A tale of two law school applicant cycles
It may not be the best of times, but there is no question that today's prospective law school applicant is in a dramatically different position than the law school applicant of just four years ago. Gleaning data from LawSchoolNumbers (of course, with all the usual caveats that come with such data), I looked at the profiles of similarly-situated law school applicants applying to a similar set of law schools in the 2010-2011 and 2014-2015 application cycles. I included their self-reported (all the usual caveats) outcomes. (I found applicants with identical LSAT scores and similar UGPAs, but I ensured that if the UGPAs were different, the 2014-2015 applicants always had the slightly worse UGPA.) I anonymized the schools, even though they're easily discoverable, simply because the precise identities of each school don't matter terribly much; instead, the illustration of the dramatically different outcomes for similar-situated applicants four years apart stands alone. The dollar figure listed is the three-year scholarship offer.
| YEAR | 2010-2011 | 2014-2015 |
| APPLICANT LSAT | 160 | 160 |
| APPLICANT UGPA | 3.53 | 3.46 |
| School W | Rejected | Waitlisted |
| School X | Rejected | Accepted, $30,000 |
| School Y | Rejected | Accepted, $102,000 |
| School Z | Accepted | Accepted, $102,000 |
| YEAR | 2010-2011 | 2014-2015 |
| APPLICANT LSAT | 162 | 162 |
| APPLICANT UGPA | 3.42 | 3.4 |
| School J | Rejected | Accepted, $120,000 |
| School K | Waitlisted | Accepted, $159,000 |
| YEAR | 2010-2011 | 2014-2015 |
| APPLICANT LSAT | 166 | 166 |
| APPLICANT UGPA | 3.91 | 3.91 |
| School C | Waitlisted | Accepted |
| School D | Rejected | Accepted, $127,500 |
| School E | Accepted | Accepted, $105,000 |
| YEAR | 2010-2011 | 2014-2015 |
| APPLICANT LSAT | 162 | 162 |
| APPLICANT UGPA | 3.9 | 3.72 |
| School P | Waitlisted | Accepted |
| School Q | Waitlisted | Accepted, $48,000 |
| School R | Accepted, $25,000 | Accepted, $132,000 |
UPDATE: For the methodology, yes, I simply found two similarly-situated applicants as best I could find. I excluded anyone with self-identified distinctive applicant profiles, such as under-represented minority or early action applicants, to minimize any distinctions between applicants.