Am I a URM? Forum

[TheProsecutor]

I'm thinking I should check the Caucasian box. I don't identify myself as a Mexican American, never have. I just know it's part of my heritage now.

Well, you know if you identify with part of that heritage, you might want to consider identifying as both.

I think a better strategy is to perhaps pen a powerful personal statement or diversity statement about being adopted, growing up with a certain identity and then finding out later your heritage on your father's side. I mean at 18 years old, you really found out who you are to some extent and there must have been challenges in dealing with that information. It can be a thoughtful essay that really shows how you think, cope as well as the unique story that you have.

Good luck.

[TheProsecutor]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make, vanwinkle. The point I was making is that if you do not look like or consider yourself a URM, then it is probably a bad idea to identify as a URM.

I don't actually see where you disagree with me, vanwinkle.

My point is that it doesn't matter if you do or don't consider yourself "a URM", it matters whether you do or don't consider yourself one of the races that receive URM boosts, and identify as such race normally in your life.

Where I disagree with you is that you conflate "identifying your race or ethnicity" with "identifying as a URM". The former is purely a question of race/ethnicity (and not national origin, btw), the latter is a false concept, since nobody asks you if you "consider yourself a URM" or if you "look like a URM". This was Gaia's point, when she wrote the following:

Nationality does not equal race. Anyone who tells you any different simply fails to understand how race works within the context of URM law school admissions. Your personal, and very general, thoughts on race in modern society are irrelevant.

You called the above quote, and these are your words, "poor advice", but it is 100% accurate. That is where we disagree; or rather, I should say, that is where you are wrong and I am pointing out your clear error.

I think that I sufficiently argued where I though GAIA was wrong. That is to say, I disagree that people should check the URM box (or to be more specific, identify their race) even if they are technically URM if they do not consider themselves to be part of that group. To the extent that you're saying I'm "wrong" beyond that point, you created a straw man. Point out in my post where I "conflate identifying race or ethnicity" with "identifying as a URM?" If you can't, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't make up stuff.

I fail to understand how you could read my initial post and think I'm talking about nationality. URM is a term of art that has a specific meaning (i.e., under-represented minority). That is, it applies to Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans. And I clearly talked about specifically where I disagreed with GAIA's post - a point by the way, you seem to agree with me on.

You are arguing opinion. Vanwinkle and I are simply stating facts.
You can disagree all you want, but it makes no difference in the way things actually work.

To the extent that you argue facts (i.e., URM = Black, Native American, Hispanic or that people with mixed blood can identify) then obviously I agree with you. To the extent that you're arguing that a person should identify as URM even when they don't consider themselves URM (the OP), I disagree. Your idea that it is technically ok because they are 1/4 or 1/2 goes against what most schools require when they ask "what race do you consider yourself?" Therefore, my argument, and only argument, is that if you do not consider yourself a URM then you should not identify as one. This is what I pointed out in my initial response to you - Vanwinkle, seems to agree with me, ironically, even though (s)he wants to support you.

Sure, my advice was about a normative approach to answering questions ethically on an application. If you think that people should ignore that because that's just "the way things actually work" then fine. I just disagree.

[20121109]

To the extent that you argue facts (i.e., URM = Black, Native American, Hispanic or that people with mixed blood can identify) then obviously I agree with you. To the extent that you're arguing that a person should identify as URM even when they don't consider themselves URM (the OP), I disagree. Your idea that it is technically ok because they are 1/4 or 1/2 goes against what most schools require when they ask "what race do you consider yourself?" Therefore, my argument, and only argument, is that if you do not consider yourself a URM then you should not identify as one. This is what I pointed out in my initial response to you - Vanwinkle, seems to agree with me, ironically, even though (s)he wants to support you.

Sure, my advice was about a normative approach to answering questions ethically on an application. If you think that people should ignore that because that's just "the way things actually work" then fine. I just disagree.

I serve in a very informative capacity on TLS; I tend not to argue for the sake of arguing, especially in the URM forum where it can lead to unwholesome AA debates. Normative discussions are fine, but, like Vanwinkle pointed out, you said my advice was poor, which was simply incorrect.

Feel free to disagree all you want hahaha...I love being challenged! But when you dilute facts with opinion to undercut my legitimate advice, I must challenge and correct you in return.

[TheProsecutor]

To the extent that you argue facts (i.e., URM = Black, Native American, Hispanic or that people with mixed blood can identify) then obviously I agree with you. To the extent that you're arguing that a person should identify as URM even when they don't consider themselves URM (the OP), I disagree. Your idea that it is technically ok because they are 1/4 or 1/2 goes against what most schools require when they ask "what race do you consider yourself?" Therefore, my argument, and only argument, is that if you do not consider yourself a URM then you should not identify as one. This is what I pointed out in my initial response to you - Vanwinkle, seems to agree with me, ironically, even though (s)he wants to support you.

Sure, my advice was about a normative approach to answering questions ethically on an application. If you think that people should ignore that because that's just "the way things actually work" then fine. I just disagree.

I serve in a very informative capacity on TLS; I tend not to argue for the sake of arguing, especially in the URM forum where it can lead to unwholesome AA debates. Normative discussions are fine, but, like Vanwinkle pointed out, you said my advice was poor, which was simply incorrect.

Feel free to disagree all you want hahaha...I love being challenged! But when you dilute facts with opinion to undercut my legitimate advice, I must challenge and correct you in return.

I still stand by my point, GAIA, that applications specifically ask "what race do you consider yourself?" If that's what the application says, I think it is poor advice to tell others that they can identify as a URM even when they don't consider themselves to be.

The problem with it is that if you don't consider yourself Black, Native American, Hispanic then you're not likely to consider yourself such after you self identify. It is disingenious. The other problem with it is that it can come back and bite you. We've seen this happen with Elizabeth Warren, who technically has Native American blood. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

I think the vast majority of your posts are on point, helpful and insightful. I thought even most of the post I responded to was fine. But the point I'm making here is valid. So I don't think any correction is needed. I think prospective applicants can look at your advice and then they can look at mine. The OP, for what its worth, seems to now err on the side of not identifying precisely for the reason I stated: he does not consider himself to be a URM.

Edit: Amen to not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm sure we'll agree on much more than we disagree in the future.

[Duke Silver]

There was an interesting Dear Prudence column on Slate about URM identification and scholarships (not law related): http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear ... ship_.html .
It's going to set off a few flags if you, unlike the girl in this article, start checking boxes you've never checked before with no basis. I'm assuming that you're talking about your adoptive father, and are unsure what your heritage is. This is tricky. I'd go with a PS or hell, even call the law school to see how they would do it.

Law School URM status seems to be "what do you consider yourself" + what are you actually? I have friends with significant NA heritage and tribe membership who didn't claim anything on applications because they don't culturally identify with NAs. When they went to reservations and saw how things were there, compared to their lives, they refused to put it on applications. Not saying this is right or wrong-- I don't judge anyone who would use it and that's totally cool.

The idea that you could identify as "hispanic" because you grew up in "hispanic" culture is ridiculous. Adoption, IMO, is a little trickier, especially if you look like the family/culture you were adopted into. In that case, you've functionally been a URM, and not known anything different. I think OP should definitely call a few law schools and see what they'd do.

Edit: I know it's not directly relevant to LSAC URMs, but this was linked to in the article and made me LOL: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/05/28/whos-hispanic/

[vanwinkle]

I still stand by my point, GAIA, that applications specifically ask "what race do you consider yourself?" If that's what the application says, I think it is poor advice to tell others that they can identify as a URM even when they don't consider themselves to be.

You are, AGAIN, conflating two entirely different things. Nobody "identifies as a URM" in the context it's used on this forum (URM = recognized status providing an admissions boost). They identify as their race or ethnicity, and each school decides, based on that racial or ethnic identity, whether to provide them a URM admissions boost. Your flaw is that, by conflating these two things, you think GAIA is telling people to identify racially as something they don't consider themselves. She's not. She's telling people to identify racially as what they consider themselves to be; by definition this cannot be advising them to represent themselves as something they are not.

The problem with it is that if you don't consider yourself Black, Native American, Hispanic then you're not likely to consider yourself such after you self identify. It is disingenious. The other problem with it is that it can come back and bite you. We've seen this happen with Elizabeth Warren, who technically has Native American blood. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

What is coming back to bite Warren is that she (supposedly, the truth is still not resolved yet) claimed NA ancestry when she had none to point to. GAIA's point is the opposite of this: If you can clearly point to minority ancestry, you have the right to claim it as such, even if you haven't before. If you're 1/2 or 1/4 or even 1/8 Hispanic or black or NA, and you can show that on your family tree, then you can claim it because it exists and is real. Warren is in trouble for (again, supposedly) doing the opposite and claiming something she can't prove when challenged. That is what is coming back to bite her, not the fact of claiming NA ancestry by itself.

I think prospective applicants can look at your advice and then they can look at mine. The OP, for what its worth, seems to now err on the side of not identifying precisely for the reason I stated: he does not consider himself to be a URM.

Then OP misses out on a chance to truthfully self-identify his racial or ethnic background, if he makes that choice out of fear and your flawed opinion, rather than the truth of his own heritage. The ONLY reason OP should not self-identify as a race/ethnicity is because either he does not want to, or he cannot show it exists on his family tree to the degree he represents.

OP can truthfully represent that he believes himself to be 1/2 Mexican, from how I understand his original post. That gives him the right to check the "Hispanic" and/or "Mexican-American" box if he so chooses. He can even explain the source of this information; that is pretty much what a Diversity Statement is. That is all that matters here. Stop needlessly scaring OP, it's offensive.

[dowu]

[boosk]

you're arguing that a person should identify as URM even when they don't consider themselves URM (the OP), I disagree.

you keep saying this.

If you are an under represented minority, how could you not consider yourself one? I don't get it.

[TheProsecutor]

I still stand by my point, GAIA, that applications specifically ask "what race do you consider yourself?" If that's what the application says, I think it is poor advice to tell others that they can identify as a URM even when they don't consider themselves to be.

You are, AGAIN, conflating two entirely different things. Nobody "identifies as a URM" in the context it's used on this forum (URM = recognized status providing an admissions boost). They identify as their race or ethnicity, and each school decides, based on that racial or ethnic identity, whether to provide them a URM admissions boost. Your flaw is that, by conflating these two things, you think GAIA is telling people to identify racially as something they don't consider themselves. She's not. She's telling people to identify racially as what they consider themselves to be; by definition this cannot be advising them to represent themselves as something they are not.

The problem with it is that if you don't consider yourself Black, Native American, Hispanic then you're not likely to consider yourself such after you self identify. It is disingenious. The other problem with it is that it can come back and bite you. We've seen this happen with Elizabeth Warren, who technically has Native American blood. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

What is coming back to bite Warren is that she (supposedly, the truth is still not resolved yet) claimed NA ancestry when she had none to point to. GAIA's point is the opposite of this: If you can clearly point to minority ancestry, you have the right to claim it as such, even if you haven't before. If you're 1/2 or 1/4 or even 1/8 Hispanic or black or NA, and you can show that on your family tree, then you can claim it because it exists and is real. Warren is in trouble for (again, supposedly) doing the opposite and claiming something she can't prove when challenged. That is what is coming back to bite her, not the fact of claiming NA ancestry by itself.

I think prospective applicants can look at your advice and then they can look at mine. The OP, for what its worth, seems to now err on the side of not identifying precisely for the reason I stated: he does not consider himself to be a URM.

Then OP misses out on a chance to truthfully self-identify his racial or ethnic background, if he makes that choice out of fear and your flawed opinion, rather than the truth of his own heritage. The ONLY reason OP should not self-identify as a race/ethnicity is because either he does not want to, or he cannot show it exists on his family tree to the degree he represents.

OP can truthfully represent that he believes himself to be 1/2 Mexican, from how I understand his original post. That gives him the right to check the "Hispanic" and/or "Mexican-American" box if he so chooses. He can even explain the source of this information; that is pretty much what a Diversity Statement is. That is all that matters here. Stop needlessly scaring OP, it's offensive.

Ok. I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

Edit: You're right on EW. I stand corrected.

[TheProsecutor]

you're arguing that a person should identify as URM even when they don't consider themselves URM (the OP), I disagree.

you keep saying this.

If you are an under represented minority, how could you not consider yourself one? I don't get it.

The OP says he's got Hispanic heritage, but does not consider himself Hispanic.

I don't imagine it coming up often, but I can imagine a person who has lived life happy to identify as white, Asian or whatever and then for law school admissions purposes they want to identify as Black because they are 1/4 black or whatever it is.

The debate here is that GAIA and Vanwinkle think that in the above situation, the person is justified in doing so. I disagree.

[jas1503]

you're arguing that a person should identify as URM even when they don't consider themselves URM (the OP), I disagree.

you keep saying this.

If you are an under represented minority, how could you not consider yourself one? I don't get it.

If you are an URM, then how do you not know that you're an URM. It's not like being a fictional Spiderman character--who gets bit by something and suddenly your whole life changes.

Being an URM is not a great burden for everyone, nor is it something that everyone has to come to terms with. Some people have always been very happy to identify as an URM, because that's the group that shapes more than how they look or feel. When you identify with a group, you take the good with the bad, the culture and the history of that group.

Some posts on this message board--about 'Spiderman' scenarios where someone suddenly (always before law school, never after it) discovers URM ancestry from a family member, so he/she wants to re-identify as such for the perceived sake of strengthening their law school application--make little sense to me.

When you have had no history or cultural attachment to an URM group, why would you temporarily re-identify? Especially, since you have always had a cultural attachment to another group your entire life.

Genetically, you could say that you're 10% this or 60% that--but ancestry isn't the only thing that makes you part of an ethnic group.

Have a look at the link posted by Duke Silver http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/05/28/whos-hispanic/

[Duke Silver]

you're arguing that a person should identify as URM even when they don't consider themselves URM (the OP), I disagree.

you keep saying this.

If you are an under represented minority, how could you not consider yourself one? I don't get it.

If you are an URM, then how do you not know that you're an URM. It's not like being a fictional Spiderman character--who gets bit by something and suddenly your whole life changes.

Being an URM is not a great burden for everyone, nor is it something that everyone has to come to terms with. Some people have always been very happy to identify as an URM, because that's the group that shapes more than how they look or feel. When you identify with a group, you take the good with the bad, the culture and the history of that group.

Some posts on this message board--about 'Spiderman' scenarios where someone suddenly (always before law school, never after it) discovers URM ancestry from a family member, so he/she wants to re-identify as such for the perceived sake of strengthening their law school application--make little sense to me.

When you have had no history or cultural attachment to an URM group, why would you temporarily re-identify? Especially, since you have always had a cultural attachment to another group your entire life.

Genetically, you could say that you're 10% this or 60% that--but ancestry isn't the only thing that makes you part of an ethnic group.

Have a look at the link posted by Duke Silver http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/05/28/whos-hispanic/

"Surprise" URM status only comes out, obviously and unsurprisingly, when the money does. There's a shitton of incentive to stretch and do whatever you can, because there's a huge boost. Since the consideration is so subjective (if you have any actual ancestry), it's pretty easy to do. That aspect makes sense to me. It's just shitty. This seems like what the OP's doing. If there's a system with (seemingly) few checks on whether someone actually considers herself/himself a URM, people will exploit it, and shit like this will happen, leading to ridiculous results and fucking it up for everyone else (if I understood this right, and OP just found out about her/his birth parents).

Surprise non-URM situations, though, like in the Slate article I posted earlier, are a little more ambiguous. That's what I originally misunderstood the OP as saying. In the article, someone always identified and thought they had mostly Mexican ancestry, was raised in Mexican culture, and self-identified as Mexican-American, then finds out her birth father was actually eastern European/Middle Eastern. What does someone do then? Complete OT hypothetical.

Also, I love the term "Spiderman" scenario to describe OMG I'M A URM!!!!111 Totally awesome.

Edit: Words are hard. Too much journal application.

[yngblkgifted]

These threads are stupid and lead to more stupidity as they progress. OP, if I were you, I would check Mexican.

[TheProsecutor]

OP:

This website actually has an article about this: http://www.top-law-schools.com/urm-applicant-faq.html

Not surprisingly, it adopts my position. "Should I check the box for “URM” on my application?

This question (in various forms) plagues the URM forum and is a difficult one to address. In most cases, if you have to ask this question, the answer is probably no. Two general rules pertaining to this topic are (subject to disagreement):

The generally accepted threshold for claiming a race is ¼ (does not include Native Americans, which are a more grey area). Beyond that, claims of minority status tend to become a bit more dubious.
If you have never checked the box before, don’t check it now. If you have never identified as a minority, why start now? While very few educational institutes will attempt to confirm that your race is indeed your race, the Character and Fitness portion of the bar will certainly raise some questions about how you were not listed as [insert applicable minority status here] on LSAC/or undergraduate applications, but (conveniently) chose to do so for the URM-sensitive law school application process."

[vanwinkle]

The OP says he's got Hispanic heritage, but does not consider himself Hispanic.

I don't imagine it coming up often, but I can imagine a person who has lived life happy to identify as white, Asian or whatever and then for law school admissions purposes they want to identify as Black because they are 1/4 black or whatever it is.

The debate here is that GAIA and Vanwinkle think that in the above situation, the person is justified in doing so. I disagree.

I was raised to identify as white by my parents, one of whom was white and one of whom was Hispanic. They felt that "whitewashing" our racial/cultural identity would make us more socially acceptable to the white majority where I was raised. It worked, with the horrifying side effect that I eventually had to realize I had a cultural identity that our family had suppressed so deeply that when I told my own brother I had identified as Hispanic on law school applications, his initial reaction was, literally and verbatim, "You're Hispanic?"

I can fully defend my adult self-identification as Hispanic. I think the person in the "above situation" is justified in doing so because I have done so, repeatedly, and without negative consequence. In fact, anyone who has perceived my outward "whiteness" and cared to demand an explanation has always been fully satisfied with the one I give. This includes adcomms, employment interviewers, and mentor attorneys, none of whom asked to make me prove my ethnicity, but out of sheer curiosity.

I hold that the "above situation" is okay because my own successful life experiences bear it out. You may disagree all you wish, but you are not allowed to dispute the objective truth that I have lived this experience and it has not haunted me in any way.

[Duke Silver]

The OP says he's got Hispanic heritage, but does not consider himself Hispanic.

I don't imagine it coming up often, but I can imagine a person who has lived life happy to identify as white, Asian or whatever and then for law school admissions purposes they want to identify as Black because they are 1/4 black or whatever it is.

The debate here is that GAIA and Vanwinkle think that in the above situation, the person is justified in doing so. I disagree.

I was raised to identify as white by my parents, one of whom was white and one of whom was Hispanic. They felt that "whitewashing" our racial/cultural identity would make us more socially acceptable to the white majority where I was raised. It worked, with the horrifying side effect that I eventually had to realize I had a cultural identity that our family had suppressed so deeply that when I told my own brother I had identified as Hispanic on law school applications, his initial reaction was, literally and verbatim, "You're Hispanic?"

I can fully defend my adult self-identification as Hispanic. I think the person in the "above situation" is justified in doing so because I have done so, repeatedly, and without negative consequence. In fact, anyone who has perceived my outward "whiteness" and cared to demand an explanation has always been fully satisfied with the one I give. This includes adcomms, employment interviewers, and mentor attorneys, none of whom asked to make me prove my ethnicity, but out of sheer curiosity.

I hold that the "above situation" is okay because my own successful life experiences bear it out. You may disagree all you wish, but you are not allowed to dispute the objective truth that I have lived this experience and it has not haunted me in any way.

Definitely. That's completely awesome/legit! It's what makes it almost impossible to define what is an URM: some people come to identify with their heritage, even if they happen to learn about it around law school, and there are people who never thought about it before, and see it as a way to gain an advantage. URM identity isn't something set-- it can change, which is why burdens of proof are so difficult (and it seems like many people base it off looks/surname/other ambiguous things). IMO, it's worth letting in some people who knowingly use ancestry for law school admissions to help people who actually identify as an URM, even late in their lives.

[TheProsecutor]

The OP says he's got Hispanic heritage, but does not consider himself Hispanic.

I don't imagine it coming up often, but I can imagine a person who has lived life happy to identify as white, Asian or whatever and then for law school admissions purposes they want to identify as Black because they are 1/4 black or whatever it is.

The debate here is that GAIA and Vanwinkle think that in the above situation, the person is justified in doing so. I disagree.

I was raised to identify as white by my parents, one of whom was white and one of whom was Hispanic. They felt that "whitewashing" our racial/cultural identity would make us more socially acceptable to the white majority where I was raised. It worked, with the horrifying side effect that I eventually had to realize I had a cultural identity that our family had suppressed so deeply that when I told my own brother I had identified as Hispanic on law school applications, his initial reaction was, literally and verbatim, "You're Hispanic?"

I can fully defend my adult self-identification as Hispanic. I think the person in the "above situation" is justified in doing so because I have done so, repeatedly, and without negative consequence. In fact, anyone who has perceived my outward "whiteness" and cared to demand an explanation has always been fully satisfied with the one I give. This includes adcomms, employment interviewers, and mentor attorneys, none of whom asked to make me prove my ethnicity, but out of sheer curiosity.

I hold that the "above situation" is okay because my own successful life experiences bear it out. You may disagree all you wish, but you are not allowed to dispute the objective truth that I have lived this experience and it has not haunted me in any way.

Certainly a compelling story. Thanks for sharing. No one is knocking you. You obviously felt the repression of your cultural identity and when you were given the choice to identify your race, you identified as Hispanic. You have "repeatedly" done so. You seem to consider yourself hispanic and you are in fact hispanic. And at the end of the day, if you feel comfortable with identifying as hispanic, as you obviously do, then that's all that matters.

[unc0mm0n1]

I'm pretty sure he's referring to his biological parents being Russian and Mexican. If so, since he is genetically Mexican, he can claim URM status.

Do you consider yourself Mexican? If yes, check the box. If no, don't. Why is this complicated?

This, on the other hand, is rubbish.

No it isn't. We operate on a honor system with race. If someone feels they are a URM, then they check the box. If they feel that they are not, then they shouldn't. It was clear from the OP's post that he is in fact Mexican. Mexicans are in fact URMs. So he should feel free to check the box if he considers himself a mexican. He should not if he doesn't.

I never understood why more white people just don't lie and say they're black? It is an awful thing to do, but so is cheating and over 70% of students have done that before. You're talking about a chance to go to Harvard instead of Vandy. There are clearly white people who claim to be URM's and truthfully no one is going to call them out. There is a white guy at my school who says he's black and I don't see how it can be proven that he's not. It just weird to me that there aren't more white people who do this, maybe the honor system works or maybe the ones who are successful at doing don't broadcast that they claimed URM status.

[dowu]

I'm pretty sure he's referring to his biological parents being Russian and Mexican. If so, since he is genetically Mexican, he can claim URM status.

Do you consider yourself Mexican? If yes, check the box. If no, don't. Why is this complicated?

This, on the other hand, is rubbish.

No it isn't. We operate on a honor system with race. If someone feels they are a URM, then they check the box. If they feel that they are not, then they shouldn't. It was clear from the OP's post that he is in fact Mexican. Mexicans are in fact URMs. So he should feel free to check the box if he considers himself a mexican. He should not if he doesn't.

I never understood why more white people just don't lie and say they're black? It is an awful thing to do, but so is cheating and over 70% of students have done that before. You're talking about a chance to go to Harvard instead of Vandy. There are clearly white people who claim to be URM's and truthfully no one is going to call them out. There is a white guy at my school who says he's black and I don't see how it can be proven that he's not. It just weird to me that there aren't more white people who do this, maybe the honor system works or maybe the ones who are successful at doing don't broadcast that they claimed URM status.

I think a lot of people fail to understand the difference between lying and telling the truth.

If someone is 1/8th black and 7/8th mexican, it would be a LIE to put that you are only mexican. You would not be lying if you put both. They don't ask you to chart it out, or lay down percentages, so there is really no way you can tell them about it unless you talk about it in a diversity statement, or tell the employer.

The truth of the matter is that even if one never put it down before, because they did not know about it, it would not be wrong to start putting it now, since you would be lying if you didnt.

I embrace my family and I embrace where we come from. Since I just recently found out my great grandpa was black, I am going to embrace it from here until the end. I will tell my children that their great great grandfather was black. It would be a damn LIE if I told them we were 100% mexican, because we are not.

As for the OP, it would be a LIE if he didnt put that he was half hispanic/MA.

[delusional]

I never understood why more white people just don't lie and say they're black? It is an awful thing to do, but so is cheating and over 70% of students have done that before. You're talking about a chance to go to Harvard instead of Vandy. There are clearly white people who claim to be URM's and truthfully no one is going to call them out. There is a white guy at my school who says he's black and I don't see how it can be proven that he's not. It just weird to me that there aren't more white people who do this, maybe the honor system works or maybe the ones who are successful at doing don't broadcast that they claimed URM status.

It's funny to think about what the consequences could be. Imagine if some random guy fills out on his app that he's black. At what point will someone pull him to the side and ask him what his justification was? It's not like there's a race delineation on your student ID that needs to be verified.

FWIW, I know a couple people who seem to have gotten a URM boost from living in certain areas rather than being ethnically tied to those areas. And it goes without saying that even people with ethnic ties don't always create "diversity" by virtue of those ties, depending on how/where they were raised, etc.

[jas1503]

No it isn't. We operate on a honor system with race. If someone feels they are a URM, then they check the box. If they feel that they are not, then they shouldn't. It was clear from the OP's post that he is in fact Mexican. Mexicans are in fact URMs. So he should feel free to check the box if he considers himself a mexican. He should not if he doesn't.

I never understood why more white people just don't lie and say they're black? It is an awful thing to do, but so is cheating and over 70% of students have done that before. You're talking about a chance to go to Harvard instead of Vandy. There are clearly white people who claim to be URM's and truthfully no one is going to call them out. There is a white guy at my school who says he's black and I don't see how it can be proven that he's not. It just weird to me that there aren't more white people who do this, maybe the honor system works or maybe the ones who are successful at doing don't broadcast that they claimed URM status.

I think a lot of people fail to understand the difference between lying and telling the truth.

If someone is 1/8th black and 7/8th mexican, it would be a LIE to put that you are only mexican. You would not be lying if you put both. They don't ask you to chart it out, or lay down percentages, so there is really no way you can tell them about it unless you talk about it in a diversity statement, or tell the employer.

The truth of the matter is that even if one never put it down before, because they did not know about it, it would not be wrong to start putting it now, since you would be lying if you didnt.

I embrace my family and I embrace where we come from. Since I just recently found out my great grandpa was black, I am going to embrace it from here until the end. I will tell my children that their great great grandfather was black. It would be a damn LIE if I told them we were 100% mexican, because we are not.

As for the OP, it would be a LIE if he didnt put that he was half hispanic/MA.

You're so blatantly full sh*t.

[jas1503]

I never understood why more white people just don't lie and say they're black? It is an awful thing to do, but so is cheating and over 70% of students have done that before. You're talking about a chance to go to Harvard instead of Vandy. There are clearly white people who claim to be URM's and truthfully no one is going to call them out. There is a white guy at my school who says he's black and I don't see how it can be proven that he's not. It just weird to me that there aren't more white people who do this, maybe the honor system works or maybe the ones who are successful at doing don't broadcast that they claimed URM status.

It's funny to think about what the consequences could be. Imagine if some random guy fills out on his app that he's black. At what point will someone pull him to the side and ask him what his justification was? It's not like there's a race delineation on your student ID that needs to be verified.

FWIW, I know a couple people who seem to have gotten a URM boost from living in certain areas rather than being ethnically tied to those areas. And it goes without saying that even people with ethnic ties don't always create "diversity" by virtue of those ties, depending on how/where they were raised, etc.

I didn't know anything about an 'URM boost' until I came to this forum looking for LSAT information, but my conclusion is that it's clearly a scam that doesn't serve its ethical purpose.

[dowu]

You're so blatantly full sh*t.

I didn't know anything about an 'URM boost' until I came to this forum looking for LSAT information, but my conclusion is that it's clearly a scam that doesn't serve its ethical purpose.

I found out that you're an AA, so why the fuck are you hating? Check the "other" box if you're so god damn hard.

Regardless of your shitty opinion, AAs/MAs/NAs/PRs are still heavily under represented in law schools, which is a huge reason for the boost, so you can just shut the fuck up.

[unc0mm0n1]

You're so blatantly full sh*t.

I didn't know anything about an 'URM boost' until I came to this forum looking for LSAT information, but my conclusion is that it's clearly a scam that doesn't serve its ethical purpose.

I found out that you're an AA, so why the fuck are you hating? Check the "other" box if you're so god damn hard.

Regardless of your shitty opinion, AAs/MAs/NAs/PRs are still heavily under represented in law schools, which is a huge reason for the boost, so you can just shut the fuck up.

I understand this but....... Nope not going to do it. Don't feel like getting banned. Truthfully since I don't come on TLS that much anymore the banning would not matter but arguing about AA is pointless. As a black guy I actually hate the way it is currently administered but I know you're not going to change opinions esp. not on a message board like TLS. I can't knock anyone's hustle, no matter how morally repugnant I find various practices (some mentioned in this thread), people like GAIA and Vanwinkle are right according to the BLL.

[dowu]

You're so blatantly full sh*t.

I didn't know anything about an 'URM boost' until I came to this forum looking for LSAT information, but my conclusion is that it's clearly a scam that doesn't serve its ethical purpose.

I found out that you're an AA, so why the fuck are you hating? Check the "other" box if you're so god damn hard.

Regardless of your shitty opinion, AAs/MAs/NAs/PRs are still heavily under represented in law schools, which is a huge reason for the boost, so you can just shut the fuck up.

I understand this but....... Nope not going to do it. Don't feel like getting banned. Truthfully since I don't come on TLS that much anymore the banning would not matter but arguing about AA is pointless. As a black guy I actually hate the way it is currently administered but I know you're not going to change opinions esp. not on a message board like TLS. I can't knock anyone's hustle, no matter how morally repugnant I find various practices (some mentioned in this thread), people like GAIA and Vanwinkle are right according to the BLL.

Well, I agree with VW and GAIA. I wasnt intending to argue with you, kind sir.

In short, there is a difference between what one's opinion is and what is actually the case. Many people seem to ignore the difference.