ilovethelsat wrote:vanwinkle wrote:ilovethelsat wrote: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.ilovethelsat wrote: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.
Great job ilovethelsat! Now that you've proved Hispanics at Stanford just MIGHT be underrepresented in comparison to their contribution of the US population, you can continue giving shitty advice. OP, since you're NA, just go ahead and write that diversity statement. However, if you can find any black in you, then apply away with no diversity statement. In fact, don't even check the box, just write on your application (or attach an addendum) that you are black. Sorry, but law schools just don't give a crap about your URM status if you aren't black. It would have been better if you are/were really poor. If you don't believe me than just look at all the misleading statistics I have provided to support my cause. Actually, screw the t14. Didn't you hear that Hofstra has a median starting salary of $160k (35% reporting, but forget about that misleading stat)? You could definitely get into Hofstra even though you aren't black. Glad I could be of service. If anyone else wants some really sound advice on law school admissions just HOLLER!