Is LGBT really considered URM? Forum

[ResolutePear]

Over-Represented.... Minority. Really?

The phrase "ORM" was born on TLS because of Asian-Americans, who are over-represented in graduate schools. "Under-represented" refers to having a smaller % of that race in the student body than exists in the overall population, but Asian-Americans are the opposite. The % of Asians in the student body of many schools is significantly higher than the % of Asians in the overall population; hence over-represented (but still a minority).

Ah. Understood.

[tomtom23]

What would stop me from going to Harvard and telling them, "I just banged a dude a couple hours ago and I'm gay. Boost plz." for the sole purpose of a URM boost.

My thoughts exactly.

---

Disclaimer: I'm not here to argue whether or not AA is right or whether or not LGBT is genetic/choice. The following is meant only to be a thought I do not necessarily agree or disagree with but one that may be relevant to those on the edge of acceptance. (And hence why it's here - so don't get pissed vanwinkle.)

So, what does it mean to be gay? Have we concluded that it is something that cannot change? What if one is bisexual: is that person gay or not? I am not looking for anyone to answer these questions here, but I would like to know how a state bar or whoever else might care would answer these questions. If I let out on an application to some ultra liberal college that might favor me for being gay (perhaps it's simply more likely members on the admissions committee are gay or gay-friendly), what is the worst that could happen? Does being gay make me have to be gay forever? Certainly gay people have straight relationships, why can't it work the other way around? Why can't I decide that I am just confused about my sexual orientation and that eventually it matured? Who is to say that my declaration of sexual orientation at any point in time should be definitive and that I should be held to it?

Again, those questions are rhetorical.

Now, for my point: To me, with respect to law school applications, homosexuality is the ultimate stealth "minority" classification: everyone can claim it, no one can dispute it. IRL there are people everywhere "coming out" for publicity, fame, and fortune. Being gay in some crowds is incredibly powerful. I guarantee many people declare a sexual orientation for reasons other than true sexuality. And I know those people do so knowing very well that there is very little risk doing so. I think the same is true w/ law school apps.

[ResolutePear]

.

[vanwinkle]

I just said this:

Let's not get into the "is sexual orientation a lifestyle choice" debate here, again, thanks.

And then you said this:

Does being gay make me have to be gay forever? Certainly gay people have straight relationships, why can't it work the other way around? Why can't I decide that I am just confused about my sexual orientation and that eventually it matured?

And also this:

IRL there are people everywhere "coming out" for publicity, fame, and fortune. Being gay in some crowds is incredibly powerful. I guarantee many people declare a sexual orientation for reasons other than true sexuality.

You tried to cover with this:

(And hence why it's here - so don't get pissed vanwinkle.)

But regardless, it's still just arguing the whole "is being gay a lifestyle choice?" question I just warned you to drop, so you still get this:

--ImageRemoved--

Now, would anyone else like to learn what happens if you ignore me and keep arguing about whether people come out as some kind of lifestyle choice? Or would they like to stick to whether LGBT does/doesn't actually count as a diversity boost and not face a tempban?

[thecilent]

I don't think they give you any kind of real boost just for being LGBT; however, a well-written diversity statement (on any good topic - such as LGBT) will always help an application, IMO.

[blink]

I just said this:

Let's not get into the "is sexual orientation a lifestyle choice" debate here, again, thanks.

And then you said this:

Does being gay make me have to be gay forever? Certainly gay people have straight relationships, why can't it work the other way around? Why can't I decide that I am just confused about my sexual orientation and that eventually it matured?

And also this:

IRL there are people everywhere "coming out" for publicity, fame, and fortune. Being gay in some crowds is incredibly powerful. I guarantee many people declare a sexual orientation for reasons other than true sexuality.

You tried to cover with this:

(And hence why it's here - so don't get pissed vanwinkle.)

But regardless, it's still just arguing the whole "is being gay a lifestyle choice?" question I just warned you to drop, so you still get this:

--ImageRemoved--

Now, would anyone else like to learn what happens if you ignore me and keep arguing about whether people come out as some kind of lifestyle choice? Or would they like to stick to whether LGBT does/doesn't actually count as a diversity boost and not face a tempban?

haha well played sir. Also I agree with thecilent

[vanwinkle]

Also I agree with thecilent

So do I.

[northwood]

turn your experiences into a well polished essay. Demonstrating that you have strong writing skills, and can be precise and fluent through written words will help you a lot more than just checking a box and doing nothing else with it. If you have a compelling story that makes you shine brighter, and makes you a more desirable canidate for that specific law school then your chances will get better.

if you write a horrible essay, demonstrate that you do not have strong writing skills, it will hurt your application. By the way: numbers still are going to be the first and second most important part of your application.

[Jack Smirks]

It's okay to talk in the on-topic forums about how things work (as in, to give advice to URMs) but not to argue about how right that is (whether or not we should have affirmative action, diversity promotion, etc.). I think I'm going to declare now that this applies to the LGBT question as well.

AND SO IT WAS DECLARED!

[CG614]

It's okay to talk in the on-topic forums about how things work (as in, to give advice to URMs) but not to argue about how right that is (whether or not we should have affirmative action, diversity promotion, etc.). I think I'm going to declare now that this applies to the LGBT question as well.

AND SO IT WAS DECLARED!

Is there a balancing test on what is allowed to be argued? Or is this a holding that only applies to this one trait?

[vanwinkle]

It's okay to talk in the on-topic forums about how things work (as in, to give advice to URMs) but not to argue about how right that is (whether or not we should have affirmative action, diversity promotion, etc.). I think I'm going to declare now that this applies to the LGBT question as well.

AND SO IT WAS DECLARED!

Is there a balancing test on what is allowed to be argued? Or is this a holding that only applies to this one trait?

That basically is the balancing test, for AA/race/related questions. I'm saying from here on out that LGBT is "related". To try to make it as clear as possible:

If you're explaining to someone how URM/diversity boosts functionally work and whether the rules apply to them, that's fine and on-topic given the purpose of this forum.

If you're raising questions of whether such boosts are fair or appropriate, that's not fine or on-topic, and should be taken to the Lounge or PMs.

If you try to make statements about how you feel or are certain boosts are unfair or inappropriate, and try to dress it up as a "I think adcomms might think this way too so this is relevant to admissions discussion" thing, that's not fine or on-topic either.

I think there was a minimal amount of good advice given in this thread, but I'm going to lock it now; the next time such a thread pops up, I'm going to be much swifter with the hammer.