URM 2014-2015 Cycle Thread Forum

[Oskosh]

The affirmative action debate becomes murky because of who is losing admission to the URMs that are supposedly getting a boost. A 164+ on the LSAT puts you in the 90th percentile, which is an admirable band. Again, admission should be more than numbers. Those 170+ that are being passed up are unable to distinguish themselves amongst the other thoroughbreds. There might also be a significant amount of retroactive privilege playing a role in law school admissions. As a URM who is the first in his family to attend college, I feel this is the most agency I have had in my education. "Choice" wasn't an option for me in education, as I went through the feeder pattern of my community. When it came to making my college decision, I took the last SAT I could, because it was only until then that I discovered you could get a fee waiver for the SAT. I did well because I am proficient in mathematics and reading, but even then I was limited in my school selection (I didn't think Harvard, Stanford, Ivy League, etc). I also did not have a leg up when beginning my undergrad career. I did not know what an LDAS GPA was, nor did I have connections to intern in gubernatorial offices, like some of my friends in undergrad. Admittedly, I could have researched it given that I was at the time an autonomous college student, but I was actually too busy being the first in my family to go to college, leave home and relocate, and being one of ten from my high school (with poor retention rates) on my campus. But gradually I caught on and did many things to beef up my resume, practice for the LSAT, etc. Additionally, I would argue that my life experiences and background make myself and others like me good candidates for top law schools. For instance, the supreme court decision concerning Texas and voter ID laws, as well as those dealing with delayed deportation, directly impact me because of my upbringing. Yeah, you're supposed to interpret the law objectively, but we all are aware of the fact that our values and experiences are imported in our decision making process regardless of what we say.


That's just my two cents on that. Obviously you guys aren't in disagreement with me (or at least not steadfastly so); I just felt like sharing my take on high scorers treating people with lower scores with hostility.

EDIT: I'm not saying accept me BECAUSE I'm a minority. That's absurd. I am saying that there should be a cut off where GPA + LSAT are "acceptable," and "softs" are taken into consideration. Of course, law schools want to procure their select medians as well, so this won't be the case all the time.

Besides, as was already mentioned, the LSAT has very little bearing on your performance in law school. I could have scored in the low 170s if I didn't screw up on that third logic game in December (I freaked out and did not realize it was numerical distribution). When I did it at home as soon as it was released, I immediately recognized it and solved it quickly without committing a mistake.

[narwhalsrfun]

-

[cc78]

In at Cornell and reserve at Columbia. Sad about the Columbia but I am still excited with the way things have been going. HLS, please give me a JS1, I'm willing to wait for you.

Congrats on Cornell...and forget Columbia, they obviously don't know what they are doing

[Oskosh]

Cc, I'm a man United fan, too! They're second only to Bayern (sorry, have been loyal to the Germans since the 2002 final).

[cc78]

Cc, I'm a man United fan, too! They're second only to Bayern (sorry, have been loyal to the Germans since the 2002 final).

Yes...I just picked up on soccer and Man Utd. Just like me to hook on to them after they have become the epitome of a second rate power, ugh.

[Atmosphere]

.

[Oskosh]

Cc, I'm a man United fan, too! They're second only to Bayern (sorry, have been loyal to the Germans since the 2002 final).

Yes...I just picked up on soccer and Man Utd. Just like me to hook on to them after they have become the epitome of a second rate power, ugh.

At least people won't accuse you of bandwagoning for liking them. And at least you didn't select Chelsea. I don't think I could have engaged you in conversation had that been your choice of team. Do you just watch the EPL, or are you also watching La Liga and/or the Bundesliga?

[sashafierce]

Hi all, so I've decided to move back home (outside the U.S.) until school or if I get selected to the SEO program. My issue is that I used my US mailing address and phone number on all of my applications, how do I go about changing that? Do I have to individually send an email to all the law schools that I applied to?

[180kickflip]

The affirmative action debate becomes murky because of who is losing admission to the URMs that are supposedly getting a boost. A 164+ on the LSAT puts you in the 90th percentile, which is an admirable band. Again, admission should be more than numbers. Those 170+ that are being passed up are unable to distinguish themselves amongst the other thoroughbreds. There might also be a significant amount of retroactive privilege playing a role in law school admissions. As a URM who is the first in his family to attend college, I feel this is the most agency I have had in my education. "Choice" wasn't an option for me in education, as I went through the feeder pattern of my community. When it came to making my college decision, I took the last SAT I could, because it was only until then that I discovered you could get a fee waiver for the SAT. I did well because I am proficient in mathematics and reading, but even then I was limited in my school selection (I didn't think Harvard, Stanford, Ivy League, etc). I also did not have a leg up when beginning my undergrad career. I did not know what an LDAS GPA was, nor did I have connections to intern in gubernatorial offices, like some of my friends in undergrad. Admittedly, I could have researched it given that I was at the time an autonomous college student, but I was actually too busy being the first in my family to go to college, leave home and relocate, and being one of ten from my high school (with poor retention rates) on my campus. But gradually I caught on and did many things to beef up my resume, practice for the LSAT, etc. Additionally, I would argue that my life experiences and background make myself and others like me good candidates for top law schools. For instance, the supreme court decision concerning Texas and voter ID laws, as well as those dealing with delayed deportation, directly impact me because of my upbringing. Yeah, you're supposed to interpret the law objectively, but we all are aware of the fact that our values and experiences are imported in our decision making process regardless of what we say.


That's just my two cents on that. Obviously you guys aren't in disagreement with me (or at least not steadfastly so); I just felt like sharing my take on high scorers treating people with lower scores with hostility.

EDIT: I'm not saying accept me BECAUSE I'm a minority. That's absurd. I am saying that there should be a cut off where GPA + LSAT are "acceptable," and "softs" are taken into consideration. Of course, law schools want to procure their select medians as well, so this won't be the case all the time.

Besides, as was already mentioned, the LSAT has very little bearing on your performance in law school. I could have scored in the low 170s if I didn't screw up on that third logic game in December (I freaked out and did not realize it was numerical distribution). When I did it at home as soon as it was released, I immediately recognized it and solved it quickly without committing a mistake.

Just to play devil's advocate...
1. Who says a 164 is an "admirable band"? I don't think many people are disgruntled about URMs getting into law schools in general, it's low scores getting into top programs, and at those programs (whether undergrad, law school, grad school, etc.), being 90th percentile often just isn't good enough. I don't think the common outlook at Harvard law is that a 164 is "admirable," and I don't think it should be.
2. The problem is that those 170s that aren't able to distinguish themselves from the other thoroughbreds aren't being passed for the more distinguished thoroughbreds, they're being passed over for average horses.
3. The retroactive privilege concern isn't specific to URM groups. Tons of non-URM applicants deal with those same issues and don't receive a bump
4. Even if LSAT/GPA aren't good predictors, they're the best we have, so it only makes sense to use them. It's not just URMs that underperform on standardized tests

Not sure where the line is drawn on here for the AA discussion, but I can see both sides. I support things as they are, but for different reasons than most people say. I hate seeing what I consider to be more qualified applicants passed over, but I see it as a necessary evil cuz I truly believe that diversity (of every sort) is a positive in a classroom and without AA we just couldn't reliably achieve that.

[cc78]

^^^^And here it is...the dammed Affirmative Action debate.

Sorry everyone. In retrospect, I should have kept my research to myself.

[Tr3]

In at Cornell and reserve at Columbia. Sad about the Columbia but I am still excited with the way things have been going. HLS, please give me a JS1, I'm willing to wait for you.

Congrats!

[Tr3]

^^^^And here it is...the dammed Affirmative Action debate.

Sorry everyone. In retrospect, I should have kept my research to myself.

LOL

[180kickflip]

^^^^And here it is...the dammed Affirmative Action debate.

Sorry everyone. In retrospect, I should have kept my research to myself.

LOLOL. I'll totally delete that if yall think it's inappropriate. I could care less. Just saw a few posts and couldn't help myself.

[cc78]

Cc, I'm a man United fan, too! They're second only to Bayern (sorry, have been loyal to the Germans since the 2002 final).

Yes...I just picked up on soccer and Man Utd. Just like me to hook on to them after they have become the epitome of a second rate power, ugh.

At least people won't accuse you of bandwagoning for liking them. And at least you didn't select Chelsea. I don't think I could have engaged you in conversation had that been your choice of team. Do you just watch the EPL, or are you also watching La Liga and/or the Bundesliga?

Well even I can see how and why Chelsea is despicable. How I landed on Man. Utd. is funny--the first soccer match I ever watched was Holland v. Spain in this past WC. Needless to say, after watching van Persie score and then run over and screw up the high five with his funny looking coach, I was pretty much stuck to those two as a pair and especially to Mr. Funny Looking, van Gaal. It doesn't seem to bother me much that in two years time neither one of them will probably be with MU.

Anyway, I do sorta follow La Liga (I like Barca, I know big risk taker) and I don't see how anyone can follow the Bundesliga, now that Bayern has bought up everything that made Dortmund such an interesting foil. I do like Robben and Schweinsteiger from Bayern though. I don't think Schweinsteiger is playing much though...

[cc78]

The affirmative action debate becomes murky because of who is losing admission to the URMs that are supposedly getting a boost. A 164+ on the LSAT puts you in the 90th percentile, which is an admirable band. Again, admission should be more than numbers. Those 170+ that are being passed up are unable to distinguish themselves amongst the other thoroughbreds. There might also be a significant amount of retroactive privilege playing a role in law school admissions. As a URM who is the first in his family to attend college, I feel this is the most agency I have had in my education. "Choice" wasn't an option for me in education, as I went through the feeder pattern of my community. When it came to making my college decision, I took the last SAT I could, because it was only until then that I discovered you could get a fee waiver for the SAT. I did well because I am proficient in mathematics and reading, but even then I was limited in my school selection (I didn't think Harvard, Stanford, Ivy League, etc). I also did not have a leg up when beginning my undergrad career. I did not know what an LDAS GPA was, nor did I have connections to intern in gubernatorial offices, like some of my friends in undergrad. Admittedly, I could have researched it given that I was at the time an autonomous college student, but I was actually too busy being the first in my family to go to college, leave home and relocate, and being one of ten from my high school (with poor retention rates) on my campus. But gradually I caught on and did many things to beef up my resume, practice for the LSAT, etc. Additionally, I would argue that my life experiences and background make myself and others like me good candidates for top law schools. For instance, the supreme court decision concerning Texas and voter ID laws, as well as those dealing with delayed deportation, directly impact me because of my upbringing. Yeah, you're supposed to interpret the law objectively, but we all are aware of the fact that our values and experiences are imported in our decision making process regardless of what we say.


That's just my two cents on that. Obviously you guys aren't in disagreement with me (or at least not steadfastly so); I just felt like sharing my take on high scorers treating people with lower scores with hostility.

EDIT: I'm not saying accept me BECAUSE I'm a minority. That's absurd. I am saying that there should be a cut off where GPA + LSAT are "acceptable," and "softs" are taken into consideration. Of course, law schools want to procure their select medians as well, so this won't be the case all the time.

Besides, as was already mentioned, the LSAT has very little bearing on your performance in law school. I could have scored in the low 170s if I didn't screw up on that third logic game in December (I freaked out and did not realize it was numerical distribution). When I did it at home as soon as it was released, I immediately recognized it and solved it quickly without committing a mistake.

Just to play devil's advocate...
1. Who says a 164 is an "admirable band"? I don't think many people are disgruntled about URMs getting into law schools in general, it's low scores getting into top programs, and at those programs (whether undergrad, law school, grad school, etc.), being 90th percentile often just isn't good enough. I don't think the common outlook at Harvard law is that a 164 is "admirable," and I don't think it should be.
2. The problem is that those 170s that aren't able to distinguish themselves from the other thoroughbreds aren't being passed for the more distinguished thoroughbreds, they're being passed over for average horses.
3. The retroactive privilege concern isn't specific to URM groups. Tons of non-URM applicants deal with those same issues and don't receive a bump
4. Even if LSAT/GPA aren't good predictors, they're the best we have, so it only makes sense to use them. It's not just URMs that underperform on standardized tests

Not sure where the line is drawn on here for the AA discussion, but I can see both sides. I support things as they are, but for different reasons than most people say. I hate seeing what I consider to be more qualified applicants passed over, but I see it as a necessary evil cuz I truly believe that diversity (of every sort) is a positive in a classroom and without AA we just couldn't reliably achieve that.

Yeah, I think we're at the line. Hopefully we can all just keep it moving from here...on to other stuff.

[Atmosphere]

LET'S JUST GET BACK TO CONGRATULATING EACHOTHER AND GETTING HYPED ON ACCEPTANCES

[JamaicanSaiyan8]

Cc, I'm a man United fan, too! They're second only to Bayern (sorry, have been loyal to the Germans since the 2002 final).

Excellent!!! Bayern fan here as well!! It was sweet watching Mueller kill it in the World Cup!

[THE Bigzoman]

Seems like these schools care more about GPA than LSAT to be frank.

Splitters via LSAT scores over 166 are pretty much wild card URMs

[ChiefMango]

Amazing research, CC, despite any debates it may have caused. If I were you, I'd post it in the "Blacks and Law Schools by the Numbers" sticky post in this section.

As for splitters and a preference for high GPAs over LSATS, I'd be really interested to see statistics on how many 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, etc. candidates there are to begin with. For some reason, I feel like there would be many more people pulling 3.8+ than 170+ on the LSAT. Intuitively, this would mean adcoms would have more GPA-friendly splitters to choose from, giving LSAT splitters an advantage. Maybe that's all speculation though? Would love to see numbers!

Anyways, back to waiting for decisions. Hope you guys enjoyed the holiday, and that there is good news waiting for us throughout the week!

[Apsara]

Hi all, so I've decided to move back home (outside the U.S.) until school or if I get selected to the SEO program. My issue is that I used my US mailing address and phone number on all of my applications, how do I go about changing that? Do I have to individually send an email to all the law schools that I applied to?

Is there a way you can update LSAC who can then update all the schools you've applied to? If not, I would definitely update them individually and ASAP, especially seeing that some schools provide acceptance calls.

As for SEO, they will email you with a decision, usually around April.

[DiniMae]

I hear ya. What's worse for us working folks is that they calculate this income once for all 3 years (CLS). My EFC is ridiculous to be applied across all three years for 1 year of work (DARN that bonus being deposited on Dec 31 -- should've slacked off).

Oh my stars, are you sure about this? That doesn't make any sense, because you won't have any income while you're in school. I know Stanford takes any total expected contribution and divides it by 3, which makes sense to me.

So I hope that all schools do this. I just used a few online EFC calculators and each said that the total was expected each school year.

Another question, I saw that a few schools expected returning students to complete various finaid forms each year. Does that vary from school to school? I thought you get evaluated once as a 0L and that was it. If this seems like a noob question, it may be. As a vet, I'm not used to going through this process. Thanks.

[DiniMae]

So......... Berkeley is looking pretty good right about now. I'm so over the snow eating up my vacation days when I need them ALL for ASWs. UGH.

I can't begin to think of what life is like in Cali where there aren't snow days....

[Flokkness]

Definitely got an animated birthday cake email from UT.

Looks like a slow week...

[cc78]

I hear ya. What's worse for us working folks is that they calculate this income once for all 3 years (CLS). My EFC is ridiculous to be applied across all three years for 1 year of work (DARN that bonus being deposited on Dec 31 -- should've slacked off).

Oh my stars, are you sure about this? That doesn't make any sense, because you won't have any income while you're in school. I know Stanford takes any total expected contribution and divides it by 3, which makes sense to me.

So I hope that all schools do this. I just used a few online EFC calculators and each said that the total was expected each school year.

Another question, I saw that a few schools expected returning students to complete various finaid forms each year. Does that vary from school to school? I thought you get evaluated once as a 0L and that was it. If this seems like a noob question, it may be. As a vet, I'm not used to going through this process. Thanks.

No, you apply for need-based aid every year. At most places any merit award you receive is good for three years as long as you remain in good standing.

[ballcaps]

YOU GUYS, just got interview request from UVA!

looks like they didn't actually burn all the URM files.