Top Law Schools

I'm curious to hear peoples opinion. URM'S get a significant boost in admissions but the same isn't true on exams. So I'm curious if URM'S fall victim to the grading curve because of more difficult competition.

<< URM who's "made a living" eating people who underestimated him b/c of his test scores.

Whether that remains true in law school, we'll see.

Another crafty AA debate thread

If they do, they still won't tell you. And why should they? It's none of your business.

FunkyJD wrote:<< URM who's "made a living" eating people who underestimated him b/c of his test scores.

Whether that remains true in law school, we'll see.

Want to hear from others that have experience. Don't want to debate anything, just hear actual experiences.

hiromoto45 wrote:Another crafty AA debate thread

Why are there never threads like this on legacies? Does OP think they do worse on exams? What about Truman/Rhodes scholars? People with awesome WE? Yup, another veiled AA thread.

don't have an opinion at all. Just curious. And yes, the same question could apply to legacies

steven3579 wrote:

FunkyJD wrote:<< URM who's "made a living" eating people who underestimated him b/c of his test scores.

Whether that remains true in law school, we'll see.

Want to hear from others that have experience. Don't want to debate anything, just hear actual experiences.

You're seriously wanting a URM to post here and say, "I got into BU with a 156, and ended up with a 2.9 GPA?"

Or, you're wanting a non-URM to speculate on the grades of his URM classmates?

My verdict:

In short, yes. While there are some who excel immediately, from what I've seen the large majority don't do so well initially.

I'll never quite understand why unaffected non-URMs care so much about this and can't just worry about their own lives.

Laina wrote:

hiromoto45 wrote:Another crafty AA debate thread

Why are there never threads like this on legacies? Does OP think they do worse on exams? What about Truman/Rhodes scholars? People with awesome WE? Yup, another veiled AA thread.

What?

You mean URM's with lower stats, not URM's in general, right? I know lots of URM's with either 99% LSAT scores or amazing gpa's, both of which indicate they could do well in law school.

If you don't want to spark up an AA debate, you should rename this thread "Do people who get into their reach schools struggle more than others?" or "Do people who do surprisingly well in their cycle struggle in law school more than others?"

Otherwise, we know what point you're trying to make...

D. H2Oman wrote:http://web3.cc.utexas.edu/law/academics ... rpaper.pdf

From my very limited review of the literature when I was researching another topic, this is generally the credited response.

D. H2Oman wrote:http://web3.cc.utexas.edu/law/academics ... rpaper.pdf

Interesting paper. Thanks for the reference.

jl2032 wrote:You mean URM's with lower stats, not URM's in general, right? I know lots of URM's with either 99% LSAT scores or amazing gpa's, both of which indicate they could do well in law school.

If you don't want to spark up an AA debate, you should rename this thread "Do people who get into their reach schools struggle more than others?" or "Do people who do surprisingly well in their cycle struggle in law school more than others?"

Otherwise, we know what point you're trying to make...

You're right and I changed the title

From what I've heard many schools stack sections with students that have similar scores (or receive merit scholarships, etc.) and base the grading curve on individual sections - not the entire 0L class. Thus, if a URM scored poorly on the LSAT, in many schools its unlikely that he/she will be in a section with a high scorer.

I'd also add that there are many articles written on the subject of URM admittance to law school vs. law school performance, etc. TLS doesn't seem like the appropriate source to get information on this topic. At most you'll get unsubstantiated opinions, anecdotes, and a few helpful (or unhelpful) links to information. So if you're genuinely curious, you should probably seek out answers elsewhere.

jl2032 wrote:You mean URM's with lower stats, not URM's in general, right? I know lots of URM's with either 99% LSAT scores or amazing gpa's, both of which indicate they could do well in law school.

If you don't want to spark up an AA debate, you should rename this thread "Do people who get into their reach schools struggle more than others?" or "Do people who do surprisingly well in their cycle struggle in law school more than others?"

Otherwise, we know what point you're trying to make...

I'm all for your suggestion, but last I checked, there aren't that many URM's with 99% LSAT scores. Maybe you know them all.

evilgenius wrote:From what I've heard many schools stack sections with students that have similar scores (or receive merit scholarships, etc.) and base the grading curve on individual sections - not the entire 0L class. Thus, if a URM scored poorly on the LSAT, in many schools its unlikely that he/she will be in a section with a high scorer.

I am very interested in the section stacking argument. Where did you get this info? I have never talked to anyone who can properly justify it or verify it with personal experience. The only real argument is that schools want their scholarship $ back, but considering schools' necessity to have their most "talented" students perform well, get good jobs, be good alumni etc. section stacking doesn't make sense

So, I do not know what their test scores were coming in, but there are several URMs here with great first semester grades.

I doubt there's a strict relationship, especially at top schools. The difference between at reach and a safety in the T10 might be 4 LSAT points, which is a negligible difference in terms of absolute intelligence.

For an anecdote, scroll down in this article - a guy who won the sears prize a few years ago (highest GPA at HLS) was rejected the first time he applied and in off the waitlist the second time.

--LinkRemoved--

evilgenius wrote:[strike]From what I've heard many schools stack sections with students that have similar scores (or receive merit scholarships, etc.) and base the grading curve on individual sections - not the entire 0L class. Thus, if a URM scored poorly on the LSAT, in many schools its unlikely that he/she will be in a section with a high scorer.[/strike]

Not at any school worth attending.

Now that the title has changed...

If you get a boost for any reason, and it helped you get a full ride somewhere that you would have gotten into anyway, and you end up taking the scholarship, you're going to be with classmates that have your same stats... You'll just graduate debt-free. In that case, you're not at a disadvantage.

However, if the boost gets you into a reach school (without money), and you choose to take this option, you may be at a disadvantage because you will be there with students who have better stats, maybe even with people who have such higher stats that they are getting scholarships to attend. In that case, you will be at a disadvantage.

The debate isn't just limited to URM's in this second case, though. All students who go to the highest-ranked school they can get into, paying full sticker, are at a disadvantage because they are competing with people who have way better stats and are getting scholarships to attend.

Grading is pretty much based on how well each student, relative to the others, makes an educated guess as to how to write an exam.

Therefore, admit stats barely matter.





/semi-sarcastic rambling.

MissCongeniality wrote:I'll never quite understand why unaffected non-URMs care so much about this and can't just worry about their own lives.

Every non-URM who applies to law school is affected, because there are limited spots and many are filled by less-qualified candidates. So its a valid question to ask whether or not URMs succeed once at law schools for which they have below average qualifications, because if so then it would raise questions about the merits of AA. Its absurd to claim that all non-URMs ought to ignore the issue.

junelsat wrote:

MissCongeniality wrote:I'll never quite understand why unaffected non-URMs care so much about this and can't just worry about their own lives.

Every non-URM who applies to law school is affected, because there are limited spots and many are filled by less-qualified candidates. So its a valid question to ask whether or not URMs succeed once at law schools for which they have below average qualifications, because if so then it would raise questions about the merits of AA. Its absurd to claim that all non-URMs ought to ignore the issue.