In 2011, this would have put Florida at #7 for LSAT (behind H, Y, Columbia, NYU, Chicago, Duke),

#1 for UGPA, & #6 for selectivity (behind Y, UVa, Stanford, Cal, H)

https://x.com/derektmuller/status/2086879825562620189

https://law.ufl.edu/admissions-aid/admitted-students/entering-class-profile/#jd-stats

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5891884&forum_id=2:#50060332)

A 170 is like a 162 20 years ago

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5891884&forum_id=2:#50060343)

remember jakki

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5891884&forum_id=2:#50060764)

Why wouldn't they request a standardized test that has more of a spread?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5891884&forum_id=2:#50062384)

Same LSAT score: then vs. now

LSAT 2000–03 percentile 2023–26 percentile Top % then Top % now

160 82.6 71.06 17.4% 28.94%

165 93.3 85.17 6.7% 14.83%

170 98.1 94.48 1.9% 5.52%

175 99.7 98.72 0.3% 1.28%

176 99.8 99.08 0.2% 0.92%

177 99.8 99.34 0.2% 0.66%

178 99.9 99.57 0.1% 0.43%

179 99.9 99.74 0.1% 0.26%

180 99.9 99.85 0.1%* 0.15%*

*The published percentiles are rounded, so the extreme-tail complements aren't precise counts.

That means a 170 is roughly three times as common relative to the testing population today:

2000–03: about 1.9% scored 170 or higher.

2023–26: about 5.52% score 170 or higher.

And 175+ is roughly four times as common: about 0.3% then versus about 1.28% now. Because the old percentiles are reported only to one decimal place, don't take the 4.27× ratio as exact, but the magnitude is unmistakable.

The weirdly neat result: about four LSAT points

If instead we ask, "What current score gives you approximately the same percentile rank as an old score?", this falls out:

Around 2000 Percentile Approx. equivalent today

160 82.6th 164 — 82.75th

165 93.3rd 169 — 93.03rd

170 98.1st 174 — 98.24th

175 99.7th 179 — 99.74th

So across an enormous part of the upper distribution, there's an almost eerie pattern:

An LSAT score from ~2000 is worth about four points more in percentile terms than the same numerical score today.

A 170 in 2000–03 had roughly the relative rarity of a 174 today.

A 175 then had roughly the rarity of a 179 today.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5891884&forum_id=2:#50062583)

5.5% of them getting 170+ is pretty wild. That used to be a very good score. Now, 8,800 people per year score 170+ (with some adjusting for repeat takers). And there are still only about 1,000 seats at HYS, probably about 4,000 across all of the T14.

And--there are probably fewer and fewer seats for people to "earn" via LSAT scores as schools allow direct admission for some of their undergrads and for certain students who don't care to submit an LSAT score. Nevermind the test takers with extended time and the people cheating on remote tests.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5891884&forum_id=2:#50063287)

What was the explicit reason given for the change? (Obviously the implicit reason was "we need more black and brown lawyers!" - even if they can't handle the work).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5891884&forum_id=2:#50063110)

And your point about time limit is cr. Any smartmo should be able to get close to 180 with sufficient time. The test is challenging because there is a lot to do in a short time. That's what made it a good test.

Oh btw, 99% of accomodation requests are approved (hehe): https://www.lsac.org/data-research/research/lsat-performance-regional-gender-racialethnic-repeater-and-accommodation

It would have felt like cheating to me to get an accomodation, even though I would surely qualify.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5891884&forum_id=2:#50063319)