Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Superficial
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:16 pm

Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby Superficial » Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:49 pm

I understand the concept behind URM boost, but why is it limited to only like 5 different specific ethnicities?

How many Cambodian/Laos/Indonesian law students are there? They are socially, culturally, and ethnically so different from traditional Chinese/Korean/Japanese applicants, and they don't share much in common other than the skin color and general proximity of countries. There are far fewer of these folks than Native Americans. Are we only advancing a select group of people for now until further resources are found or something?

User avatar
girlonfire
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:45 pm

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby girlonfire » Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:58 pm

Superficial wrote:I understand the concept behind URM boost, but why is it limited to only like 5 different specific ethnicities?

How many Cambodian/Laos/Indonesian law students are there? They are socially, culturally, and ethnically so different from traditional Chinese/Korean/Japanese applicants, and they don't share much in common other than the skin color and general proximity of countries. There are far fewer of these folks than Native Americans. Are we only advancing a select group of people for now until further resources are found or something?

Urm boosts are not based on rarity. They're based on proportions of the general population. For example: if 10% of the pop. was Cambodian, then ideally 10% of LS students would be. Law schools may extend "boosts" to Cambodian applicants in order to reflect this.
That's why AA, PR, MX & NA are traditionally given "boosts", because the ratio of those ethnicities in the US Vs those ethnicities in LS is very uneven.
Last edited by girlonfire on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Knock
Posts: 5152
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby Knock » Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:59 pm

girlonfire wrote:
Superficial wrote:I understand the concept behind URM boost, but why is it limited to only like 5 different specific ethnicities?

How many Cambodian/Laos/Indonesian law students are there? They are socially, culturally, and ethnically so different from traditional Chinese/Korean/Japanese applicants, and they don't share much in common other than the skin color and general proximity of countries. There are far fewer of these folks than Native Americans. Are we only advancing a select group of people for now until further resources are found or something?

Urm boosts are not based on rarity. They're based on portions of the general population. For example: if 10% of the pop. was Cambodian, then ideally 10% of LS students would be. Law schools may extend "boosts" to Cambodian applicants in order to reflect this.
That's why AA, PR, MX & NA are tradionally given "boosts", because the ratio of those ethinicites in the US Vs those ethnicities in LS is very uneven.


In addition to the racial differences in LSAT scores. Asians typically score higher than the average, while AA, PR, MX, & NA all score below the average I believe.

FiveSermon
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby FiveSermon » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:45 pm

girlonfire wrote:
Superficial wrote:I understand the concept behind URM boost, but why is it limited to only like 5 different specific ethnicities?

How many Cambodian/Laos/Indonesian law students are there? They are socially, culturally, and ethnically so different from traditional Chinese/Korean/Japanese applicants, and they don't share much in common other than the skin color and general proximity of countries. There are far fewer of these folks than Native Americans. Are we only advancing a select group of people for now until further resources are found or something?

Urm boosts are not based on rarity. They're based on proportions of the general population. For example: if 10% of the pop. was Cambodian, then ideally 10% of LS students would be. Law schools may extend "boosts" to Cambodian applicants in order to reflect this.
That's why AA, PR, MX & NA are traditionally given "boosts", because the ratio of those ethnicities in the US Vs those ethnicities in LS is very uneven.


Isn't it actually to "boost diversity" instead of maintaining similar proportions of races in colleges as there are in the US population?

User avatar
girlonfire
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:45 pm

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby girlonfire » Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:15 pm

FiveSermon wrote:
girlonfire wrote:
Superficial wrote:I understand the concept behind URM boost, but why is it limited to only like 5 different specific ethnicities?

How many Cambodian/Laos/Indonesian law students are there? They are socially, culturally, and ethnically so different from traditional Chinese/Korean/Japanese applicants, and they don't share much in common other than the skin color and general proximity of countries. There are far fewer of these folks than Native Americans. Are we only advancing a select group of people for now until further resources are found or something?

Urm boosts are not based on rarity. They're based on proportions of the general population. For example: if 10% of the pop. was Cambodian, then ideally 10% of LS students would be. Law schools may extend "boosts" to Cambodian applicants in order to reflect this.
That's why AA, PR, MX & NA are traditionally given "boosts", because the ratio of those ethnicities in the US Vs those ethnicities in LS is very uneven.


Isn't it actually to "boost diversity" instead of maintaining similar proportions of races in colleges as there are in the US population?


I dont think so. (even tho equalizing those proportions would "boost diversity") I've been under the impression that it's about the respresentation of minorities in the legal field, which is why we use the term "under represented"— because if, for example, only .5% of the legal community is AA, AAs are significantly under represented... It's definitely about ratios, which is why only some groups are considered URM. IIRC, Asians are actually ORMs.

FiveSermon
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby FiveSermon » Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:17 pm

girlonfire wrote:
FiveSermon wrote:
girlonfire wrote:
Superficial wrote:I understand the concept behind URM boost, but why is it limited to only like 5 different specific ethnicities?

How many Cambodian/Laos/Indonesian law students are there? They are socially, culturally, and ethnically so different from traditional Chinese/Korean/Japanese applicants, and they don't share much in common other than the skin color and general proximity of countries. There are far fewer of these folks than Native Americans. Are we only advancing a select group of people for now until further resources are found or something?

Urm boosts are not based on rarity. They're based on proportions of the general population. For example: if 10% of the pop. was Cambodian, then ideally 10% of LS students would be. Law schools may extend "boosts" to Cambodian applicants in order to reflect this.
That's why AA, PR, MX & NA are traditionally given "boosts", because the ratio of those ethnicities in the US Vs those ethnicities in LS is very uneven.


Isn't it actually to "boost diversity" instead of maintaining similar proportions of races in colleges as there are in the US population?


I dont think so. (even tho equalizing those proportions would "boost diversity") I've been under the impression that it's about the respresentation of minorities in the legal field, which is why we use the term "under represented"— because if, for example, only .5% of the legal community is AA, AAs are significantly under represented... It's definitely about ratios, which is why only some groups are considered URM. IIRC, Asians are actually ORMs.


So would it make sense to penalize ORMs to bring them into line with the correct proportion?

User avatar
girlonfire
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:45 pm

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby girlonfire » Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:24 pm

Hey now,
I’m not here to get into an argument about URM boosts.

OP asked a question. I provided a concise and verifiable answer.

My personal opinions are irrelevant to this thread. & FWIW, ORMs aren’t penalized, they’re just not receiving a boost. An ORM or a Caucasian with a high gpa & lsat score is not going to be passed over simply because they’re not a URM.

HTH

User avatar
danquayle
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:12 am

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby danquayle » Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:25 pm

AA admissions is a marketing tool universities use to make themselves feel better about themselves and to put out a better class profile. Minority percentages are often used in the same way as class medians are. It doesn't matter to them if they admit a student from a population that is ACTUALLY underrepresented, but rather that they admit a student who APPEARS to be from a population that is underrepresented. The notion is that East Asians of all varieties are overrepresented. This is not true. But most schools don't care about what's actually true. Ask yourself if a wealthy black person will receive admission over a less well off white person with precisely the same numbers. The most underrepresented population in this country are those in poverty. But its harder to show off a poor person than it is a "traditionally" underrepresented ethnicity.

Not that I blame the individuals for taking advantage of the URM boost. I'd do it myself. You have to take every advantage you can in life. Just realize that URM hunting is every bit as much as pure self-interested law school gaming as high LSAT hunting is. Quality "visible" URM candidates, like high LSAT candidates, are simply a scarcer commodity, and as such there is a premium placed on admitting them.
Last edited by danquayle on Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:39 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
danquayle
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:12 am

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby danquayle » Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:28 pm

girlonfire wrote:Hey now,
I’m not here to get into an argument about URM boosts.

OP asked a question. I provided a concise and verifiable answer.

My personal opinions are irrelevant to this thread. & FWIW, ORMs aren’t penalized, they’re just not receiving a boost. An ORM or a Caucasian with a high gpa & lsat score is not going to be passed over simply because they’re not a URM.

HTH


I'm not sure if this happens in law school, but I have heard of ORMs being penalized in undergrad admission, for certain schools at least.

Brolaw
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:04 pm

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby Brolaw » Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:21 pm

danquayle wrote:
girlonfire wrote:Hey now,
I’m not here to get into an argument about URM boosts.

OP asked a question. I provided a concise and verifiable answer.

My personal opinions are irrelevant to this thread. & FWIW, ORMs aren’t penalized, they’re just not receiving a boost. An ORM or a Caucasian with a high gpa & lsat score is not going to be passed over simply because they’re not a URM.

HTH


I'm not sure if this happens in law school, but I have heard of ORMs being penalized in undergrad admission, for certain schools at least.


How so? by being denied admission? That's absurd.

This type of statement, more like an assumption, is not well supported.

User avatar
danquayle
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:12 am

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby danquayle » Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:30 pm

Brolaw wrote:
danquayle wrote:
girlonfire wrote:Hey now,
I’m not here to get into an argument about URM boosts.

OP asked a question. I provided a concise and verifiable answer.

My personal opinions are irrelevant to this thread. & FWIW, ORMs aren’t penalized, they’re just not receiving a boost. An ORM or a Caucasian with a high gpa & lsat score is not going to be passed over simply because they’re not a URM.

HTH


I'm not sure if this happens in law school, but I have heard of ORMs being penalized in undergrad admission, for certain schools at least.


How so? by being denied admission? That's absurd.

This type of statement, more like an assumption, is not well supported.


Why is absurd? Isn't that exactly what happens? Isn't that the entire point of those discussion? Admitting some over other because others on the basis that some are more valuable in terms of "diversity"? I hardly think that's a wild and crazy assumption. But I will admit it's assumption.

I never said it was verifiable. Nothing about this entire discussion is easily verified. But given that there are finite seats at some very good schools, and that some of those very good schools are dominated by Asians (eg, Berkeley), I do not find it a stretch to think that, for the sake of "diversity", some of those finite spots would go to non-Asians simply based on the preference that they... not be Asian.

Just a quick search yielded this. Certainly not scientific, but not incredible: http://dukechronicle.com/article/too-many-asians

Lucidity
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:42 pm

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby Lucidity » Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:02 am

Diversity and URM are 2 different concepts and should not be used interchangeably. A urm gets a boost when applying to law school, and only applies to a select group. Don't ask why, thats just how it is.

Diversity is basically anything other than a white male and is a much more encompassing designation. Some schools will look more favorably to a "diverse" student, if their student body is generally not very diverse, although this is rare. Generally though, it doesn't really do much to help your chances of getting accepted into law school. However, firms love talking about how "diverse" their workforce is so being an Asian might help you a few years down the road when you graduate.

User avatar
girlonfire
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:45 pm

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby girlonfire » Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:24 am

danquayle wrote:
girlonfire wrote:Hey now,
I’m not here to get into an argument about URM boosts.

OP asked a question. I provided a concise and verifiable answer.

My personal opinions are irrelevant to this thread. & FWIW, ORMs aren’t penalized, they’re just not receiving a boost. An ORM or a Caucasian with a high gpa & lsat score is not going to be passed over simply because they’re not a URM.

HTH


I'm not sure if this happens in law school, but I have heard of ORMs being penalized in undergrad admission, for certain schools at least.


This type of statement contributes absolutely nothing to this conversation. We not talking about UGs & it's complete speculation. If anyone could really substantially prove that this was happening, we all (as potential, current & former law students) would be aware of the bazillion lawsuits regarding discrimination in admission practices.

Statements like this come off as trolling, and only obfuscate the issues at hand.

FiveSermon
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby FiveSermon » Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:40 am

girlonfire wrote:
danquayle wrote:
girlonfire wrote:Hey now,
I’m not here to get into an argument about URM boosts.

OP asked a question. I provided a concise and verifiable answer.

My personal opinions are irrelevant to this thread. & FWIW, ORMs aren’t penalized, they’re just not receiving a boost. An ORM or a Caucasian with a high gpa & lsat score is not going to be passed over simply because they’re not a URM.

HTH


I'm not sure if this happens in law school, but I have heard of ORMs being penalized in undergrad admission, for certain schools at least.


This type of statement contributes absolutely nothing to this conversation. We not talking about UGs & it's complete speculation. If anyone could really substantially prove that this was happening, we all (as potential, current & former law students) would be aware of the bazillion lawsuits regarding discrimination in admission practices.

Statements like this come off as trolling, and only obfuscate the issues at hand.


One shouldn't talk when one is clueless as to the published articles regarding topic.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... lass-.html

There are many more. "Complete speculation"? There have already been lawsuits filed by some Chinese dude.

God. I know it's off topic but jeez stop spewing so much ignorant junk.

User avatar
FalafelWaffle
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:07 pm

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby FalafelWaffle » Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:43 am

FiveSermon wrote:
girlonfire wrote:
danquayle wrote:
girlonfire wrote:Hey now,
I’m not here to get into an argument about URM boosts.

OP asked a question. I provided a concise and verifiable answer.

My personal opinions are irrelevant to this thread. & FWIW, ORMs aren’t penalized, they’re just not receiving a boost. An ORM or a Caucasian with a high gpa & lsat score is not going to be passed over simply because they’re not a URM.

HTH


I'm not sure if this happens in law school, but I have heard of ORMs being penalized in undergrad admission, for certain schools at least.


This type of statement contributes absolutely nothing to this conversation. We not talking about UGs & it's complete speculation. If anyone could really substantially prove that this was happening, we all (as potential, current & former law students) would be aware of the bazillion lawsuits regarding discrimination in admission practices.

Statements like this come off as trolling, and only obfuscate the issues at hand.


One shouldn't talk when one is clueless as to the published articles regarding topic.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... lass-.html

There are many more. "Complete speculation"? There have already been lawsuits filed by some Chinese dude.

God. I know it's off topic but jeez stop spewing so much ignorant junk.


So law students and lawyers, is there merit to that lawsuit?

User avatar
girlonfire
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:45 pm

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby girlonfire » Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:46 am

Oh I'm sorry. I thought I made clear that we're not talking about UGs, as this is an LS thread...

FiveSermon
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby FiveSermon » Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:05 am

girlonfire wrote:Oh I'm sorry. I thought I made clear that we're not talking about UGs, as this is an LS thread...


You said it was complete speculation in reference to that poster's post which stated explicitly he wasn't sure about law schools but was pretty certain on undergrad. It's not complete speculation in regards to undergrad.

HLS
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:32 am

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby HLS » Sat Apr 02, 2011 2:20 am

danquayle wrote:
Brolaw wrote:
danquayle wrote:
girlonfire wrote:Hey now,
I’m not here to get into an argument about URM boosts.

OP asked a question. I provided a concise and verifiable answer.

My personal opinions are irrelevant to this thread. & FWIW, ORMs aren’t penalized, they’re just not receiving a boost. An ORM or a Caucasian with a high gpa & lsat score is not going to be passed over simply because they’re not a URM.

HTH


I'm not sure if this happens in law school, but I have heard of ORMs being penalized in undergrad admission, for certain schools at least.


How so? by being denied admission? That's absurd.

This type of statement, more like an assumption, is not well supported.


Why is absurd? Isn't that exactly what happens? Isn't that the entire point of those discussion? Admitting some over other because others on the basis that some are more valuable in terms of "diversity"? I hardly think that's a wild and crazy assumption. But I will admit it's assumption.

I never said it was verifiable. Nothing about this entire discussion is easily verified. But given that there are finite seats at some very good schools, and that some of those very good schools are dominated by Asians (eg, Berkeley), I do not find it a stretch to think that, for the sake of "diversity", some of those finite spots would go to non-Asians simply based on the preference that they... not be Asian.

Just a quick search yielded this. Certainly not scientific, but not incredible: http://dukechronicle.com/article/too-many-asians


I don't even know where to begin, but you misconstrued the data.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Diversified Hispanics but not Asians?

Postby vanwinkle » Sat Apr 02, 2011 2:29 am

No.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests