URM Boost Forum

[mcds]

Its mainly a LSAT boost. However, Ivy URMs get a higher GPA boost than other Ivy students.

A 3.3/165 URM from Princeton is probably good enough to get into Harvard, while otherwise a 3.5/165 would have a good shot.

What about not Ivy, but still top school (MIT, Duke, Stanford, Chicago)?

should be about the same

[mcds]

What exactly does everyone think are the chances for a 3.3/165-170 URM (African American) male for Emory, Duke, Vanderbilt, and the University of Georgia? I attend a top public school in the South.

in across the board with $$

[kiwislug]

Its mainly a LSAT boost. However, Ivy URMs get a higher GPA boost than other Ivy students.

A 3.3/165 URM from Princeton is probably good enough to get into Harvard, while otherwise a 3.5/165 would have a good shot.

What about not Ivy, but still top school (MIT, Duke, Stanford, Chicago)?

Does MIT have a law school?

[mcds]

I believe he is referring to URMs who attended those universities at the undergraduate level.

[BiglawAmbitions]

What exactly does everyone think are the chances for a 3.3/165-170 URM (African American) male for Emory, Duke, Vanderbilt, and the University of Georgia? I attend a top public school in the South.

Given your username its fairly obvious that you go to Georgia Tech:) That being said, you are EASILY in at all of the above. If you score in that predicted range I would apply to every t14 with the exception of Boalt.

[Objection]

Don't count Dukes eggs before they hatch.

I am a black male with higher numbers than what ramblin mentioned and I just got deferred.

[BiglawAmbitions]

Don't count Dukes eggs before they hatch.

I am a black male with higher numbers than what ramblin mentioned and I just got deferred.

Although that is pretty surprising, its not like you got outright rejected. Where you on their priority track?

[Objection]

No. RD.

[littleboyblue]

No. RD.

wow - i am surprised by this. did you write why duke?

[Objection]

No. Perhaps I should have. I wrote "Why Penn?" and "Why Michigan?" Not sure why I didn't do "Why Duke?"

[on_ne_sait_jamais]

African-American males get closer to a 15 point boost, they're the most coveted (and underrepresented) of the lot. Basically the correlation between GPA/LSAT for Black Men I think is at the 3.5/165 median. The further you go in one direction, the further you have to go in the other, with a bit more wiggle room with the LSAT.

Are an invalid? I'm sorry I hate getting into posting arguments on TLS and have sworn I would no longer, but this is just ridiculous. As a black male, with a decent gpa 3.3+ and lsat 165+ the boost that so many of you mention is not across the board nor is it standard. I'd realy like to have a 15pt boost, then I could go to... well what school is ranked higher than yale? b/c I'd be off the charts.

[Nemorino]

Just to add to this, take a look at an amicus curiae filed by the LSAC in the Supreme Court case, Grutter v Bollinger et al: --LinkRemoved--

Page 8 is particularly interesting. On page 8, it shows the raw numbers of qualified applicants. In 2002 of the 4461 applicants who had a UGPA of 3.5+ and an LSAT score up 165+ only 29 were AA and 114 were hispanic.

Just to add to this

In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above. In contrast, more than 1,900 white test takers scored 170 or above on the LSAT. They made up 3.1 percent of all white test takers.

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html

These numbers are unacceptable. It's shocking, really. I can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe LSAT is biased against URMs - or, at the very least, certain socio-economic backgrounds commonly associated with them. I'm not exactly a politically correct person, as I am open to the possibility that there may be, on average, slight variations in inherent abilities among different races. I also used to scoff at the idea that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are set up to fail the LSAT, as I come from a humble background myself, worked through college, did not spend more than $200 on test prep, and pulled off a respectable score in June. But the discrepancies cited above are so great that I'm beginning to wonder if institutional bias plays a significant role.

LSAC makes a very practical argument in the amicus brief. One of the underlying assumptions here is that attending a prestigious law school is a privilege, not a right earned through hard work. The admissions process has never been, and never will be, based on pure meritocracy. I can accept this. On the other hand, I am rather troubled by the fact that neither LSAC nor the undergraduate institutions had much success in bringing the academic performance of the URM population up to the race-neutral average. I am wondering if they are trying hard enough - or at all.

[on_ne_sait_jamais]

Nemorino, while much of what you said is logical, you're proceeding from an illogical premise (or set thereof). For example, what is the percentage of blacks and hispanics who even pursue any form of higher education compared to that of whites? Answering questions such as this first, will make the LSAT results much less relevant to the underlying problem which results in the types of statistics you referenced.

[mcds]

Don't count Dukes eggs before they hatch.

I am a black male with higher numbers than what ramblin mentioned and I just got deferred.

You're going to get in. It might be a yield protect, I'm not sure, but I think they might be exclusively doing priority track right now.

[mcds]

African-American males get closer to a 15 point boost, they're the most coveted (and underrepresented) of the lot. Basically the correlation between GPA/LSAT for Black Men I think is at the 3.5/165 median. The further you go in one direction, the further you have to go in the other, with a bit more wiggle room with the LSAT.

Are an invalid? I'm sorry I hate getting into posting arguments on TLS and have sworn I would no longer, but this is just ridiculous. As a black male, with a decent gpa 3.3+ and lsat 165+ the boost that so many of you mention is not across the board nor is it standard. I'd realy like to have a 15pt boost, then I could go to... well what school is ranked higher than yale? b/c I'd be off the charts.

15 points is an exaggeration, but only in that I think you can't say that without context.

I honestly think that the admissions process if much more subjective for URMs, simply because they adcomms have to take in consideration more than just numbers because

1) Most admits are likely to be under the median anyway
2) They want to make sure you can excel at their school
3) They're more interested in life stories

So when I say a 3.5/165 should get into say, Harvard, thats under the presumption that they have a great application and go to a great school.

LSN has shown that its not purely number driven. 3.3/171 black male didn't get into A LOT of schools. 3.1/170 got Stanford. 3.2/168 black male only got NW and Georgetown, while a 3.3/158 black male from my school is sitting in Columbia.

Your application matters a lot. Particularly if you have a low GPA and can't account for it (because it then looks like you took a prep class) or if you have a high GPA, but from a lower tiered school and a very low LSAT.

(Y) 3.1/164
(H) 3.5/163
(C) 3.3/158
(H) 3.3/169
(S) 3.9/159

all got HYSCCN from my school. But they all went to an ivy league/had a great life story/wrote a great PS & DS

I'm willing to be that a friend of mine, despite his 3.5, will get into Yale regardless of his LSAT score simply because he is far more impressive than at least 50% of anyone on their website.

But if you're just a regular guy who applies late with an average application, you can't assume that you're going to get that "super" bump.

I'm not saying that is the case for any of you all - I think that people are getting a bit anxious way too soon - however, I do think that some of the schools are waiting to see what kind of pool they can compare you to with.

My best guess that every URM will get a bump regardless of how good their application is, but I think that once you get in the T6 range, the size of that bump will greatly depend on how exceptional you are.

(God knows I'm not one of those people, so I'm not trying to put myself in that category. I'm just hoping for an acceptance anywhere )

[mcds]

Just to add to this, take a look at an amicus curiae filed by the LSAC in the Supreme Court case, Grutter v Bollinger et al: --LinkRemoved--

Page 8 is particularly interesting. On page 8, it shows the raw numbers of qualified applicants. In 2002 of the 4461 applicants who had a UGPA of 3.5+ and an LSAT score up 165+ only 29 were AA and 114 were hispanic.

Just to add to this

In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above. In contrast, more than 1,900 white test takers scored 170 or above on the LSAT. They made up 3.1 percent of all white test takers.

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html

These numbers are unacceptable. It's shocking, really. I can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe LSAT is biased against URMs - or, at the very least, certain socio-economic backgrounds commonly associated with them. I'm not exactly a politically correct person, as I am open to the possibility that there may be, on average, slight variations in inherent abilities among different races. I also used to scoff at the idea that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are set up to fail the LSAT, as I come from a humble background myself, worked through college, did not spend more than $200 on test prep, and pulled off a respectable score in June. But the discrepancies cited above are so great that I'm beginning to wonder if institutional bias plays a significant role.

LSAC makes a very practical argument in the amicus brief. One of the underlying assumptions here is that attending a prestigious law school is a privilege, not a right earned through hard work. The admissions process has never been, and never will be, based on pure meritocracy. I can accept this. On the other hand, I am rather troubled by the fact that neither LSAC nor the undergraduate institutions had much success in bringing the academic performance of the URM population up to the race-neutral average. I am wondering if they are trying hard enough - or at all.

The LSAT is not biased against URMs - I don't know how you could prove that.
And in regards to socio economics, the poorest whites do about the same as the richest blacks.

I think its more of a socio-psychological thing in addition to some other issues.

[kurama20]

Did anyone checkout that average gpa for blacks accepted to medical schools? I thought for medical school you needed a sky high gpa no matter what, especially in your SCIENCE classes. It says that the avergae science gpa is a 2.99 for blacks. That's LOOOOOOW, what am I missing? I didn't think undergraduate classes was an area where blacks receive preference/slack, especially in medical school admissons.

[mcds]

Pre-Med is brutal regardless of your race.

So I'm sure the GPA thing is (relatively) lower across the board.

[uvalaw4l]

Did anyone checkout that average gpa for blacks accepted to medical schools? I thought for medical school you needed a sky high gpa no matter what, especially in your SCIENCE classes. It says that the avergae science gpa is a 2.99 for blacks. That's LOOOOOOW, what am I missing? I didn't think undergraduate classes was an area where blacks receive preference/slack, especially in medical school admissons.

Link? I was pre-med and this does not look right. I was on MDapplicant.com (med school's version of LSN) all the time; this just doesn't ring true from what I know. I know a small number of public schools had really low GPA admissions for blacks (around that 2.9 mark) because they were trying to increase the number of URMs at their schools (they were really low) but that caused a huge outcry.

Edit: I count 5 black applicants on MDa that were accepted with sub 3.0 GPAs - it's not scientific but it's telling. A few of them went through more than one application cycle and one did a post-bacc with a GPA of 3.88.

I'm sure there's still a good boost though...

[hayman]

i don't think it's a bias. asians are a minority group and they score white on lsat. people always bring up this bias thing when talking about standardized tests.. like claiming iq test is western-biased. if you look at the score for the best national avgs in iq , they are not in the western nations.

it's simply expectations. if you knew that you can get in with lower numbers, you'll get lower numbers. this accounts for the above poster's comment about variations in test scores along racial lines. culture and expectation is a huge factor

[mcds]

i don't think it's a bias. asians are a minority group and they score white on lsat. people always bring up this bias thing when talking about standardized tests.. like claiming iq test is western-biased. if you look at the score for the best national avgs in iq , they are not in the western nations.

it's simply expectations. if you knew that you can get in with lower numbers, you'll get lower numbers. this accounts for the above poster's comment about variations in test scores along racial lines. culture and expectation is a huge factor

Hit the nail on the head.

Think about it.

Getting a 175 takes, I would say, at least 4 months of study barring genius.
Getting a 165 takes, I would say, at least 1 month of studying barring genius.

If you think you'll get in either way, what incentive do you have for putting that extra time?

[Supernova]

Now, this is somewhat of an interesting thing that just got brought up....do URM's receive more of a boost in their applications if they went to an Ivy versus a state school, moreso than a non-URM applicant?

[hayman]

Now, this is somewhat of an interesting thing that just got brought up....do URM's receive more of a boost in their applications if they went to an Ivy versus a state school, moreso than a non-URM applicant?

maybe because URMs in ivy have really significant life experiences / stories that put them there in the first place? esp since people seem to agree that the soft factors matter a lot more for URMs.

[kurama20]

Pre-Med is brutal regardless of your race.

So I'm sure the GPA thing is (relatively) lower across the board.

Believe me I know; I used to be pre med. The reason that I switched was because my GPA was desparately low, lower than that 2.99 that they mentioned. However, from everything that I have ever learned or been told about med school admissions that is just TOO low. That's not relatively low like you mentioned, that's very low. Pre med is MUCH harder than the average track that pre law students take (poli sci, english, history, etc.) still, that seems like too much of a dropoff. I'd have to agree with uvalawyer on this one.

Hit the nail on the head.

Think about it.

Getting a 175 takes, I would say, at least 4 months of study barring genius.
Getting a 165 takes, I would say, at least 1 month of studying barring genius.

If you think you'll get in either way, what incentive do you have for putting that extra time?

i don't think it's a bias. asians are a minority group and they score white on lsat. people always bring up this bias thing when talking about standardized tests.. like claiming iq test is western-biased. if you look at the score for the best national avgs in iq , they are not in the western nations.

it's simply expectations. if you knew that you can get in with lower numbers, you'll get lower numbers. this accounts for the above poster's comment about variations in test scores along racial lines. culture and expectation is a huge factor

Hit the nail on the head.

Think about it.

Getting a 175 takes, I would say, at least 4 months of study barring genius.
Getting a 165 takes, I would say, at least 1 month of studying barring genius.

If you think you'll get in either way, what incentive do you have for putting that extra time?

That is definitely NOT it; you're speaking as if simpy studying for this amount of time gurantees you those scores. Trust me it certainly DOES NOT;and it has nothing to do with expectations. Scoring in the 95+% on the lsat is not something that is going to be done without some sort of innate skill at standardized tests. Everyone on here acts as if you can just do some preptests and read powerscore bibles and score a 165; that's not true for most people. This website is filled with ivy leagurers and kids who thrive on standardized testing. The posters on this site are NOT indicative of the general population.

The general populace could not score a 165 + if their life depended on it, that's why it's the 95%. The lsat is not a knowledge based test, it really has more in common with an IQ test. Consequently just studying is only going to improve your score to an extent. I'm afraid the score gap is due to a much more complicated issue than "lowered expectations" . I am black and I know I don't need a sky high score to get into a good school;however I'm doing everything I can to get a 170, still it's just not coming. I've been studying for months. To score that high high expectations and hard work are NOT enough. People are always saying blacks are lazy and that' why they don't do well on standardized tests; this is utterly ridiculous and not true. They're other reasons.

[Supernova]

That is definitely NOT it; you're speaking as if simpy studying for this amount of time gurantees you those scores. Trust me it certainly DOES NOT;and it has nothing to do with expectations. Scoring in the 95+% on the lsat is not something that is going to be done without some sort of innate skill at standardized tests. Everyone on here acts as if you can just do some preptests and read powerscore bibles and score a 165; that's not true for most people. This website is filled with ivy leagurers and kids who thrive on standardized testing. The posters on this site are NOT indicative of the general population.

The general populace could not score a 165 + if their life depended on it, that's why it's the 95%. The lsat is not a knowledge based test, it really has more in common with an IQ test. Consequently just studying is only going to improve your score to an extent. I'm afraid the score gap is due to a much more complicated issue than "lowered expectations" . I am black and I know I don't need a sky high score to get into a good school;however I'm doing everything I can to get a 170, still it's just not coming. I've been studying for months. To score that high high expectations and hard work are NOT enough. People are always saying blacks are lazy and that' why they don't do well on standardized tests; this is utterly ridiculous and not true. They're other reasons.

Yeah, I would have to agree with that...I know a lot of people who spend a lot of time studying for the LSAT and can't even break 160. And that's just not URMs, I had one friend who spent close to 5 months studying for the LSAT, he even took powerscore...he had a 3.8+ GPA but couldn't break 160 for the life of him..and he was not a URM btw. So there has to be some innate ability here, at least it is one of many factors.