URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
User avatar
Quan292
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 2:03 am

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Quan292 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:35 pm

californiauser wrote:
Is your home in Manhattan? Half the allure of NYU is the Village and it would be a huge detriment to have to subway home every day/night.


Nope, from Queens the commute would take about an hour.

AAJD2B wrote:
Given your numbers on your profile I say go ahead and ED to NYU. It appears you applied later in the cycle, hence your waitlist. I think you will get in this time around.

That said, choose two/three backup schools in the event NYU doesn't pan out...perhaps two or three of Columbia, UPenn, UVA, Michigan or Cornell?


Yea looking at Cornell/Upenn/ Northwestern


mandyjay11 wrote:

Do you mind me asking what you think you did wrong last cycle that is making you try again this year? (according the LSN, it looks like you applied last year)


I applied during the 2011-2012 cycle. My apps were all late (most complete in February), I didn't write any Why X statements or letters of continued interest after being waitlisted, and i'm guess the financial hold I had for a semester spent at a previous school all probably played a role.

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:37 pm

Weird thing I noticed when I was derping around on myLSN: Berkeley generally likes their high GPAs, even for URMs. But when you make a graph for the last two cycles for AA applicants there's this cluster of 3.0-3.1 (all 167+) applicants that are all green and then you don't really see green again until the 3.4/3.5+ range.

No clue why but thought it was interesting.

Image

User avatar
toshiroh
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:58 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby toshiroh » Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:32 pm

Any advice for tackling Sufficient assumption question. NA questions are cake for me, but for some reason I miss unnecessary SA questions or they take me long to figure out.

sassybassy
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:39 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby sassybassy » Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:11 pm

Did anyone else get a package from University of Michigan? Am I late in the game?

User avatar
applelover
Posts: 1921
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby applelover » Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:14 pm

sassybassy wrote:Did anyone else get a package from University of Michigan? Am I late in the game?


I got mine in August before I headed back to school.

User avatar
fips tedora
Posts: 3735
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 8:28 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby fips tedora » Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:12 pm

toshiroh wrote:Any advice for tackling Sufficient assumption question. NA questions are cake for me, but for some reason I miss unnecessary SA questions or they take me long to figure out.

Sufficient questions require an answer choice that the bridges (closes) the gap between the premise and the conclusion. Basically, Premise + Answer Choice = Conclusion. The correct answer choice doesn't have to be perfect, however it should reasonably take care of the assumption gap in the argument.

sassybassy
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:39 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby sassybassy » Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:58 pm

applelover wrote:
sassybassy wrote:Did anyone else get a package from University of Michigan? Am I late in the game?


I got mine in August before I headed back to school.


What are your numbers? I now feel behind the times. But I thought it was so nice! Especially that she adds a handwritten note on the letter!

kenwash
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:57 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby kenwash » Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:35 pm

sassybassy wrote:Did anyone else get a package from University of Michigan? Am I late in the game?

I just received Michigan's package as well with the handwritten note...definitely a nice touch!

User avatar
applelover
Posts: 1921
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby applelover » Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm

sassybassy wrote:
applelover wrote:
sassybassy wrote:Did anyone else get a package from University of Michigan? Am I late in the game?


I got mine in August before I headed back to school.


What are your numbers? I now feel behind the times. But I thought it was so nice! Especially that she adds a handwritten note on the letter!


Well I took the LSAT in June and had my CAS complete by July, which could explain why. And I agree the handwritten note is nice.

User avatar
Dr.Zer0
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:11 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Dr.Zer0 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:43 pm

[redacted]
Last edited by Dr.Zer0 on Sun Jan 19, 2014 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
applelover
Posts: 1921
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby applelover » Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:04 pm

Dr.Zer0 wrote:
kenwash wrote:
sassybassy wrote:Did anyone else get a package from University of Michigan? Am I late in the game?

I just received Michigan's package as well with the handwritten note...definitely a nice touch!


I got mine over a month ago...their handwritten note is just another marketing ploy.

Did the note read something along the lines of "we love [insert your alma mater here] grads!"



No it said, congratulations on your outstanding academic accomplishments.

User avatar
Dr.Zer0
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:11 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Dr.Zer0 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:24 pm

applelover wrote:
Dr.Zer0 wrote:
kenwash wrote:
sassybassy wrote:Did anyone else get a package from University of Michigan? Am I late in the game?

I just received Michigan's package as well with the handwritten note...definitely a nice touch!


I got mine over a month ago...their handwritten note is just another marketing ploy.

Did the note read something along the lines of "we love [insert your alma mater here] grads!"



No it said, congratulations on your outstanding academic accomplishments.


Haha I guess I'm just overly cynical.

sassybassy
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:39 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby sassybassy » Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:55 pm

Dr.Zer0 wrote:
Did the note read something along the lines of "we love [insert your alma mater here] grads!"



No it said, congratulations on your outstanding academic accomplishments.[/quote]

Haha I guess I'm just overly cynical.[/quote]

I got the grads one. Lol. But I still think it's nice. Michigan is a great school and someone there took the time to look up where I went to school.

I'm not sure I would go there though. I hear their minority enrollment is drastically down; the number of AAs attending reportedly hasn't surpassed 18 since 2006. That's an unpleasant environment in my opinion.

User avatar
Mojosodope
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:33 am

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Mojosodope » Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:47 am

sassybassy wrote:
Dr.Zer0 wrote:
Did the note read something along the lines of "we love [insert your alma mater here] grads!"



No it said, congratulations on your outstanding academic accomplishments.


Haha I guess I'm just overly cynical.[/quote]

I got the grads one. Lol. But I still think it's nice. Michigan is a great school and someone there took the time to look up where I went to school.

I'm not sure I would go there though. I hear their minority enrollment is drastically down; the number of AAs attending reportedly hasn't surpassed 18 since 2006. That's an unpleasant environment in my opinion.[/quote]

Damn, I actually liked the idea of possibly going there until you said that. I went to another Big Ten school for UG (not that that matters at all), and I love large campuses

User avatar
Dr.Zer0
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:11 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Dr.Zer0 » Sat Oct 19, 2013 3:15 pm

What I actually found the most interesting about the Michigan letter was their underlying reference to the Grutter case. It sounds like they were severely restricted by the AA ban and are trying to find alternate methods to let minorities in, but unlike Cal they haven't figured it out yet. I did appreciate their effort to connect me to their Latino Law Student Assoc., I might hit them up so I have something interesting to write in my Why X statement.


I agree that 18 AAs is a small number and sounds unwelcoming but I doubt its much better at other T-14s. See below:


Number of AA first-years (most recent data):
Harvard: 53
Yale: 13
Stanford: 15
Columbia: 37
Chicago: 13
NYU: 27
UC Berkeley: 19
Penn: 19
UVA: 27
Michigan: 13
Duke: 17
Northwestern: 15
Georgetown: 50
Cornell: 13
Total for Top 14: 331
UCLA: 7
UT-Austin: 17
Vanderbilt: 16
Total including additional three: 371

ETA: List of AA at the T-14. Provided by viewtopic.php?f=14&t=195443

User avatar
Mojosodope
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:33 am

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Mojosodope » Sat Oct 19, 2013 3:58 pm

Dr.Zer0 wrote:What I actually found the most interesting about the Michigan letter was their underlying reference to the Grutter case. It sounds like they were severely restricted by the AA ban and are trying to find alternate methods to let minorities in, but unlike Cal they haven't figured it out yet. I did appreciate their effort to connect me to their Latino Law Student Assoc., I might hit them up so I have something interesting to write in my Why X statement.


I agree that 18 AAs is a small number and sounds unwelcoming but I doubt its much better at other T-14s. See below:


Number of AA first-years (most recent data):
Harvard: 53
Yale: 13
Stanford: 15
Columbia: 37
Chicago: 13
NYU: 27
UC Berkeley: 19
Penn: 19
UVA: 27
Michigan: 13
Duke: 17
Northwestern: 15
Georgetown: 50
Cornell: 13
Total for Top 14: 331
UCLA: 7
UT-Austin: 17
Vanderbilt: 16
Total including additional three: 371

ETA: List of AA at the T-14. Provided by http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 4&t=195443


Yeah that's true, but you also have to take into account the AA in the other schools at the University, whether it be undergrad, Business, etc..

And being some place like NYC or Chicago is a lot different than being in Anne Arbor

User avatar
applelover
Posts: 1921
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby applelover » Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:10 pm

Has anyone in this forum interviewed for any law schools already?

User avatar
MoMettaMonk
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:29 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby MoMettaMonk » Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:25 pm

The numbers posted above are actually from 2009-2010.

This is the most recent data (also courtesy of that thread):

nick1 wrote:I decided to run an update for those that are applying for this upcoming cycle. The number of blacks attending T14s has reduced drastically, the numbers below represent the class that entered in Fall 2012.

Yale 16
Harvard 45
Stanford 12
Columbia 23
Chicago 11
NYU 24
Penn 19
UVA 19
Michigan 10
Berkeley 10
Duke 16
Northwestern 11
Cornell 15
Georgetown 44
275

The number of black test takers drastically reduced as well, the data is for LSAT administration that ran through 2011 (JUN) -2012 (FEB). I broke down the total number of test takers as a whole and data for males and females as well. Keep in mind the SDs are unique to each data set so the numbers add up weird. But the data still pretty much tells the same story as the OP.

MALE
4217 test takers

2 above SD (161): 71
2.5 above SD (165): 21
3 above SD (170): 4

FEMALE
7236 test takers
2 above SD(158): 123
2.5 above SD (162): 36
3 above SD (167): 7

TOTAL
11453 test takers

2 above SD (159): 194
2.5 above SD(164): 57
3 above SD(167): 11


User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby twenty » Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:50 pm

Stanford's decline is hurtful. They've maintained their class size and they're about the same in terms of yields as they were a year or two ago, their GPA and LSAT medians look like they're actually moving up, and right now is a good time to stick it to the incoming URMs?

The nice news, though, is that we know this is because these schools can't find enough non-URMs to offset the low numbers, a URM above at least one median is going to have a field day.

User avatar
bizzybone1313
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:31 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby bizzybone1313 » Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:56 pm

Mojosodope wrote:
Dr.Zer0 wrote:What I actually found the most interesting about the Michigan letter was their underlying reference to the Grutter case. It sounds like they were severely restricted by the AA ban and are trying to find alternate methods to let minorities in, but unlike Cal they haven't figured it out yet. I did appreciate their effort to connect me to their Latino Law Student Assoc., I might hit them up so I have something interesting to write in my Why X statement.


I agree that 18 AAs is a small number and sounds unwelcoming but I doubt its much better at other T-14s. See below:


Number of AA first-years (most recent data):
Harvard: 53
Yale: 13
Stanford: 15
Columbia: 37
Chicago: 13
NYU: 27
UC Berkeley: 19
Penn: 19
UVA: 27
Michigan: 13
Duke: 17
Northwestern: 15
Georgetown: 50
Cornell: 13
Total for Top 14: 331
UCLA: 7
UT-Austin: 17
Vanderbilt: 16
Total including additional three: 371

ETA: List of AA at the T-14. Provided by http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 4&t=195443


Yeah that's true, but you also have to take into account the AA in the other schools at the University, whether it be undergrad, Business, etc..

And being some place like NYC or Chicago is a lot different than being in Anne Arbor


One of my professors that wrote one of my LOR said that Michigan is not a very welcoming place for minorities. She did her post-doc there a few years ago. It probably, in part, stems from the fact that a lot of people in that state have been spending the past decade trying to reduce the number of minorities at the University of Michigan. There are some opponents of AA that readily admit that their goal has always been to resegregate the university. The University of Michigan may be liberal, but it probably isn't a great place to be for URM's. I have always been fond of the school, but their employment stats and low URM enrollment numbers leave a lot to be desired.

User avatar
bizzybone1313
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:31 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby bizzybone1313 » Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:58 pm

twentypercentmore wrote:Stanford's decline is hurtful. They've maintained their class size and they're about the same in terms of yields as they were a year or two ago, their GPA and LSAT medians look like they're actually moving up, and right now is a good time to stick it to the incoming URMs?

The nice news, though, is that we know this is because these schools can't find enough non-URMs to offset the low numbers, a URM above at least one median is going to have a field day.


If I could go back in time and been a part of this type of forum during or before undergrad, I would have spent day and night trying to graduate with a 4.0. I never knew about this median bullshit until it was too late. I graduated with a high GPA, but it isn't a 4.0. A 4.0 is much, much easier to obtain than scoring in the 170's on the LSAT.

User avatar
mandyjay11
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:36 am

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby mandyjay11 » Sat Oct 19, 2013 5:03 pm

bizzybone1313 wrote:
twentypercentmore wrote:Stanford's decline is hurtful. They've maintained their class size and they're about the same in terms of yields as they were a year or two ago, their GPA and LSAT medians look like they're actually moving up, and right now is a good time to stick it to the incoming URMs?

The nice news, though, is that we know this is because these schools can't find enough non-URMs to offset the low numbers, a URM above at least one median is going to have a field day.


If I could go back in time and been a part of this type of forum during or before undergrad, I would have spent day and night trying to graduate with a 4.0. I never knew about this median bullshit until it was too late. I graduated with a high GPA, but it isn't a 4.0. A 4.0 is much, much easier to obtain than scoring in the 170's on the LSAT.


+1

User avatar
Dr.Zer0
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:11 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Dr.Zer0 » Sat Oct 19, 2013 5:21 pm

bizzybone1313 wrote:
twentypercentmore wrote:Stanford's decline is hurtful. They've maintained their class size and they're about the same in terms of yields as they were a year or two ago, their GPA and LSAT medians look like they're actually moving up, and right now is a good time to stick it to the incoming URMs?

The nice news, though, is that we know this is because these schools can't find enough non-URMs to offset the low numbers, a URM above at least one median is going to have a field day.


If I could go back in time and been a part of this type of forum during or before undergrad, I would have spent day and night trying to graduate with a 4.0. I never knew about this median bullshit until it was too late. I graduated with a high GPA, but it isn't a 4.0. A 4.0 is much, much easier to obtain than scoring in the 170's on the LSAT.


Srsly! I would've taken easy CC classes on the side during UG.

californiauser
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby californiauser » Sat Oct 19, 2013 5:31 pm

applelover wrote:Has anyone in this forum interviewed for any law schools already?


I have done an alumnus interview for Vanderbilt.

sassybassy
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:39 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby sassybassy » Sat Oct 19, 2013 5:45 pm

I am glad that there is this forum so we can have these types of conversation. My dream schools are NYU and Columbia. I figure being in a city offsets the low number of minorities attending the actual school.

I cannot wait to get my LSAT score back so that I know how realistic my goals are. I'm going to go ahead and speak a 170 into existence. Lol




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests