Is is true??

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
User avatar
raperez129
Posts: 265
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:23 am

Is is true??

Postby raperez129 » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:15 pm

I've read that research shows that URMs typically score 10 points below their non URM counter-parts on the LSAT, even when compared with similar GPAs. I am sure there isn't a written rule anywhere on this, but is is true that adcoms will "compensate" by bumping the LSAT when considering?

Just wondering because I am *almost* at the 25th percentile for a couple of schools, but with a "bump" I would be well above range.. :|

User avatar
YCrevolution
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:25 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby YCrevolution » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:24 pm

..

User avatar
merichard87
Posts: 751
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: Is is true??

Postby merichard87 » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:29 pm

From what I have seen on LSN and here Law School Predictor is trash when it comes to URM's because of the unpredictable nature of our apps but I think the general assumption is that URM's get up to a 10 pt boost on the LSAT.

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby rundoxierun » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:34 pm

Lol... where did this theory of the 10 point boost come from?? Like did someone just randomly say 10 points for being URM and everyone accepted it?? lol, is this was the truth then i would have a 187 and a 174.. with a 181 average lol.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Is is true??

Postby Ragged » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:36 pm

raperez129 wrote:I've read that research shows that URMs typically score 10 points below their non URM counter-parts on the LSAT, even when compared with similar GPAs. I am sure there isn't a written rule anywhere on this, but is is true that adcoms will "compensate" by bumping the LSAT when considering?

Just wondering because I am *almost* at the 25th percentile for a couple of schools, but with a "bump" I would be well above range.. :|


From what I heard about it, URMs are being considered against other URMs. They don't compete with non-URMs. So yea, effectively they get a ~10 point boost.

User avatar
YCrevolution
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:25 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby YCrevolution » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:37 pm

..

User avatar
Philo38
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:21 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby Philo38 » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:39 pm

So you are saying you are a URM? Man . . . It must be a VERY good moment when you realize the boost you just got in your cycle. I mean, if you didn't realize it before, this is like the LSAC calling you: "um yeah, we messed up the scoring on your test, turns out that 171 we gave you is actually a 177. Have a nice day."

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Is is true??

Postby Ragged » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:41 pm

YCrevolution wrote:
merichard87 wrote:From what I have seen on LSN and here Law School Predictor is trash when it comes to URM's because of the unpredictable nature of our apps but I think the general assumption is that URM's get up to a 10 pt boost on the LSAT.

The 10-point boost thing is largely a figment of some over-zealous imaginations.

http://www.lawschoolpredictor.com/?page_id=173
Law School Predictor wrote:Underrepresented Minorities (URMs)

Target admit rates for URMs, based on how LSP renders predictions: (same method as non-URM applicants after URM boost is applied)
When LSP said Admit: >= 87%
When LSP said Strong Consider: ~ 69%
When LSP said Consider: ~ 50%
When LSP said Weak Consider: ~ 31%
When LSP said Deny: <= 13%

Based on the 4,300+ LSN 2008-09 decisions for self-identified URMs and with LSP URM feature enabled:
When LSP said Admit, 963 instances: 87.1%, +0.1%
When LSP said Strong Consider, 418 instances: 70.8%, +1.8%
When LSP said Consider, 1034 instances: 55.3%, +5.3%
When LSP said Weak Consider, 436 instances: 33.2%, +2.3%
When LSP said Deny, 1468 instances: 14.9%, +1.9%

Difference between actual URM admit rate and predicted URM admit rate: (prediction categories weighted evenly)
Average rate: +2.3%
Median rate: +1.9%



Uhh... ok? Is that supposed to refute the 10 point boost thing?

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Is is true??

Postby Ragged » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:42 pm

Philo38 wrote:So you are saying you are a URM? Man . . . It must be a VERY good moment when you realize the boost you just got in your cycle. I mean, if you didn't realize it before, this is like the LSAC calling you: "um yeah, we messed up the scoring on your test, turns out that 171 we gave you is actually a 177. Have a nice day."


Or in her case 155 to a 161.

User avatar
YCrevolution
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:25 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby YCrevolution » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:44 pm

..

User avatar
Philo38
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:21 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby Philo38 » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:45 pm

YCrevolution wrote:
merichard87 wrote:From what I have seen on LSN and here Law School Predictor is trash when it comes to URM's because of the unpredictable nature of our apps but I think the general assumption is that URM's get up to a 10 pt boost on the LSAT.

The 10-point boost thing is largely a figment of some over-zealous imaginations.

http://www.lawschoolpredictor.com/?page_id=173
Law School Predictor wrote:Underrepresented Minorities (URMs)

Target admit rates for URMs, based on how LSP renders predictions: (same method as non-URM applicants after URM boost is applied)
When LSP said Admit: >= 87%
When LSP said Strong Consider: ~ 69%
When LSP said Consider: ~ 50%
When LSP said Weak Consider: ~ 31%
When LSP said Deny: <= 13%

Based on the 4,300+ LSN 2008-09 decisions for self-identified URMs and with LSP URM feature enabled:
When LSP said Admit, 963 instances: 87.1%, +0.1%
When LSP said Strong Consider, 418 instances: 70.8%, +1.8%
When LSP said Consider, 1034 instances: 55.3%, +5.3%
When LSP said Weak Consider, 436 instances: 33.2%, +2.3%
When LSP said Deny, 1468 instances: 14.9%, +1.9%

Difference between actual URM admit rate and predicted URM admit rate: (prediction categories weighted evenly)
Average rate: +2.3%
Median rate: +1.9%


Obviously it isn't fair to say add 10 points to your score. It is a far more complex process than that, and these numbers reflect that. It certainly depends on a URM's background, where on the range thier score is, the needs of the school, etc. I think it is fair to say a URM could get a 10 point boost at a particular institution, in a particular case. But I don't think you can just take an extra 10 points to the bank as a URM.

User avatar
merichard87
Posts: 751
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: Is is true??

Postby merichard87 » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:50 pm

As I said it is UP TO a 10 pt boost which is what I consider a good estimate when I see URMs with LSATs UP TO 10pts under the medians gaining admission to law school. Of course you still have to be a viable candidate. So to summarize: Don't apply to Harvard with a 158 but if you have a 165 and are a URM, give it the 'ol college try.

User avatar
Philo38
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:21 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby Philo38 » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:57 pm

Ragged wrote:
Philo38 wrote:So you are saying you are a URM? Man . . . It must be a VERY good moment when you realize the boost you just got in your cycle. I mean, if you didn't realize it before, this is like the LSAC calling you: "um yeah, we messed up the scoring on your test, turns out that 171 we gave you is actually a 177. Have a nice day."


Or in her case 155 to a 161.


Yeah . . . I'll admit I stopped that post midway through and just started day-dreaming about being a URM.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby PDaddy » Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:05 pm

YCrevolution wrote:Being URM will help. For a general idea of the boost, see Law School Predictor.


The predictor is somewhat inaccurate. There have been too many URM's with scores just below or just above 160 who have gotten into the bottom half of T14 and even the top half with really strong GPA's and softs.
Last edited by PDaddy on Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby rundoxierun » Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:07 pm

Am I the only laughing at the thought of a dean instructing the committee to adjust lsat by race?? like +12 for native american, +10 for black or puerto rican, +8 for mexican and -2 for asian.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby PDaddy » Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:07 pm

merichard87 wrote:As I said it is UP TO a 10 pt boost which is what I consider a good estimate when I see URMs with LSATs UP TO 10pts under the medians gaining admission to law school. Of course you still have to be a viable candidate. So to summarize: Don't apply to Harvard with a 158 but if you have a 165 and are a URM, give it the 'ol college try.


That depends. A URM with 158 can get into Harvard with a strong GPA and great softs.

tkgrrett wrote:Am I the only laughing at the thought of a dean instructing the committee to adjust lsat by race?? like +12 for native american, +10 for black or puerto rican, +8 for mexican and -2 for asian.


It happens, but it's more "intuitive" than that. Adcoms are looking at the courses taken and the grade trend, LOR's, etc. Based on all of the other factors, including whether there was financial hardship, they are trying to gage where the person might be if given the advantages of a white similarly graded white student. Not all AA's, HA's or NA's are going to get the same boosts, and not all will get boosts. But some will, and, based on the admissions trends, it looks like there's no real formula.
Last edited by PDaddy on Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Herb Watchfell
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:48 pm

Re: Is is true??

Postby Herb Watchfell » Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:08 pm

YCrevolution wrote:Being URM will help. For a general idea of the boost, see Law School Predictor.


I would advice you to avoid that predictor website. I speak from experience when I tell you that it's absolutely atrocious, at least when it comes to predicting URM cycles.

User avatar
YCrevolution
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:25 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby YCrevolution » Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:22 pm

..

User avatar
merichard87
Posts: 751
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: Is is true??

Postby merichard87 » Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:44 pm

YCrevolution wrote:
Herb Watchfell wrote:
YCrevolution wrote:Being URM will help. For a general idea of the boost, see Law School Predictor.


I would advice you to avoid that predictor website. I speak from experience when I tell you that it's absolutely atrocious, at least when it comes to predicting URM cycles.

http://www.lawschoolpredictor.com/?page_id=173
Law School Predictor wrote:Underrepresented Minorities (URMs)

Target admit rates for URMs, based on how LSP renders predictions: (same method as non-URM applicants after URM boost is applied)
When LSP said Admit: >= 87%
When LSP said Strong Consider: ~ 69%
When LSP said Consider: ~ 50%
When LSP said Weak Consider: ~ 31%
When LSP said Deny: <= 13%

Based on the 4,300+ LSN 2008-09 decisions for self-identified URMs and with LSP URM feature enabled:
When LSP said Admit, 963 instances: 87.1%, +0.1%
When LSP said Strong Consider, 418 instances: 70.8%, +1.8%
When LSP said Consider, 1034 instances: 55.3%, +5.3%
When LSP said Weak Consider, 436 instances: 33.2%, +2.3%
When LSP said Deny, 1468 instances: 14.9%, +1.9%

Difference between actual URM admit rate and predicted URM admit rate: (prediction categories weighted evenly)
Average rate: +2.3%
Median rate: +1.9%


You posting it over and over will not make it true. Let it go.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Is is true??

Postby Ragged » Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:01 am

tkgrrett wrote:Am I the only laughing at the thought of a dean instructing the committee to adjust lsat by race?? like +12 for native american, +10 for black or puerto rican, +8 for mexican and -2 for asian.


Like I said, its not how it works. URMs are competing amongst themselves for the spots allocated to URMs. Because URMs score around 1 (or something like that) standard deviation below non-URMs, such segragation translates into a significant boost to URMs when it comes to the LSAT. If all URMs started to score better, than boost would be decreased by about the same amount.

So yes you, with your 177, is an equivalent of 184. Because amongst URM scoring a 177 is even more rare than 180 amongst non-URMs. Congratulations.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby PDaddy » Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:08 am

Ragged wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:Am I the only laughing at the thought of a dean instructing the committee to adjust lsat by race?? like +12 for native american, +10 for black or puerto rican, +8 for mexican and -2 for asian.


Like I said, its not how it works. URMs are competing amongst themselves for the spots allocated to URMs. Because URMs score around 1 (or something like that) standard deviation below non-URMs, such segragation translates into a significant boost to URMs when it comes to the LSAT. If all URMs started to score better, than boost would be decreased by about the same amount.

So yes you, with your 177, is an equivalent of 184. Because amongst URM scoring a 177 is even more rare than 180 amongst non-URMs. Congratulations.


Rare doesn't even begin to describe it. At 175+, how many are there, 5 African Americans per year? Maybe fewer.

User avatar
YCrevolution
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:25 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby YCrevolution » Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:16 am

..

User avatar
raperez129
Posts: 265
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:23 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby raperez129 » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:23 am

Whoa.....

In OP, I didn't mean to imply they have a hard core 10 point boost. I was trying to point out that RESEARCH INDICATES that URMS score typically 10 points lower than non URMs, even among students with the same GPA. This to me is suggesting a bias. I am not saying it is in the test itself. It could be preparation availabiltiy, social support, anything. I was just wondering how much adcoms accounted for such a discrepency.

And I agree, the predictors aren't that acurate for URMs, purely based on not enough available data to sample.

User avatar
YCrevolution
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:25 am

Re: Is is true??

Postby YCrevolution » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:26 am

..

LegalGENius
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: Is is true??

Postby LegalGENius » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:31 am

It's a tough call. For example, at a school like Miami, the definition of URM changes significantly because the area is so saturated with Hispanics (myself included). I'm sure there are other schools like that, though none come to mind at the moment.

Btw, I once found a website that detailed the minority percentages for each law school and showed what the quotas were that they were trying to reach. If possible, I will try to find again and post a link here. . . brb




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest