Happy Friday! My takeaways after sleeping on it:
The obligatory “early data is volatile” means we are all guessing of course, by definition it is the most volatile because it’s based off the smallest number of applicants. Everyday that number increases and gains more statistical power. So while it bounces around early — it already did from yesterday to today — it then starts to become more clear and in the past several years more diminished from the early reported percentages. It’ll bounce a few times “up “ over the next month or so, but those increases generally just reflect the low statistical power of the data and some random date that happens to correlate with things like test score release 4 weeks ago or a holiday break whatever that cause more people to apply on a particular day this year versus last.
As a raw number, applicants are currently up, says Mr. Obvious. As others have alluded to up 12% from an 8% up cycle from a 18% cycle the year before is a higher number than last year and the year before — so at surface level at this static moment in time you’d say it’s more competitive. You saw this in u/davekilloran ‘s post, who knows the LSAT and applicant data as much as anyone on the planet. I also traded emails with someone really bright in the psychometric realm, and I texted with several admissions deans. Everyone at some point did mention the obvious; the aggregate numbers of applicants at this moment in time are higher than the last competitive.
Where does it go though? Last year (from memory it may have even been more) there was a 25% reduction from it early highs around +33% to the end of cycle of +7.9%. If we saw a 25% reduction this year you’d have a -12% cycle end applicant count. This is where the great debate starts. Some I spoke to yesterday believe that the early applicant surge (what I’d call front loading) has been going on for the last several years so that is now baked in to the numbers and therefore won’t reduce as much, and as has been noted there’s also a lot of people applying with scores from last year — meaning all the new applicants are still out there. They are going to apply and things will stay up. Fair enough. We could stay at around 12% up but I personally really doubt that. The most sophisticated time smoothing predictive analysis last year that takes all of this into account was still predicting the cycle last year would end +18% not where it did at +7.9%.
My instincts are that while we won’t see a 25% drop, although I’d love to, but that the +13% we see now ultimately floats down down down and ends at a cycle that’s nominally less or more competitive applicant wise. And I’m not the only person in this camp — I spoke this morning with Harvard Law’s former director of admissions Karen Buttenbaum who started our call with that exact guess. In other words, we’ll have applicant numbers slightly more or slightly less than last year when it’s all said and done. I personally base this on the belief that while we may not see the 25% glide-path of decrease, we still have a front loaded early picture. Remote test option up through June + a tendency for it to be a bit less appealing to retake in person and then the natural diminishment of the pool puts us at basically a flat cycle. I’ll elaborate in an upcoming podcast.
What about gpa and LSAT? Gpa isn’t going anywhere — schools will still have very high median gpas for this year. LSAT I really don’t think we will see the overall levels of increases in school medians that we knew we’d see this past year and that our tracker now reflects. I think we’re going to see more +0 median changes by good measure this coming cycle versus last cycle. I have a variety of reasons I think this, some due to thinking the curve will normalize with in person, scoring distribution refinement, and with the more widely known reality that U.S. News rankings gains are 58% outcome oriented (bar + employment) and the rest of the 48% like peer assessment or the greatly reduced in weight admissions numbers are so compressed many schools don’t get much of a return there. So while schools may be happy to keep up with the Joneses, there’s no longer the need to beat them.
I mentioned I’d podcast on this. I’ll snag some brave admissions person (understandably they don’t like to make predictions I didn’t either when I was an admissions officer) or some expert and ideally someone who disagrees with me and we’ll have it out. But that’ll be in about a month we need the early data to reach at least 25% of the applicant pool. Right now it’s just 17% so again, no one really knows.
Speaking of podcasts: Dean Z saw and took interest in my personal statement thought experiment I posted so she and I did a podcast on the two from the five possible famous opening PS sentences I gave on LinkedIn that we thought would work well. Spoiler: it wasn't the one about turning into a bug. I also owe this subreddit answers to the AMA questions — I’ve already done that too — so that’ll be posted after the Dean Z one. I believe Anna and I answered every AMA question that was asked. Then I’ll try to have the next be the admissions cycle predictions in maybe 4 weeks.
None of us know yet, including schools, — so I’d be a bit wary of social media posts with overuse of hyperbolic words and ‼️ left and right. People have a built in default mechanism to worry more and be hopeful less (negativity bias has kept us alive a species so we all do at times), but I think social media tends to prey on this for click bait. We’ll keep tracking!
- Mike Spivey