URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
User avatar
mandyjay11
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:36 am

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby mandyjay11 » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:35 pm

Quan292 wrote:
Mojosodope wrote:Is anyone else fairly nervous about being a minority in a top school? Like not fitting in, not being wealthy etc.?


I'm pretty nervous about. Grew up in a black neighborhood and I had problems not being comfortable in undergrad/where I live now and not really fitting in with the people. As much as you tell yourself school is just a means to a much bigger goal it sucks to spend so much of your time with people you dont mesh well with. Also happiness directly effects my work output.


I 100% agree with you.

EvMont
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby EvMont » Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:05 pm

Dr.Zer0 wrote:
AAJD2B wrote:To all those visiting Penn tomorrow: ENJOY and please let us know how your visit went! :)



+1 and whoever posted about their Columbia visit, thanks, it was very informative!



I'm doing the tour & info session at Penn tomorrow. I'll be sure to update you all afterwards.

User avatar
Futuregohan14
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Futuregohan14 » Sun Oct 20, 2013 8:34 pm

So...

Yale, Harvard Stanford enroll 73 AA students between them in Fall 2012. That means they probably admitted more (maybe about 100? Let's say 90).

Only about 36 AA females scored 162 or above. Just about 71 AA males scored 161 or above. That's like what, about 100 total at 162 or above? Some of these are probably splitters (respectable lsat but low gpa), so write off probably at least a dozen more.

So if they set their standard for admission at 162 plus a decent (let's just call it 3.3+) gpa, Yale, harvard and Stanford between them have only about 80-90 AAs to choose from. If they're going to fill their classes (accounting for yield and all that), they'd probably have to admit the vast majority of them.

Yale by itself could eat up all of the 167+ AAs (there are only about a dozen of those). By the time Harvard and Stanford are finished filling their classes, all of the 165+ AAs are likely spoken for and the vast majority of the 162+ AAs are accounted for as well.

Meanwhile, there are 202 other spots at the other 11 schools within the T-14 (more than that if we account for yield and more still if we add other good schools like Vandy and UT-Austin that perform like T-14s and will occasionally take T-14-worthy candidates away from T-14s).

Very interesting...

MoMettaMonk wrote: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
AAJD2B
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:37 am

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby AAJD2B » Sun Oct 20, 2013 9:34 pm

Yup, Future. This is why so many AA URMs on this forum are pushing hard and are advised to not settle for sub-165 LSAT scores. There is just too much at stake-- free rides, major $$$$$ and acceptances at a T3 -- to settle for less, especially if you know you can/have been scoring higher on practice tests.

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

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Mojosodope » Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:12 pm

AAJD2B wrote:Yup, Future. This is why so many AA URMs on this forum are pushing hard and are advised to not settle for sub-165 LSAT scores. There is just too much at stake-- free rides, major $$$$$ and acceptances at a T3 -- to settle for less, especially if you know you can/have been scoring higher on practice tests.


I feel like there was an argument about this not that long ago...

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

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby MoMettaMonk » Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:14 pm

Mojosodope wrote:
AAJD2B wrote:Yup, Future. This is why so many AA URMs on this forum are pushing hard and are advised to not settle for sub-165 LSAT scores. There is just too much at stake-- free rides, major $$$$$ and acceptances at a T3 -- to settle for less, especially if you know you can/have been scoring higher on practice tests.


I feel like there was an argument about this not that long ago...


Just a tiny one... with a million in post quotes.


ETA

October LSAT scores might come out this week! Who else is ready to freak out every time they get a new email?

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

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Mojosodope » Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:26 pm

MoMettaMonk wrote:
Mojosodope wrote:
AAJD2B wrote:Yup, Future. This is why so many AA URMs on this forum are pushing hard and are advised to not settle for sub-165 LSAT scores. There is just too much at stake-- free rides, major $$$$$ and acceptances at a T3 -- to settle for less, especially if you know you can/have been scoring higher on practice tests.


I feel like there was an argument about this not that long ago...


Just a tiny one... with a million in post quotes.


ETA

October LSAT scores might come out this week! Who else is ready to freak out every time they get a new email?


I hope I get it in class so I can freak out in front of everyone.

User avatar
AAJD2B
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:37 am

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby AAJD2B » Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:41 pm

Mojosodope wrote:
AAJD2B wrote:Yup, Future. This is why so many AA URMs on this forum are pushing hard and are advised to not settle for sub-165 LSAT scores. There is just too much at stake-- free rides, major $$$$$ and acceptances at a T3 -- to settle for less, especially if you know you can/have been scoring higher on practice tests.


I feel like there was an argument about this not that long ago...


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

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

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby californiauser » Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:50 pm

Do the numbers above include half/partial AAs?

User avatar
Percival Jenkins
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Percival Jenkins » Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:54 pm

californiauser wrote:Do the numbers above include half/partial AAs?


Nope, the numbers that LSAC gives puts multiracial matriculates in their own category.

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

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Dr.Zer0 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:24 am

I wish there was as much data for MAs as there is for AAs =/

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

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby californiauser » Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:34 am

nick1 wrote:
californiauser wrote:Do the numbers above include half/partial AAs?


Nope, the numbers that LSAC gives puts multiracial matriculates in their own category.


Interesting. I wonder if the statistics are quantified as such by all the law schools in regard to minority reporting.

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 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:05 am

californiauser wrote:
nick1 wrote:
californiauser wrote:Do the numbers above include half/partial AAs?


Nope, the numbers that LSAC gives puts multiracial matriculates in their own category.


Interesting. I wonder if the statistics are quantified as such by all the law schools in regard to minority reporting.


It's not

User avatar
Percival Jenkins
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Percival Jenkins » Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:53 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
californiauser wrote:
nick1 wrote:
californiauser wrote:Do the numbers above include half/partial AAs?


Nope, the numbers that LSAC gives puts multiracial matriculates in their own category.


Interesting. I wonder if the statistics are quantified as such by all the law schools in regard to minority reporting.


It's not


Rizzy, where have you seen it reported differently? Thats the only way I have seen it officially reported. Thats the way law schools are reporting it to the ABA, which is now certifying the data for accuracy. I cant imagine there being a separate way schools report that info other than the way they report it to the ABA.
Last edited by Percival Jenkins on Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:58 am

Since when has that been happening? I've always heard that schools report, for example, a half MA as part of their Mexican American student population for diversity purposes. Is that not the case anymore? If so, that's interesting.

User avatar
Percival Jenkins
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Percival Jenkins » Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:20 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Since when has that been happening? I've always heard that schools report, for example, a half MA as part of their Mexican American student population for diversity purposes. Is that not the case anymore? If so, that's interesting.


Looking back in the archives of the ABA Official Guide, the first time the 2 or more races category appears was in 2012 which is for Fall 2011 matrics. The 2 or more races category is included in a school's total minority population, but you are probably right that they used to be counted in with the other minorities prior to 2012 when the 2 or more races did not exist.

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 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:01 am

nick1 wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Since when has that been happening? I've always heard that schools report, for example, a half MA as part of their Mexican American student population for diversity purposes. Is that not the case anymore? If so, that's interesting.


Looking back in the archives of the ABA Official Guide, the first time the 2 or more races category appears was in 2012 which is for Fall 2011 matrics. The 2 or more races category is included in a school's total minority population, but you are probably right that they used to be counted in with the other minorities prior to 2012 when the 2 or more races did not exist.


I wonder what that means for the current status of the bump for partial URMs.

User avatar
Futuregohan14
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby Futuregohan14 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:50 am

AAJD2B wrote:Yup, Future. This is why so many AA URMs on this forum are pushing hard and are advised to not settle for sub-165 LSAT scores.


Honest question: why is the bar set at 165 specifically? The data above seem to indicate pretty strong chances for scores even below that (161-164, with the bulk of the 162+ camp having a good shot at YHS) and I'm sure someone could argue for setting the bar above that (ex: 167 or 170+), so why is 165 the bar to push for?

I'm genuinely curious. Why not 163, 164 or 166? Why specifically 165? Is there some data backing that standard up that I haven't seen? Or is it just kind of arbitrary?

There is just too much at stake-- free rides, major $$$$$ and acceptances at a T3 -- to settle for less, especially if you know you can/have been scoring higher on practice tests.


The message I was trying to get across in the last shouting contest I engaged in here was that if the bolded does not apply (as it did not in my case), one should not feel any qualms about having a 161-164 type of score, assuming they've done at least one re-take, have a good GPA and have peaked as far as their prep/practice tests go.

That's the reasonable conclusion in my mind. You can feel free to disagree (I suspect most here still do), but I'm done arguing about it.

-dasein-
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:52 am

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby -dasein- » Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:26 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
nick1 wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Since when has that been happening? I've always heard that schools report, for example, a half MA as part of their Mexican American student population for diversity purposes. Is that not the case anymore? If so, that's interesting.


Looking back in the archives of the ABA Official Guide, the first time the 2 or more races category appears was in 2012 which is for Fall 2011 matrics. The 2 or more races category is included in a school's total minority population, but you are probably right that they used to be counted in with the other minorities prior to 2012 when the 2 or more races did not exist.


I wonder what that means for the current status of the bump for partial URMs.


Would this explain the fall that we see for in those two surveys posted couple of pages ago that showed the number of AAs attending T14s?

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 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:33 am

-dasein- wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
nick1 wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Since when has that been happening? I've always heard that schools report, for example, a half MA as part of their Mexican American student population for diversity purposes. Is that not the case anymore? If so, that's interesting.


Looking back in the archives of the ABA Official Guide, the first time the 2 or more races category appears was in 2012 which is for Fall 2011 matrics. The 2 or more races category is included in a school's total minority population, but you are probably right that they used to be counted in with the other minorities prior to 2012 when the 2 or more races did not exist.


I wonder what that means for the current status of the bump for partial URMs.


Would this explain the fall that we see for in those two surveys posted couple of pages ago that showed the number of AAs attending T14s?


What fall?

-dasein-
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:52 am

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby -dasein- » Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:38 am

^A couple of pages back a breakdown by school from 2 consecutive years showed the number of URMs attending the T14 go from 331 --> 275.

Was wondering if that fall overlaps with the changes in reporting you guys are discussing.

Also, when does the data come out for this year, it usually gets released in the fall right?

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 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:41 am

Oh, yeah that could account for the drop. And yeah it's usually around Fall. A lot of standard numbers are coming out extraordinarily late this year.

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

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby sassybassy » Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:06 am

The "fall" can probably more accurate be accounted for by considering the fact that less AAs are taking the LSAT and applying to law school in general.

EvMont
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby EvMont » Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:53 am

-dasein- wrote:^A couple of pages back a breakdown by school from 2 consecutive years showed the number of URMs attending the T14 go from 331 --> 275.

Was wondering if that fall overlaps with the changes in reporting you guys are discussing.

Also, when does the data come out for this year, it usually gets released in the fall right?


To clarify: 331 ---> 275 is the change in the number of 1L AAs enrolled, not URMs. That's to say, those numbers don't include NAs, MAs, PRs, 2Ls, 3ls, etc.

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

Re: URM 2013-2014 Cycle Thread

Postby californiauser » Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:39 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
nick1 wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Since when has that been happening? I've always heard that schools report, for example, a half MA as part of their Mexican American student population for diversity purposes. Is that not the case anymore? If so, that's interesting.


Looking back in the archives of the ABA Official Guide, the first time the 2 or more races category appears was in 2012 which is for Fall 2011 matrics. The 2 or more races category is included in a school's total minority population, but you are probably right that they used to be counted in with the other minorities prior to 2012 when the 2 or more races did not exist.


I wonder what that means for the current status of the bump for partial URMs.


My thoughts as well.




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dietcoke1 and 2 guests