Blacks and Law School: By The Numbers Forum

[John_rizzy_rawls]

And a follow up question for OP: is there a bump distinction between half AA and full?

You remember that "one drop rule" that was used to segregate and disfranchise AA ?

Uhm yeah..it applies in this instance. No distinction whatsoever between half and full, assuming, of course, you identify with your African heritage. I've rubbed shoulders with quite a few half AA who swear off their black heritage altogether.

This.

+1 I usually give them the Christmas gift of "The Souls of Black Folk" by W.E.B. DuBois (the hardest name there is to type on an iPhone).

+2 - 1 point double consciousness boost.

[Percival Jenkins]

OP, LSAC just released the new numbers from last cycle here: http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/resea ... -12-03.pdf

This past cycle there were -3132 test takers from the years you used in the OP, which was two years ago. The was -2000 test taker drop this last cycle.

Given the huge drop in test takers this past October and slight drop in June, we probably can assume that there will be an even smaller amount of AA's for this current cycle. Could be anywhere below 10,000 up to about 10,4000. (I think there will be at least another 1000 test taker drop this year).

Overall the test permance stayed roughly the same, but with less test takers this is welcome news for those of us applying this cycle.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

OP, LSAC just released the new numbers from last cycle here: http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/resea ... -12-03.pdf

This past cycle there were -3132 test takers from the years you used in the OP, which was two years ago. The was -2000 test taker drop this last cycle.

Given the huge drop in test takers this past October and slight drop in June, we probably can assume that there will be an even smaller amount of AA's for this current cycle. Could be anywhere below 10,000 up to about 10,4000. (I think there will be at least another 1000 test taker drop this year).

Overall the test permance stayed roughly the same, but with less test takers this is welcome news for those of us applying this cycle.

Just curious for a 2013-2014 applicant, do you think this trend will continue for next year as well?

If so, when do you think it will begin to go back up?

I find this bursting of the legal bubble pretty fascinating.

[BlaqBella]

OP, LSAC just released the new numbers from last cycle here: http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/resea ... -12-03.pdf

This past cycle there were -3132 test takers from the years you used in the OP, which was two years ago. The was -2000 test taker drop this last cycle.

Given the huge drop in test takers this past October and slight drop in June, we probably can assume that there will be an even smaller amount of AA's for this current cycle. Could be anywhere below 10,000 up to about 10,4000. (I think there will be at least another 1000 test taker drop this year).

Overall the test permance stayed roughly the same, but with less test takers this is welcome news for those of us applying this cycle.

Just curious for a 2013-2014 applicant, do you think this trend will continue for next year as well?

If so, when do you think it will begin to go back up?

I find this bursting of the legal bubble pretty fascinating.

+1, though I'm not that fascinated by this. I believe this decrease is dictated by fewer job prospects (at least within the USA), which places more pressure on aspiring attorneys (especially URMs) to get into the best law schools possible.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

OP, LSAC just released the new numbers from last cycle here: http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/resea ... -12-03.pdf

This past cycle there were -3132 test takers from the years you used in the OP, which was two years ago. The was -2000 test taker drop this last cycle.

Given the huge drop in test takers this past October and slight drop in June, we probably can assume that there will be an even smaller amount of AA's for this current cycle. Could be anywhere below 10,000 up to about 10,4000. (I think there will be at least another 1000 test taker drop this year).

Overall the test permance stayed roughly the same, but with less test takers this is welcome news for those of us applying this cycle.

Just curious for a 2013-2014 applicant, do you think this trend will continue for next year as well?

If so, when do you think it will begin to go back up?

I find this bursting of the legal bubble pretty fascinating.

+1, though I'm not that fascinated by this. I believe this decrease is dictated by fewer job prospects (at least within the USA), which places more pressure on aspiring attorneys (especially URMs) to get into the best law schools possible.

Makes sense.

FWIW, I did some playing around on LSN and found that a 3.55+ and a 172+ is auto-admit at Harvard, based on the last decade's online statistics, 37 admits, 1 denial (that was a 3.8+ GPA - must have been a glaring app weakness/significant C&F issue/PS written in crayon).

Since 2005/2006, those numbers are 100% admit at Harvard, 75% at Yale and 70% at Stanford.
Since the law school bubble burst (2008/2009), those numbers for URMs are 100% Harvard, 80% Yale, 70% Stanford.

If that doesn't give URMs something to shoot for, then I just don't know what is.

Now all there is to do is slay myself for a 2+ point increase on my June 2013 retake. And maintain my 3.6+ GPA. Oy.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Why do I not know what the auto admit is for 3.9x?

The exact same as what it is for a 3.6x URM - 172 and above - http://mylsn.info/dispresults.php

Your GPA matters a lot more in the 167-171 range, historically.

Don't worry dude, given the down cycle and your GPA you should be fine most places. Your Duke reserve shenanigan (yes I stalk these forums profusely) is just a YP. UVA and Michigan YP high number URMs too, check out LSN for more proof.

[wbrother]

The exact same as what it is for a 3.6x URM - 172 and above - http://mylsn.info/dispresults.php

Your GPA matters a lot more in the 167-171 range, historically.

Don't worry dude, given the down cycle and your GPA you should be fine most places. Your Duke reserve shenanigan (yes I stalk these forums profusely) is just a YP. UVA and Michigan YP high number URMs too, check out LSN for more proof.

So, good thing my numbers are low? JK. I know both of you are going to do exceptionally well this cycle.

[somewhatwayward]

Makes sense.

FWIW, I did some playing around on LSN and found that a 3.55+ and a 172+ is auto-admit at Harvard, based on the last decade's online statistics, 37 admits, 1 denial (that was a 3.8+ GPA - must have been a glaring app weakness/significant C&F issue/PS written in crayon).

Since 2005/2006, those numbers are 100% admit at Harvard, 75% at Yale and 70% at Stanford.
Since the law school bubble burst (2008/2009), those numbers for URMs are 100% Harvard, 80% Yale, 70% Stanford.

If that doesn't give URMs something to shoot for, then I just don't know what is.

Now all there is to do is slay myself for a 2+ point increase on my June 2013 retake. And maintain my 3.6+ GPA. Oy.

Just for the record, the law school bubble did not burst in 2008-2009. People might have started talking about the issues more because the lack of jobs was starting to affect schools much higher on the food chain, but applicants were still applying in droves. The year I applied, 2009-2010, for the class of 2013, was super competitive. Jobs were scarce for recent college grads and the news about the shitty prospects was not well-known enough. I don't know if more people applied in 2010-2011 than in 2009-2010, but it wasn't until the most recent cycle, 2011-2012, that the drop in standards and competitiveness was noticeable. In some ways I kick myself for not waiting longer or at least riding out the Y and S waitlists. Anyway, the point is the dropping standards are relatively new.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Makes sense.

FWIW, I did some playing around on LSN and found that a 3.55+ and a 172+ is auto-admit at Harvard, based on the last decade's online statistics, 37 admits, 1 denial (that was a 3.8+ GPA - must have been a glaring app weakness/significant C&F issue/PS written in crayon).

Since 2005/2006, those numbers are 100% admit at Harvard, 75% at Yale and 70% at Stanford.
Since the law school bubble burst (2008/2009), those numbers for URMs are 100% Harvard, 80% Yale, 70% Stanford.

If that doesn't give URMs something to shoot for, then I just don't know what is.

Now all there is to do is slay myself for a 2+ point increase on my June 2013 retake. And maintain my 3.6+ GPA. Oy.

Just for the record, the law school bubble did not burst in 2008-2009. People might have started talking about the issues more because the lack of jobs was starting to affect schools much higher on the food chain, but applicants were still applying in droves. The year I applied, 2009-2010, for the class of 2013, was super competitive. Jobs were scarce for recent college grads and the news about the shitty prospects was not well-known enough. I don't know if more people applied in 2010-2011 than in 2009-2010, but it wasn't until the most recent cycle, 2011-2012, that the drop in standards and competitiveness was noticeable. In some ways I kick myself for not waiting longer or at least riding out the Y and S waitlists. Anyway, the point is the dropping standards are relatively new.

Where are you at now Tagg?

[somewhatwayward]

Makes sense.

FWIW, I did some playing around on LSN and found that a 3.55+ and a 172+ is auto-admit at Harvard, based on the last decade's online statistics, 37 admits, 1 denial (that was a 3.8+ GPA - must have been a glaring app weakness/significant C&F issue/PS written in crayon).

Since 2005/2006, those numbers are 100% admit at Harvard, 75% at Yale and 70% at Stanford.
Since the law school bubble burst (2008/2009), those numbers for URMs are 100% Harvard, 80% Yale, 70% Stanford.

If that doesn't give URMs something to shoot for, then I just don't know what is.

Now all there is to do is slay myself for a 2+ point increase on my June 2013 retake. And maintain my 3.6+ GPA. Oy.

Just for the record, the law school bubble did not burst in 2008-2009. People might have started talking about the issues more because the lack of jobs was starting to affect schools much higher on the food chain, but applicants were still applying in droves. The year I applied, 2009-2010, for the class of 2013, was super competitive. Jobs were scarce for recent college grads and the news about the shitty prospects was not well-known enough. I don't know if more people applied in 2010-2011 than in 2009-2010, but it wasn't until the most recent cycle, 2011-2012, that the drop in standards and competitiveness was noticeable. In some ways I kick myself for not waiting longer or at least riding out the Y and S waitlists. Anyway, the point is the dropping standards are relatively new.

Where are you at now Tagg?

Tagg? I am at CLS. Everything turned out fine, didn't have trouble with getting a job, but there are some possibilities I may have been genuinely interested in that are easier from HYS. Also, although employment outcomes from CLS are pretty damn good, there is a prestige gulf between HYS and the rest of the T14; I don't know what impact, if any, that will have, but I am worried about job prospects once I leave my big firm, and, while school prestige is not the dominant factor in hiring later, it can help you get noticed. I am paying full price for CLS it's not like I am saving money. I had a 171/3.9 HYP undergrad and probably should have retaken to at least shoot for a Hamilton or Butler from CLS. I don't sit around and regret my choices on the whole, though. I am pretty satisfied.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Makes sense.

FWIW, I did some playing around on LSN and found that a 3.55+ and a 172+ is auto-admit at Harvard, based on the last decade's online statistics, 37 admits, 1 denial (that was a 3.8+ GPA - must have been a glaring app weakness/significant C&F issue/PS written in crayon).

Since 2005/2006, those numbers are 100% admit at Harvard, 75% at Yale and 70% at Stanford.
Since the law school bubble burst (2008/2009), those numbers for URMs are 100% Harvard, 80% Yale, 70% Stanford.

If that doesn't give URMs something to shoot for, then I just don't know what is.

Now all there is to do is slay myself for a 2+ point increase on my June 2013 retake. And maintain my 3.6+ GPA. Oy.

Just for the record, the law school bubble did not burst in 2008-2009. People might have started talking about the issues more because the lack of jobs was starting to affect schools much higher on the food chain, but applicants were still applying in droves. The year I applied, 2009-2010, for the class of 2013, was super competitive. Jobs were scarce for recent college grads and the news about the shitty prospects was not well-known enough. I don't know if more people applied in 2010-2011 than in 2009-2010, but it wasn't until the most recent cycle, 2011-2012, that the drop in standards and competitiveness was noticeable. In some ways I kick myself for not waiting longer or at least riding out the Y and S waitlists. Anyway, the point is the dropping standards are relatively new.

Where are you at now Tagg?

Tagg? I am at CLS. Everything turned out fine, didn't have trouble with getting a job, but there are some possibilities I may have been genuinely interested in that are easier from HYS. Also, although employment outcomes from CLS are pretty damn good, there is a prestige gulf between HYS and the rest of the T14; I don't know what impact, if any, that will have, but I am worried about job prospects once I leave my big firm, and, while school prestige is not the dominant factor in hiring later, it can help you get noticed. I am paying full price for CLS it's not like I am saving money. I had a 171/3.9 HYP undergrad and probably should have retaken to at least shoot for a Hamilton or Butler from CLS. I don't sit around and regret my choices on the whole, though. I am pretty satisfied.

Tagg Romney.

That's great, CLS is absolutely nothing to sneeze at. After H and Y it would be my undoubted number 3 choice, probably even more than Stanford.

Are you AA URM as well?

[jeffreyangley]

Yes it very helful information about the law school specially the graph gives more information about it

[Anonimo]

So... Ken is a millionaire?... Here is an idea. Maybe you could start a Ken's full ride to the law school of your preference scholarship. Any active member of TLS can apply and the selection method is aleatory. I bet that would boost the substantial traffic of the website by %1000. You could also give a full ride scholarship to the person who formulated the idea... just saying...

Oh and good luck to all AA..

[howlery]

So... Ken is a millionaire?... Here is an idea. Maybe you could start a Ken's full ride to the law school of your preference scholarship. Any active member of TLS can apply and the selection method is aleatory. I bet that would boost the substantial traffic of the website by %1000. You could also give a full ride scholarship to the person who formulated the idea... just saying...

Oh and good luck to all AA..

Isn't TLS itself the biggest gift one could give to a law school applicant?

[Anonimo]

So... Ken is a millionaire?... Here is an idea. Maybe you could start a Ken's full ride to the law school of your preference scholarship. Any active member of TLS can apply and the selection method is aleatory. I bet that would boost the substantial traffic of the website by %1000. You could also give a full ride scholarship to the person who formulated the idea... just saying...

Oh and good luck to all AA..

Isn't TLS itself the biggest gift one could give to a law school applicant?

True.

[blackandstrong]

Just wanted to bump this post.

[icanbeohyes]

Thank you for the great detail in the presentation of the URM process. It has really shed some light on where I stand this cycle (though it's almost over). However, I have a concern that I have not seen any other posters mention. I am curious as to whether the amount of AA first-years at the T-14+ translate into the amount of AA's that were admitted. I feel as if it would be reasonable to assume that although HYS+ would be hard to turn down, but it would also behoove us to assume that some AA's may have been accepted to a T-14 and not attended any particular school.

For example,

Harvard Law Class of 2015

Number of Applications: 5,438
Number of Admission Offers: 865
Percentage Offered Admission: 15.9%
Total Enrollment: 557


As you can see although 865 were offered admission, only 557 accepted.
Of that 557, 53 were AA's. (according to the NALP report on law schools)

After a simple proportion calculation, I concluded perhaps that not 53, but 82 AA's were extended an invitation to Harvard Law for the class of 2015. Assuming there IS a correlation between the number of AA's admitted to the total # of students admitted, that would lead me to believe that there are more spaces than 371 available to AA students in the T-14.

Thoughts?

[Disclaimer: This may not be correct. There is no way of showing that there is a direct correlation of AA's to the total population of students]

[BlaqBella]

I am curious as to whether the amount of AA first-years at the T-14+ translate into the amount of AA's that were admitted

Short answer: No. It's no different from the rate of attendance v.s. admittance by our non-URM counterparts in the T14.

But do keep in mind the following T14s seem to get the most AA URMs:

Harvard
NYU
Columbia
Georgetown (expected, given that it admits the largest class of the T14s)

[Athlone McGinnis]

However, I have a concern that I have not seen any other posters mention. I am curious as to whether the amount of AA first-years at the T-14+ translate into the amount of AA's that were admitted. I feel as if it would be reasonable to assume that although HYS+ would be hard to turn down, but it would also behoove us to assume that some AA's may have been accepted to a T-14 and not attended any particular school.

For example,

Harvard Law Class of 2015

Number of Applications: 5,438
Number of Admission Offers: 865
Percentage Offered Admission: 15.9%
Total Enrollment: 557


As you can see although 865 were offered admission, only 557 accepted.
Of that 557, 53 were AA's. (according to the NALP report on law schools)

After a simple proportion calculation, I concluded perhaps that not 53, but 82 AA's were extended an invitation to Harvard Law for the class of 2015. Assuming there IS a correlation between the number of AA's admitted to the total # of students admitted, that would lead me to believe that there are more spaces than 371 available to AA students in the T-14.

Thoughts?

This is an extremely good point that I actually had not considered. Thank you for bringing it up, as it adds a great deal of depth and accuracy to the analysis I gave above. I've edited the original post and added a link to your post in order to cover this oversight on my part.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Tip: myLSN.info graph feature is great because of how detailed you can make your search.

Recommendation to this thread:
1. Go to --LinkRemoved--
2. Pick a school
3. Pick race: African American
4. Preference: URMs only (obviously)
5. If you're non-traditional or military feel free to include those preferences as well

Really interesting to see specifically AA admissions data at T14s. Pretty decent sample sizes too. Gives you a very good idea of what the general AA boost at the top schools are.

[aboutmydaylight]

If anyone's curious, for MA's the numbers are as follows:

Mean: 147.79
SD: 8.82
Number = 1853

Mean + 1SD = 156.61 (294-295)
Mean + 1.5SD = 161.02 (124-125)
Mean + 2SD = 165.43 (42-43)
Mean + 2.5SD = 169.84 (11-12)
Mean + 3SD = 174.25 (1-2)

Numbers are smaller because there's less MA's than AA's that apply. All approximations of course. I don't have the data on how many MA enroll/are accepted to the T-14 but iirc about 30 MA's enroll in HYS annually. Assuming everything's correct, that would correspond to an LSAT of 166-167 to be among the top 30 MA's that took the test. I have a (perhaps unfounded) presumption that MA's don't get even close to the pass that AA's get when it comes to GPA though. You'd probably still have to near 3.7 to be competitive with the lower end of those scores.

[delusional]

It seems to me that the OP contains an assumption that may not be as true as one might assume. The assumption is that LSAT means the same thing to AA URM as it does to everyone else, though on a lower level. But based on the fact that almost every AA applicant is going to fall below the LSAT 25th percentile at T6, it's plausible that the LSAT simply ceases to matter and other factors are more important. The most obvious is GPA - it would make a ton of sense if the relative importance of LSAT and GPA was reversed for AA applicants at the T6, because it would be best for Columbia to accept a 4.0 155 over a 3.5 166. But other factors, like softs, might plausibly trump LSAT as well, if the LSAT is inevitably going to be below the 25th.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

It seems to me that the OP contains an assumption that may not be as true as one might assume. The assumption is that LSAT means the same thing to AA URM as it does to everyone else, though on a lower level. But based on the fact that almost every AA applicant is going to fall below the LSAT 25th percentile at T6, it's plausible that the LSAT simply ceases to matter and other factors are more important. The most obvious is GPA - it would make a ton of sense if the relative importance of LSAT and GPA was reversed for AA applicants at the T6, because it would be best for Columbia to accept a 4.0 155 over a 3.5 166. But other factors, like softs, might plausibly trump LSAT as well, if the LSAT is inevitably going to be below the 25th.

Nope. Opposite. High AA LSATs are in higher demand due to lower supply. Aggregate AA GPAs are higher and much closer to non-AA averages, whereas that's not at all the case AA LSATs - hence the standard deviation breakdown.

Though the real combo here to look at it LSAT/GPA combo. 165+/3.5+ AA is competitive everywhere because there's only 50-70 AAs per cycle with that combo.

But you are right about softs. Softs matter much more for URMs than non-URMs.

[delusional]

It seems to me that the OP contains an assumption that may not be as true as one might assume. The assumption is that LSAT means the same thing to AA URM as it does to everyone else, though on a lower level. But based on the fact that almost every AA applicant is going to fall below the LSAT 25th percentile at T6, it's plausible that the LSAT simply ceases to matter and other factors are more important. The most obvious is GPA - it would make a ton of sense if the relative importance of LSAT and GPA was reversed for AA applicants at the T6, because it would be best for Columbia to accept a 4.0 155 over a 3.5 166. But other factors, like softs, might plausibly trump LSAT as well, if the LSAT is inevitably going to be below the 25th.

Nope. Opposite. High AA LSATs are in higher demand due to lower supply. Aggregate AA GPAs are higher and much closer to non-AA averages, whereas that's not at all the case AA LSATs - hence the standard deviation breakdown.

Though the real combo here to look at it LSAT/GPA combo. 165+/3.5+ AA is competitive everywhere because there's only 50-70 AAs per cycle with that combo.

But you are right about softs. Softs matter much more for URMs than non-URMs.

You might be right on the facts, but I'm curious what the rationale would be for a school to care about LSAT below the 25th percentile.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

LSAT medians more important

LSAT also have higher correlation with 1L performance

50 URMs with an average 165 LSAT makes it easier to maintain LSAT medians (say 170) and inspires more confidence than the same number with 4.0/155. When picking an aggregate class, high GPAs are everywhere, low LSATs are plummeting. So they safe hedge bet.

Just basic calculation really.