2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
Geneva
Posts: 1014
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:32 am

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby Geneva » Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:07 pm

Dear Everyone,

GOOD LUCK WITH THE REST OF YOUR CYCLES!!! :) I have a feeling that some amazing URM acceptances are just around the corner. Hang in there!

Barca10
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:46 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby Barca10 » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:32 pm

Updating this as I just received a JS2 (Ahhhhhhh) and got moved from the PSWL to admitted at GULC in the last couple of days


170/3.97/Mexican/Male

IN
Berkeley
Duke
Vanderbilt - $35K/Year Scholarship
Penn
NYU
USC- $40K/Year Scholarship
Georgetown
Harvard


Pending
Stanford
Yale
UVA
Columbia
UCLA
Michigan

User avatar
danitt
Posts: 1984
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:40 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby danitt » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:41 pm

Did you apply late? I'm surprised that you're not getting more in terms of scholarship money.

Barca10
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:46 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby Barca10 » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:05 pm

danitt wrote:Did you apply late? I'm surprised that you're not getting more in terms of scholarship money.


Ya I was a middle of January applicant. I knew going in that if I got into most of the schools, then I would be left without money.

Dani.B
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:34 am

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby Dani.B » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:35 pm

Barca10 wrote:
danitt wrote:Did you apply late? I'm surprised that you're not getting more in terms of scholarship money.


Ya I was a middle of January applicant. I knew going in that if I got into most of the schools, then I would be left without money.


Congrats! and there is still a chance at money from Harvard after you fill out all of their financial aid forms correct?

Dani.B
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:34 am

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby Dani.B » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:36 pm

Cookie2 wrote:Sorry Dani B :( but you got into several better schools anyways. Also did your status checker update?


I stopped checking long ago. I applied in october and stopped checking my status in Feb. I came back from spring break and found the rejection letter in my mail. lol

Dani.B
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:34 am

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby Dani.B » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:37 pm

AS33 wrote:Dani B again! I got rejected too! Michigan is strange this year.


:lol: that is so funny! Have we had the exact same cycle? Did you apply to H or S?

2015JD
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:50 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby 2015JD » Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:57 pm

updated also including law school predictor to show just how horrid my cycle is. The one in [] are the decisions if I uncheck URM

PR 164 3.55

Pending:
University of Maryland (admit) [strong consider]
NYU (deny) [deny]
IU Bloomington (admit) [strong consider]
U Penn (consider) [deny]
Vandy (consider) [deny]
W&M (strong consider) [consider]

Rejected at:
Harvard (deny) [deny]
BU (consider) [weak consider]
BC (strong consider) [consider]
Berkeley (consider) [deny]
Columbia (deny) [deny]
Cornell (weak consider) [deny]
Duke (deny) [deny]
Georgetown (weak consider) [deny]
Northwestern (consider) [weak consider]
UVA (consider) [deny]

Waitlist:
GW (strong consider) [consider]
W&L (admit) [consider]

In at:
Fordham (no money, even after telling them about the $40k at Cardozo) (strong consider) [consider]
Cardozo ($40k a year guaranteed) (admit) [consider]

With the rejection at BC I am really scared that I won't get in at W&M. W&M has always been my top pick but they have been sitting on my app since the end of December.

As a Non-URM applicant my cycle doesn't seem out of place or anything, it's just the supposed URM boost was supposed to help me hit something better than Fordham without money and Cardozo.

Basically it seems the only URM boost I have received, is that of the $40,000 a year at Cardozo. However I most likely would have received some money from them.

lakerinstl
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby lakerinstl » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:02 pm

Just checking in to this thread.

AA male. I've been admitted to The University of Missouri and Saint Louis University. I'm still waiting on the acceptance/rejection notice from Wash U. If I don't get any acceptance to Wash U with any kind of scholarship offer, I'm most definitely going to Mizzou. I plan on practicing in the St. Louis area where I am from after graduation. Any body else considering these schools?

User avatar
Quan292
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 2:03 am

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby Quan292 » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:05 pm

My cycle as of today
If I see another waitlist e-mail I may just peoples elbow an admin.

IN
UCONN
UIUC

Reject
Michigan

Waitlist
Georgetown
UVA
BC
Emory
Minnesota

Pending
NYU
Columbia
UPenn
Duke
Cornell
BU
W&M

Trips
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby Trips » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:02 pm

2015JD wrote:updated also including law school predictor to show just how horrid my cycle is. The one in [] are the decisions if I uncheck URM

PR 164 3.55

Pending:
University of Maryland (admit) [strong consider]
NYU (deny) [deny]
IU Bloomington (admit) [strong consider]
U Penn (consider) [deny]
Vandy (consider) [deny]
W&M (strong consider) [consider]

Rejected at:
Harvard (deny) [deny]
BU (consider) [weak consider]
BC (strong consider) [consider]
Berkeley (consider) [deny]
Columbia (deny) [deny]
Cornell (weak consider) [deny]
Duke (deny) [deny]
Georgetown (weak consider) [deny]
Northwestern (consider) [weak consider]
UVA (consider) [deny]

Waitlist:
GW (strong consider) [consider]
W&L (admit) [consider]

In at:
Fordham (no money, even after telling them about the $40k at Cardozo) (strong consider) [consider]
Cardozo ($40k a year guaranteed) (admit) [consider]

With the rejection at BC I am really scared that I won't get in at W&M. W&M has always been my top pick but they have been sitting on my app since the end of December.

As a Non-URM applicant my cycle doesn't seem out of place or anything, it's just the supposed URM boost was supposed to help me hit something better than Fordham without money and Cardozo.

Basically it seems the only URM boost I have received, is that of the $40,000 a year at Cardozo. However I most likely would have received some money from them.


Did you write a Diversity statement? Just out of pure curiosity.

User avatar
tooswolle
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 4:48 am

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby tooswolle » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:10 pm

2015JD wrote:updated also including law school predictor to show just how horrid my cycle is. The one in [] are the decisions if I uncheck URM

PR 164 3.55

Pending:
University of Maryland (admit) [strong consider]
NYU (deny) [deny]
IU Bloomington (admit) [strong consider]
U Penn (consider) [deny]
Vandy (consider) [deny]
W&M (strong consider) [consider]

Rejected at:
Harvard (deny) [deny]
BU (consider) [weak consider]
BC (strong consider) [consider]
Berkeley (consider) [deny]
Columbia (deny) [deny]
Cornell (weak consider) [deny]
Duke (deny) [deny]
Georgetown (weak consider) [deny]
Northwestern (consider) [weak consider]
UVA (consider) [deny]

Waitlist:
GW (strong consider) [consider]
W&L (admit) [consider]

In at:
Fordham (no money, even after telling them about the $40k at Cardozo) (strong consider) [consider]
Cardozo ($40k a year guaranteed) (admit) [consider]

With the rejection at BC I am really scared that I won't get in at W&M. W&M has always been my top pick but they have been sitting on my app since the end of December.

As a Non-URM applicant my cycle doesn't seem out of place or anything, it's just the supposed URM boost was supposed to help me hit something better than Fordham without money and Cardozo.

Basically it seems the only URM boost I have received, is that of the $40,000 a year at Cardozo. However I most likely would have received some money from them.



Honestly dude I don't think it is the lack of a urm boost its more likely the lack of power the boost has for Hispanic, PR and MA applicants. I honestly would love to know why schools aren't more aggressive in recruiting these groups as they are prone to many socio-economic disadvantages as other groups and if it's a 1st generation student they don't have a system of support. With that being said I believe I got some help, but I might end up retaking my LSAT as I know I can hit the mid to high 160 's I just choked on test day!

2015JD
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:50 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby 2015JD » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:55 pm

Trips wrote:Did you write a Diversity statement? Just out of pure curiosity.


No, sent in PM why.

tooswolle wrote:Honestly dude I don't think it is the lack of a urm boost its more likely the lack of power the boost has for Hispanic, PR and MA applicants. I honestly would love to know why schools aren't more aggressive in recruiting these groups as they are prone to many socio-economic disadvantages as other groups and if it's a 1st generation student they don't have a system of support. With that being said I believe I got some help, but I might end up retaking my LSAT as I know I can hit the mid to high 160 's I just choked on test day!


Agreed I feel like if AA get 100% URM boost, PR get like 30%. Yet because of the generally negative association with affirmative action we get 100% of the stigma. Sucks.

Also out at Penn today.

User avatar
tooswolle
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 4:48 am

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby tooswolle » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:27 pm

2015JD wrote:
Trips wrote:Did you write a Diversity statement? Just out of pure curiosity.


No, sent in PM why.

tooswolle wrote:Honestly dude I don't think it is the lack of a urm boost its more likely the lack of power the boost has for Hispanic, PR and MA applicants. I honestly would love to know why schools aren't more aggressive in recruiting these groups as they are prone to many socio-economic disadvantages as other groups and if it's a 1st generation student they don't have a system of support. With that being said I believe I got some help, but I might end up retaking my LSAT as I know I can hit the mid to high 160 's I just choked on test day!


Agreed I feel like if AA get 100% URM boost, PR get like 30%. Yet because of the generally negative association with affirmative action we get 100% of the stigma. Sucks.

Also out at Penn today.


Yea I've seen that play out on lsn. The craziest thing is that many of the obstacles faced by all of these groups are the same. Poverty rates, incarceration rates, lack of educational attainment. I've always wondered why we get the short end of the stick. Regardless I don't mean to derail this awesome thread. Everyone's helped me gain confidence that by boosting my LSAT there is an opportunity to get se great acceptances.

User avatar
TrialLawyer16
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:43 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby TrialLawyer16 » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:59 am

tooswolle wrote:
2015JD wrote:
Trips wrote:Did you write a Diversity statement? Just out of pure curiosity.


No, sent in PM why.

tooswolle wrote:Honestly dude I don't think it is the lack of a urm boost its more likely the lack of power the boost has for Hispanic, PR and MA applicants. I honestly would love to know why schools aren't more aggressive in recruiting these groups as they are prone to many socio-economic disadvantages as other groups and if it's a 1st generation student they don't have a system of support. With that being said I believe I got some help, but I might end up retaking my LSAT as I know I can hit the mid to high 160 's I just choked on test day!


Agreed I feel like if AA get 100% URM boost, PR get like 30%. Yet because of the generally negative association with affirmative action we get 100% of the stigma. Sucks.

Also out at Penn today.


Yea I've seen that play out on lsn. The craziest thing is that many of the obstacles faced by all of these groups are the same. Poverty rates, incarceration rates, lack of educational attainment. I've always wondered why we get the short end of the stick. Regardless I don't mean to derail this awesome thread. Everyone's helped me gain confidence that by boosting my LSAT there is an opportunity to get se great acceptances.


Not meaning to derail (or debate) either, but just to try to explain. The reason for that isn't because of 'differing obstacles faced by these groups'. It is more to do with the proportion of a race in the general population compared with the proportion of a race in a law school. For example, (and I'm pulling numbers out of my culo btw) imagine 12% of the country is black and 4% is Puerto Rican, however 3% of a law school is black and 3% is Puerto Rican. Understandably that law school is going to give a significantly stronger effort to enroll black students because PRs are already at 3/4ths of their representation in the US (hence the term under represented minority), while blacks would only be a 1/4th of the way there. PRs just aren't as under represented as blacks, that's all it means.

In my understanding the 'URM boost' has nothing to do with "obstacles faced" by certain groups, it's strictly a numbers things. Contrarily, I think the fact that these groups are under represented in the first place could be indicative of the obstacles faced. The obstacles faced by individuals is something that I think should/does play a role in deciding on an applicant, but that would be reflected in a PS/DS and I don't believe the role played by surmounting such obstacles is determined by ethnicity. If a PS/DS is so moving it impels an adcomm to accept an applicant, I think that student is accepted whether they are black, white, or green.

Anywho, back to the topic of this thread. I'm really enjoying hearing of all of your success!

User avatar
DeloresSaidSo
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:56 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby DeloresSaidSo » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:23 pm

My cycle so far:

In
University of Virginia
Michigan
UCLA
USC- $90,000 scholarship!!!
George Washington- $30,000 scholarship
Alabama- full ride
UGA- $22,500
Wake Forest- full ride

Out
Berkeley
Chicago


Waitlisted
Georgetown
Duke

Stats: 162/3.5

2015JD
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:50 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby 2015JD » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:30 pm

TrialLawyer16 wrote:Not meaning to derail (or debate) either, but just to try to explain. The reason for that isn't because of 'differing obstacles faced by these groups'. It is more to do with the proportion of a race in the general population compared with the proportion of a race in a law school. For example, (and I'm pulling numbers out of my culo btw) imagine 12% of the country is black and 4% is Puerto Rican, however 3% of a law school is black and 3% is Puerto Rican. Understandably that law school is going to give a significantly stronger effort to enroll black students because PRs are already at 3/4ths of their representation in the US (hence the term under represented minority), while blacks would only be a 1/4th of the way there. PRs just aren't as under represented as blacks, that's all it means.

In my understanding the 'URM boost' has nothing to do with "obstacles faced" by certain groups, it's strictly a numbers things. Contrarily, I think the fact that these groups are under represented in the first place could be indicative of the obstacles faced. The obstacles faced by individuals is something that I think should/does play a role in deciding on an applicant, but that would be reflected in a PS/DS and I don't believe the role played by surmounting such obstacles is determined by ethnicity. If a PS/DS is so moving it impels an adcomm to accept an applicant, I think that student is accepted whether they are black, white, or green.

Anywho, back to the topic of this thread. I'm really enjoying hearing of all of your success!


The only problem with that logic is that Law Schools (at least for the ABA) lump ALL Hispanics together (PR, MX, etc), even with this you will be hard pressed to find a law school with more Hispanics than African-Americans. This is on top of the fact that Hispanics make up 16.3% of the population, while African-Americans make up 13.6%. Just take a look at the schools data here https://officialguide.lsac.org/release/ ... fault.aspx . As an example Harvard reports 1733 total JD students, 137 (or 7.9%) represent ALL HISPANIC, 195 (or 11.3%) represent AFRICAN-AMERICAN. Those 137 in the ALL HISPANIC category could be made up any combination of Hispanics. Plain and simple my feeling is that PR/MX are no longer considered URMs, hence they are lumped together with all the other Hispanics.

My hypothesis is AA + NA = URM, Hispanics = secondary URM (as there is some slight difference between them and white applicants).

MyLegendLives
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby MyLegendLives » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:44 pm

2015JD wrote:
TrialLawyer16 wrote:Not meaning to derail (or debate) either, but just to try to explain. The reason for that isn't because of 'differing obstacles faced by these groups'. It is more to do with the proportion of a race in the general population compared with the proportion of a race in a law school. For example, (and I'm pulling numbers out of my culo btw) imagine 12% of the country is black and 4% is Puerto Rican, however 3% of a law school is black and 3% is Puerto Rican. Understandably that law school is going to give a significantly stronger effort to enroll black students because PRs are already at 3/4ths of their representation in the US (hence the term under represented minority), while blacks would only be a 1/4th of the way there. PRs just aren't as under represented as blacks, that's all it means.

In my understanding the 'URM boost' has nothing to do with "obstacles faced" by certain groups, it's strictly a numbers things. Contrarily, I think the fact that these groups are under represented in the first place could be indicative of the obstacles faced. The obstacles faced by individuals is something that I think should/does play a role in deciding on an applicant, but that would be reflected in a PS/DS and I don't believe the role played by surmounting such obstacles is determined by ethnicity. If a PS/DS is so moving it impels an adcomm to accept an applicant, I think that student is accepted whether they are black, white, or green.

Anywho, back to the topic of this thread. I'm really enjoying hearing of all of your success!


The only problem with that logic is that Law Schools (at least for the ABA) lump ALL Hispanics together (PR, MX, etc), even with this you will be hard pressed to find a law school with more Hispanics than African-Americans. This is on top of the fact that Hispanics make up 16.3% of the population, while African-Americans make up 13.6%. Just take a look at the schools data here https://officialguide.lsac.org/release/ ... fault.aspx . As an example Harvard reports 1733 total JD students, 137 (or 7.9%) represent ALL HISPANIC, 195 (or 11.3%) represent AFRICAN-AMERICAN. Those 137 in the ALL HISPANIC category could be made up any combination of Hispanics. Plain and simple my feeling is that PR/MX are no longer considered URMs, hence they are lumped together with all the other Hispanics.

My hypothesis is AA + NA = URM, Hispanics = secondary URM (as there is some slight difference between them and white applicants).



Something that surely contributes to the disparity you're noting at Harvard is that while hispanics make up over 16% of Americans, they only made up about 8.7% of all law school applicants as of Fall 2010. Blacks made up over 11% of applicants in Fall 2010.

User avatar
FryBreadPower
Posts: 908
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:46 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby FryBreadPower » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:44 pm

2015JD wrote:
TrialLawyer16 wrote:My hypothesis is AA + NA = URM, Hispanics = secondary URM (as there is some slight difference between them and white applicants).


You'd be surprised.

MyLegendLives
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby MyLegendLives » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:02 pm

2015JD wrote:
TrialLawyer16 wrote:Not meaning to derail (or debate) either, but just to try to explain. The reason for that isn't because of 'differing obstacles faced by these groups'. It is more to do with the proportion of a race in the general population compared with the proportion of a race in a law school. For example, (and I'm pulling numbers out of my culo btw) imagine 12% of the country is black and 4% is Puerto Rican, however 3% of a law school is black and 3% is Puerto Rican. Understandably that law school is going to give a significantly stronger effort to enroll black students because PRs are already at 3/4ths of their representation in the US (hence the term under represented minority), while blacks would only be a 1/4th of the way there. PRs just aren't as under represented as blacks, that's all it means.

In my understanding the 'URM boost' has nothing to do with "obstacles faced" by certain groups, it's strictly a numbers things. Contrarily, I think the fact that these groups are under represented in the first place could be indicative of the obstacles faced. The obstacles faced by individuals is something that I think should/does play a role in deciding on an applicant, but that would be reflected in a PS/DS and I don't believe the role played by surmounting such obstacles is determined by ethnicity. If a PS/DS is so moving it impels an adcomm to accept an applicant, I think that student is accepted whether they are black, white, or green.

Anywho, back to the topic of this thread. I'm really enjoying hearing of all of your success!


The only problem with that logic is that Law Schools (at least for the ABA) lump ALL Hispanics together (PR, MX, etc), even with this you will be hard pressed to find a law school with more Hispanics than African-Americans. This is on top of the fact that Hispanics make up 16.3% of the population, while African-Americans make up 13.6%. Just take a look at the schools data here https://officialguide.lsac.org/release/ ... fault.aspx . As an example Harvard reports 1733 total JD students, 137 (or 7.9%) represent ALL HISPANIC, 195 (or 11.3%) represent AFRICAN-AMERICAN. Those 137 in the ALL HISPANIC category could be made up any combination of Hispanics. Plain and simple my feeling is that PR/MX are no longer considered URMs, hence they are lumped together with all the other Hispanics.

My hypothesis is AA + NA = URM, Hispanics = secondary URM (as there is some slight difference between them and white applicants).


Also, I can't really search the ABA data right now, but I know for a fact that Harvard is not representative of most top schools when it comes to the proportional size of it's AA population. I believe Columbia and NYU, which are both known for being more diverse, have AA populations in the 7-8% range, this is all off the top of my head though.

2015JD
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:50 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby 2015JD » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:27 pm

MyLegendLives wrote:Something that surely contributes to the disparity you're noting at Harvard is that while hispanics make up over 16% of Americans, they only made up about 8.7% of all law school applicants as of Fall 2010. Blacks made up over 11% of applicants in Fall 2010.

Wouldn't that mean Hispanics should be given a larger boost as the applicant pool is smaller, in proportion to the population?

MyLegendLives wrote:Also, I can't really search the ABA data right now, but I know for a fact that Harvard is not representative of most top schools when it comes to the proportional size of it's AA population. I believe Columbia and NYU, which are both known for being more diverse, have AA populations in the 7-8% range, this is all off the top of my head though.


Columbia All Hispanics 77 or 5.7% African American 103 or 7.7%
NYU All Hispanics 103 or 7.2% African American 110 or 7.7%

Again the total number of Hispanics (including non-PR and non-MX) is less than AA.

FryBreadPower wrote:
2015JD wrote:
TrialLawyer16 wrote:My hypothesis is AA + NA = URM, Hispanics = secondary URM (as there is some slight difference between them and white applicants).


You'd be surprised.


I have not looked at NA cycles, but if you are suggesting that they to do not receive a boost, or recieve one similar to PR/MX, please extrapolate.

I would like to add, the reason I am discussing this is because when I did my research on where to apply I used LSP along with TLS and LSN. I looked at URMs, which are pretty much bunched together, and I shot to high. Now I only have 2 acceptances out of like 20 apps because of it. I feel it should be made clearer that PR and MX applicants do not receive the same boost as AA. Future PR and MX applicants should understand that AA, NA, PR, and MX are NOT equal, that using LSP with URM checked will not give you any semblance of an accurate report, that LSN must be used only with your race (which is extremely difficult to find for PR and MX), and that basically you shouldn't expect your cycle to turn out like an AA's cycle and than get disappointed when it is closer to a white applicants cycle.

MyLegendLives
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby MyLegendLives » Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:12 pm

2015JD wrote:
MyLegendLives wrote:Something that surely contributes to the disparity you're noting at Harvard is that while hispanics make up over 16% of Americans, they only made up about 8.7% of all law school applicants as of Fall 2010. Blacks made up over 11% of applicants in Fall 2010.

Wouldn't that mean Hispanics should be given a larger boost as the applicant pool is smaller, in proportion to the population?



No. The data points to a relative dearth of hispanic applicants (i.e., as a percentage of the total applicant pool hispanics make up only slightly more than half of their proportion to the nation's population). The data also points to African Americans proportionally making up close to their percentage of the population nationwide (i.e., they make up 11% of applicants and 12.5% of the nation's population). So lets step back: because of the dearth of hispanic applicants, if the top 20 schools were to start trying to bring their classes more on par proportionally with national representation, they would be forced to dip very far down for LSATs and GPAs to meet their hispanic "quota."

A math person (which I am not) would be better able to illustrate what I mean. This is hypothetical: Lets say Harvard accepts the top .7% of all African American applicants and the top .7% of all hispanic applicants, that'll get them close (after the yield) to the national proportion of Blacks in the class but not anywhere near close to fill the hispanic "quota." In order to accomplish the latter they'll have to take a larger percentage, a little more than the top 1% of hispanic applicants, which will force them to dig really deep in the numbers. They're not going to do that. (This would also have a devastating multiplier effect, as by the time you get to schools like Cornell and Gtown they'll be taking really gutter candidates number-wise). If hispanics made up 15%+ of the applicant pool, then I guarantee you they would (A) make up a larger proportion of students in most law schools compared to Blacks, and (B) be close to their national percentage in most law school classes. Obviously this is just one factor, political pressures are unquantifiable but surely play a part as well.

User avatar
FryBreadPower
Posts: 908
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:46 pm

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby FryBreadPower » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:07 pm

2015JD wrote:
FryBreadPower wrote:
2015JD wrote:
TrialLawyer16 wrote:My hypothesis is AA + NA = URM, Hispanics = secondary URM (as there is some slight difference between them and white applicants).


You'd be surprised.


I have not looked at NA cycles, but if you are suggesting that they to do not receive a boost, or recieve one similar to PR/MX, please extrapolate.



The problem is, is that there is not enough information to really develop a substantial pattern in any kind of direction. I have noticed some NA applicants whose cycles would seem to show that NA is an enormous boost; there are other NA candidates with cycles that would leave you to believe there is no boost whatsoever. In the end there are just so few NA applicants that its hard to put together a large number of data points.

Dani.B
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:34 am

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby Dani.B » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:55 pm

I think my cycle is done. Received substantial aid from Stanford today and since I'm already S>H I'm sure that's where I'm heading. Not sure if I'm going to sit around and wait for H :lol:

User avatar
tooswolle
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 4:48 am

Re: 2011 - 2012 URM Application Cycle

Postby tooswolle » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:19 pm

I think the point of discontent for Hispanics tends to be how we are ignored as a group. We make up the largest growing demographic in the U.S. yet are disproportionately represented in most major fields and higher education. Yet in terms of poverty and incarceration our representations are high. The issue here isn't about proportions to the population rather why there is less of a boost for us. In essence diversity doesnt and isn't fully encompassed by AA as we are all diverse given our backgrounds and many share the same life experiences. Although this is an aside I wish someone with the know would just be blunt and let us know why there are differences for Hispanics.




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests