Checking box enough for URM boost or need matching PS? Forum

[Nom Sawyer]

It's because of people like poster with long list above me, that people CONTINUALLY post questions about NA box checking.

1. You do NOT have to have documentation. Obviously if you have it, send in a copy, but this is not always possible and for good reason (which anyone who actually needs to know about the NA box-checking process would understand)

Apart from that, you know when you should and should not check the box. I just wanted to clarify that if you are, for example, 50% but are not enrolled, you are still allowed to check NA box.

2. I do agree though that everyone should write a DS if at all possible. It really helps you so why not take the little extra time to do it?


p.s. poster above me, if you post again, make sure your rules are edited so you don't mislead people.

Yeah, I didn't mean that you have to prove your part of a tribe to check the box... I just meant that some schools have higher standards before granting NA URM boost... but definitely if you are 50% you should check...

mainly its aimed at people who are like 10% and trying to check the box without any meaningful connection

[ilovethelsat]

It depends.

If you're black, then there's absolutely no need to do so; you'll receive a 10 point LSAT boost no matter what. If you're Asian, Hispanic, or Native Americans, then you should probably write a diversity statement because law schools are less interested in recruiting non-black URMs.

It's true that schools are willing to reach farther for black applicants than other minorities, but this is because they must do so in order to increase black enrollment (blacks have statistically a 140-141 average LSAT score, much lower than the 151 or so average by whites). This does not mean they are given different treatment in terms of what is expected in their application; it only means they may be given a larger boost regarding LSAT score if their application is otherwise fully complete and supportive of admission.

Yes, but law schools care more about their black enrollment than their Hispanic or Native American enrollment. If the T14 law schools decided to make sure that their Hispanic, black, and Native American enrollment figures matched the composition of the general U.S. population (15% Hisp, 13% black, 1% NA), then Hispanics and Native Americans -- but NOT blacks -- would receive much larger URM boosts than they do now.

Comprende?

[s0ph1e2007]

It's because of people like poster with long list above me, that people CONTINUALLY post questions about NA box checking.

1. You do NOT have to have documentation. Obviously if you have it, send in a copy, but this is not always possible and for good reason (which anyone who actually needs to know about the NA box-checking process would understand)

Apart from that, you know when you should and should not check the box. I just wanted to clarify that if you are, for example, 50% but are not enrolled, you are still allowed to check NA box.

2. I do agree though that everyone should write a DS if at all possible. It really helps you so why not take the little extra time to do it?


p.s. poster above me, if you post again, make sure your rules are edited so you don't mislead people.

Yeah, I didn't mean that you have to prove your part of a tribe to check the box... I just meant that some schools have higher standards before granting NA URM boost... but definitely if you are 50% you should check...

mainly its aimed at people who are like 10% and trying to check the box without any meaningful connection

Yea I get what you're saying, but you have to be careful what advise you post.

People who are really well informed on the subject of law school admissions forget that MOST people are NOT really well informed. And if they see a post from someone who seems really confident in their information, they will just trust it.
I have had to correct someone who had been misled into thinking that he couldn't check the box because he was only a 1/4 and not enrolled despite the fact that he grew up on the Rez.

No hard, feelings. Just be careful what you post

[vanwinkle]

Yes, but law schools care more about their black enrollment than their Hispanic or Native American enrollment. If the T14 law schools decided to make sure that their Hispanic, black, and Native American enrollment figures matched the composition of the general U.S. population (15% Hisp, 13% black, 1% NA), then Hispanics and Native Americans -- but NOT blacks -- would receive much larger URM boosts.

Comprende?

Yo no entiendo una cosa que has dicho, porque tu eres un idiota.

[Nom Sawyer]

It's because of people like poster with long list above me, that people CONTINUALLY post questions about NA box checking.

1. You do NOT have to have documentation. Obviously if you have it, send in a copy, but this is not always possible and for good reason (which anyone who actually needs to know about the NA box-checking process would understand)

Apart from that, you know when you should and should not check the box. I just wanted to clarify that if you are, for example, 50% but are not enrolled, you are still allowed to check NA box.

2. I do agree though that everyone should write a DS if at all possible. It really helps you so why not take the little extra time to do it?


p.s. poster above me, if you post again, make sure your rules are edited so you don't mislead people.

Yeah, I didn't mean that you have to prove your part of a tribe to check the box... I just meant that some schools have higher standards before granting NA URM boost... but definitely if you are 50% you should check...

mainly its aimed at people who are like 10% and trying to check the box without any meaningful connection

Yea I get what you're saying, but you have to be careful what advise you post.

People who are really well informed on the subject of law school admissions forget that MOST people are NOT really well informed. And if they see a post from someone who seems really confident in their information, they will just trust it.
I have had to correct someone who had been misled into thinking that he couldn't check the box because he was only a 1/4 and not enrolled despite the fact that he grew up on the Rez.

No hard, feelings. Just be careful what you post

Yeah I edited it to be a little more clear, definitely agree with what you're saying.



Also, ilovethelsat please stop posting you don't really know what u'r talking about

[vanwinkle]

Also, ilovethelsat please stop posting you don't really know what u'r talking about

+180

[ilovethelsat]

Yes, but law schools care more about their black enrollment than their Hispanic or Native American enrollment. If the T14 law schools decided to make sure that their Hispanic, black, and Native American enrollment figures matched the composition of the general U.S. population (15% Hisp, 13% black, 1% NA), then Hispanics and Native Americans -- but NOT blacks -- would receive much larger URM boosts.

Comprende?

Yo no entiendo una cosa que has dicho, porque tu eres un idiota.

What don't you understand?

[Illijah]

Write a DS.

thread closed*

[vanwinkle]

Yes, but law schools care more about their black enrollment than their Hispanic or Native American enrollment. If the T14 law schools decided to make sure that their Hispanic, black, and Native American enrollment figures matched the composition of the general U.S. population (15% Hisp, 13% black, 1% NA), then Hispanics and Native Americans -- but NOT blacks -- would receive much larger URM boosts.

Comprende?

Yo no entiendo una cosa que has dicho, porque tu eres un idiota.

What don't you understand?

How you can be so completely and totally wrong and not realize it. Where do you get that blacks would not receive large boosts if schools cared about enrollment matching the overall population? You do realize that blacks end up on average with the lowest LSAT scores (141 or so, compared to 151 for caucasians), right? You realize that schools have to reach farther in terms of LSAT boost to admit blacks than other races?

Where did you get this completely idiotic "schools reach more to admit blacks because they care more about admitting blacks" theory from and what shreds of evidence do you even dream support it?

[TTTennis]

The above poster is an idiot.

Don't be such a douchebag, douchebag.

[vanwinkle]

The above poster is an idiot.

Don't be such a douchebag, douchebag.

Oh, I can tell you're going to be my special friend now.

[TTTennis]

The above poster is an idiot.

Don't be such a douchebag, douchebag.

Oh, I can tell you're going to be my special friend now.

hahaha!

[TTTennis]

What don't you understand?

I don't think he understands how you can act like you're the authority on the subject and give such retarded advice as, if you're black check the box and don't worry about writing a diversity statement. Maybe not, but that's what I don't understand.

[Joga Bonito]

Yes, but law schools care more about their black enrollment than their Hispanic or Native American enrollment. If the T14 law schools decided to make sure that their Hispanic, black, and Native American enrollment figures matched the composition of the general U.S. population (15% Hisp, 13% black, 1% NA), then Hispanics and Native Americans -- but NOT blacks -- would receive much larger URM boosts.

Comprende?

Yo no entiendo una cosa que has dicho, porque tu eres un idiota.

What don't you understand?

How you can be so completely and totally wrong and not realize it. Where do you get that blacks would not receive large boosts if schools cared about enrollment matching the overall population? You do realize that blacks end up on average with the lowest LSAT scores (141 or so, compared to 151 for caucasians), right? You realize that schools have to reach farther in terms of LSAT boost to admit blacks than other races?

Where did you get this completely idiotic "schools reach more to admit blacks because they care more about admitting blacks" theory from and what shreds of evidence do you even dream support it?

Actually Puerto Ricans on average have the same or lower Lsat scores than African Americans and actually most PR's get the same or similar consideration that African Amerians do. So we should stop talking about Latinos as a monolith because they aren't treated like one in admissions and we should probably ignore ilovethelsat.

[ilovethelsat]

Yes, but law schools care more about their black enrollment than their Hispanic or Native American enrollment. If the T14 law schools decided to make sure that their Hispanic, black, and Native American enrollment figures matched the composition of the general U.S. population (15% Hisp, 13% black, 1% NA), then Hispanics and Native Americans -- but NOT blacks -- would receive much larger URM boosts.

Comprende?

Yo no entiendo una cosa que has dicho, porque tu eres un idiota.

What don't you understand?

How you can be so completely and totally wrong and not realize it. Where do you get that blacks would not receive large boosts if schools cared about enrollment matching the overall population? You do realize that blacks end up on average with the lowest LSAT scores (141 or so, compared to 151 for caucasians), right? You realize that schools have to reach farther in terms of LSAT boost to admit blacks than other races?

Where did you get this completely idiotic "schools reach more to admit blacks because they care more about admitting blacks" theory from and what shreds of evidence do you even dream support it?

I should have realized I had lost you a while ago. I apologize and will argue more slowly.

Here are some important points:

1. Blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population; Hispanics 15%; and Native Americans 1%.

2. At the top law schools, the percentage of students who are black is MUCH HIGHER than percentage of students who are Hispanic.

3. Hispanics score higher on the LSAT than blacks, and there are more Hispanics than blacks in the 160+ range.

4. Clearly, law schools are treating blacks differently from Hispanics, beyond the compensation for the difference in LSAT score. In other words, law schools are "boosting" black applicants up to the level of Hispanics, and then they are boosting them even further.

[vanwinkle]

What don't you understand?

I don't think he understands how you can act like you're the authority on the subject and give such retarded advice as, if you're black check the box and don't worry about writing a diversity statement. Maybe not, but that's what I don't understand.

This is actually TCR. Well said.

[vanwinkle]

I should have realized I had lost you a while ago. I apologize and will argue more slowly.

Here are some important points:

1. Blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population; Hispanics 15%; and Native Americans 1%.

2. At the top law schools, the percentage of students who are black is MUCH HIGHER than percentage of students who are Hispanic.

3. Hispanics score higher on the LSAT than blacks, and there are more Hispanics than blacks in the 160+ range.

4. Clearly, law schools are treating blacks differently from Hispanics, beyond the compensation for the difference in LSAT score. In other words, law schools are "boosting" black applicants up to the level of Hispanics, and then they are boosting them even further.

Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is somewhat correct (I'll touch on that in a minute). I can see now that it's between statements 3 and 4 that you're making your logical jump off a cliff.

The enrollment of Hispanics at top law schools is by no means uniform. If you look at the enrollment figures for Hispanics at schools in TX and CA, including Berkeley, UCLA, and UT-Austin, you see Hispanic enrollment figures above 10%. Schools in the north and east consistently see enrollment figures below 10%. This also reflects lower Hispanic populations in the northern and eastern parts of the country. Hispanics largely self-select away from northern and eastern schools, despite those schools giving significantly bigger boosts than schools in TX and CA.

Your definition of "clearly" is a little off. You are "clearly" making unsubstantiated assumptions about law schools' motives that are not supported by fact or reason.

[vanwinkle]

Actually Puerto Ricans on average have the same or lower Lsat scores than African Americans and actually most PR's get the same or similar consideration that African Amerians do. So we should stop talking about Latinos as a monolith because they aren't treated like one in admissions and we should probably ignore ilovethelsat.

Yeah, I was trying to not make things too complicated. He's having enough trouble with reason already.

[ilovethelsat]

I should have realized I had lost you a while ago. I apologize and will argue more slowly.

Here are some important points:

1. Blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population; Hispanics 15%; and Native Americans 1%.

2. At the top law schools, the percentage of students who are black is MUCH HIGHER than percentage of students who are Hispanic.

3. Hispanics score higher on the LSAT than blacks, and there are more Hispanics than blacks in the 160+ range.

4. Clearly, law schools are treating blacks differently from Hispanics, beyond the compensation for the difference in LSAT score. In other words, law schools are "boosting" black applicants up to the level of Hispanics, and then they are boosting them even further.

Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is somewhat correct (I'll touch on that in a minute). I can see now that it's between statements 3 and 4 that you're making your logical jump off a cliff.

The enrollment of Hispanics at top law schools is by no means uniform. If you look at the enrollment figures for Hispanics at schools in TX and CA, including Berkeley, UCLA, and UT-Austin, you see Hispanic enrollment figures above 10%. Schools in the north and east consistently see enrollment figures below 10%. This also reflects lower Hispanic populations in the northern and eastern parts of the country. Hispanics largely self-select away from northern and eastern schools, despite those schools giving significantly bigger boosts than schools in TX and CA.

Your definition of "clearly" is a little off. You are "clearly" making unsubstantiated assumptions about law schools' motives that are not supported by fact or reason.

How about reading the excerpt from Justice Rehnquist's dissent on the other page?

Also, Hispanics are still underrepresented at UCLA, Berkeley, and Stanford, but not at UT.

[Joga Bonito]

I should have realized I had lost you a while ago. I apologize and will argue more slowly.

Here are some important points:

1. Blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population; Hispanics 15%; and Native Americans 1%.

2. At the top law schools, the percentage of students who are black is MUCH HIGHER than percentage of students who are Hispanic.

3. Hispanics score higher on the LSAT than blacks, and there are more Hispanics than blacks in the 160+ range.

4. Clearly, law schools are treating blacks differently from Hispanics, beyond the compensation for the difference in LSAT score. In other words, law schools are "boosting" black applicants up to the level of Hispanics, and then they are boosting them even further.

Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is somewhat correct (I'll touch on that in a minute). I can see now that it's between statements 3 and 4 that you're making your logical jump off a cliff.

The enrollment of Hispanics at top law schools is by no means uniform. If you look at the enrollment figures for Hispanics at schools in TX and CA, including Berkeley, UCLA, and UT-Austin, you see Hispanic enrollment figures above 10%. Schools in the north and east consistently see enrollment figures below 10%. This also reflects lower Hispanic populations in the northern and eastern parts of the country. Hispanics largely self-select away from northern and eastern schools, despite those schools giving significantly bigger boosts than schools in TX and CA.

Your definition of "clearly" is a little off. You are "clearly" making unsubstantiated assumptions about law schools' motives that are not supported by fact or reason.

How about reading the excerpt from Justice Rehnquist's dissent on the other page?

Also, Hispanics are still underrepresented at UCLA, Berkeley, and Stanford, but not at UT.

Okay not sure why I'm responding but here we go. First off you have to look past the simple percentages and averages and look at the sample size etc. For starters very few Mexicans take the lsat (they are the largest latino group population wise 60% or so but 1/10th as many take the lsat compared to African Americans) and they score the highest of any large latino group (still very few take it, so say for instance that you have 3 mexicans and 13 african americans taking the lsat you could possibly expect the average of mexicans to be better than that of african americans because you have less people to pull down your scores) i know it doesn't have to be that way neccesarrily, but it is. More Puerto Ricans take the test than Mexicans even though there's less Puerto Ricans in the US and they score lower on average than Mexicans. As far the Latinos that do score higher than blacks on average ( and not all groups do) we aren't sure what nationality they are because most studies just lump them all togther after Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. Law schools are aware of the differences, example, Argentines are generally white and have different experiences here than most Dominicans. So law schools take note of these differences and treat diff latinos differently but for some reason most people when they go find statistics don't make the distinctions or don't see them in the little studies they read. So schools don't just say hey, we need more Latinos in law school to serve poorer Latino communities... hey this guy from spain (most likely as white as Charlie Sheen-he is spanish, no offense) has a 2.5 and a 170 lest give him a boost for fighting racism and poverty his whole life (when he probably didn't) and send him to a T14 and he can be a rep for all the Hispanics from Central, South America and the Carribean. They don't do that why, because that would be stupid. There's more but I'm not sure you care enough to listen.

There are reasons why the average lsat is higher
There are reasons why all Latinos don't get the same aa.
There are resons why they are treated as a whole different from African Americans.

[TTTennis]

Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is somewhat correct (I'll touch on that in a minute). I can see now that it's between statements 3 and 4 that you're making your logical jump off a cliff.

I LOLd again...touche vanwinkle, you are clearly hilarious. haha

Here are some important points:

1. Blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population; Hispanics 15%; and Native Americans 1%.

2. At the top law schools, the percentage of students who are black is MUCH HIGHER than percentage of students who are Hispanic.

3. Hispanics score higher on the LSAT than blacks, and there are more Hispanics than blacks in the 160+ range.

4. Clearly, law schools are treating blacks differently from Hispanics, beyond the compensation for the difference in LSAT score. In other words, law schools are "boosting" black applicants up to the level of Hispanics, and then they are boosting them even further.

Maybe I'm wrong here, because I only scored a 161 and am clearly not a TLS genius, but.. aren't you kind of misusing the stats from "3"? In coming to number 4, you are making the fallacy that the said hispanics and blacks are, indeed, applying to the exact same schools. Could it be the case at say, School X, that a higher scoring black (160+) is applying along with a high scoring Hispanic (160+)? Or maybe, one of the few higher scoring blacks (160+) is applying with a lower scoring hispanic (below 160)?
Don't read this and think that I am saying this applies across the board (meaning at every single law school). But, for you to say "clearly" you are implying that these situations aren't taking place. Because if they are taking place, it is not "clear" that law school are boosting black applicant up to the level of Hispanics, and then boosting them even further. Basically, I'm agreeing with vanwinkles' reasoning.

[vanwinkle]

How about reading the excerpt from Justice Rehnquist's dissent on the other page?

Simply quoting a dissenting argument is not in itself an argument. Either articulate your point or you're not making one.

Also, Hispanics are still underrepresented at UCLA, Berkeley, and Stanford, but not at UT.

That would depend on how you define representation. You yourself said the Hispanic population is "15%"; the latest data I can find shows Stanford having 14% Hispanic enrollment and UT-Austin having 18% Hispanic enrollment. Both of these represent proportional representation by your own number.

Game over, play again, N/N?

[ilovethelsat]

How about reading the excerpt from Justice Rehnquist's dissent on the other page?

Simply quoting a dissenting argument is not in itself an argument. Either articulate your point or you're not making one.

Also, Hispanics are still underrepresented at UCLA, Berkeley, and Stanford, but not at UT.

That would depend on how you define representation. You yourself said the Hispanic population is "15%"; the latest data I can find shows Stanford having 14% Hispanic enrollment and UT-Austin having 18% Hispanic enrollment. Both of these represent proportional representation by your own number.

Game over, play again, N/N?

First, Stanford is 9.7% Hispanic: http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... BA4704.pdf

Second, I'm not using Justice Rehnquist's dissent as an argument. I'm using it because it has statistics that support my argument.

[Joga Bonito]

How about reading the excerpt from Justice Rehnquist's dissent on the other page?

Simply quoting a dissenting argument is not in itself an argument. Either articulate your point or you're not making one.

Also, Hispanics are still underrepresented at UCLA, Berkeley, and Stanford, but not at UT.

That would depend on how you define representation. You yourself said the Hispanic population is "15%"; the latest data I can find shows Stanford having 14% Hispanic enrollment and UT-Austin having 18% Hispanic enrollment. Both of these represent proportional representation by your own number.

Game over, play again, N/N?

First, Stanford is 9.7% Hispanic: http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... BA4704.pdf

Second, I'm not using Justice Rehnquist's dissent as an argument. I'm using it because it has statistics that support my argument.

We missed you while you were away at the other AA debate.

[ilovethelsat]

Maybe I'm wrong here, because I only scored a 161 and am clearly not a TLS genius, but.. aren't you kind of misusing the stats from "3"? In coming to number 4, you are making the fallacy that the said hispanics and blacks are, indeed, applying to the exact same schools. Could it be the case at say, School X, that a higher scoring black (160+) is applying along with a high scoring Hispanic (160+)? Or maybe, one of the few higher scoring blacks (160+) is applying with a lower scoring hispanic (below 160)?
Don't read this and think that I am saying this applies across the board (meaning at every single law school). But, for you to say "clearly" you are implying that these situations aren't taking place. Because if they are taking place, it is not "clear" that law school are boosting black applicant up to the level of Hispanics, and then boosting them even further. Basically, I'm agreeing with vanwinkles' reasoning.

Yes, but why are blacks receiving larger boosts?