3.79/171 urm

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
bigboi403
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:16 pm

3.79/171 urm

Postby bigboi403 » Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:32 pm

what are my chances at harvard or yale etc.

sharpnsmooth
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby sharpnsmooth » Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:32 pm

bigboi403 wrote:what are my chances at harvard or yale etc.

in

User avatar
Remnantofisrael
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:38 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby Remnantofisrael » Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:02 pm

sharpnsmooth wrote:
bigboi403 wrote:what are my chances at harvard or yale etc.

in


LIKELY In. URM cycles are weird sometimes. But I'd bet in.

User avatar
arism87
Posts: 1311
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby arism87 » Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:09 pm

bigboi403 wrote:what are my chances at harvard or yale etc.


In. If not at one, at the other.

User avatar
Fresh
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:30 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby Fresh » Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:12 pm

Good chance on both I hope, since we have pretty similar stats

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby Mal Reynolds » Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:56 pm

So are you in your first year of college or do you have a 3.79/171? Im confused.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby Blessedassurance » Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:58 pm

Mal Reynolds wrote:So are you in your first year of college or do you have a 3.79/171? Im confused.


I think s/he's a freshman in college.

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby Mal Reynolds » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:30 am

Blessedassurance wrote:
Mal Reynolds wrote:So are you in your first year of college or do you have a 3.79/171? Im confused.


I think s/he's a freshman in college.


That's what I thought.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=167565

MillaLiteYo
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:01 am

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby MillaLiteYo » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:53 am

I'm confused. I have a 3.71 and a 171 LSAT and I'm told that I have NO chance at Harvard or a very slim one at best and you're being told you're likely in.

What gives here?

freestallion
Posts: 944
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby freestallion » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:00 am

MillaLiteYo wrote:I'm confused. I have a 3.71 and a 171 LSAT and I'm told that I have NO chance at Harvard or a very slim one at best and you're being told you're likely in.

What gives here?

Depends on type of URM I think. African American or hispanic gets a bigger boost than PR (you)

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby DoubleChecks » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:09 am

freestallion wrote:
MillaLiteYo wrote:I'm confused. I have a 3.71 and a 171 LSAT and I'm told that I have NO chance at Harvard or a very slim one at best and you're being told you're likely in.

What gives here?

Depends on type of URM I think. African American or hispanic gets a bigger boost than PR (you)


right...i think people here are assuming OP is AA URM (not sure if true or not).

but milla, some of the posts in your thread are a bit pessimistic imo (i think they missed the urm hook part), but PR, I believe, does indeed not give as strong of a urm boost. you should have a shot at HYS for sure, but i dont think necessarily "likely in."

for OP of this thread, if AA URM, then yeah I think "likely in" is a good prognosis.

MillaLiteYo
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:01 am

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby MillaLiteYo » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:13 am

DoubleChecks, would this be an accurate hierarchical arrangement of the URM boost from strongest to weakest?

AA >> NA >> PR >> MEX

User avatar
buckilaw
Posts: 840
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:27 am

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby buckilaw » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:27 am

MillaLiteYo wrote:DoubleChecks, would this be an accurate hierarchical arrangement of the URM boost from strongest to weakest?

AA >> NA >> PR >> MEX


It's more like - NA > AA Male >>> AA female > Mex = PR >>> Other Hispanic

I'm unsure about how the bump plays out amongst Hispanics. NA gives the strongest bump followed by AA males.

User avatar
JamMasterJ
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby JamMasterJ » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:32 am

MillaLiteYo wrote:I'm confused. I have a 3.71 and a 171 LSAT and I'm told that I have NO chance at Harvard or a very slim one at best and you're being told you're likely in.

What gives here?

1. PR's a tiny boost.
2. His gpa is a bit higher and URM boost is more applicable to LSAT scores
3. (unrelated) you're a dick in your thread, so people may not want to be as nice to you.

User avatar
JamMasterJ
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby JamMasterJ » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:33 am

buckilaw wrote:
MillaLiteYo wrote:DoubleChecks, would this be an accurate hierarchical arrangement of the URM boost from strongest to weakest?

AA >> NA >> PR >> MEX


It's more like - NA > AA Male >>> AA female > Mex = PR >>> Other Hispanic

I'm unsure about how the bump plays out amongst Hispanics. NA gives the strongest bump followed by AA males.

This part shocks me if true. I always thought AA male was the big one

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby DoubleChecks » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:41 am

JamMasterJ wrote:
buckilaw wrote:
MillaLiteYo wrote:DoubleChecks, would this be an accurate hierarchical arrangement of the URM boost from strongest to weakest?

AA >> NA >> PR >> MEX


It's more like - NA > AA Male >>> AA female > Mex = PR >>> Other Hispanic

I'm unsure about how the bump plays out amongst Hispanics. NA gives the strongest bump followed by AA males.

This part shocks me if true. I always thought AA male was the big one


it could be NA > AA male, or maybe AA male > NA...imo too hard to tell because the sample size for NA URMs is ridiculously small

User avatar
coldshoulder
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby coldshoulder » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:42 am

DoubleChecks wrote:
JamMasterJ wrote:
buckilaw wrote:
MillaLiteYo wrote:DoubleChecks, would this be an accurate hierarchical arrangement of the URM boost from strongest to weakest?

AA >> NA >> PR >> MEX


It's more like - NA > AA Male >>> AA female > Mex = PR >>> Other Hispanic

I'm unsure about how the bump plays out amongst Hispanics. NA gives the strongest bump followed by AA males.

This part shocks me if true. I always thought AA male was the big one


it could be NA > AA male, or maybe AA male > NA...imo too hard to tell because the sample size for NA URMs is ridiculously small


It also probably depends to some extent on your diversity statement and to what extent you're a member of those groups/faced economic hardship.

User avatar
buckilaw
Posts: 840
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:27 am

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby buckilaw » Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:32 pm

If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.

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

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:31 pm

buckilaw wrote:If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.

I think this is it. NA isn't always a big bump, and schools appear to be highly skeptical of many who check the NA box. However, someone who provides credentials or who writes a detailed DS that makes clear their ancestry and personal ties to their tribe is likely to get a significant boost, from what I understand. It's complicated, but if you want a simplified version it's something like this:

Registered NA >>> Other URMs >>> unregistered/box-check NA

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby Blessedassurance » Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:49 pm

buckilaw wrote:
MillaLiteYo wrote:DoubleChecks, would this be an accurate hierarchical arrangement of the URM boost from strongest to weakest?

AA >> NA >> PR >> MEX


It's more like - NA > AA Male >>> AA female > Mex = PR >>> Other Hispanic

I'm unsure about how the bump plays out amongst Hispanics. NA gives the strongest bump followed by AA males.


No.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby Blessedassurance » Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:52 pm

buckilaw wrote:If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.


That's because you're wrong.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby DoubleChecks » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:42 pm

Blessedassurance wrote:
buckilaw wrote:If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.


That's because you're wrong.


Isn't this where you provide your citations so people can determine for themselves?

TheFriendlyBarber
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:13 am

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby TheFriendlyBarber » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:47 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:
Blessedassurance wrote:
buckilaw wrote:If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.


That's because you're wrong.


Isn't this where you provide your citations so people can determine for themselves?


No. You're incorrect.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby Blessedassurance » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:48 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:
Blessedassurance wrote:
buckilaw wrote:If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.


That's because you're wrong.


Isn't this where you provide your citations so people can determine for themselves?


http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: 3.79/171 urm

Postby DoubleChecks » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:50 pm

TheFriendlyBarber wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:
Blessedassurance wrote:
buckilaw wrote:If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.


That's because you're wrong.


Isn't this where you provide your citations so people can determine for themselves?


No. You're incorrect.


Well, tbf, my actual position was that the current data pool size is too small to draw any legitimate/useful conclusions about the NA vs. AA male bump lol.




Return to “What are my chances?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: freekick, galeatus, hdivschool and 6 guests