Top Law Schools

As I'm starting to look at law schools, I noticed that the LSAC lists LGBT as being a form of URM. How accurate is this? That is, how heavily will it weigh in my application? How much of a boost can I expect, if any?

Male or female? I tend to think it would make a difference.

xxkaleidoscopic wrote:As I'm starting to look at law schools, I noticed that the LSAC lists LGBT as being a form of URM. How accurate is this? That is, how heavily will it weigh in my application? How much of a boost can I expect, if any?

Wow. The things people will do for a boost in admissions.

kahechsof wrote:

xxkaleidoscopic wrote:As I'm starting to look at law schools, I noticed that the LSAC lists LGBT as being a form of URM. How accurate is this? That is, how heavily will it weigh in my application? How much of a boost can I expect, if any?

Wow. The things people will do for a boost in admissions.

No need to be a jerk.

And I'm female.

Yes, you are twice as likely to find a date on a Saturday.

The LGB (maybe T, not really sure) community is fairly well represented in law school. The group size seems roughly proportionate, if not disproportionately representative, of the population as a whole. I doubt that you will see any significant difference because it doesn't seem to be an under represented group.

This might vary at certain schools though. Maybe BYU or SMU are lacking LGBT community (I don't know, just going by stereotypes) but I still doubt they would give you much of a bump because of it.

Schools love to boast about their LGBT diversity, so they will likely act like its a big deal. Though a school like mine has so many LGBT folks that its hard to call them underrepresented. So I guess it depends on the school.

Without knowing for certain, I would be sort of surprised if it gave much of a boost, given how common bisexuality is among women these days.

Two things
1.

luthersloan wrote:Without knowing for certain, I would be sort of surprised if it gave much of a boost, given how common bisexuality is among women these days.

There's a difference between annoying chicks at bars who are only making out with other girls to get a guys attention and actual lesbians and bisexual women (it's actually not that common)

2. It won't help you. URM status is very narrow and it does not include sexual orientation. It might give you a diversity boost but it will be insignificant. Sorry

gin wrote: 2. It won't help you. URM status is very narrow and it does not include sexual orientation. It might give you a diversity boost but it will be insignificant. Sorry

Credited.

gin wrote:Two things
1.

luthersloan wrote:Without knowing for certain, I would be sort of surprised if it gave much of a boost, given how common bisexuality is among women these days.

There's a difference between annoying chicks at bars who are only making out with other girls to get a guys attention and actual lesbians and bisexual women (it's actually not that common)

basis?

.

Deleted. Double post.

llachans wrote:

IAFG wrote:

gin wrote:Two things
1.

luthersloan wrote:Without knowing for certain, I would be sort of surprised if it gave much of a boost, given how common bisexuality is among women these days.

There's a difference between annoying chicks at bars who are only making out with other girls to get a guys attention and actual lesbians and bisexual women (it's actually not that common)

basis?

Statistics. A conservative estimate is that 2% of women are lesbian or bisexual is a conservative amount while a more generous amount says 3-8%. Either way, that's not "common".

No boost in admissions. I think that the term often used is "historically under represented group" which I'd assume LGBT is. They may be no longer under represented, but even if they are, not all under represented groups are given admissions boosts. URM is a mostly accurate term, but also just a convenient term to label all the groups that get admissions boosts. I am sure if you slice ethnicity in certain ways you could get a whole host of other groups who are technically under represented yet don't get a boost.

llachans wrote: Statistics. A conservative estimate is that 2% of women are lesbian or bisexual is a conservative amount while a more generous amount says 3-8%. Either way, that's not "common".

That's not how statistics work, dear.

Here's an actual study with actual statistics: http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/fil ... 08-gss.pdf

Based on this, it would appear the LGBTQ community is over-represented at my law school.

IAFG wrote:

llachans wrote: Statistics. A conservative estimate is that 2% of women are lesbian or bisexual is a conservative amount while a more generous amount says 3-8%. Either way, that's not "common".

That's not how statistics work, dear.

Here's an actual study with actual statistics: http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/fil ... 08-gss.pdf

Based on this, it would appear the LGBTQ community is over-represented at my law school.

I don't see how that is any more reliable than what the Williams Institute and similar think tanks and public policy organizations continue to purport. Of course the percentage will fluctuate based on "coming out" and age/cultural differences. Regardless, those who identify as bisexual and lesbian are a minority. And in my opinion minority = not common.

Edit: I was arguing that in the general population bisexual and lesbian women are "not common", not that they are on a given college campus. Obviously that will vary on an individual basis.

It's not more reliable than another actual statistic. Or are you saying that you personally are a think tank?

IAFG wrote:

llachans wrote: Statistics. A conservative estimate is that 2% of women are lesbian or bisexual is a conservative amount while a more generous amount says 3-8%. Either way, that's not "common".

That's not how statistics work, dear.

Here's an actual study with actual statistics: http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/fil ... 08-gss.pdf

Based on this, it would appear the LGBTQ community is over-represented at my law school.

Wait, I thought the quoted comment dealt with how common it was to be a bisexual woman in the general population...?

DoubleChecks wrote:

IAFG wrote:

llachans wrote: Statistics. A conservative estimate is that 2% of women are lesbian or bisexual is a conservative amount while a more generous amount says 3-8%. Either way, that's not "common".

That's not how statistics work, dear.

Here's an actual study with actual statistics: http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/fil ... 08-gss.pdf

Based on this, it would appear the LGBTQ community is over-represented at my law school.

Wait, I thought the quoted comment dealt with how common it was to be a bisexual woman in the general population...?

That's how I understood it. Simple RC.

DoubleChecks wrote:

IAFG wrote:

llachans wrote: Statistics. A conservative estimate is that 2% of women are lesbian or bisexual is a conservative amount while a more generous amount says 3-8%. Either way, that's not "common".

That's not how statistics work, dear.

Here's an actual study with actual statistics: http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/fil ... 08-gss.pdf

Based on this, it would appear the LGBTQ community is over-represented at my law school.

Wait, I thought the quoted comment dealt with how common it was to be a bisexual woman in the general population...?

Well I guess I think the relevant demographic would be law school applicants.

IAFG wrote:It's not more reliable than another actual statistic. Or are you saying that you personally are a think tank?

You've got to be kidding me. I just cited the Williams Institute as an example.

Edit: For clarification, the Williams Institute is around the median of the conservative and generous amounts that I initially cited. Any think tank I've ever consulted has a similar percentage.

IAFG wrote: Well I guess I think the relevant demographic would be law school applicants.

Huh...I read gin's comment to be about bisexuality among women in general, and I think that is what llachans is talking about as well

llachans wrote:

IAFG wrote:It's not more reliable than another actual statistic. Or are you saying that you personally are a think tank?

You've got to be kidding me. I just cited the Williams Institute as an example.

Wait... where is your citation? I saw an uncited statistic that you posted.

IAFG wrote:

llachans wrote:

IAFG wrote:It's not more reliable than another actual statistic. Or are you saying that you personally are a think tank?

You've got to be kidding me. I just cited the Williams Institute as an example.

Wait... where is your citation? I saw an uncited statistic that you posted.

Isn't this sort of moot now given you guys aren't even talking about the same thing in the first place? lol...gin didn't even mention bisexuality on law school campuses