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, Mike is joined by Dr. Milana Hogan, Chief Talent Officer at Sullivan & Cromwell, and Rob Baker, a former law firm hiring committee member and BigLaw attorney, for a conversation about the increasingly front-loaded BigLaw recruiting process and what prospective and current law students should know about navigating it. Rob has held recruiting roles at large, medium, and boutique-sized law firms, while Dr. Hogan has spent nearly two decades at Sullivan & Cromwell working in talent, associate development, and recruiting.
The group discusses how law firm recruiting has shifted earlier over time and the market pressures driving that change (7:41); whether hiring could move even earlier and why first-semester law school grades may serve as a practical stopping point (13:48); whether 0Ls should already be reaching out to firms and how to approach those conversations from a learning rather than a “will you hire me?” posture (17:13); the value of LinkedIn, low-pressure outreach, and building relationships before recruiting formally begins (20:53); and why the current system may create new opportunities for 2Ls and 3Ls who missed out earlier in the process (24:39).
They also discuss how AI is affecting BigLaw work and hiring, including Sullivan & Cromwell’s use of AI as one part of its holistic hiring process (28:34); what can turn hiring partners off in an interview and why trying too hard to demonstrate how smart you are can backfire (31:47); the importance of curiosity, humility, and a willingness to learn from more experienced lawyers (34:45); and why students should take ownership of their careers, seek out opportunities, and practice interviewing before the real thing (37:52).
Related resources: Mike references NALP Executive Director Nikia Gray’s article, The “Cruel” Recruiting Timeline, which examines the history of OCI and the market forces behind the increasingly accelerated law firm recruiting process. He also references a South Park episode parodying Black Friday’s increasingly early start as an analogy for how BigLaw recruiting has continued moving earlier.
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 has a conversation with Simone Stolzoff, an author and journalist whose work explores uncertainty, ambition, and our relationship with work. Simone is the author of How to Not Know and The Good Enough Job. His latest book examines why uncertainty feels so uncomfortable and how developing a healthier relationship with not knowing can create opportunities for learning, growth, and possibility.
Simone discusses why our tolerance for uncertainty is declining (1:05), why uncertainty itself is not necessarily the problem (4:42), and why even experts are often poor at predicting the future (7:29). He also explains how applicants can avoid becoming overly attached to one particular school, job, or future by focusing on what they can control, preparing for multiple outcomes, and finding healthy ways to cope with waiting.
Additional topics include the three “certainty traps” of comfort, hubris, and control (10:22), how expertise can make people more vulnerable to overconfidence (14:47), practical ways to build uncertainty tolerance and trust your future self (16:36), why uncertainty can give life meaning and possibility (20:01), how rejection from a dream school or job may ultimately open unexpected doors (27:08), career changes and “unanswered prayers” (29:51), and why your job can be an important part of your life without becoming your entire identity (33:02).
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, Anna Hicks-Jaco is joined by three experienced law school financial aid professionals: Dalmarie Lawrence, Director of Financial Aid at the University of the District of Columbia School of Law; Montré Everett, Director of Financial Aid at UC Davis School of Law; and Matt Wakeman, Assistant Dean of Financial Aid at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Together, they discuss how the student loan changes included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are affecting current and prospective law students, particularly following the elimination of Grad PLUS loans and the introduction of new federal borrowing limits.
The group explains what has changed for incoming law students, how part-time students may be affected, and why simply lowering law school tuition may be more complicated than it sounds. They also discuss how law schools are responding through scholarships, institutional aid, tuition freezes, loan repayment assistance programs, and other resources designed to help students manage the cost of attendance.
The conversation also covers how applicants can use ABA 509 reports to evaluate scholarship opportunities and identify financial safety schools, what students should know about private student loans, and how credit history and cosigners may affect their ability to borrow. The guests also explain why private loans may sometimes offer lower interest rates than federal loans, while emphasizing the risks they may create for students pursuing public service careers and Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
Additional topics include financial aid considerations for veterans and military dependents, the impact of the new rules on transfer and dual-degree students, the importance of borrowing only what is necessary, and practical strategies for reducing law school expenses through scholarships, budgeting, and early communication with financial aid offices.
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.