad