Great video. Some thoughts:
1) Why is he focusing on 25th and 75th percentiles rather than the medians, as if UVA of all schools cares about the 25ths and 75ths? This video would have been more informative if he'd discussed how schools game their medians by sacrificing their 25th and 75th percentiles.
2) I know he was ballparking, but the numbers of AA applicants with 170+, 160+, and 150+ are way off. We wish there were 125-150 AA applicants with 170+ each cycle. I would guess that there are fewer than 100, perhaps far fewer. And if there were 150 AAs with 170+, there certainly should to be more than just 250 with 160-170, and far more than just 400 with 150-160, since 170 is roughly the 97th %ile for all test-takers and 160 is roughly the 80th for all test-takers. His point about high AA scorers being scarce and expensive resources is a good one, though.
3) URMs definitely receive their fair share of terrible application advice and often misapply, but I reject his argument that low-scoring URMs ought to apply to lower-ranked schools with score ranges closer to their own. If anything, too many URMs are not ambitious enough in their school lists. URM matriculation rates lag behind non-URM matriculation rates partly because law school is an expensive risk that non-URMs are more able and willing to undertake. He should be encouraging URMs to apply broadly, even to super reaches, so that they can evaluate a full range of options before deciding which law school, if any, to attend. He should be advocating for more fee waivers and reduced tuition so more URMs (as well as non-URMs) can afford to apply and to attend. He should not be knocking people who advise URMs not to attend second- to fourth-tier law schools, and he certainly shouldn't be taking shots at URMs applying to schools where they're supposedly underqualified.