In this podcast, Mike Spivey predicts what to expect as far as the timing of admissions decisions this year, then discusses the preliminary LSAC data that has applicants wondering whether this will be a far more competitive cycle than normal.
You can also listen to this podcast on SoundCloud or Apple Podcasts, or read the transcript below.
Hi, this is Mike Spivey with the Spivey Consulting Group. It's September 28, and the admissions cycle is sort of in full swing. By full swing, I just mean that most schools are accepting applications — I don't think most schools are reading applications yet, and that's the gist of this podcast, which is twofold. First, I'm going to discuss the rate at which I think the cycle will progress. And I want to keep this short — we want to get a transcript up for everyone — but if there's time, I'm going to also discuss the early data and what I think is going to happen with it.
So, the rate of the cycle. I've heard mixed theories, both within my firm — we bounce these emails back and forth — and online. And you can almost "pro/con" it as if you were a dean of admissions; at least that's what I do when I try to make these predictions. Let's look at the, I guess we would say "pros"— well, to me these are "cons" because I always think now as an applicant and not as an admissions dean — so why would the cycle go slowly? Why would the admit rate go slowly? And there's a little bit of evidence of that; I was talking with another admissions consultant, Moshe at Sharper Statements, and we both noted that it looks like the number of admits in September is less than it has been in the last few years. I am certain if you are on a message board it probably doesn't feel like that — every time you see someone say "Admitted to Duke!" it feels like the rate for other people is faster — but if I had to guess, and I think not just me but other people who track this every year, the rate is actually slower right now. So that's one indication.
A second indication is I talk to a lot of law schools every week, and they are still almost in sort of "shell-shock" mode from all the adjustments they had to make this summer. Admissions offices just didn't have to change their admissions protocols, their travel protocols, their recruitment protocols; they often had to chip in and help the school with the entire hybrid model, both remote and in-classroom course models. So they were stressed — not stressed in terms of mental stress, but stressed in terms of resource-stressed — all summer long, and they're just sort of re-gathering from that. Which has them sort of at a, you know, if you're starting to run a lap on the track, they're stating at negative ten yards because of the summer.
But the following reason, I think, is the most compelling. In admissions, you really rely on past data to make forward-looking decisions, including your pace of admit. One of the things our firm does is we help schools look at their past data to help project the current cycles, so "these are what your targets should be, this is how the cycle is going to progress, based on our analysis of the past year's data." The problem with last year's data — and you've probably seen our blog, hopefully you've seen our blog on this — is it was inconsistent with any of the previous 20 years of data. There was a late surge due to COVID, and changes to LSAC's policies, the LSAT itself, the number of LSAT takes you could take, the option of seeing your LSAT score... there were so many one-time — and I hate absolutes but probably only one-shot — changes last cycle, that last-cycle data is not very predictive for this-cycle data, and that tends to have law schools go slowly.
If you've seen the early LSAC data release, I'm sure law schools right now are excited, but in some sense they might be more cautious, because if LSAC is going to release the data incredibly early and it's not comparative to any data we've seen from last year, then those numbers — if we know this, admissions offices know this too — the numbers are incomparable, and certainly look inflated to us. So for those two reasons, specifically the third reason, one could see the cycle going slowly.
There are a couple of reasons one might think it might go faster, though, as far as admissions decisions. There are two primary drivers to this — one is admissions officers aren't traveling. If the digital forum keeps shutting down, they're not even doing that, but the digital forum is just half a day in the life. Admissions travel, which is what I used to do back when I was in admissions and what current admissions officers did every year but this year, is September/October/November, you are on the road. You're flying from school to school. It is an incredible amount of travel in a three-month period. To put it in sort of admissions terms, you rack up Marriott rewards points and Southwest Airlines mileage points. So you're on the road every week, and because of that, file reading gets built up toward December. This is why we've talked long and hard about "get your applications in before Thanksgiving and they're early" — because for most schools, only a tiny fraction of applications are read in the September/October/November period. Well they're not traveling, so they need to fill that time void with something.
In fact, if I were a dean of admissions today, and I saw that Harvard slowed pace, and let's say I was a competitor with Harvard, I would say "Here's an opportunity, a competitive opportunity, for us to read and render decisions early. We're not traveling. Some schools are going to go slower, so why don't we make a number of decisions early, get people admitted, get them excited about their school, and do some sort of virtual admitted students' day?" That's literally how I would do admissions right now if I were to switch to the admissions side of things... which maybe I will, so maybe next year I'll be speaking as a dean of admissions somewhere.
The points being this. There are no definites in this prediction. If I had to guess based on what we've seen with the data as far as admissions so far, what we've seen as far as how admissions offices respond to incoherent data — the data last year, for lack of a better word, was incoherent, so here's my prediction — I think this is going to be a slow cycle. So for 80% of applicants, it's going to go slower than past cycles, but for almost all applicants it's not going to feel like that because you'll see the small outliers and data points on message boards and, you know, like myLSN, and it'll seem like other people are getting admitted too rapidly relative to you. So I would say, hopefully in this sense this is calming, because if you feel like other people are getting admitted and you're not, that's going to be the vast majority of applicants early this cycle. If I had to guess, I think we're going to see the majority of admitting coming December, January, and February, and maybe a heavy, heavy, heavy waitlist cycle based on the early data.
So let me switch to the early data. Everything looks elevated, but it's going to come down. We predicted over the summer that there are going to be more applications, and that's almost inevitable — even with the low summer LSAT takes people were saying "well you can't make this prediction," but we were pretty confident that there were going to be more applications. There is yet to be any compelling evidence to me that this will be one of the most difficult cycles ever, so I do not believe that. I don't see any evidence. I think those LSAT numbers are going to come way down in the top percentile bandwidths, I think that law schools — the more I talk to them, the more confident I grow — that they are going to grow their class sizes.
There are only three ways that law schools can handle their budget deficits right now, because they're not getting money from central universities by and large anymore. They've been underwritten by central universities ever since the Great Recession. They can cut faculty salaries, they can cut scholarship amounts, or they can increase the class sizes. They're not going to cut faculty salaries; they may do some other fancy navigating to reduce the amount they spend on faculty, but it's not like they're going to take a tenured faculty member's salary and reduce that. I think this cycle's applicants may have hit the one year where law schools still come over-budget on scholarships. This might be the best takeaway from this podcast. In other words, they may be given $6 million to give out, and they actually end up matriculating a class with $9 million worth of merit aid, and then they're going to get bashed by their central universities, and next year they're going to really clamp down on scholarships. So maybe/maybe not, but I don't think the scholarship reduction is going to be steep this year; I think that's actually for next cycle applicants. The third way to do it: increase class sizes, and it seems like that might be the direction law schools are trending. To be determined. We're going to follow the data. I think around mid-October/November, the data is going to start coming down, and we'll have a better idea because it'll be a higher percentage of the applicant pool.
So this was a pretty quick podcast. We will get the transcript up. I hope this was helpful — this is Mike Spivey at the Spivey Consulting Group.


In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike discusses the five reasons that being denied from law school hurts—and the concrete ways that you can handle it.
Mike mentions a few other podcasts and a video clip in this episode:
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, we take questions from Reddit! Mike Spivey, Mike Burns, and Anna Hicks-Jaco discuss just how slow this cycle is (10:19) and how that might impact late-cycle applicants (6:47), why law schools place applicants on “holds” (1:23), decision timelines and how/why they vary (4:23), advice for scholarship reconsideration (11:20), whether schools rescind admits or scholarships if you ask for more money (13:31), how the new student loan caps might impact your request for scholarship reconsideration (14:00), whether you should email a school if you haven’t heard from them since you applied early in the cycle (23:44) and whether they might have forgotten about your application (24:44), predictions for next cycle (19:31) and waitlist season this cycle (15:00), the cannonball strategy of law school waitlists (25:50), how important softs are and whether “soft tiers” are admissions pseudoscience (27:48), essays about institutional injustice and how to avoid coming off overly negative in a way that could harm your chances (34:36), advice for becoming an admissions officer (37:40), and more.
Resources mentioned in this episode:
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 Dr. Nita Farahany—speaker, author, Duke Law Distinguished Professor, and the Founding Director of the Duke Initiative for Science & Society—on the future of artificial intelligence in law school, legal employment, legislation, and our day-to-day lives.
They discuss a wide range of AI-related topics, including how significantly Dr. Farahany expects AI to change our lives (10:43, 23:09), how Dr. Farahany checks for AI-generated content in her classes and her thoughts on AI detector tools (1:26, 5:46), the reason that she bans her students from using AI to help generate papers (plus, the reasons she doesn’t ascribe to) (3:41), predictions for how AI will impact legal employment in both the short term and the long term (7:26), which law students are likely to be successful vs. unsuccessful in an AI future (12:24), whether our technology is spying on us (17:04), cognitive offloading and the idea of “cognitive extinction” (18:59), how AI and technology can take away our free will (24:45) and ways to take it back (27:58), how our cognitive liberties are at stake and what we can do to reclaim them both on an individual level (30:06) and a societal level (35:53), neural implants and sensors and our screenless future (39:27), how to use AI in a way that promotes rather than diminishes critical thinking (44:43), and how much, for what purposes, and with which tools Dr. Farahany uses generative AI herself (47:27).
Among Dr. Farahany’s numerous credentials and accomplishments, she is the author of the 2023 book, The Battle for Your Brain: Defending Your Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology; she has given two TED Talks and spoken at numerous high-profile conferences and forums; she served on the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues from 2010 to 2017; she was President of the International Neuroethics Society from 2019 to 2021; and her scholarship includes work on artificial intelligence, cognitive biometric data privacy issues, and other topics in law and technology, ethics, and neuroscience. She is the Robinson O. Everett Distinguished Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at Duke University, where she also earned a JD, MA, and PhD in philosophy after completing a bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth and a master’s from Harvard, both in biology.
Dr. Farahany’s Substack—featuring her interactive online AI Law & Policy and Advanced Topics in AI Law & Policy courses—is available here. The app she recommends is BePresent. The Status Check episode Mike mentions, with Dr. Judson Brewer, is 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.