GOOD LUCK WITH THE REST OF YOUR CYCLES!!!

Ya I was a middle of January applicant. I knew going in that if I got into most of the schools, then I would be left without money.danitt wrote:Did you apply late? I'm surprised that you're not getting more in terms of scholarship money.
Congrats! and there is still a chance at money from Harvard after you fill out all of their financial aid forms correct?Barca10 wrote:Ya I was a middle of January applicant. I knew going in that if I got into most of the schools, then I would be left without money.danitt wrote:Did you apply late? I'm surprised that you're not getting more in terms of scholarship money.
I stopped checking long ago. I applied in october and stopped checking my status in Feb. I came back from spring break and found the rejection letter in my mail. lolCookie2 wrote:Sorry Dani Bbut you got into several better schools anyways. Also did your status checker update?
AS33 wrote:Dani B again! I got rejected too! Michigan is strange this year.
Did you write a Diversity statement? Just out of pure curiosity.2015JD wrote:updated also including law school predictor to show just how horrid my cycle is. The one in [] are the decisions if I uncheck URM
PR 164 3.55
Pending:
University of Maryland (admit) [strong consider]
NYU (deny) [deny]
IU Bloomington (admit) [strong consider]
U Penn (consider) [deny]
Vandy (consider) [deny]
W&M (strong consider) [consider]
Rejected at:
Harvard (deny) [deny]
BU (consider) [weak consider]
BC (strong consider) [consider]
Berkeley (consider) [deny]
Columbia (deny) [deny]
Cornell (weak consider) [deny]
Duke (deny) [deny]
Georgetown (weak consider) [deny]
Northwestern (consider) [weak consider]
UVA (consider) [deny]
Waitlist:
GW (strong consider) [consider]
W&L (admit) [consider]
In at:
Fordham (no money, even after telling them about the $40k at Cardozo) (strong consider) [consider]
Cardozo ($40k a year guaranteed) (admit) [consider]
With the rejection at BC I am really scared that I won't get in at W&M. W&M has always been my top pick but they have been sitting on my app since the end of December.
As a Non-URM applicant my cycle doesn't seem out of place or anything, it's just the supposed URM boost was supposed to help me hit something better than Fordham without money and Cardozo.
Basically it seems the only URM boost I have received, is that of the $40,000 a year at Cardozo. However I most likely would have received some money from them.
2015JD wrote:updated also including law school predictor to show just how horrid my cycle is. The one in [] are the decisions if I uncheck URM
PR 164 3.55
Pending:
University of Maryland (admit) [strong consider]
NYU (deny) [deny]
IU Bloomington (admit) [strong consider]
U Penn (consider) [deny]
Vandy (consider) [deny]
W&M (strong consider) [consider]
Rejected at:
Harvard (deny) [deny]
BU (consider) [weak consider]
BC (strong consider) [consider]
Berkeley (consider) [deny]
Columbia (deny) [deny]
Cornell (weak consider) [deny]
Duke (deny) [deny]
Georgetown (weak consider) [deny]
Northwestern (consider) [weak consider]
UVA (consider) [deny]
Waitlist:
GW (strong consider) [consider]
W&L (admit) [consider]
In at:
Fordham (no money, even after telling them about the $40k at Cardozo) (strong consider) [consider]
Cardozo ($40k a year guaranteed) (admit) [consider]
With the rejection at BC I am really scared that I won't get in at W&M. W&M has always been my top pick but they have been sitting on my app since the end of December.
As a Non-URM applicant my cycle doesn't seem out of place or anything, it's just the supposed URM boost was supposed to help me hit something better than Fordham without money and Cardozo.
Basically it seems the only URM boost I have received, is that of the $40,000 a year at Cardozo. However I most likely would have received some money from them.
No, sent in PM why.Trips wrote: Did you write a Diversity statement? Just out of pure curiosity.
Agreed I feel like if AA get 100% URM boost, PR get like 30%. Yet because of the generally negative association with affirmative action we get 100% of the stigma. Sucks.tooswolle wrote: Honestly dude I don't think it is the lack of a urm boost its more likely the lack of power the boost has for Hispanic, PR and MA applicants. I honestly would love to know why schools aren't more aggressive in recruiting these groups as they are prone to many socio-economic disadvantages as other groups and if it's a 1st generation student they don't have a system of support. With that being said I believe I got some help, but I might end up retaking my LSAT as I know I can hit the mid to high 160 's I just choked on test day!
Yea I've seen that play out on lsn. The craziest thing is that many of the obstacles faced by all of these groups are the same. Poverty rates, incarceration rates, lack of educational attainment. I've always wondered why we get the short end of the stick. Regardless I don't mean to derail this awesome thread. Everyone's helped me gain confidence that by boosting my LSAT there is an opportunity to get se great acceptances.2015JD wrote:No, sent in PM why.Trips wrote: Did you write a Diversity statement? Just out of pure curiosity.
Agreed I feel like if AA get 100% URM boost, PR get like 30%. Yet because of the generally negative association with affirmative action we get 100% of the stigma. Sucks.tooswolle wrote: Honestly dude I don't think it is the lack of a urm boost its more likely the lack of power the boost has for Hispanic, PR and MA applicants. I honestly would love to know why schools aren't more aggressive in recruiting these groups as they are prone to many socio-economic disadvantages as other groups and if it's a 1st generation student they don't have a system of support. With that being said I believe I got some help, but I might end up retaking my LSAT as I know I can hit the mid to high 160 's I just choked on test day!
Also out at Penn today.
Not meaning to derail (or debate) either, but just to try to explain. The reason for that isn't because of 'differing obstacles faced by these groups'. It is more to do with the proportion of a race in the general population compared with the proportion of a race in a law school. For example, (and I'm pulling numbers out of my culo btw) imagine 12% of the country is black and 4% is Puerto Rican, however 3% of a law school is black and 3% is Puerto Rican. Understandably that law school is going to give a significantly stronger effort to enroll black students because PRs are already at 3/4ths of their representation in the US (hence the term under represented minority), while blacks would only be a 1/4th of the way there. PRs just aren't as under represented as blacks, that's all it means.tooswolle wrote:Yea I've seen that play out on lsn. The craziest thing is that many of the obstacles faced by all of these groups are the same. Poverty rates, incarceration rates, lack of educational attainment. I've always wondered why we get the short end of the stick. Regardless I don't mean to derail this awesome thread. Everyone's helped me gain confidence that by boosting my LSAT there is an opportunity to get se great acceptances.2015JD wrote:No, sent in PM why.Trips wrote: Did you write a Diversity statement? Just out of pure curiosity.
Agreed I feel like if AA get 100% URM boost, PR get like 30%. Yet because of the generally negative association with affirmative action we get 100% of the stigma. Sucks.tooswolle wrote: Honestly dude I don't think it is the lack of a urm boost its more likely the lack of power the boost has for Hispanic, PR and MA applicants. I honestly would love to know why schools aren't more aggressive in recruiting these groups as they are prone to many socio-economic disadvantages as other groups and if it's a 1st generation student they don't have a system of support. With that being said I believe I got some help, but I might end up retaking my LSAT as I know I can hit the mid to high 160 's I just choked on test day!
Also out at Penn today.
The only problem with that logic is that Law Schools (at least for the ABA) lump ALL Hispanics together (PR, MX, etc), even with this you will be hard pressed to find a law school with more Hispanics than African-Americans. This is on top of the fact that Hispanics make up 16.3% of the population, while African-Americans make up 13.6%. Just take a look at the schools data here https://officialguide.lsac.org/release/ ... fault.aspx . As an example Harvard reports 1733 total JD students, 137 (or 7.9%) represent ALL HISPANIC, 195 (or 11.3%) represent AFRICAN-AMERICAN. Those 137 in the ALL HISPANIC category could be made up any combination of Hispanics. Plain and simple my feeling is that PR/MX are no longer considered URMs, hence they are lumped together with all the other Hispanics.TrialLawyer16 wrote: Not meaning to derail (or debate) either, but just to try to explain. The reason for that isn't because of 'differing obstacles faced by these groups'. It is more to do with the proportion of a race in the general population compared with the proportion of a race in a law school. For example, (and I'm pulling numbers out of my culo btw) imagine 12% of the country is black and 4% is Puerto Rican, however 3% of a law school is black and 3% is Puerto Rican. Understandably that law school is going to give a significantly stronger effort to enroll black students because PRs are already at 3/4ths of their representation in the US (hence the term under represented minority), while blacks would only be a 1/4th of the way there. PRs just aren't as under represented as blacks, that's all it means.
In my understanding the 'URM boost' has nothing to do with "obstacles faced" by certain groups, it's strictly a numbers things. Contrarily, I think the fact that these groups are under represented in the first place could be indicative of the obstacles faced. The obstacles faced by individuals is something that I think should/does play a role in deciding on an applicant, but that would be reflected in a PS/DS and I don't believe the role played by surmounting such obstacles is determined by ethnicity. If a PS/DS is so moving it impels an adcomm to accept an applicant, I think that student is accepted whether they are black, white, or green.
Anywho, back to the topic of this thread. I'm really enjoying hearing of all of your success!
2015JD wrote:The only problem with that logic is that Law Schools (at least for the ABA) lump ALL Hispanics together (PR, MX, etc), even with this you will be hard pressed to find a law school with more Hispanics than African-Americans. This is on top of the fact that Hispanics make up 16.3% of the population, while African-Americans make up 13.6%. Just take a look at the schools data here https://officialguide.lsac.org/release/ ... fault.aspx . As an example Harvard reports 1733 total JD students, 137 (or 7.9%) represent ALL HISPANIC, 195 (or 11.3%) represent AFRICAN-AMERICAN. Those 137 in the ALL HISPANIC category could be made up any combination of Hispanics. Plain and simple my feeling is that PR/MX are no longer considered URMs, hence they are lumped together with all the other Hispanics.TrialLawyer16 wrote: Not meaning to derail (or debate) either, but just to try to explain. The reason for that isn't because of 'differing obstacles faced by these groups'. It is more to do with the proportion of a race in the general population compared with the proportion of a race in a law school. For example, (and I'm pulling numbers out of my culo btw) imagine 12% of the country is black and 4% is Puerto Rican, however 3% of a law school is black and 3% is Puerto Rican. Understandably that law school is going to give a significantly stronger effort to enroll black students because PRs are already at 3/4ths of their representation in the US (hence the term under represented minority), while blacks would only be a 1/4th of the way there. PRs just aren't as under represented as blacks, that's all it means.
In my understanding the 'URM boost' has nothing to do with "obstacles faced" by certain groups, it's strictly a numbers things. Contrarily, I think the fact that these groups are under represented in the first place could be indicative of the obstacles faced. The obstacles faced by individuals is something that I think should/does play a role in deciding on an applicant, but that would be reflected in a PS/DS and I don't believe the role played by surmounting such obstacles is determined by ethnicity. If a PS/DS is so moving it impels an adcomm to accept an applicant, I think that student is accepted whether they are black, white, or green.
Anywho, back to the topic of this thread. I'm really enjoying hearing of all of your success!
My hypothesis is AA + NA = URM, Hispanics = secondary URM (as there is some slight difference between them and white applicants).
You'd be surprised.2015JD wrote:TrialLawyer16 wrote: My hypothesis is AA + NA = URM, Hispanics = secondary URM (as there is some slight difference between them and white applicants).
Also, I can't really search the ABA data right now, but I know for a fact that Harvard is not representative of most top schools when it comes to the proportional size of it's AA population. I believe Columbia and NYU, which are both known for being more diverse, have AA populations in the 7-8% range, this is all off the top of my head though.2015JD wrote:The only problem with that logic is that Law Schools (at least for the ABA) lump ALL Hispanics together (PR, MX, etc), even with this you will be hard pressed to find a law school with more Hispanics than African-Americans. This is on top of the fact that Hispanics make up 16.3% of the population, while African-Americans make up 13.6%. Just take a look at the schools data here https://officialguide.lsac.org/release/ ... fault.aspx . As an example Harvard reports 1733 total JD students, 137 (or 7.9%) represent ALL HISPANIC, 195 (or 11.3%) represent AFRICAN-AMERICAN. Those 137 in the ALL HISPANIC category could be made up any combination of Hispanics. Plain and simple my feeling is that PR/MX are no longer considered URMs, hence they are lumped together with all the other Hispanics.TrialLawyer16 wrote: Not meaning to derail (or debate) either, but just to try to explain. The reason for that isn't because of 'differing obstacles faced by these groups'. It is more to do with the proportion of a race in the general population compared with the proportion of a race in a law school. For example, (and I'm pulling numbers out of my culo btw) imagine 12% of the country is black and 4% is Puerto Rican, however 3% of a law school is black and 3% is Puerto Rican. Understandably that law school is going to give a significantly stronger effort to enroll black students because PRs are already at 3/4ths of their representation in the US (hence the term under represented minority), while blacks would only be a 1/4th of the way there. PRs just aren't as under represented as blacks, that's all it means.
In my understanding the 'URM boost' has nothing to do with "obstacles faced" by certain groups, it's strictly a numbers things. Contrarily, I think the fact that these groups are under represented in the first place could be indicative of the obstacles faced. The obstacles faced by individuals is something that I think should/does play a role in deciding on an applicant, but that would be reflected in a PS/DS and I don't believe the role played by surmounting such obstacles is determined by ethnicity. If a PS/DS is so moving it impels an adcomm to accept an applicant, I think that student is accepted whether they are black, white, or green.
Anywho, back to the topic of this thread. I'm really enjoying hearing of all of your success!
My hypothesis is AA + NA = URM, Hispanics = secondary URM (as there is some slight difference between them and white applicants).
Wouldn't that mean Hispanics should be given a larger boost as the applicant pool is smaller, in proportion to the population?MyLegendLives wrote: Something that surely contributes to the disparity you're noting at Harvard is that while hispanics make up over 16% of Americans, they only made up about 8.7% of all law school applicants as of Fall 2010. Blacks made up over 11% of applicants in Fall 2010.
Columbia All Hispanics 77 or 5.7% African American 103 or 7.7%MyLegendLives wrote: Also, I can't really search the ABA data right now, but I know for a fact that Harvard is not representative of most top schools when it comes to the proportional size of it's AA population. I believe Columbia and NYU, which are both known for being more diverse, have AA populations in the 7-8% range, this is all off the top of my head though.
I have not looked at NA cycles, but if you are suggesting that they to do not receive a boost, or recieve one similar to PR/MX, please extrapolate.FryBreadPower wrote:You'd be surprised.2015JD wrote:TrialLawyer16 wrote: My hypothesis is AA + NA = URM, Hispanics = secondary URM (as there is some slight difference between them and white applicants).
2015JD wrote:Wouldn't that mean Hispanics should be given a larger boost as the applicant pool is smaller, in proportion to the population?MyLegendLives wrote: Something that surely contributes to the disparity you're noting at Harvard is that while hispanics make up over 16% of Americans, they only made up about 8.7% of all law school applicants as of Fall 2010. Blacks made up over 11% of applicants in Fall 2010.
The problem is, is that there is not enough information to really develop a substantial pattern in any kind of direction. I have noticed some NA applicants whose cycles would seem to show that NA is an enormous boost; there are other NA candidates with cycles that would leave you to believe there is no boost whatsoever. In the end there are just so few NA applicants that its hard to put together a large number of data points.2015JD wrote:I have not looked at NA cycles, but if you are suggesting that they to do not receive a boost, or recieve one similar to PR/MX, please extrapolate.FryBreadPower wrote:You'd be surprised.2015JD wrote:TrialLawyer16 wrote: My hypothesis is AA + NA = URM, Hispanics = secondary URM (as there is some slight difference between them and white applicants).