WHY aren't Asians considered URM? Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:48 pm
WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
According to ABA generated statistics (see here: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal ... stics.html), JD enrollment for the following ethnic categories for the 2011-2012 school year are as follows:
Black or African American: 10,452
Asian: 10,415
All Hispanic: 11,027
These numbers reflect the total number of students enrolled in legal education programs at ABA accredited institutions, according to ABA-collected statistics.
With "ALL" hispanic taken aggregately, I can understand why some (i.e. Mexican American) are given URM status. Why aren't Asians considered underrepresented minorities if Black/African Americans are, yet they outnumber Asians? Further, some Asian backgrounds (i.e. Laos, Hmong, Filipino) have significantly smaller numbers of enrollment. Why aren't these groups given the same consideration as Hispanic subgroups that are underrepresented?
Black or African American: 10,452
Asian: 10,415
All Hispanic: 11,027
These numbers reflect the total number of students enrolled in legal education programs at ABA accredited institutions, according to ABA-collected statistics.
With "ALL" hispanic taken aggregately, I can understand why some (i.e. Mexican American) are given URM status. Why aren't Asians considered underrepresented minorities if Black/African Americans are, yet they outnumber Asians? Further, some Asian backgrounds (i.e. Laos, Hmong, Filipino) have significantly smaller numbers of enrollment. Why aren't these groups given the same consideration as Hispanic subgroups that are underrepresented?
-
- Posts: 18203
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
U stands for underrepresented. Asians aren't underrepresented in higher education, they are over represented.
- dingbat
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
As a percentage of population vs percentage of law school students:
Black: 12.6% v 7.2%
Latino: 16.4% v 5.8%
Asian: 4.8% v. 7.8%
So basically, to make law school representative of the general population, there should be almost twice as many black people, 3 times as many latinos, and about half as many asians as there are right now
Black: 12.6% v 7.2%
Latino: 16.4% v 5.8%
Asian: 4.8% v. 7.8%
So basically, to make law school representative of the general population, there should be almost twice as many black people, 3 times as many latinos, and about half as many asians as there are right now
Last edited by dingbat on Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:48 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
I understand that, but this is URM for law school admissions purposes. Higher education is a blanket and the statistics are not equivalent for those pursuing a legal education. The published data shows that they are in fact underrepresnted in law school, so why wouldn't they be extended the same consideration as ethnic groups with the same numbers?Desert Fox wrote:U stands for underrepresented. Asians aren't underrepresented in higher education, they are over represented.
- dingbat
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
See my post above. asians are in fact overrepresented in law schools.rmp wrote:I understand that, but this is URM for law school admissions purposes. Higher education is a blanket and the statistics are not equivalent for those pursuing a legal education. The published data shows that they are in fact underrepresnted in law school, so why wouldn't they be extended the same consideration as ethnic groups with the same numbers?Desert Fox wrote:U stands for underrepresented. Asians aren't underrepresented in higher education, they are over represented.
Look at percentages, not absolute numbers
- ManOfTheMinute
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 am
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
Desert Fox wrote:U stands for underrepresented. Asians aren't underrepresented in higher education, they are over represented.
TITCRdingbat wrote:As a percentage of population vs percentage of law school students:
Black: 12.6% v 7.2%
Latino: 16.4% v 5.8%
Asian: 4.8% v. 7.8%
So basically, to make law school representative of the general population, there should be almost twice as many black people, 3 times as many latinos, and about half as many asians as there are right now
Trolling?
- dingbat
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
Judging by post history, probably just stupidManOfTheMinute wrote:Trolling?
-
- Posts: 18203
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
Like Dingbat said, they are overrepresented even in law school. But even if they weren't, why should law schools only look at law school only, instead of higher education in general.rmp wrote:I understand that, but this is URM for law school admissions purposes. Higher education is a blanket and the statistics are not equivalent for those pursuing a legal education. The published data shows that they are in fact underrepresnted in law school, so why wouldn't they be extended the same consideration as ethnic groups with the same numbers?Desert Fox wrote:U stands for underrepresented. Asians aren't underrepresented in higher education, they are over represented.
Are you really so stupid you just compared raw numbers?
- BlaqBella
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
Uncalled for.dingbat wrote:Judging by post history, probably just stupidManOfTheMinute wrote:Trolling?
- dingbat
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
better?BlaqBella wrote:Uncalled for.dingbat wrote:Judging by post history, probably just ignorantManOfTheMinute wrote:Trolling?
- bosmer88
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:07 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
The only thing I would add is that the category "Asians" can be problematic. While Asians as a group are overrepresented in the field of law, treating them a simple monolithic group ignores the diversity that exists between various ethnic groups. Something has to be said for a family that is able to move to the United States voluntarily versus ending up in the country as political refugees.
I once read this really interesting article by a researcher interested in education reform who noted that the structural problems affecting Southeast Asians (Laotians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, etc.) were often ignored by elected officials at the state and city level. She never really listed one cause in particular about why the educational needs of this group weren't being met, but she looked at a host of problems (general apathy from officials, model-minority stereotypes at play, socioeconomic status, language barriers, lack of knowledge about the political system) that collectively were working against this group.
I once read this really interesting article by a researcher interested in education reform who noted that the structural problems affecting Southeast Asians (Laotians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, etc.) were often ignored by elected officials at the state and city level. She never really listed one cause in particular about why the educational needs of this group weren't being met, but she looked at a host of problems (general apathy from officials, model-minority stereotypes at play, socioeconomic status, language barriers, lack of knowledge about the political system) that collectively were working against this group.
Last edited by bosmer88 on Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- dingbat
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
What is basic basic math?acrossthelake wrote:It wasn't until law school that I found such a large collection of bright people who were so terrible at basic basic math.
-
- Posts: 18585
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:52 am
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
LOL at taking raw numbers, and not proportions.rmp wrote:According to ABA generated statistics (see here: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal ... stics.html), JD enrollment for the following ethnic categories for the 2011-2012 school year are as follows:
Black or African American: 10,452
Asian: 10,415
All Hispanic: 11,027
These numbers reflect the total number of students enrolled in legal education programs at ABA accredited institutions, according to ABA-collected statistics.
With "ALL" hispanic taken aggregately, I can understand why some (i.e. Mexican American) are given URM status. Why aren't Asians considered underrepresented minorities if Black/African Americans are, yet they outnumber Asians? Further, some Asian backgrounds (i.e. Laos, Hmong, Filipino) have significantly smaller numbers of enrollment. Why aren't these groups given the same consideration as Hispanic subgroups that are underrepresented?
You do have a somewhat valid point with the Asian subgroup thing, although I'm not sure that groups like the Filipinos are, in fact, underrepresented in higher education/law school. Also, maybe the Filipino/Laos/Hmong/Cambodian subgroup is too small to justify giving a URM boost.
- hume85
- Posts: 675
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:38 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
Wasn't that seventh grade?acrossthelake wrote:A linear equation with only one unknown variable to solve for. A friend said he saw it take 15 minutes for some associates to solve it, when it should only have taken 15 seconds.dingbat wrote:What is basic basic math?acrossthelake wrote:It wasn't until law school that I found such a large collection of bright people who were so terrible at basic basic math.
- dingbat
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
This is why I enjoy the rule of handacrossthelake wrote:A linear equation with only one unknown variable to solve for. A friend said he saw it take 15 minutes for some associates to solve it, when it should only have taken 15 seconds.dingbat wrote:What is basic basic math?acrossthelake wrote:It wasn't until law school that I found such a large collection of bright people who were so terrible at basic basic math.
-
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:40 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
I wish Asians were considered URMs but I have to admit we're generally over represented, especially Asian males... It does suck that you have to score a few% higher for the same schools though all your life...
- bosmer88
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:07 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
That may well be the case with Filipinos. I only argue for a more nuanced understanding of the systematic obstacles that can negatively impact particular sub-groups. Those nuances are lost when Asians are treated as simply one large group, thereby limiting the effectiveness of AA. White women and white men both share white privilege, but AA recognizes that white women do face discrimination because of their gender. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.Suralin wrote: You do have a somewhat valid point with the Asian subgroup thing, although I'm not sure that groups like the Filipinos are, in fact, underrepresented in higher education/law school. Also, maybe the Filipino/Laos/Hmong/Cambodian subgroup is too small to justify giving a URM boost.
Native Americans receive a boost in the admissions process even though they comprise a small part of the population of the United States. I do admit that I don't know the numerical breakdown for specific ethnic groups in the US, so your point concerning that they are too small to warrant a boost may be valid.
- stillwater
- Posts: 3804
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
It is simply too inefficient to begin delving into smaller units. The statistical nightmare it would create would be more trouble than its worth. It would also make multiple identifications even more troublesome than racial categories. You would have to then so subdivide all other racial categories and figure out what types of whites (ooo he's Basque!!!!!), AA, etc. into the same. All and all, that's why they don't do it. It's unworkable.bosmer88 wrote:That may well be the case with Filipinos. I only argue for a more nuanced understanding of the systematic obstacles that can negatively impact particular sub-groups. Those nuances are lost when Asians are treated as simply one large group, thereby limiting the effectiveness of AA. White women and white men both share white privilege, but AA recognizes that white women do face discrimination because of their gender. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.Suralin wrote: You do have a somewhat valid point with the Asian subgroup thing, although I'm not sure that groups like the Filipinos are, in fact, underrepresented in higher education/law school. Also, maybe the Filipino/Laos/Hmong/Cambodian subgroup is too small to justify giving a URM boost.
Native Americans receive a boost in the admissions process even though they comprise a small part of the population of the United States. I do admit that I don't know the numerical breakdown for specific ethnic groups in the US, so your point concerning that they are too small to warrant a boost may be valid.
- bosmer88
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:07 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
I am not talking about delving so much as I am arguing for recognizing these issues have been going on with these groups for quite some time and take them into account. That's it. I am not talking about any other groups, simply Asians.stillwater wrote: It is simply too inefficient to begin delving into smaller units. The statistical nightmare it would create would be more trouble than its worth. It would also make multiple identifications even more troublesome than racial categories. You would have to then so subdivide all other racial categories and figure out what types of whites (ooo he's Basque!!!!!), AA, etc. into the same. All and all, that's why they don't do it. It's unworkable.
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:34 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
Asians aren't considered URMs because law schools considered all Asians under the broad umbrella of Asian. Chinese and Indians are overrepresented in law schools. However, many Asians from Southeast Asian number are significantly underrepresented in law school. In fact, the educational attainment of Vietnamese Americans is among the lowest in America. Many Vietnamese are recent immigrants and are relatively poor. Many Asian students from underrepresented Asian countries go to low income school districts with blacks and Hispanics. Some of these Asian students are refugees. Yet, because they are "Asian," these folks don't get the benefit of AA.
On the other hand, an African American or Hispanic student living in a 5 million dollar home who could afford to take Powerscore prep gets AA benefits over a poor Asian/white guy.
I support AA completely, but we should recognize that people of all races encounter adversity and economic challenges.
On the other hand, an African American or Hispanic student living in a 5 million dollar home who could afford to take Powerscore prep gets AA benefits over a poor Asian/white guy.
I support AA completely, but we should recognize that people of all races encounter adversity and economic challenges.
- BlaqBella
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
Oh goodness, not this again!
- bosmer88
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:07 pm
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
Not what again?BlaqBella wrote:Oh goodness, not this again!
I think this is actually a valid question that has been discussed civilly thus far.
- BlaqBella
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am
Re: WHY aren't Asians considered URM?
This train of thought:bosmer88 wrote:Not what again?
Sounds like whining/complaining to me. It's beating a dead horse...in the URM forum of all places.On the other hand, an African American or Hispanic student living in a 5 million dollar home who could afford to take Powerscore prep gets AA benefits over a poor Asian/white guy.