Extreme socioeconomic disadvantage as soft?

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
User avatar
Alltheirsplendor
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:06 pm

Extreme socioeconomic disadvantage as soft?

Postby Alltheirsplendor » Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:57 am

So this was motivated by a question from another thread... Does extreme socioeconomic disadvantage count as a soft? If so, how much is it weighted? It appears that schools don't care at all. Because I had some unique circumstances, I was curious to know the answer to this question. Thanks much guys.

User avatar
Rock-N-Roll
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:16 pm

Re: Extreme socioeconomic disadvantage as soft?

Postby Rock-N-Roll » Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:52 am

Alltheirsplendor wrote:So this was motivated by a question from another thread... Does extreme socioeconomic disadvantage count as a soft? If so, how much is it weighted? It appears that schools don't care at all. Because I had some unique circumstances, I was curious to know the answer to this question. Thanks much guys.


I actually think they do care. Schools would want to include people from all socioeconomic strata in order to create a diverse class.

User avatar
NZA
Posts: 1285
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:01 pm

Re: Extreme socioeconomic disadvantage as soft?

Postby NZA » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:03 am

...you saw one thread that addressed this same question, and then started another thread to address it again?

:|

The short answer is, No.

Why? Because pretty much everyone is taking out six figures in loans to pay for law school. We're all poor, brah.

User avatar
Alltheirsplendor
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:06 pm

Re: Extreme socioeconomic disadvantage as soft?

Postby Alltheirsplendor » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:07 am

NZA wrote:...you saw one thread that addressed this same question, and then started another thread to address it again?

:|

The short answer is, No.

Why? Because pretty much everyone is taking out six figures in loans to pay for law school. We're all poor, brah.


No, I saw another thread that would've addressed this question, but didn't. And I didn't feel comfortable hijacking the thread.

User avatar
Rock-N-Roll
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:16 pm

Re: Extreme socioeconomic disadvantage as soft?

Postby Rock-N-Roll » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:13 am

NZA wrote:...you saw one thread that addressed this same question, and then started another thread to address it again?

:|

The short answer is, No.

Why? Because pretty much everyone is taking out six figures in loans to pay for law school. We're all poor, brah.


Wait. Why wouldn't socioeconomic status count towards diversity? If, as you say, it didn't matter in admissions at all, there would very likely be a skew among law students towards them mostly being of-means or wealthy. In that sense then the class would be much more socially homogeneous and thus considerably less diverse.

That is, I would claim that both wealthy URM and non-URM students probably have more in common with each other than either group has with anyone coming from a lower-socioeconomic background.

User avatar
NZA
Posts: 1285
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:01 pm

Re: Extreme socioeconomic disadvantage as soft?

Postby NZA » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:16 am

Rock-N-Roll wrote:
NZA wrote:...you saw one thread that addressed this same question, and then started another thread to address it again?

:|

The short answer is, No.

Why? Because pretty much everyone is taking out six figures in loans to pay for law school. We're all poor, brah.


Wait. Why wouldn't socioeconomic status count towards diversity? If, as you say, it didn't matter in admissions at all, there would very likely be a skew among law students towards them mostly being of-means or wealthy. In that sense then the class would be much more socially homogeneous and thus considerably less diverse.

That is, I would claim that both wealthy URM and non-URM students probably have more in common with each other than either group has with anyone coming from a lower-socioeconomic background.

USNWR does not give points for economic diversity.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: Extreme socioeconomic disadvantage as soft?

Postby Blessedassurance » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:27 am

Rock-N-Roll wrote:
NZA wrote:...you saw one thread that addressed this same question, and then started another thread to address it again?

:|

The short answer is, No.

Why? Because pretty much everyone is taking out six figures in loans to pay for law school. We're all poor, brah.


Wait. Why wouldn't socioeconomic status count towards diversity? If, as you say, it didn't matter in admissions at all, there would very likely be a skew among law students towards them mostly being of-means or wealthy. In that sense then the class would be much more socially homogeneous and thus considerably less diverse.

That is, I would claim that both wealthy URM and non-URM students probably have more in common with each other than either group has with anyone coming from a lower-socioeconomic background.


Actually there are a lot of urm's who receive a significant boost but are not socio-economically disadvantaged. There was a case a while back where a poor single, white mom with significantly better numbers got rejected from the University of Washington and she filed a lawsuit because a suburban white/AA male got in with an LSAT of 148.

This is not a fruitful discussion to have, you could argue that Guatemalans are more disadvantaged on average than Mexicans and should receive a boost equal to or greater than the ones Mexicans and PR's receive and so on and so forth.

This doesn't however address the OP's question. Socio-economic disadvantage can and should be addressed in a diversity statement . It wouldn't hurt to address it, so by all means do so. Just don't expect anyone to know how exactly it would affect your chances.

User avatar
lisjjen
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Extreme socioeconomic disadvantage as soft?

Postby lisjjen » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:29 am

As with all softs, your PS will make or break it. I say go for it. This is America and we all love an underdog, Adcomms included.

User avatar
Rock-N-Roll
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:16 pm

Re: Extreme socioeconomic disadvantage as soft?

Postby Rock-N-Roll » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:47 am

NZA wrote:USNWR does not give points for economic diversity.


What you're implying then is that schools define diversity as it suites them rather than use a more objective or real-life definition. That's too bad if you're right.

User avatar
Rock-N-Roll
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:16 pm

Re: Extreme socioeconomic disadvantage as soft?

Postby Rock-N-Roll » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:58 am

Blessedassurance wrote:This is not a fruitful discussion to have, you could argue that Guatemalans are more disadvantaged on average than Mexicans and should receive a boost equal to or greater than the ones Mexicans and PR's receive and so on and so forth.


I would never make this argument. Affirmative Action ends up being a distinct subset in the larger category of diversity and has it's own rules and definitions.

What I do believe though is that schools look to increase the diversity of their incoming classes not only through URM acceptances but also through accepting people from different socioeconomic backgrounds, educational backgrounds, ages, etc.

But at the end of the day though, you agree with me that socioeconomic status likely does count for something in admissions.




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BodieBroadus, chandhi and 2 guests