My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Not sure where your numbers will get you? Dying to know where you stand? Come have your palms read by your fellow posters!
User avatar
Alyssa
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby Alyssa » Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:44 pm

hax123 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Hispanic only counts for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans.


LSN and common sense say otherwise. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans get larger boosts than other Hispanics, but that doesn't mean that other Hispanics don't get boosts. Still, the OP probably won't get into HYS but would have if he were Mexican, Puerto Rican, Native American, or black (lol).

Anyway, retaking the LSAT is the best option for the OP. Not only did he score 4 points below his average, but he's also an LSAT instructor. A 174 or higher would given him excellent chances for H and decent changes for YS; all other schools would be a lock.



It depends on what you mean by "boost". Law schools have an interest in increasing the number of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans particularly because these are categorized as Underrepresented minorities. They do not actively need to increase the number of other hispanics in the same way, unless they want to cite other "diversity" statistics in their brochures, pr media releases, etc.

So, while other hispanics may get some kind of credit for being diverse, it's more akin to a good soft - like a few years of work experience. They are not getting a "boost" like Mexicans and Puerto Ricans.

For the record, non PR/Mex hispanics are NOT underrepresented in law school by the definition used by LSAC.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby 09042014 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:46 pm

hax123 wrote:Here's a Hispanic applicant with similar numbers to the OP's: http://lawschoolnumbers.com/lz06

In at H and every other T14 school to which she applied, all with scholarships except Columbia and Georgetown.


171/3.89 white people get into Harvard every year. That person got scholarships because they are at or above the LSAT and GPA median for almost all law schools, except Columbia, HLS and Yale. And they didn't get Columbia.

http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/app ... ,6&type=jd

Being a non URM minority is a soft fact, but it is nowhere near the boost a URM gets.

hax123
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby hax123 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:49 pm

Alyssa wrote:
hax123 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Hispanic only counts for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans.


LSN and common sense say otherwise. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans get larger boosts than other Hispanics, but that doesn't mean that other Hispanics don't get boosts. Still, the OP probably won't get into HYS but would have if he were Mexican, Puerto Rican, Native American, or black (lol).

Anyway, retaking the LSAT is the best option for the OP. Not only did he score 4 points below his average, but he's also an LSAT instructor. A 174 or higher would given him excellent chances for H and decent changes for YS; all other schools would be a lock.



It depends on what you mean by "boost". Law schools have an interest in increasing the number of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans particularly because these are categorized as Underrepresented minorities. They do not actively need to increase the number of other hispanics in the same way, unless they want to cite other "diversity" statistics in their brochures, pr media releases, etc.

So, while other hispanics may get some kind of credit for being diverse, it's more akin to a good soft - like a few years of work experience. They are not getting a "boost" like Mexicans and Puerto Ricans.

For the record, non PR/Mex hispanics are NOT underrepresented in law school by the definition used by LSAC.


Where does the LSAC say that non PR/MX Hispanics are not underrepresented minorities? According to the LSAC's official data, non PR/MX Hispanics are more underrepresented than blacks at most top schools: http://officialguide.lsac.org/

Besides, LSN clearly shows that being Hispanic is worth at least 2-3 points on the LSAT. Look at the data yourself if you don't believe me: http://search.lawschoolnumbers.com/user ... Cycle=0910

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby 09042014 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:53 pm

hax123 wrote:
Where does the LSAC say that non PR/MX Hispanics are not underrepresented minorities? According to the LSAC's official data, non PR/MX Hispanics are more underrepresented than blacks at most top schools: http://officialguide.lsac.org/

Besides, LSN clearly shows that being Hispanic is worth at least 2-3 points on the LSAT. Look at the data yourself if you don't believe me: http://search.lawschoolnumbers.com/user ... Cycle=0910


Most of these aren't differentiating between hispanic and Mexican/PR. That makes it impossible to know which they are.

hax123
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby hax123 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:00 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
hax123 wrote:
Where does the LSAC say that non PR/MX Hispanics are not underrepresented minorities? According to the LSAC's official data, non PR/MX Hispanics are more underrepresented than blacks at most top schools: http://officialguide.lsac.org/

Besides, LSN clearly shows that being Hispanic is worth at least 2-3 points on the LSAT. Look at the data yourself if you don't believe me: http://search.lawschoolnumbers.com/user ... Cycle=0910


Most of these aren't differentiating between hispanic and Mexican/PR. That makes it impossible to know which they are.


Oh, come on. I posted evidence that proved you were wrong. Why can't you just admit your mistake?

Besides, I don't see why the people who made the profiles would discriminate between Hispanic and Mex/PR on their applications but not on their LSN profile.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby d34d9823 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:02 pm

hax123 wrote:Oh, come on. I posted evidence that proved you were wrong. Why can't you just admit your mistake?

Besides, I don't see why the people who made the profiles would discriminate between Hispanic and Mex/PR on their applications but not on their LSN profile.

No, dude, you posted speculation and assumption that may, in some cases, support your claim.

User avatar
pinkzeppelin
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby pinkzeppelin » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:02 pm

hax123 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
hax123 wrote:
Where does the LSAC say that non PR/MX Hispanics are not underrepresented minorities? According to the LSAC's official data, non PR/MX Hispanics are more underrepresented than blacks at most top schools: http://officialguide.lsac.org/

Besides, LSN clearly shows that being Hispanic is worth at least 2-3 points on the LSAT. Look at the data yourself if you don't believe me: http://search.lawschoolnumbers.com/user ... Cycle=0910


Most of these aren't differentiating between hispanic and Mexican/PR. That makes it impossible to know which they are.


Oh, come on. I posted evidence that proved you were wrong. Why can't you just admit your mistake?

Besides, I don't see why the people who made the profiles would discriminate between Hispanic and Mex/PR on their applications but not on their LSN profile.


Because your evidence was one data point.

See: http://xkcd.com/605/
Last edited by pinkzeppelin on Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hax123
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby hax123 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:03 pm

pinkzeppelin wrote:
hax123 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
hax123 wrote:
Where does the LSAC say that non PR/MX Hispanics are not underrepresented minorities? According to the LSAC's official data, non PR/MX Hispanics are more underrepresented than blacks at most top schools: http://officialguide.lsac.org/

Besides, LSN clearly shows that being Hispanic is worth at least 2-3 points on the LSAT. Look at the data yourself if you don't believe me: http://search.lawschoolnumbers.com/user ... Cycle=0910


Most of these aren't differentiating between hispanic and Mexican/PR. That makes it impossible to know which they are.


Oh, come on. I posted evidence that proved you were wrong. Why can't you just admit your mistake?

Besides, I don't see why the people who made the profiles would discriminate between Hispanic and Mex/PR on their applications but not on their LSN profile.


Because your evidence was one data point.


No, this was my evidence: http://search.lawschoolnumbers.com/user ... Cycle=0910

User avatar
pinkzeppelin
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby pinkzeppelin » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:05 pm

hax123 wrote:No, this was my evidence: http://search.lawschoolnumbers.com/user ... Cycle=0910


Your argument is that non PR/Mexican hispanics get a boost. This evidence doesn't distinguish, therefore it is irrelevant.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:50 am

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby clintonius » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:06 pm

lol@ hax

Also, OP, I'm not so sure I'd recommend the retake. It's pretty common for test-day scores to drop a few points from your PT average, and 3.86/171 are fucking great numbers. I'd say you're a lock at NYU, have a very good shot at CC, and a pretty fair shot at HYS. Of course if you actually *could* get a 175+ on the test you'd be in even better shape (def in at CLS; I think Chicago is a bit more of a black box, but I can't imagine they'd reject you; fantastic shot at HLS).

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby 09042014 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:09 pm

hax123 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
hax123 wrote:
Where does the LSAC say that non PR/MX Hispanics are not underrepresented minorities? According to the LSAC's official data, non PR/MX Hispanics are more underrepresented than blacks at most top schools: http://officialguide.lsac.org/

Besides, LSN clearly shows that being Hispanic is worth at least 2-3 points on the LSAT. Look at the data yourself if you don't believe me: http://search.lawschoolnumbers.com/user ... Cycle=0910


Most of these aren't differentiating between hispanic and Mexican/PR. That makes it impossible to know which they are.


Oh, come on. I posted evidence that proved you were wrong. Why can't you just admit your mistake?

Besides, I don't see why the people who made the profiles would discriminate between Hispanic and Mex/PR on their applications but not on their LSN profile.


Because I'm not wrong.

Because LSN doesn't ask to differentiate but law school apps do.

Got any more questions?

hax123
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby hax123 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:19 pm

pinkzeppelin wrote:
hax123 wrote:No, this was my evidence: http://search.lawschoolnumbers.com/user ... Cycle=0910


Your argument is that non PR/Mexican hispanics get a boost. This evidence doesn't distinguish, therefore it is irrelevant.



LSN does distinguish. Besides, a minor weakness in a piece of evidence does make it "irrelevant."

What you're suggesting is that it's possible that everyone on LSN who said he or she was Hispanic may be MX/PR. That's absurd. If you want, we can unrealistically assume that the students who received the largest boosts (say, the top 50%) are MX/PR and that the rest are Hispanic. Even if we make this absurd assumption, we would still find that the remaining students receive boosts.

Non PR/MX Hispanics receive boosts in law school admissions. This should be beyond contention at this point.

hax123
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby hax123 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:20 pm

Also, where's the evidence that only PR/MX Hispanics receive boosts?

hax123
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby hax123 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:46 pm

Another point: about 65% of Hispanics applying to law school are non PR/MX (http://members.lsac.org/Public/MainPage ... Page2.aspx). Thus, it's highly unlikely that less than half of the applicants who identified themselves as Hispanic on LSN are non PR/MX. No matter how much you nitpick, the LSN data strongly supports the claim that non PR/MX Hispanics receive considerable boosts in law school admissions.

User avatar
CG614
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 am

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby CG614 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:52 pm

hax123 wrote:Another point: about 65% of Hispanics applying to law school are non PR/MX (http://members.lsac.org/Public/MainPage ... Page2.aspx). Thus, it's highly unlikely that less than half of the applicants who identified themselves as Hispanic on LSN are non PR/MX. No matter how much you nitpick, the LSN data strongly supports the claim that non PR/MX Hispanics receive considerable boosts in law school admissions.


Really?

User avatar
Alyssa
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby Alyssa » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:20 pm

hax123 wrote:Another point: about 65% of Hispanics applying to law school are non PR/MX (http://members.lsac.org/Public/MainPage ... Page2.aspx). Thus, it's highly unlikely that less than half of the applicants who identified themselves as Hispanic on LSN are non PR/MX. No matter how much you nitpick, the LSN data strongly supports the claim that non PR/MX Hispanics receive considerable boosts in law school admissions.


Just to use your statistics against you, by comparison, 74.5% of Hispanics in the U.S. are of Mexican or Puerto Rican descent (65.5% and 9% respectively). This means that while the majority of Hispanics are Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, they are NOT applying to law school in the same proportion. This is what LSAC means by Underrepresented and why law schools give boosts to Mexicans and Puerto Ricans over other hispanics.

Edited to include the reference: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G2000_C03001&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=306&-redoLog=true&-currentselections=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_B02001&-currentselections=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_B02003&-currentselections=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_C02003&-geo_id=01000US&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en

hax123
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby hax123 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:16 pm

Alyssa wrote:
hax123 wrote:Another point: about 65% of Hispanics applying to law school are non PR/MX (http://members.lsac.org/Public/MainPage ... Page2.aspx). Thus, it's highly unlikely that less than half of the applicants who identified themselves as Hispanic on LSN are non PR/MX. No matter how much you nitpick, the LSN data strongly supports the claim that non PR/MX Hispanics receive considerable boosts in law school admissions.


Just to use your statistics against you, by comparison, 74.5% of Hispanics in the U.S. are of Mexican or Puerto Rican descent (65.5% and 9% respectively). This means that while the majority of Hispanics are Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, they are NOT applying to law school in the same proportion. This is what LSAC means by Underrepresented and why law schools give boosts to Mexicans and Puerto Ricans over other hispanics.

Edited to include the reference: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G2000_C03001&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=306&-redoLog=true&-currentselections=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_B02001&-currentselections=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_B02003&-currentselections=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_C02003&-geo_id=01000US&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en


You completely missed the point. Yes, PR and MX Hispanics are more underrepresented than non PR/MX Hispanics in law school. Yes, PRs and MXs receive larger boosts than other Hispanics. However, other Hispanics are still underrepresented in law schools and do receive URM boosts.

User avatar
kaydish21
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby kaydish21 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:33 pm

Tolmanator wrote:
Alyssa wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Hey-O wrote:Hispanic only counts for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans.


What about people from South America? Central America? Chile? Peru? Do you mean it doesn't count for people from Spain?


Those people do not count. Only Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans.



By this he means that those people count as human beings, but are not Underrepresented Minorities to get a real URM boost.

Being hispanic (but not Mexican or Puerto Rican) might help a little, but it's closer to a good soft.


Please, please, stop the ignorance. This whole Mexican/Puerto Rican URM argument holds very little water in relation to law school admissions. This is a massive myth perpetuated by the fact that these groups hold special privileges in many states due to strong constituencies in these areas that are able to support a bill through state legislatures. In some cases, these groups will receive more of an urm boost than other groups that one would think would be deserving, but this is generally only true in an area with an aforementioned strong constituency.

Now that we have that established, law schools only care about numbers. Even Desert Fox, who is usually so right, but in this case so wrong, will agree with me on that. Law Schools are given a minority ranking by US News that is reported yet not accounted for in their ranking. There is a lot of speculation of what would happen and that US News may start counting the minority rank in the overall rank in years to come. Schools also want to be seen as having a good minority ranking and being off the people (forget how untrue this is for a moment - they often only care about how they are seen, not the facts). This results in a breakdown of each schools minority groups which are then compiled to give it a ranking. They group the identities into Asian, African/African American, Hispanic, and Native American. Now, Asians do not receive much of a boost as they are well represented in higher education, but if identify as another group (and probably have a decent diversity statement to boot) then you will receive a significant boost in your application. I know of people who are Spanish, but not Mexican/Puerto Rican who were admitted into law schools there numbers had them beyond auto admit.

Might there be a bigger boost for some subsections of the Hispanic identity group? Of course. Nonetheless claiming they are the only groups that receive an URM boost or that it is just a good soft is uninformed and might signal someone has been drinking the TLS kool aid a bit much. It is incorrect and poor advice to be given to potential law school matriculants. There is a wealth of great information available on TLS, but this Hispanic URM myth is promulgated by so many that are unaware of how the actual system works and its effects.

Edit: To fix quoting

User avatar
Alyssa
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby Alyssa » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:47 pm

I understand your points, and I agree that a non PR/Mex hispanic will be favored over a non hispanic with similar stats. As I've said before, it's a good "soft" to have.

I just have a problem with calling this a "URM boost".

I just think you misunderstand the word "underrepresented" and the term "URM". There is no non PR/Mex hispanic group that would account for more than 0.3% of the U.S. population. Given a law school entering class size of about 400 students, that would mean that between 0 - 1 student of each non PR/Mex hispanic group would be considered a reasonable representation.

Meanwhile, proportional representation would mean over 40 Mexican students and 5 to 6 Puerto Rican students. Given that there are significantly fewer Mexican and Puerto Rican applicants (I mean, they're 73% of the hispanic population, but 35% of hispanic applicants according to hax123!?), the schools need to make an active effort to accept a large number of these Mexican and PR applicants, which means looking at their LSAT and GPA very differently. THAT is a URM boost.

hax123
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: My hards are alright, my softs are squishy, chances at top?

Postby hax123 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:12 pm

We can argue argue whether being Hispanic is just a decent soft or confers a considerable boost in admissions. The bottom line is that Hispanics of all backgrounds are underrepresented and receive boosts in law school admissions. Based on the LSN data, I'd estimate that non Puerto Rican or Mexican Hispanics receive about at least a 3-4 point LSAT boost.




Return to “What are my chances?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests