Top Law Schools

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:

jas1503 wrote:
You're talking about ideology, I'm taking about procedure.

In Latin-America, you can identify yourself anyway you want to, as in the USA.

If you want to Identify as someone of African decent in Cuba, then you're free to do so in Cuba. Identifying yourself as black in Cuba, doesn't make you more or less Cuban. And, since you're Cuban, for the sake of self-identifying here in America, you check the box that says, "Hispanic".

No. Just stop with the false information.

This is the absurdity of your logic. "I'm black and I was born and raised in China. Therefore, for the sake of self-identification, I am Chinese."

Your "procedure" is incorrect for the sake of URM admissions. If you are black, you can be born and raised anywhere in this world, and you are still black. If you are Asian, you can be born in South Africa, but it doesn't make you African American; you're still Asian. You just live in Africa. What is so hard to distinguish between geography and genetics? The two are not synonymous.

You've lost me there. According to what you've written, there are no 'real' Americans except -possibly- the American-Indian.

I understand that you're trying to distinguish between the races, but it's not as simple as you've suggested.

China is one of those rare countries that rarely give citizenship to foreigners. If you are black and born in China, then you're from wherever your parents came from or 'mixed' Chinese. However, if you're mixed-Chinese, then you're still CHINESE, and you check the box that says, "Asian."

Jia You!


Let me rap this up:

You can check whatever box you want, because no one will probably verify it. If you're comfortable misrepresenting yourself for the sake of 4 to 9 point boost on your LSAT score, then go ahead.

there's no "'Merican" checkbox. HTH

Let me fix this for you.

jas1503 wrote: You've lost me there. According to what you've written, there are no 'real' Americans except -possibly- the American-Indian.

I understand that you're trying to distinguishes between the races, but it's not as simple as you've suggested.

China is one of those rare countries that rarely give citizenship to foreigners. If you are black and born in China, then you're from where ever your parents came from or 'mixed' Chinese. However, if you're mixed-Chinese, then you're still CHINESE, and you check the box that says, "Asian."

Jia You!


Let me rap this up:

You can check whatever box you want, because no one will probably verify it. If you're comfortable misrepresenting yourself for the sake of 4 to 9 point boost on your LSAT score, then go ahead.

You're welcome.

To anyone who may be confused by some of the misinformation ITT, let me be clear:

URM status = African American/black, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Native American.

You don't have to be full-blooded; you can be 1/2, 1/4 etc. and still legitimately qualify for URM status.

Nationality does not equal race. Anyone who tells you any different simply fails to understand how race works within the context of URM law school admissions. Your personal, and very general, thoughts on race in modern society are irrelevant.

Good luck to all applicants <3

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:To anyone who may be confused by some of the misinformation ITT, let me be clear:

URM status = African American/black, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Native American.

You don't have to be full-blooded; you can be 1/2, 1/4 etc. and still legitimately qualify for URM status.

Nationality does not equal race. Anyone who tells you any different simply fails to understand how race works within the context of URM law school admissions. Your personal, and very general, thoughts on race in modern society are irrelevant.

Good luck to all applicants <3

TYFT

The point is: if you have always self-identified as a certain group, why change now?

If you have always identified yourself as a black person born in China, then there's no ethical issue as far as I'm concerned--You would have written so on various forms that you've filled out in the past.

However, if you're going to cherry-pick who you are at different times inorder to gain a slight edge over other applicants, then that is unethical in my opinion.

I was born in the Caribbean, my grandmother is mixed, my grandmother's parents and their previous generations were Tainos.

I can claim to be 'mixed' if I want, but I don't. I could also claim to be Cuban or Colombian or something else; however, I have always self-identified as an AA or a person of African descent.

It would be unethical for me to suddenly self-identify as someone different for the sake of gaining an advantage over other applicants.

Like a previous poster said, it's an honor system...From what I've seen here, I'm in no rush to join any 'black' law clubs

jas1503 wrote: The point is: if you have always self-identified as a certain group, why change now?

If you have always identified yourself as a black person born in China, then there's no ethical issue as far as I'm concerned--You would have written so on various forms that you've filled out in the past.

However, if you're going to cherry-pick who you are at different times inorder to gain a slight edge over other applicants, then that is unethical in my opinion.

I was born in the Caribbean, my grandmother is mixed, my grandmother's parents and their previous generations were Tainos.

I can claim to be 'mixed' if I want, but I don't. I could also claim to be Cuban or Colombian or something else; however, I have always self-identified as an AA or a person of African descent.

It would be unethical for me to suddenly self-identify as someone different for the sake of gaining an advantage over other applicants.

Like a previous poster said, it's an honor system...From what I've seen here, I'm in no rush to join any 'black' law clubs

I understand your point and its been stated before. I'm not going to debate your opinion, because well, you're entitled to your opinion.

If a person is a URM, but never identified as one before and elects to do so now, yeah it may be somewhat shitty on their part, but if they are ACTUALLY URM, then they're essentially doing nothing wrong. It may be unethical to you and many others, but it won't be to adcomms and C&F, and those people are all that matter.

The main question I have is that I never meet my father, so how would I go about proving this to a school that accepts me due to my URM status. It's pretty much just my biological parents word.

Successedtobreathe wrote:The main question I have is that I never meet my father, so how would I go about proving this to a school that accepts me due to my URM status. It's pretty much just my biological parents word.

Schools won't ask you to prove anything.

If it comes up somewhere down the line, then just tell them the truth. Why would your biological parents lie to you?

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:To anyone who may be confused by some of the misinformation ITT, let me be clear:

URM status = African American/black, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Native American.

You don't have to be full-blooded; you can be 1/2, 1/4 etc. and still legitimately qualify for URM status.

Nationality does not equal race. Anyone who tells you any different simply fails to understand how race works within the context of URM law school admissions. Your personal, and very general, thoughts on race in modern society are irrelevant.

Good luck to all applicants <3

This is quite poor advice. The threshold question is not can you technically qualify for URM status, but what do you consider yourself to be. I reviewed the applications of several top schools and many of them specifically asked "what race do you consider yourself?"

If you're checking off the URM box because you're 1/4 african american and you don't look African American, well you are going to have to do some explaining. Anectdotally, I knew a person who had African American blood in his lineage but both his parents were white and considered themselves white. They kicked him out of school. He argued that he had African American blood in his system. The school agreed, but noted that the application asked for him to check the race he considered himself and gave him the option to "select one or more." Even if he had African American blood at a minimum he would also have to check the caucasian/white box as well. He did not.

From an ethical point of view, the advice is also poor. The purpose of underrepresented minority is to build a class that either looks diverse or is diverse from a cultural point of view. A person with URM lineage who doesn't really look or consider themselves a URM is, in effect, gaming the system knowingly and willfully. Also because law school admissions is a zero sum game, unfairly taking opportunities that are supposed to go to someone who authentically looks different or has the cultural identification along with particular URMs is particularly brutish.

So to be safe, I would check URM only if you genuinely consider yourself a URM.

TheProsecutor wrote:

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:To anyone who may be confused by some of the misinformation ITT, let me be clear:

URM status = African American/black, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Native American.

You don't have to be full-blooded; you can be 1/2, 1/4 etc. and still legitimately qualify for URM status.

Nationality does not equal race. Anyone who tells you any different simply fails to understand how race works within the context of URM law school admissions. Your personal, and very general, thoughts on race in modern society are irrelevant.

Good luck to all applicants <3

This is quite poor advice. The threshold question is not can you technically qualify for URM status, but what do you consider yourself to be. I reviewed the applications of several top schools and many of them specifically asked "what race do you consider yourself?"

If you're checking off the URM box because you're 1/4 african american and you don't look African American, well you are going to have to do some explaining. Anectdotally, I knew a person who had African American blood in his lineage but both his parents were white and considered themselves white. They kicked him out of school. He argued that he had African American blood in his system. The school agreed, but noted that the application asked for him to check the race he considered himself and gave him the option to "select one or more." Even if he had African American blood at a minimum he would also have to check the caucasian/white box as well. He did not.

From an ethical point of view, the advice is also poor. The purpose of underrepresented minority is to build a class that either looks diverse or is diverse from a cultural point of view. A person with URM lineage who doesn't really look or consider themselves a URM is, in effect, gaming the system knowingly and willfully. Also because law school admissions is a zero sum game, unfairly taking opportunities that are supposed to go to someone who authentically looks different or has the cultural identification along with particular URMs is particularly brutish.

So to be safe, I would check URM only if you genuinely consider yourself a URM.

no you don't. no they didn't.

kwais wrote:

TheProsecutor wrote:

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:To anyone who may be confused by some of the misinformation ITT, let me be clear:

URM status = African American/black, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Native American.

You don't have to be full-blooded; you can be 1/2, 1/4 etc. and still legitimately qualify for URM status.

Nationality does not equal race. Anyone who tells you any different simply fails to understand how race works within the context of URM law school admissions. Your personal, and very general, thoughts on race in modern society are irrelevant.

Good luck to all applicants <3

This is quite poor advice. The threshold question is not can you technically qualify for URM status, but what do you consider yourself to be. I reviewed the applications of several top schools and many of them specifically asked "what race do you consider yourself?"

If you're checking off the URM box because you're 1/4 african american and you don't look African American, well you are going to have to do some explaining. Anectdotally, I knew a person who had African American blood in his lineage but both his parents were white and considered themselves white. They kicked him out of school. He argued that he had African American blood in his system. The school agreed, but noted that the application asked for him to check the race he considered himself and gave him the option to "select one or more." Even if he had African American blood at a minimum he would also have to check the caucasian/white box as well. He did not.

From an ethical point of view, the advice is also poor. The purpose of underrepresented minority is to build a class that either looks diverse or is diverse from a cultural point of view. A person with URM lineage who doesn't really look or consider themselves a URM is, in effect, gaming the system knowingly and willfully. Also because law school admissions is a zero sum game, unfairly taking opportunities that are supposed to go to someone who authentically looks different or has the cultural identification along with particular URMs is particularly brutish.

So to be safe, I would check URM only if you genuinely consider yourself a URM.

no you don't. no they didn't.

except I do. Also as a frame of reference, this happened to another person in 2007 and it was discussed widespread on message boards like this.

TheProsecutor wrote:

kwais wrote:

TheProsecutor wrote:

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:To anyone who may be confused by some of the misinformation ITT, let me be clear:

URM status = African American/black, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Native American.

You don't have to be full-blooded; you can be 1/2, 1/4 etc. and still legitimately qualify for URM status.

Nationality does not equal race. Anyone who tells you any different simply fails to understand how race works within the context of URM law school admissions. Your personal, and very general, thoughts on race in modern society are irrelevant.

Good luck to all applicants <3

This is quite poor advice. The threshold question is not can you technically qualify for URM status, but what do you consider yourself to be. I reviewed the applications of several top schools and many of them specifically asked "what race do you consider yourself?"

If you're checking off the URM box because you're 1/4 african american and you don't look African American, well you are going to have to do some explaining. Anectdotally, I knew a person who had African American blood in his lineage but both his parents were white and considered themselves white. They kicked him out of school. He argued that he had African American blood in his system. The school agreed, but noted that the application asked for him to check the race he considered himself and gave him the option to "select one or more." Even if he had African American blood at a minimum he would also have to check the caucasian/white box as well. He did not.

From an ethical point of view, the advice is also poor. The purpose of underrepresented minority is to build a class that either looks diverse or is diverse from a cultural point of view. A person with URM lineage who doesn't really look or consider themselves a URM is, in effect, gaming the system knowingly and willfully. Also because law school admissions is a zero sum game, unfairly taking opportunities that are supposed to go to someone who authentically looks different or has the cultural identification along with particular URMs is particularly brutish.

So to be safe, I would check URM only if you genuinely consider yourself a URM.

no you don't. no they didn't.

except I do. Also as a frame of reference, this happened to another person in 2007 and it was discussed widespread on message boards like this.

You're a liar.

TheProsecutor wrote:The threshold question is not can you technically qualify for URM status, but what do you consider yourself to be. I reviewed the applications of several top schools and many of them specifically asked "what race do you consider yourself?"

This part is true. However, you go totally awry with your next few words:

TheProsecutor wrote:If you're checking off the URM box

There is no URM box.

If you reviewed all those applications, you would have noticed that there is no box which states "Do you declare yourself to be a URM?" They ask, as you noted, what race or ethnicity you consider yourself. The school will then decide, based on your declared race as well as other factors in your application, whether to admit you to add diversity to the incoming class (which we call "URM admissions"). There is no actual "URM box" or declared "URM status"; even if they do give you the URM treatment, they're not going to tell you that.

With that said, I'd just like to revisit your closing line:

TheProsecutor wrote:So to be safe, I would check URM only if you genuinely consider yourself a URM.

Where, on any of the apps you reviewed, do you "check URM"? Again, you do not. You check your actual race or ethnicity. That is what Gaia was advising people to do. She was also advising people that schools typically extend URM (diversity admission) status to people who self-identify racially/ethnically as black, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Native American. She is also correct in stating that nationality does not equal race in such considerations.

Again, the threshold question is what you consider yourself to be. However, what primarily matters to schools is what you consider yourself to be, and what you self-identify as, racially or ethnically, not nationally. You can represent however you want, but it can come back to haunt you eventually, if not during admissions or while in law school, then years later in your career. (See, e.g., Elizabeth Warren's self-identification as Native American on admission and employment applications.)

TL;DR version:

Gaia is right and you're not, dude.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make, vanwinkle. The point I was making is that if you do not look like or consider yourself a URM, then it is probably a bad idea to identify as a URM.

I don't actually see where you disagree with me, vanwinkle.

nmop_apisdn wrote:

You're a liar.

Outstanding analysis.

ETA: Thank God for Vanwinkle <3

TheProsecutor wrote:I have no idea what point you're trying to make, vanwinkle. The point I was making is that if you do not look like or consider yourself a URM, then it is probably a bad idea to identify as a URM.

I don't actually see where you disagree with me, vanwinkle.

Yeah, I think both of you are agreeing on the thrust of the issue but wrangling over semantics.

Except for the bolded part (particularly problematic when considering non-AA URMs since the racial/ethnic diversity encompassed by MAs, PRs, and other Hispanics is pretty vast).

vanwinkle wrote: Again, the threshold question is what you consider yourself to be. However, what primarily matters to schools is what you consider yourself to be, and what you self-identify as, racially or ethnically, not nationally. You can represent however you want, but it can come back to haunt you eventually, if not during admissions or while in law school, then years later in your career. (See, e.g., Elizabeth Warren's self-identification as Native American on admission and employment applications.)

I understand the point you're trying to make with nationality and race, but LSAC's approach is so poorly constructed that it should be dismissed as trolling.

Touching on "kindaklueless'" post, the Hispanic community is large and diverse. LSAC seems to be limiting URM treatment to Puerto Ricans(nationality), Mexicans(Same), and Cubans(Maybe?).

What happens to Ecuadorians, Panamanians, Brazilians, Colombians, Peruvians, and various other Hispanics whom are not PMC? IF they want a small URM boost in the application, would they pretend to be PMC? Maybe, but they can't do that without proof of family residence or birth in PMC; in addition, they probably can't claim Native-American status because they need records/tribal information.

Should they all start re-identifying as blacks of African ancestry instead, since there are almost no requirements for this URM group besides remotely dark skin?

For example, that poster who is already a Mexican-URM, but now also wants to re-identify as an AA for the perceived sake of making his application stronger, what advice would you give to him?

TheProsecutor wrote:I have no idea what point you're trying to make, vanwinkle. The point I was making is that if you do not look like or consider yourself a URM, then it is probably a bad idea to identify as a URM.

I don't actually see where you disagree with me, vanwinkle.

My point is that it doesn't matter if you do or don't consider yourself "a URM", it matters whether you do or don't consider yourself one of the races that receive URM boosts, and identify as such race normally in your life.

Where I disagree with you is that you conflate "identifying your race or ethnicity" with "identifying as a URM". The former is purely a question of race/ethnicity (and not national origin, btw), the latter is a false concept, since nobody asks you if you "consider yourself a URM" or if you "look like a URM". This was Gaia's point, when she wrote the following:

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:Nationality does not equal race. Anyone who tells you any different simply fails to understand how race works within the context of URM law school admissions. Your personal, and very general, thoughts on race in modern society are irrelevant.

You called the above quote, and these are your words, "poor advice", but it is 100% accurate. That is where we disagree; or rather, I should say, that is where you are wrong and I am pointing out your clear error.

I'm thinking I should check the Caucasian box. I don't identify myself as a Mexican American, never have. I just know it's part of my heritage now.

jas1503 wrote:I understand the point you're trying to make with nationality and race, but LSAC's approach is so poorly constructed that it should be dismissed as trolling.

Touching on "kindaklueless'" post, the Hispanic community is large and diverse. LSAC seems to be limiting URM treatment to Puerto Ricans(nationality), Mexicans(Same), and Cubans(Maybe?).

What happens to Ecuadorians, Panamanians, Brazilians, Colombians, Peruvians, and various other Hispanics whom are not PMC? IF they want a small URM boost in the application, would they pretend to be PMC? Maybe, but they can't do that without proof of family residence or birth in PMC; in addition, they probably can't claim Native-American status because they need records/tribal information.

Should they all start re-identifying as blacks of African ancestry instead, since there are almost no requirements for this URM group besides remotely dark skin?

For example, that poster who is already a Mexican-URM, but now also wants to re-identify as an AA for the perceived sake of making his application stronger, what advice would you give to him?

Here's the thing: Fuck LSAC.

LSAC has little or nothing to do with URM admissions, at least not directly. They ask (purely optional, I believe) questions about your race/ethnicity which may be reported to schools in your LSDAS report, but schools also independently ask their own questions. Even if you don't identify your race/ethnicity at all on your LSAC application, you are still free to identify your race/ethnicity on each law school application, and as long as what you report is not inconsistent with what you told LSAC, no red flags should be raised.

The real problem is that individual schools handle these things differently, which makes predicting URM effects even harder. Schools ask on their own applications what your race/ethnicity is, and this is often what they rely on for their own purposes. For example, some schools ask on their applications if an applicant is "Hispanic/Latino" but they don't break it out into nationalities at all. Others will ask if you're "Mexican-American", "Puerto Rican", or "Other"; still others will include "Cuban" or something else. So in reality, different schools care differently about the degree of information they're getting on race/ethnicity.

Look at the collected statistics for each school on LSAC.org sometime, or elsewhere. When read individually, school-by-school, you'll begin to realize there is no single uniform method of reporting race/ethnicity data that all schools follow. Some only report "Hispanic/Latino" enrollment without any breakout of how many are Mexican/PR/Cuban/other. At these schools, it may matter far less which type of Hispanic you are than at schools which specifically report percentage of Mexican and PR enrollment.

The Grutter v. Bollinger decision specifically found that four specific ethnic groups (Mexican, Puerto Rican, African-American, and Native American) were significantly under-represented and declared diversity-based admissions of those ethnicities constitutional. The decision did not definitively state whether treating all Hispanics as URMs is also constitutional or not. Many schools' policies adhere to Grutter as closely as possible to ensure they would survive constitutional challenge; other schools may be acting under a slightly broader interpretation.

This creates a problem for Hispanics of various nationalities, as some schools might treat them as URM and others might not. Unfortunately, schools try to keep their URM admissions policies under wraps on purpose; I personally believe this is out of fear that published hard data could be used against them in a new constitutional challenge. This makes it impossible for Hispanics, especially, to know how individual schools will treat them.

The best knowledge we have is the experience of prior applicants, which is why this forum and the experience of its users is so valuable.

vanwinkle wrote:

TheProsecutor wrote:I have no idea what point you're trying to make, vanwinkle. The point I was making is that if you do not look like or consider yourself a URM, then it is probably a bad idea to identify as a URM.

I don't actually see where you disagree with me, vanwinkle.

My point is that it doesn't matter if you do or don't consider yourself "a URM", it matters whether you do or don't consider yourself one of the races that receive URM boosts, and identify as such race normally in your life.

Where I disagree with you is that you conflate "identifying your race or ethnicity" with "identifying as a URM". The former is purely a question of race/ethnicity (and not national origin, btw), the latter is a false concept, since nobody asks you if you "consider yourself a URM" or if you "look like a URM". This was Gaia's point, when she wrote the following:

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:Nationality does not equal race. Anyone who tells you any different simply fails to understand how race works within the context of URM law school admissions. Your personal, and very general, thoughts on race in modern society are irrelevant.

You called the above quote, and these are your words, "poor advice", but it is 100% accurate. That is where we disagree; or rather, I should say, that is where you are wrong and I am pointing out your clear error.

I think that I sufficiently argued where I though GAIA was wrong. That is to say, I disagree that people should check the URM box (or to be more specific, identify their race) even if they are technically URM if they do not consider themselves to be part of that group. To the extent that you're saying I'm "wrong" beyond that point, you created a straw man. Point out in my post where I "conflate identifying race or ethnicity" with "identifying as a URM?" If you can't, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't make up stuff.

I fail to understand how you could read my initial post and think I'm talking about nationality. URM is a term of art that has a specific meaning (i.e., under-represented minority). That is, it applies to Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans. And I clearly talked about specifically where I disagreed with GAIA's post - a point by the way, you seem to agree with me on.

TheProsecutor wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:

TheProsecutor wrote:I have no idea what point you're trying to make, vanwinkle. The point I was making is that if you do not look like or consider yourself a URM, then it is probably a bad idea to identify as a URM.

I don't actually see where you disagree with me, vanwinkle.

My point is that it doesn't matter if you do or don't consider yourself "a URM", it matters whether you do or don't consider yourself one of the races that receive URM boosts, and identify as such race normally in your life.

Where I disagree with you is that you conflate "identifying your race or ethnicity" with "identifying as a URM". The former is purely a question of race/ethnicity (and not national origin, btw), the latter is a false concept, since nobody asks you if you "consider yourself a URM" or if you "look like a URM". This was Gaia's point, when she wrote the following:

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:Nationality does not equal race. Anyone who tells you any different simply fails to understand how race works within the context of URM law school admissions. Your personal, and very general, thoughts on race in modern society are irrelevant.

You called the above quote, and these are your words, "poor advice", but it is 100% accurate. That is where we disagree; or rather, I should say, that is where you are wrong and I am pointing out your clear error.

I think that I sufficiently argued where I though GAIA was wrong. That is to say, I disagree that people should check the URM box (or to be more specific, identify their race) even if they are technically URM if they do not consider themselves to be part of that group. To the extent that you're saying I'm "wrong" beyond that point, you created a straw man. Point out in my post where I "conflate identifying race or ethnicity" with "identifying as a URM?" If you can't, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't make up stuff.

I fail to understand how you could read my initial post and think I'm talking about nationality. URM is a term of art that has a specific meaning (i.e., under-represented minority). That is, it applies to Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans. And I clearly talked about specifically where I disagreed with GAIA's post - a point by the way, you seem to agree with me on.

You are arguing opinion. Vanwinkle and I are simply stating facts.
You can disagree all you want, but it makes no difference in the way things actually work.