edit Forum

Share experiences and seek insight regarding your experience as an underrepresented minority within the legal community.
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
xmrmckenziex

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:26 pm

edit

Post by xmrmckenziex » Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:06 pm

edit
Last edited by xmrmckenziex on Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
D Brooks

Silver
Posts: 522
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:02 pm

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by D Brooks » Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:20 pm

Ran here.

User avatar
Bildungsroman

Platinum
Posts: 5529
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by Bildungsroman » Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:45 pm

D Brooks wrote:Ran here.
Image


Seriously, though, there's no quantifiable boost coming from URM status. Schools treat it differently and don't just uniformly "add to the LSAT" (I've never seen any evidence that any school deals with URM status by just adding to the applicant's numbers).
Wouldn't common sense lead you to think that NA would be typically larger?
Why? The average LSAT score for a Native American is about 4 points lower than for a Caucasian, while African-Americans, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans all have lower average scores than Native Americans (in the case of African-Americans and Puerto Ricans, by a substantial margin), which means that Native Americans are less disadvantaged in law school applications by the LSAT than those other URM groups

Also, the point of URM boosts is to bring law student racial/ethnic demographics into proportion with the US racial/ethnic demographics. Native Americans only make up 0.8% of the US population, meaning it takes fewer of them to bring a law school's population into proportion as far as Native American students go. Native Americans account for a little over 0.8% of all LSAT takers, while African-Americans and Hispanics account for smaller percentages of LSAT takers than they do of the total population. So, law schools need about 0.8% Native American students to make them proportionally represented, and a little over 0.8% of LSAT takers are Native American, which makes it easier for law schools to be selective because they have enough to choose from. Compare that to African-Americans and Hispanics, who account for a much smaller percentage of test takers than they do for total US population, and you see that Law Schools have to go even lower within the test-taking populations of these races/ethnicities to fill their ranks, meaning they have to give them a larger boost in the admissions process.



Source (LinkRemoved)
Source

xmrmckenziex

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:26 pm

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by xmrmckenziex » Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:50 pm

edit
Last edited by xmrmckenziex on Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Core

Silver
Posts: 890
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by Core » Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:53 pm

It depends on each school. There is no uniform point-based rule for every school. However, AA seem to get substantial boosts, while MX/PR/NA get more modest but still solid boosts. People also get boosts for being LGBT or for being Cuban, DR, etc. These boosts tend not to be as large as the traditional URM boosts, though.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers

Gold
Posts: 2168
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by Mickey Quicknumbers » Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:04 pm

Core wrote:It depends on each school. There is no uniform point-based rule for every school. However, AA seem to get substantial boosts, while MX/PR/NA get more modest but still solid boosts. People also get boosts for being LGBT or for being Cuban, DR, etc. These boosts tend not to be as large as the traditional URM boosts, though.
Not true

User avatar
Core

Silver
Posts: 890
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by Core » Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:05 pm

delBarco wrote:
Core wrote:It depends on each school. There is no uniform point-based rule for every school. However, AA seem to get substantial boosts, while MX/PR/NA get more modest but still solid boosts. People also get boosts for being LGBT or for being Cuban, DR, etc. These boosts tend not to be as large as the traditional URM boosts, though.
Not true
Even if they can show they're bringing diversity & overcame hardship? Idk.

User avatar
hiromoto45

Silver
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:05 pm

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by hiromoto45 » Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:07 pm

IBTL...usually how these threads end.

User avatar
angiej

Silver
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:25 am

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by angiej » Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:21 pm

Bildungsroman wrote:
D Brooks wrote:Ran here.
Image


Seriously, though, there's no quantifiable boost coming from URM status. Schools treat it differently and don't just uniformly "add to the LSAT" (I've never seen any evidence that any school deals with URM status by just adding to the applicant's numbers).
Wouldn't common sense lead you to think that NA would be typically larger?
Why? The average LSAT score for a Native American is about 4 points lower than for a Caucasian, while African-Americans, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans all have lower average scores than Native Americans (in the case of African-Americans and Puerto Ricans, by a substantial margin), which means that Native Americans are less disadvantaged in law school applications by the LSAT than those other URM groups

Also, the point of URM boosts is to bring law student racial/ethnic demographics into proportion with the US racial/ethnic demographics. Native Americans only make up 0.8% of the US population, meaning it takes fewer of them to bring a law school's population into proportion as far as Native American students go. Native Americans account for a little over 0.8% of all LSAT takers, while African-Americans and Hispanics account for smaller percentages of LSAT takers than they do of the total population. So, law schools need about 0.8% Native American students to make them proportionally represented, and a little over 0.8% of LSAT takers are Native American, which makes it easier for law schools to be selective because they have enough to choose from. Compare that to African-Americans and Hispanics, who account for a much smaller percentage of test takers than they do for total US population, and you see that Law Schools have to go even lower within the test-taking populations of these races/ethnicities to fill their ranks, meaning they have to give them a larger boost in the admissions process.



Source (LinkRemoved)
Source
Average test score for Puerto Ricans 138! :shock:

User avatar
Moxie

Silver
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:27 pm

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by Moxie » Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:36 pm

Core wrote:It depends on each school. There is no uniform point-based rule for every school. However, AA seem to get substantial boosts, while MX/PR/NA get more modest but still solid boosts.
This. (Although I sometimes hear that NA gets the biggest boost because it's the "rarest" form of LS applicant URM?)

User avatar
mfeller2

Bronze
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:34 pm

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by mfeller2 » Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:50 pm

Not too knowledgeable on the topic, but wouldn't it make sense to give a larger boost to whatever groups are less 'represented' in the law profession or law schools. Or is it based on how 'represented' a group is in the number of test takers compared to general demographic info? idk

User avatar
jeremydc

Bronze
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:13 pm

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by jeremydc » Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:54 pm

What about Native Hawaiians, how rare are we? I have still yet to meet any on here or anywhere :)

User avatar
mfeller2

Bronze
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:34 pm

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by mfeller2 » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:00 am

Yea, i think native hawaiians are under-underrepresented. You should get at least a 30 pt lsat bump. :) Does it count if i kind of look hawaiian? lol

getitdone

New
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:27 am

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by getitdone » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:14 am

what is LGBT?

User avatar
vanwinkle

Platinum
Posts: 8953
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by vanwinkle » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:17 am

getitdone wrote:what is LGBT?
Lesbian, Gay, Bi, & Transgendered. People who are LGBT may see a diversity boost at some schools, but are not considered URMs, since URM is a specific legal construct with referring to certain racial groups.

AmbitiousPanda

New
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:36 am

Re: Perspectives on Differing URM "boosts"

Post by AmbitiousPanda » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:49 am

OP-
I just came across this passage as well- the author's name rhymes with Schmontauk right?
Anyway, I guess according to the LSAC data about URM's and the national trend of our LSAT scores, this "curve" would be about right. If Caucasians average a 152, Mexicans a 147 (although at 147.96 it's probably best to round up to 148), and AA ~142, the author of this book assumes that law school admissions officers simply tack on the +5 for Mexican Americans and a +10 for AA.

Whether or not that actually happens- who knows. Seems unlikely though.

Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Underrepresented Law Students”