(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:49 pm
Even though Asian-Americans have always been well (or even over-) represented at top U.S. undergraduate schools, has this been the case for law schools? I thought Asians historically went into medicine, engineering, and finance, not law, at least compared to other ethnic groups at similar undergraduate institutions.
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:56 pm
Look up the diversity statistics at the law school
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:04 pm
Why are these groups (rather than others) considered URM’s?
There seems to be several reasons this distinction exists (cue speculation):
One of the primary reasons we believe applicants of the above races are considered URM’s is because they are the only groups for which the LSAC (Law School Admissions Council) regularly publishes data. When the minority enrollment for a particular group is unknown, law schools have little incentive to admit students from that specific group. (The following link contains the data published most recently). http://www.lsac.org/SpecialInterests/mi ... enroll.asp
The two groups listed on the LSAC published data that aren’t (generally) considered minorities are Asian Americans and members of Hispanic groups not listed above. The reason for this is clear when we look again at the definition for an Underrepresented Minority. Both groups’ presence in the legal field and in law schools in general are close to or exceed their numbers in the general population. For example, Asians make up just 4.4% of the U.S. population, but according to LSAC’s estimates, they make up approximately 10% of legal students. By contrast, those groups who are considered URM’s have a much lower law school representation relative to their status in the U.S. population.
Law schools (perhaps at the ABA’s prodding) have generally expressed that they would like their student body to be at least as diverse as the general population.