In this episode, Mike gives his thoughts on whether law schools will be able to maintain their historically high LSAT/GPA medians after the 2022-2023 admissions cycle.
Spivey Consulting Availability Notes:
You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, YouTube, SoundCloud, and Google Podcasts.
Note: You may notice that the numbers we cite sometimes vary slightly from the volume data that LSAC publishes. This is because LSAC reports only an applicant's ultimate high LSAT score, even if they didn't achieve that score until months or even years after the date in question. For example, if someone applied in 2021-2022 with a 160, then retook the LSAT the following fall and scored a 170 to reapply for 2022-2023, LSAC's data would include them as an applicant with a 170 even in the 2021-2022 data. To avoid this effect, we record applicant volume daily in real-time so that we can later compare to the data as it actually was on that date, rather than factoring in any new LSAT scores that were achieved after that date.
Mike: Welcome to Status Check with Spivey, where we talk about life, law school, law school admissions, a little bit of everything. Today I'm answering a question we've received a number of times, rightfully so. We ask it of ourselves too, law schools ask it, which: are medians—which were ridiculously high last year—are they going to stay as high this year? And the answer is both interesting and a little bit complicated.
The interesting part is, if you had asked me this question—and people have asked me this question—about two months ago, I would have said there's no way that medians are going to stay as high. So the main reason for that is, we knew two months ago that things were looking down as far as the number of applicants. Often LSAC for example will message something like, “It's a strong cycle, the applications are up.” That’s actually a meaningless number in admissions. When you're a baby Dean of Admission, you don't understand it for your first couple of months, but then after a few months you realize applications are a reflection of maybe how many people you'll be taking off the wait list or how many admits you'll be making, but they're not a reflection of how competitive the cycle is. As far as cycle competitiveness, we knew a couple of months ago things were going to be down, and they were. They were down I think early on around 12%, we predicted that by the end of the cycle it was going to be down 1% to 5%, and that's where it looks like it's going to be. We’re at -4.1% applicants (again the number that matters) right now.
Two months ago, looking at the data, knowing that we'd be around -1% to -5% and knowing that schools just could not decrease their class sizes anymore—they decreased their class sizes significantly last year. Let me just double click on why that matters. Law schools, unlike many universities, particularly elite universities, are enrollment, tuition driven. They pay their faculty, they pay their staff, they turn their lights on, they pay merit aid out of tuition. There's really only one reason to lower your class size, and I'll just be candid. It's for U.S. News and World Report rankings. The smaller your class size, the easier it is to bring in higher LSAT, higher GPA, be more selective, easier it is to place students downstream, the higher your bar passage rate is. The U.S. News and World Report margins that matter hit that class size. I haven't seen a law school—and I've been on budget committees of law schools—decrease their class size significantly two years in a row. For that reason: you have to bring in tuition money.
So these are all-time high medians. 59 law schools last year increased both their median LSAT and median GPA. 142 schools increased their median GPA last year. 75 schools increased their median LSAT last year. So we're talking about crazy, crazy numbers last year. So why have I changed a little bit? I mean, it's interesting because as I like to say (it's not my quote), prediction is difficult—especially when it involves the future. So maybe what I was thinking two months ago was going to hold true, and there's no possible way you can see the same record high numbers. I mean, it's like, is it likely that someone who hits 400 in baseball once in their career is going to hit 400 the next year? No, that's not likely. Maybe that's a good analogy; maybe that's a poor analogy.
Here's the problem. I'm going to bifurcate the two groups of schools… schools top 14—we’ll call it top 17—schools shooting for LSAT scores in the 170s. When you're looking at those schools, the bubble at the top for LSAT scores 170 to 180, both proportionately and in raw numbers—we’ll explain how this happens in writing as part of this podcast, but we screenshot the data every day and we compute our scores differently and we think more accurately than the way LSAC computes their scores. I'm sure they think they do it more accurately. We'll explain why we think ours is a better reflection of the current cycle.
When we look at our data both proportionally and in aggregate numbers, scores 170 to 180 are actually up. Now that's really fascinating. No one thought this bubble would stay where it is. There's theories out there, and maybe I'll do a podcast with an expert like Dave Killoran or a psychometrician on why the bubble has stayed. It shouldn't, right? It's been an organic bell curve for many years, and this top bubble in theory should have returned to normality, and it hasn't. There's lots of theories out there, and let me be the first to say I don't know. There's theories that people are studying more, have more downtime to study, better study methods, better study protocols. There's more conspiratorial theories that others have espoused, and again I don't know if this is true, I do know that LSAC is a money-driven machine that cares deeply about profit, so they do things like score preview and charge people for the profit. When people retake the LSAT—retakes are up, and they're up over a ridiculous amount last year—every retake is more money for LSAC. So for them to keep the scores at the top high makes them more money. Now again, I don't want to say that I know for a fact or even suspect LSAC is doing this. My point being is there's a lot of theories on why the bubble hasn't gone down, but we don't know. Maybe LSAC could chime in and explain to us in a non-spin kind of way why that is.
So because of that high LSAT bubble at the top and the GPA inflation, if you saw our graph over the last two years, GPA inflation has taken off—the graph’s on our blog. If you found this podcast on our blog, it's right below it. GPA inflation is still going to be up. It looks like LSAT inflation is still going to be up. And if the schools at the top don't have to increase their class sizes significantly, then you actually could see a scenario where those schools have ridiculously high medians.
Outside of that range, I think you're going to see medians drop. I think, at the macro level, when you look at all schools, you're going to see more negatives and zeros than you're going to believe, relative to the high mark. So you start getting outside that very top range, and these schools dropped their class sizes so much last year and pulled out all the stops financially and in class size. By financially, I mean merit aid and class size to bring in record classes. They can't do that year after year. Again, there's that bifurcation. Elite schools maybe just as competitive medians outside that range, very likely not as competitive medians.
In summary: maybe as competitive, maybe at the very elite schools, highly likely not as competitive at the—we'll call it 17, 18—I say these numbers and some schools are going to get mad at me—range and then all other schools, not as competitive medians. And there is my dog. So we're going to end it on that note, that is low-key my dog wishing everyone a happy new year, and me too. This was Mike Spivey, the Spivey Consulting Group.
In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Anna Hicks-Jaco interviews Natalie Blazer, Assistant Dean for Admissions and Chief Admissions Officer at the University of Virginia School of Law, on the upcoming 2025-2026 admissions cycle, how applicants should be thinking about and taking into account relevant current events, and advice for prospective law students preparing to submit their applications. They discuss predictions for the 2025-26 cycle (1:56), rising LSAT and GPA medians (20:22, 27:45), changes they've made to their application this year (12:30), the new student loan cap (30:26), how admissions offices are considering applicants writing about politics and protest in the current political climate (4:18), how they evaluate applicants who have been unable to get a job after graduating from college (7:36), whether writing about AI is overdone (36:34), advice for the "Why UVA" essay (13:05), and much more. As a brief disclaimer, Dean Blazer speaks for herself and often for UVA Law in this episode; her opinions do not reflect those of all admissions officers.
In addition to her work at UVA Law, Natalie has served as Director of J.D. Admissions at Georgetown University Law Center and was Associate Director of Admissions at Columbia Law School. She hosts the UVA Law podcast Admissible, which "offers insights into the world of law school admissions and a behind-the-scenes look at life as a law student through interviews with students, faculty, alumni and staff."
We've interviewed Natalie twice for Status Check before, and though we weren't able to get to all of the questions that Redditors requested we ask, we answered many of them in these past episodes:
Please note: At the time that we recorded this episode, we noted that August 2025 LSAT registrants were up 27% relative to August 2024 registrants but that that number would come down over the days of the test administration. Ultimately, August LSAT registrants landed at a 23.7% increase vs. last year.
You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.
In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike interviews William ("Bill") Treanor on his long and recently-concluded tenure as Dean of Georgetown University Law Center as well as his experiences and perspectives from a 40-year career. Bill talks about the the biggest changes he's seen during his time in legal education (16:06), the coming changes he foresees in the short-term future both good (19:22) and bad (20:56), his proudest accomplishments as a law school dean (41:57), the biggest challenges law students face today (24:27), and how he reacted and famously responded to the letter from Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin threatening not to hire Georgetown Law graduates if the school was found to be teaching a curriculum involving diversity, equity, and inclusion (1:33).
Dean Treanor's response to then-Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin is below. You can also read it in full here.
Other topics they discuss include the value (and lack of value) of the Socratic method (16:30), experiential learning in law school (16:06) and the potential effects of a current proposal before the ABA (20:56), the growing field of law and technology (19:22), the prospect of government taking accrediting authority from independent organizations (21:57), the current and coming impacts of AI on legal education and practice (23:43, 46:58), how law firms have learned from past recessions and overreactions (29:33), Bill's take on the current surge in law school applicants (30:36), his advice for prospective law students today (33:48), and his thoughts on the law school rankings (35:18).
Bill Treanor served as Dean of Georgetown University Law Center for 15 years, prior to which he served as Dean of Fordham University School of Law for almost 20 years. His accomplishments at Georgetown were innumerable—you can read more about him and his impressive career here.
You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.
In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Spivey J.D. admissions consultants Danielle Early (former Associate Director of Admissions at Harvard Law School and military/veteran admissions specialist) and Mike Burns (former Director of Admissions & Financial Aid at Northwestern Law and Navy veteran) interview Brian Henson, a former consulting client of Danielle's, Navy Intelligence Officer, Service to School mentor, Harvard Law Armed Forces Association president, and recent HLS graduate. They discuss Brian's story of applying to law school from the middle of the ocean on an aircraft carrier and his experiences as a veteran at HLS, plus insights into admissions and legal education specifically targeted at military veterans and those on active duty.
What considerations should military applicants keep in mind that differ from non-military applicants? What is the adjustment like moving from the military to law school? What sorts of admissions resources are available for military members and veterans? What are common pieces of misinformation that military applicants may encounter, and what's the true story? They cover these topics and more, including admissions for enlisted soldiers vs. officers (29:36), getting letters of recommendation from supervisors/commanders (36:44), application timing (5:28 and 21:51), resumes (43:36), personal statements (46:08), determining your chances and making a school list (31:51), job search advice (1:03:42), and more.
You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.