Native American vs. Other URM's

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
User avatar
acfair
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 4:01 pm

Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby acfair » Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:12 pm

I was just wondering, I posted in the What Are My Chances? forum, and I was told to retake in order to even have a shot at University of MN. I am an enrolled tribal member of an Ojibwe community, with a 3.62/159 and really stellar softs. But I have seen lots of people on the URM board with worse GPA's and similar LSATs who have been accepted at much higher ranked law schools. Most of those people were African-American.

Is being Native American not as beneficial as being African-American? I would think it would be more, seeing as there are so few Native law students/candidates out there.

User avatar
Kurama
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:50 pm

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby Kurama » Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:14 pm

Information regarding the boost given to Native American applicants is so scarce and varies so much from case to case that it is very hard to give a concrete answer to your question. However, if forced to give an answer, on average I would say that no the boost isn't as large as it is for Blacks (especially not Black males). However, again the boost given to NA's varies widely--much more so than with other URM groups.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby Kohinoor » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:03 am

Kurama wrote:Information regarding the boost given to Native American applicants is so scarce and varies so much from case to case that it is very hard to give a concrete answer to your question.

Unlike with AA applicants, an additional confounding factor is that we often don't know which NA applicants were or weren't able to provide tribal registration info and if that affects anything.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby Bildungsroman » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:08 am

Posted this in another thread asking why NA applicants seem to get less of a boost in admissions.


Bildungsroman wrote:
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

User avatar
llama11
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:42 am

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby llama11 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:36 am

It's really hard to gather data on NAs, since there are so few of us. PM if you want my details. PLSI can really help if you're thinking higher.

User avatar
mbw
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:56 pm

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby mbw » Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:28 am

acfair wrote:I was just wondering, I posted in the What Are My Chances? forum, and I was told to retake in order to even have a shot at University of MN. I am an enrolled tribal member of an Ojibwe community, with a 3.62/159 and really stellar softs. But I have seen lots of people on the URM board with worse GPA's and similar LSATs who have been accepted at much higher ranked law schools. Most of those people were African-American.

Is being Native American not as beneficial as being African-American? I would think it would be more, seeing as there are so few Native law students/candidates out there.


Being enrolled with clear evidence of tribal affiliation/involvement will put you on par with most AAs. UMN, however, can be a little picky about URM LSATs - you'd probably have a better shot at Cornell (where I'm NALSA pres, and we need more NA/IA applicants next year!)

And PLSI is a great resource. (http://www.ailc-inc.org/PLSI.htm)

User avatar
angiej
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:25 am

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby angiej » Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:44 am

Is it worth even checking the box for NA without tribal affiliation? My father is native american (both of his parents were) but he was never registered with a tribe which makes things difficult for me. I identify as NA.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby sundance95 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:47 pm

angiej wrote:Is it worth even checking the box for NA without tribal affiliation? My father is native american (both of his parents were) but he was never registered with a tribe which makes things difficult for me. I identify as NA.


Check it, if you are fully half and you identify I can't see how it would hurt you, and it very well might help you.

SuperFreak
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 7:11 am

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby SuperFreak » Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:01 pm

Bildungsroman wrote:Posted this in another thread asking why NA applicants seem to get less of a boost in admissions.


Bildungsroman wrote:
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




Sounds like a retarded analysis. I'm pretty sure Native American get just as much as boost, if not more, than African Americans. I base this on anecdotal evidence wherein I have seen a Native American get into better schools relative to African-Americans with nearly the same marks. You don't even provide evidence that law schools use your methodology in evaluating candidates. You take an abstract concept and then extrapolate from it with conjecture.
Last edited by SuperFreak on Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
hiromoto45
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:05 pm

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby hiromoto45 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:03 pm

SuperFreak wrote:
Sounds like a retarded analysis. I'm pretty sure Native American get just as much as boost as African Americans, if not more. I base this on anecdotal evidence wherein I have seen a Native American get into better schools relative to African-Americans with nearly the same marks.



Ask Nightrunner about that...

User avatar
billyez
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:19 pm

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby billyez » Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:08 pm

That anecdote doesn't disprove his analysis. What if the school wanted more Native American's in general and had already taken enough AA's to be representative?
Last edited by billyez on Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
angiej
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:25 am

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby angiej » Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:12 pm

sundance95 wrote:
angiej wrote:Is it worth even checking the box for NA without tribal affiliation? My father is native american (both of his parents were) but he was never registered with a tribe which makes things difficult for me. I identify as NA.


Check it, if you are fully half and you identify I can't see how it would hurt you, and it very well might help you.


I checked the box on the lsat and my lsdas info so I guess I had better check it on my apps too. No questions it when they look at me (well actually some say its a toss up between hispanic and NA). But its what I identify as (that and italian).

Thanks for the reinforcement.

User avatar
hiromoto45
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:05 pm

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby hiromoto45 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:33 pm

billyez wrote:That anecdote doesn't disprove his analysis. What if the school the NA wanted more Native AMerican's in gerneral and had already taken enough AA's to be representative?



I was being facetious.

Native American admissions is hard to pin down. Someone can claim being NA with 1/16th blood or someone can that has lived on a reservation for their whole life. We don't know how seriously adcoms take the former and I'm guess there are more NA that have sparse connections to their heritage or are only a small percentage NA. So do schools want to admit anyone that claims NA just to have diversity or do they want people that are authentically connected. There isn't this problem with AA applicants so maybe that's why one might think AA get a bigger boost than NA.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby Bildungsroman » Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:43 pm

SuperFreak wrote:Sounds like a retarded analysis. I'm pretty sure Native American get just as much as boost, if not more, than African Americans. I base this on anecdotal evidence wherein I have seen a Native American get into better schools relative to African-Americans with nearly the same marks. You don't even provide evidence that law schools use your methodology in evaluating candidates. You take an abstract concept and then extrapolate from it with conjecture.


One unrepresentative anecdote with no information provided outside of numbers and race = a retarded way to try and dispute an argument.

I take a concrete concept (representativeness, which you can infer is important from the "U" in URM) and use it to explain a perceived trend using concrete evidence (notice the place where I cite my sources).

User avatar
mbw
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:56 pm

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby mbw » Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:53 pm

Nightrunner wrote:Oh, and to answer your specific question re: UMN -- I believe you have a decent chance at Minnesota, but I do not think it is a guarantee. If you believe you can do better (if I am remembering your original post correctly, you PT'd in the 165-170 range), then I would re-take in September/October.

There is, to put it simply, a world of difference between a 3.62/159 (who might get into the Minnesota/Washington University-type schools) and a 3.62/167 (who might get into Michigan, or get a full scholarship from UMN/WUSTL).

If you don't retake, think about applying to Wisconsin: they have an excellent Native Law program (with their own clinical program, even) and usually the majority of full-scholarships they offer are to URMs.


I agree completely with NR - UMN is notorious for wanting higher-than-average URM LSATs (probably why they were my first admit, despite my pathetic GPA.) If you can bear to take again, I would recommend it. I jumped 9 points (17 raw points,) and it definitely made a huge difference in my cycle.

And thanks for the kind shout-out, NR... I so wish you had held out just a tad longer for my school, although I understand why you did not. :(

And a quick addendum -- it is not required that you be enrolled in a US FRIT in order to be considered an NDN URM (although the OP made it clear she is) - there are plenty of people who are very involved in their tribes, and either are not eligible for enrollment due to strict BQs, or their tribe is not federally recognized. Adcomms really just care that you're not a box-checker (and some don't even care about that...)

DustyfootPhilospher
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:32 pm

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby DustyfootPhilospher » Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:02 am

Generally you should at least be on par w/ AA's as a registered Tribal Member. One thing that law schools are weary of is the fact that a lot of people will put Native American even though they are only a very small percentage (sometimes even when they are registered) which can hurt your chances. It sucks bc there are a lot of people who look completely "Caucasian for example" and live their lives as such with no cultural or emotional connection to a tribe, but when it comes down to the law school application decide to claim this past NA heritage that they would never admit to at any other time in life.

I know that many people believe that Native Americans get the largest boost of all and depending on the school that could be true. I know personally several African Americans who have a Great Grandmother who is full blooded Seminole or something so instead of putting AA on their application they put NA believing it will give them a boost. I have no idea if this actually helped or not, but I do know of a few who had extremely low numbers (well under the 25th percentile of a particular school) and got in. I know of one 150~s LSAT and 3.4 GPA NA who got into Harvard.

Point is you are probably about equal in opportunity with most Puerto Rican and AA candidates. Just apply to schools who have the least amount of NA applicants.

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

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby xmrmckenziex » Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:00 pm

edit
Last edited by xmrmckenziex on Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

andythefir
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:56 am

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby andythefir » Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:01 pm

.8% claim to be only native, 1.5% are at least some native. Some are 31/32nds white, some 31/32nds native. 1.5% of those who claim to be at least part native is what the schools ought to shoot for.

User avatar
thrillhouse
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:42 pm

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby thrillhouse » Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:10 am

Bildungsroman wrote:Posted this in another thread asking why NA applicants seem to get less of a boost in admissions.


Bildungsroman wrote:
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



This post is simply dead wrong. There is little data about the NA boost because there are so few applicants and even fewer matriculants. Additionally, there are several complicating factors when it comes to NAs. First, there is the question of how much NA blood someone has and whether or not that even matters to schools. Then, there is the question of whether or not it matters if someone is an enrolled tribal member regardless of their blood quantum and whether or not that matters to schools. There is also the question of whether someone's tribal affiliation is with a federally recognized tribe or a non-federally recognized tribe and whether or not that matters to schools. This list goes on...

Add to all of that the complication that there is an entire field of law to deal with Indians in this country. For some schools, that makes a big difference.

The best advice is this: blanket the T14 and select other schools that have strong NALSA chapters and Indian law curricula. Blanket the T14 because you never know. I know Columbia has a fellowship specifically for Indian law and, as far as I know, it has never gone to an entering student who was not an Indian. Other T14s with strong NALSA chapters are Harvard, Stanford, Cornell, UVA, Michigan, and to a lesser extent Boalt.

serdog
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:21 pm

Re: Native American vs. Other URM's

Postby serdog » Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:43 pm

thrillhouse wrote:

This post is simply dead wrong. There is little data about the NA boost because there are so few applicants and even fewer matriculants. Additionally, there are several complicating factors when it comes to NAs. First, there is the question of how much NA blood someone has and whether or not that even matters to schools. Then, there is the question of whether or not it matters if someone is an enrolled tribal member regardless of their blood quantum and whether or not that matters to schools. There is also the question of whether someone's tribal affiliation is with a federally recognized tribe or a non-federally recognized tribe and whether or not that matters to schools. This list goes on...


US census definition (LinkRemoved) "American Indian and Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment."
that the broadest it can be, then you get into what the law schools say. This also will impact stats of course a large number of people by fill in the LSAC box for NA yet not be part of that category with regards to law school. US law schools likely would not look at a Metis,lets say this person as strong community attachment and affiliation, as NA yet under the census that person would be NA.




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests