BL2017 wrote:mmart207 wrote:Super late, but that poster isn't wrong when they say that AAs get in with lower numbers than MAs and PRs do. Of course, that isn't the case for EVERYONE. But OVERALL, I see that it is true. Nonetheless, a separation of threads is ridiculous. Good luck to everyone this cycle! And if anyone took today's LSAT, what'd you think?
Just to piggyback off of this, maybe separate URM threads is undesirable for some but a separate "cycle results" thread makes all the sense in the world. As an MA URM, I had to go through several pages of past cycle results threads on TLS for only a couple of MA/PR stats. It would've been helpful and more efficient to have those results in one thread.
Similarly, when I check LSN I click on "exclude AA" to get an accurate picture of my numbers. I don't think that's divisive at all. That's just the reality of it as uncomfortable as it might be for some. The fact the MA/PRs get different bumps than other URMs isn't common wisdom yet for a lot of folks.
A lot of MA/PRs new to TLS make "what are my chances" threads with something like a 160/3.4 combo thinking they are gonna get into the T14 when that just isn't likely at all.
I get that we want to uplift and support each other and that's great. But TLS is also a place where we all come for objective information to help us with this process. More detailed information is always helpful.
I'm not sure if there is one for every year, but there has been a URM Cycle Results thread where a lot of URMs posted their info at the end of the cycle (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=275052). I'm not sure what several pages you went through but in that thread, the first entry was an MA URM attending Stanford and just a few entries lower is a PR applicant, followed by another MA applicant right after that one. That felt very detailed as far and MA/PR stats go if you ask me—they're all in one thread. As an MA applicant, I found this thread both easy to navigate and not hidden. I agree more detailed information is always helpful, I'm just struggling to understand how the information isn't already clear. Do we need to sticky the end of cycle results thread?
I don't think information isn't efficiently displayed, I hypothesize that there are more active AA TLSers than MA/PR TLSers. Do I think our MA/PR TLS representation will increase if we make a separate "cycle results" thread? Nah, we should just sticky the URM Cycle Results thread. Again, on the first page of that thread, there are 3 MA/PR entries and 9 AA/Black entries. Are those 9 AA entries crowding the access to information for the 3 MA/PR entries? Do people really feel bogged down reading and scrolling through those 9 AA entries that they want to make a whole new results thread for us MA/PRs? I will continue saying that sounds silly. If it's about efficiency, let's make the URM Cycle Results thread a sticky.