You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
Bearlegdairy
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby Bearlegdairy » Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:17 am

lawandi wrote:Sorry for indulging, though. This topic is not supposed to be about affirmative action at all...
Last edited by Bearlegdairy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BrightLine
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:15 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby BrightLine » Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:16 am

Bearlegdairy wrote:
BrightLine wrote:
Bearlegdairy wrote:It may not be the stated purpose of the URM program, which, from what I understand, is to ensure that percentage of lawyers who come from various minority groups is proportional to their representation in the American population. But isn't the URM inherently linked to issues of racism and discrimination?


No, wrong on all accounts.


Explain please.


The ONLY way that a school may consider race as part of its admission process is if it uses race as 1 of many factors (think holistic review) in order to increace diversity in the class room. The reason this is acceptable is because it is not treating any race "better" or "worse." The goal of a diverse classroom enhances the educational experience for everyone in it.

If you care for details, look up Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v Bollinger.

Bearlegdairy
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby Bearlegdairy » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:32 am

[quote="BrightLine"][quote="Bearlegdairy"][quote="BrightLine"][quote="Bearlegdairy"]
Last edited by Bearlegdairy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BrightLine
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:15 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby BrightLine » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:02 pm

Bearlegdairy wrote:Thank you for clearing that up. I was unfamiliar with exactly what was the stated purpose of the URM designation. But I remain unconvinced that this is not a program based, at least on some level, on trying to ensure fairness in the application process.

I looked at the application for the University of Washington, which, when it came to the question of race, was virtually identical to that of all the other applications I filled out. It was about one page long, optional and allowed the applicant to select his/her race. There was one selection available for all Caucasian applicants- "White." There were no options for Italian-American or Irish-American or Russian-American. I didn't know a single Russian-American child when I was in high school. Clearly the life experience of a child growing up in a Russian-American household would be profoundly different than that of a child growing up in an Italian-American household and the inclusion of both children would surely increase the diversity of a classroom. There are a great number of white ethnic groups and there must be at least one among them that is under-represented in the legal field, yet there is no allowance for an under-represented white applicant to file for URM status.

The same is true for Asian-Americans, a term which encompasses many separate and unique cultural and religious identities. Surely a second-generation Uighur whose parents had immigrated from China would bring diversity to a classroom. I have never met a single Uighur in my entire life. Yet, again, they do not qualify for URM consideration. While it could be argued that these individuals could simply highlight their diversity in a diversity statement, which most schools allow, would this not also be adequate for those individuals who do fall under the URM designation?

However much we might like to believe otherwise, the URM label is not one that is designed to simply promote "diversity." It would be foolish to claim that a middle-class white applicant such as myself, who has little more than grades and an LSAT score, would bring more diversity to the classroom than an inner city black child who had overcome the obstacles of poverty and discrimination and was now applying to law school. Yet it would also be foolish to claim that a middle-class black child who went to school, got good grades, and applied to law school, would bring more diversity to the student body than a second generation Russian who grew up in abject poverty and put himself though school by working 30 hours a week.

If what you say is true, that the URM designation was solely implemented to promote diversity in the classroom, then there one might come to one of two conclusions: One would be that it has an EXTREMELY narrow-scope and that the admissions boards see skin color as the only element of one's character that constitutes diversity, or at least the only element worthy of special consideration.

The other would be that law schools hold their students in such contempt that they believe that Whites, Asians, Jews, Muslims, and all other groups that are not included in the URM designation see themselves as EXACTLY THE SAME, with their heritage playing absolutely no role in their life experiences, and that they similarly consider those groups that do fall under the URM designation as some manner of exotic creature whose presence in the classroom would help to enrich the experiences of all around it.

This is simply not the case. Whites are a diverse group. Asians are a diverse group. Women are a diverse group. Yet none fall under this designation Each group considered an under-represented minority is one which that has been subject to discrimination in the past, be it by society or the state or both, and that is not perceived as having yet overcome this discrimination. The fact that these groups have been subject to institutional racism, in both past and present, combined with their proportional under-representation in the legal field, is what gives legitimacy to the URM designation. The vast majority of students who fall under this category have experienced some sort of personal hardship due to either the effects of direct discrimination upon themselves or the effects upon their family caused by generations of social and economic disadvantage.

When this is the case, I have absolutely no objection to the URM designation being applied. Discrimination, past or present, IS important and SHOULD be taken into account when considering an applicant. But until a comprehensive survey is taken encompassing every aspect of race, gender, region, religion, ethnicity, and personal finances, and all of these are factored into the decision of whether or not to label an individual an under-represented minority, then the URM designation cannot be judged as anything other than a program directed at traditionally under-privileged minorities and must be debated on those merits.


Fair enough. I did my senior thesis on the subject but I am not going to make a normative judgment on the topic on TLS.

Bearlegdairy
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby Bearlegdairy » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:06 pm

It's all good. Made me think, do some research, etc. I like that.

User avatar
Non-Chalant1
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby Non-Chalant1 » Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:31 pm

Threads like these always remind of how little people who claim to be educated an in college really know of race relations or discrimination of any sort. All disadvantages are not created equal and there have been some ridiculous things said in this thread. With that said, I have friends who are poor and white (from farms) that got into places their numbers said they wouldn't so I'm sure the admissions process is much more holistic than you're giving it credit for.

I don't like how this debate disintegrated though.

Bearlegdairy
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby Bearlegdairy » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:32 pm

Oh I wouldn't say it dis
Last edited by Bearlegdairy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gwen
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:54 am

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby Gwen » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:51 pm

--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
zonto
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:20 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby zonto » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:36 pm

Bearlegdairy wrote:When this is the case, I have absolutely no objection to the URM designation being applied. Discrimination, past or present, IS important and SHOULD be taken into account when considering an applicant. But until a comprehensive survey is taken encompassing every aspect of race, gender, region, religion, ethnicity, and personal finances, and all of these are factored into the decision of whether or not to label an individual an under-represented minority, then the URM designation cannot be judged as anything other than a program directed at traditionally under-privileged minorities and must be debated on those merits.


This is perfect as far as I'm concerned. NeedAccess seeks to remedy some of the limitations on the normal need-based aid application, so that's a step in the right direction I think. Where on the application do I mark that my ancestors came from Denmark to America? Where is the box for Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (re: Mormon), the only minority group ever to have a legalized extermination order passed against them in the United States?

It does sound kind of ridiculous posting that because I wouldn't expect to see that on an application. Yet, how is that different from those that legitimately can mark something other than "white" and therefore get a boost for it?

User avatar
nOO law
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:31 am

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby nOO law » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:52 pm

Bearlegdairy wrote:Thank you for clearing that up. I was unfamiliar with exactly what was the stated purpose of the URM designation. But I remain unconvinced that this is not a program based, at least on some level, on trying to ensure fairness in the application process.

I looked at the application for the University of Washington, which, when it came to the question of race, was virtually identical to that of all the other applications I filled out. It was about one page long, optional and allowed the applicant to select his/her race. There was one selection available for all Caucasian applicants- "White." There were no options for Italian-American or Irish-American or Russian-American. I didn't know a single Russian-American child when I was in high school. Clearly the life experience of a child growing up in a Russian-American household would be profoundly different than that of a child growing up in an Italian-American household and the inclusion of both children would surely increase the diversity of a classroom. There are a great number of white ethnic groups and there must be at least one among them that is under-represented in the legal field, yet there is no allowance for an under-represented white applicant to file for URM status.

The same is true for Asian-Americans, a term which encompasses many separate and unique cultural and religious identities. Surely a second-generation Uighur whose parents had immigrated from China would bring diversity to a classroom. I have never met a single Uighur in my entire life. Yet, again, they do not qualify for URM consideration. While it could be argued that these individuals could simply highlight their diversity in a diversity statement, which most schools allow, would this not also be adequate for those individuals who do fall under the URM designation?

However much we might like to believe otherwise, the URM label is not one that is designed to simply promote "diversity." It would be foolish to claim that a middle-class white applicant such as myself, who has little more than grades and an LSAT score, would bring more diversity to the classroom than an inner city black child who had overcome the obstacles of poverty and discrimination and was now applying to law school. Yet it would also be foolish to claim that a middle-class black child who went to school, got good grades, and applied to law school, would bring more diversity to the student body than a second generation Russian who grew up in abject poverty and put himself though school by working 30 hours a week.

If what you say is true, that the URM designation was solely implemented to promote diversity in the classroom, then there one might come to one of two conclusions: One would be that it has an EXTREMELY narrow-scope and that the admissions boards see skin color as the only element of one's character that constitutes diversity, or at least the only element worthy of special consideration.

The other would be that law schools hold their students in such contempt that they believe that Whites, Asians, Jews, Muslims, and all other groups that are not included in the URM designation see themselves as EXACTLY THE SAME, with their heritage playing absolutely no role in their life experiences, and that they similarly consider those groups that do fall under the URM designation as some manner of exotic creature whose presence in the classroom would help to enrich the experiences of all around it.

This is simply not the case. Whites are a diverse group. Asians are a diverse group. Women are a diverse group. Yet none fall under this designation Each group considered an under-represented minority is one which that has been subject to discrimination in the past, be it by society or the state or both, and that is not perceived as having yet overcome this discrimination. The fact that these groups have been subject to institutional racism, in both past and present, combined with their proportional under-representation in the legal field, is what gives legitimacy to the URM designation. The vast majority of students who fall under this category have experienced some sort of personal hardship due to either the effects of direct discrimination upon themselves or the effects upon their family caused by generations of social and economic disadvantage.

When this is the case, I have absolutely no objection to the URM designation being applied. Discrimination, past or present, IS important and SHOULD be taken into account when considering an applicant. But until a comprehensive survey is taken encompassing every aspect of race, gender, region, religion, ethnicity, and personal finances, and all of these are factored into the decision of whether or not to label an individual an under-represented minority, then the URM designation cannot be judged as anything other than a program directed at traditionally under-privileged minorities and must be debated on those merits.


My response to the bolded is that I think that you are missing the aspect of the URM boost that applies to population as a whole. Each ethnic group has diversity but if you look at the national population and the population of a T-14 school (or any school for that matter) there is a huge diparity in composition.

Michigan c/o 2013 for example is ~20% minority with 12% Asian american and 4% African American... The national population by race from the 2010 census almost the opposit in terms of compostion. This may not take into account the diversity between russian-american and italian-american but somewhere in the other ~80% of M c/o 2013's 376 students I will wager that these groups are represented.

These are current numbers and does not take into account privilege of any of the groups but does illustrate an argument for a URM boost to increase diversity without being forced to evaluate socio-economic advantages between different ethnic groups.

/My thoughts on completely misunderstood topic

Bearlegdairy
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby Bearlegdairy » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:39 pm

[quote="nOO law"]

My response to the bolded is tha
Last edited by Bearlegdairy on Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
nOO law
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:31 am

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby nOO law » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:40 am

@Bearlegdairy

I understood your post and appreciate your support. I just wanted to make the point that URM is exactly what it means: Under-represented minority. By the most literal sense the students receiving extra consideration are to boost their law school/attorney population in proportion to the national population.

The proportion may be off due to past injustices, racism or discrimination but these are not the reasons why the "URM boost" exists.

tl;dr:
URM =/= racism or discrimination
URM = Under-represented as a proportion of national population

aliarrow
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby aliarrow » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:42 am

Can there ever just be a "got in against the odds" thread that doesn't turn into AA debate? This is why we can't have nice things.

djaja
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:46 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby djaja » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:45 am

.
Last edited by djaja on Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
crumpetsandtea
Posts: 7156
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby crumpetsandtea » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:21 pm

aliarrow wrote:Can there ever just be a "got in against the odds" thread that doesn't turn into AA debate? This is why we can't have nice things.

:lol: :lol:
djaja wrote:got into nyu and cls with 172/3.3/non-urm

WOW, nice! (:!!! Congratulations!

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

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby FiveSermon » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:26 pm

aliarrow wrote:Can there ever just be a "got in against the odds" thread that doesn't turn into AA debate? This is why we can't have nice things.


This.

But it would be easier if many people actually knew what "against the odds" meant. Getting into a T14 school as a 162/3.6 is against the odds...but not if you are a URM.

User avatar
red_alertz
Posts: 435
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:42 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby red_alertz » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:35 pm

Got into Appalachian with 2.1, 142

aliarrow
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby aliarrow » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:43 pm

So would the troll with the hijacked alt be considered an elephant in the room/thread?

User avatar
gin
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:35 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby gin » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:57 pm

I just got into Pitt and yes I'm a URM.
I actually think the AA discusion is very interesting and don't mind it. It probably belonds more in the lounge than in this thread though

n_gal
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:49 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby n_gal » Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:05 pm

sorry to hijack the URM debate but I just wanted to share...LSP had me at as a DENY for USC (less than 5%) and I got in and got $$

User avatar
Non-Chalant1
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby Non-Chalant1 » Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:29 pm

zonto wrote:
Bearlegdairy wrote:When this is the case, I have absolutely no objection to the URM designation being applied. Discrimination, past or present, IS important and SHOULD be taken into account when considering an applicant. But until a comprehensive survey is taken encompassing every aspect of race, gender, region, religion, ethnicity, and personal finances, and all of these are factored into the decision of whether or not to label an individual an under-represented minority, then the URM designation cannot be judged as anything other than a program directed at traditionally under-privileged minorities and must be debated on those merits.


This is perfect as far as I'm concerned. NeedAccess seeks to remedy some of the limitations on the normal need-based aid application, so that's a step in the right direction I think. Where on the application do I mark that my ancestors came from Denmark to America? Where is the box for Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (re: Mormon), the only minority group ever to have a legalized extermination order passed against them in the United States?

It does sound kind of ridiculous posting that because I wouldn't expect to see that on an application. Yet, how is that different from those that legitimately can mark something other than "white" and therefore get a boost for it?

Really? There is so much fail in this post.

User avatar
futurejdgirl
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 9:30 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby futurejdgirl » Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:32 am

LSP denied me at Baylor and Emory. Got in Baylor with scholarship and waitlist at Emory. Non-URM.


162/3.1

Sammy841
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby Sammy841 » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:49 am

Deny at Michigan and Georgetown but I got in with money at both. Also money from UCLA and Vandy (weak consider). Also deny at most of t-14, but I ended up with waitlists almost everywhere else. Still waiting from NYU/held at Harvard.

Non URM- 3.34/169

I actually think my application was weak in that I could have spent significantly more time on my PS and didn't do most of the extra essays. I did write a good diversity essay and had great, unique work experience.

User avatar
aarias11
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby aarias11 » Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:32 pm

Where is this mythical URM boost ?cuz i dont thinks i got it. All my denys were spot on and many considers became rejects. Everytime i check tls i hear about the automatic ten point boosts for being a minority. Maybe i didnt play on my diversity too well? Pic related

zonto wrote:
Bearlegdairy wrote:
zonto wrote:
You mean a middle class upbringing with a dad that works two jobs and working to put yourself through college completely on your own? I can see how that's a huge socio-economic advantage. Enjoy Yale.


To be fair, as a white woman you can pull of the cute ironic-poncho look. URMs would just look ridiculous in one of those. I mean unless you're a white man, in which case I guess you have a point.



Exactly. I usually don't post unless I have a point.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend that there aren't racial issues in our country. But trust me, after living in South Africa for a couple years and seeing what real discrimination looks like (and feeling some of that as a white boy in the black townships), the discrimination talked about by minorities in our country doesn't have the same effect. One of the biggest reasons I think it still persists is because it's easier to revert to calling discrimination then address people's personal responsibility for their own well-being and destiny.

User avatar
BarcaCrossesTheAlps
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 11:43 am

Re: You were considered a"Deny" by LSP but actually got in!!!

Postby BarcaCrossesTheAlps » Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:22 pm

I got a weak consider at Cooley. :shock:

LOL, just funnin'...




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”