ILNews

Annual survey finds law school admissions and applications continue to be down

Marilyn Odendahl
October 9, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A majority of law schools across the United States are cutting their admissions for the second year in a row, and a significant portion expect to continue the reduction in class size next year, according to the 2013 Kaplan Test Prep law school survey released Oct. 1.

The educational and career services provider annually surveys law school admissions officers. For the 2013 report, Kaplan polled admissions officers from 127 of the nation’s 203 American Bar Association-approved law schools, including 10 of the top 25 as ranked by U.S. News & World Report. The poll was conducted between July and September.

The survey found 54 percent of law schools cut their entering law school classes for the 2013-2014 academic year and another 25 percent plan to do so again next school year. Kaplan’s 2012 survey showed 51 percent of schools reduced the number in the entering class.

This coincides with a dramatic drop in law school applications from the peak of 602,300 in 2010 to 385,400 in 2013.

Looking ahead, admission officers expect the number of students applying to law school to continue to decrease. Sixty-seven percent do not anticipate that the steep, three-year decline in law school applications will be reversed during the 2013-2014 admissions cycle.

The downward trend also parallels the rise in the number of schools accepting June LSAT scores. Traditionally, law schools accepted nothing later than the February LSAT results but recently have been taking June scores, likely in an attempt to increase the applicant pools.

A startling 78 percent of law schools told Kaplan they took scores from the June 2013 LSAT for the academic year that started this fall. This is an increase from the 68 percent who used June 2012 LSAT scores for 2012 admissions.

Students entering law school will likely find a different curriculum than their predecessors. Seventy-one percent of law schools reported introducing more clinical courses and practical training into the curricula with the goal of making their graduates more practice ready.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT