Admissions consulting data
Applicant experiences, reported spending, and admissions outcomes.
Admissions at University of Southern California
Observed outcomes for this school and cycle, grouped by application help received before submission. LSAT and GPA filters apply to this comparison only.
Not enough responses for this comparison. Broader ranges may also be withheld to protect small groups. Try another score band or completed cycle.
Differences describe respondents; they do not establish that consulting caused an outcome. Intervals describe sampling uncertainty, not selection bias.
How applicants used consulting
Each applicant appears once, under their most extensive reported help.
Not enough responses to publish this breakdown yet.
What applicants paid
Total consulting spend in USD, including payments by family or others. Excludes test prep and application fees.
Not enough responses to publish this breakdown yet.
Services received
Applicants may report multiple services. Shares can total more than 100%.
Not enough responses to publish this breakdown yet.
Would applicants purchase the help again?
Reported experience with each provider. This measures perceived value, not an admissions effect.
Not enough responses to publish this breakdown yet.
Other application support
Help from friends, advisors, programs, and tools. Applicants may choose multiple answers.
Not enough responses to publish this breakdown yet.
Coverage, privacy, and methodology
These are voluntary, self-reported answers from confirmed LSD.Law users who opted into aggregate research. They do not represent all law school applicants. Private profiles may contribute to aggregates with permission. No consultant use is inferred from an unanswered question.
Overview tables use this cycle's answers; “not yet” and “prefer not to answer” are excluded from consultant-use comparisons. Each table states its own denominator. Missing cost or satisfaction answers are excluded from those tables.
Distributions require at least 30 distinct applicants who answered that question, and are withheld if any nonempty answer category has fewer than 5 distinct applicants. Repurchase counts describe provider experiences, but multiple experiences from one applicant do not count toward these minimums. When consulting use is withheld, the overall response count and other-support breakdown are also withheld to avoid revealing small groups by subtraction across tables.
School comparisons require a completed cycle and respondents who confirmed their historical stats and completed application lists. They include recorded acceptances and rejections only. Pending decisions, unresolved waitlists, withdrawals, and deferrals are excluded. Consulting groups require explicitly attributed strategy, essay, or résumé help before submission; unknown coverage and later help are excluded. People reporting no consulting form the comparison group.
Within each consulting group, every fixed LSAT and GPA combination requires at least 30 applicants, at least 5 acceptances and rejections, and a 95% Wilson interval no wider than 30 percentage points. Missing scores form separate groups. A broader total is withheld if it includes any withheld group, so comparing filters cannot recover those hidden counts. A comparison needs both a no-consulting group and a consulting group.
These are descriptive comparisons, not adjusted causal estimates. Wealth, motivation, application difficulty, and other unmeasured differences can affect both hiring and results. Final scholarship awards alone cannot measure negotiation gains. Provider rankings are not inferred from these data.
Questionnaire version 1. Responses may be corrected or withdrawn; reports reflect current eligible answers when loaded. Exact spending and provider names are excluded from aggregate reports. Public profile disclosure is a separate, optional choice.
Your study break just got better: follow @lawschooldata on Follow @lawschooldata on TikTok & Instagram