Top Law Schools

Really?

1) No. "URM" means "under-represented minority" and only applies to certain narrow racial classifications that have been recognized by the courts as traditionally under-represented in education systems relative to the overall American population. See Grutter v. Bollinger for details. In race-based admissions this is important because current courts would find a stricter race-based boost would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which protects all races (including whites) from discrimination.

2) Grutter outlines a process that only allows race-based admissions on those narrow circumstances to improve diversity. However, schools can increase diversity more freely in other ways without violating the Equal Protection Clause. There is no current Equal Protection recognition on the basis of sexual orientation (Lawrence v. Texas was won on due process, not EP, grounds) which means that gays are not protected in many ways; however, it also works the other way around and means that straight people are not protected against discrimination that favors gays. In that sense, while it would not be URM, schools are actually more free to give boosts to gays than they are to minorities.

However, I don't know of any evidence that they actually do this. Schools that do care seem to treat LGBT as a soft factor and don't appear to give hard numbers boosts on a consistent basis.

I know of at least one school (Brigham Young) where it'll be counted against you.

downing wrote:I know of at least one school (Brigham Young) where it'll be counted against you.

lol

vanwinkle wrote:1) No. "URM" means "under-represented minority" and only applies to certain narrow racial classifications that have been recognized by the courts as traditionally under-represented in education systems relative to the overall American population. See Grutter v. Bollinger for details. In race-based admissions this is important because current courts would find a stricter race-based boost would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which protects all races (including whites) from discrimination.

2) Grutter outlines a process that only allows race-based admissions on those narrow circumstances to improve diversity. However, schools can increase diversity more freely in other ways without violating the Equal Protection Clause. There is no current Equal Protection recognition on the basis of sexual orientation (Lawrence v. Texas was won on due process, not EP, grounds) which means that gays are not protected in many ways; however, it also works the other way around and means that straight people are not protected against discrimination that favors gays. In that sense, while it would not be URM, schools are actually more free to give boosts to gays than they are to minorities.

However, I don't know of any evidence that they actually do this. Schools that do care seem to treat LGBT as a soft factor and don't appear to give hard numbers boosts on a consistent basis.

Oh, U of Mich: How you've spent so much time and money to get "it" right.

Just to get the bullshit disclaimer out of the way: I'm a gay basher, etc. - don't judge me, w/e.
As it stands today, being gay is an not an immutable quality and therefore I have a huge problem with schools giving a "URM" status on that basis. Perhaps it's considered immutable for some, but seriously -

What would stop me from going to Harvard and telling them, "I just banged a dude a couple hours ago and I'm gay. Boost plz." for the sole purpose of a URM boost.

Edit: Also, on the end - why is it relevant? What business is it to a school or workplace to know your orientation? Not exactly proper etiquette to ask during an interview...

ResolutePear wrote:As it stands today, being gay is an not an immutable quality and therefore I have a huge problem with schools giving a "URM" status on that basis. Perhaps it's considered immutable for some, but seriously -

The normal policy on affirmative action debates (for race-based admissions) here is this: It's okay to talk in the on-topic forums about how things work (as in, to give advice to URMs) but not to argue about how right that is (whether or not we should have affirmative action, diversity promotion, etc.). I think I'm going to declare now that this applies to the LGBT question as well.

Anyone who wants to talk about whether schools currently give LGBT applicants a diversity boost or not and give advice to LGBT applicants based on that is welcome to do so in this forum. If you want to have a political discussion about affirmative action for gays and whether or not you personally think it should exist, please go do that in the Lounge.

Thank you.

i dont htink so... i think schools consider sexual orientation to be a lifestyle choice, and not a race or ethnic group. (its a topic that employers/admissions people cant ask, but you have the option to disclose if you like. )

if you feel strongly about it, you can write a diversity statement about any obstacles you have faced,and how you have grown from it.- That may help, but depending on the school, that statement will take place of your personal statement.

You are not going to get anything more than a very slight boost.

I would not out myself in an application. Your application will be reviewed when you apply for the bar, so if you out yourself, the state will know what your sexual orientation is. This will likely include the FBI once your fingerprints and bar application are forwarded to them as part of your background check.

vanwinkle wrote:I think I'm going to declare now that this applies to the LGBT question as well.

Those damn straights and their non-diversity - now there's the real problem!

Apply it to all "sexual-orientation" questions?

northwood wrote:i dont htink so... i think schools consider sexual orientation to be a lifestyle choice,

Lifestyle Choice?

At any rate, all I ever say on this issue is that if no schools care about giving some kind of boost to gay applicants, why do they ask applicants if they're gay?

To me there could be a few possible answers:

1. For some kind of preferential boost

2. For some kind of negative impact

3. To provide gay students with information about resources on campus

Since I don't believe most admissions committees are out to be insidious, I assume that schools that do ask do so for reasons 1/3.

kk19131 wrote:

northwood wrote:i dont htink so... i think schools consider sexual orientation to be a lifestyle choice,

Lifestyle Choice?

At any rate, all I ever say on this issue is that if no schools care about giving some kind of boost to gay applicants, why do they ask applicants if they're gay?

To me there could be a few possible answers:

1. For some kind of preferential boost

2. For some kind of negative impact

3. To provide gay students with information about resources on campus

Since I don't believe most admissions committees are out to be insidious, I assume that schools that do ask do so for reasons 1+3.

That's odd. Are you required to divulge? I suspect it's like Race. If you're AA but you don't want it to be a consideration for admittance, you don't have to put it?

ResolutePear wrote:That's odd. Are you required to divulge? I suspect it's like Race. If you're AA but you don't want it to be a consideration for admittance, you don't have to put it?

I believe that, like questions about race/ethnicity, it's listed as optional on applications that request it.

Judging by the large amount of LGBT DS on this site, it seems like gays may be ORM at certain law schools IMO.

El_Gallo wrote:Judging by the large amount of LGBT DS on this site, it seems like gays may be ORM at certain law schools IMO.

So. Much. Lulz.

Over-Represented.... Minority. Really?

Maybe not ORM because it is pretty much impossible to say how many are actually out there, but why would they be URM? Are straight men more likely to apply for law school than gays?

That being said, the unique trials and challenges that gays face may make them slightly stronger applicants than their straight counterparts. If there is any boost though, I don't think it has anything to do with being under represented.

El_Gallo wrote:Maybe not ORM because it is pretty much impossible to say how many are actually out there, but why would they be URM? Are straight men more likely to apply for law school than gays?

That being said, the unique trials and challenges that gays face may make them slightly stronger applicants than their straight counterparts. If there is any boost though, I don't think it has anything to do with being under represented.

You're right, straight men do not face unique trials or challenges in life. It's always a cakewalk.

Deuce wrote:You're right, straight men do not face unique trials or challenges in life. It's always a cakewalk.

Never said that. All else being equal though, in most situations, a gay guy probably has it harder than a straight one. However, the point I was trying to make is that I don't think they are URM

ResolutePear wrote:

El_Gallo wrote:Judging by the large amount of LGBT DS on this site, it seems like gays may be ORM at certain law schools IMO.

So. Much. Lulz.

Over-Represented.... Minority. Really?

Yeah, its possible. Maybe you were thinking its a contradiction of terms, but its not.

El_Gallo wrote:

Deuce wrote:You're right, straight men do not face unique trials or challenges in life. It's always a cakewalk.

Never said that. All else being equal though, in most situations, a gay guy probably has it harder than a straight one. However, the point I was trying to make is that I don't think they are URM

+1.

Remember... we're dealing with REPRESENTATION in law school and the legal profession - not with who has it (seemingly) harder than whom.

tomtom23 wrote:

downing wrote:I know of at least one school (Brigham Young) where it'll be counted against you.

lol

but would you even really apply?

ResolutePear wrote:Over-Represented.... Minority. Really?

The phrase "ORM" was born on TLS because of Asian-Americans, who are over-represented in graduate schools. "Under-represented" refers to having a smaller % of that race in the student body than exists in the overall population, but Asian-Americans are the opposite. The % of Asians in the student body of many schools is significantly higher than the % of Asians in the overall population; hence over-represented (but still a minority).

El_Gallo wrote:

Deuce wrote:You're right, straight men do not face unique trials or challenges in life. It's always a cakewalk.

Never said that. All else being equal though, in most situations, a gay guy probably has it harder than a straight one. However, the point I was trying to make is that I don't think they are URM

Pretty difficult to make "all else equal" when you're talking about every aspect of a life.

Deuce wrote:You're right, straight men do not face unique trials or challenges in life. It's always a cakewalk.

El_Gallo wrote:All else being equal though, in most situations, a gay guy probably has it harder than a straight one.

Let's see this part of things stop being argued here, kthx. Once again, let's not get into any AA debates, and that includes who is or isn't "deserving" of anything.

in the end, your numbers and overall strength of you application will determine if you are admitted or not. If you decide to disclose your sexual orientation, who knows what it will do? I'm sure that the school, if you are admitted ( please stay away from discriminatory remarks in admissions) will provide you with some resources for groups, and places to that are LGBT friendly, to help you accumulate to the school and area.

It is true that LGBT have been discriminated against in the past, just like every other group has ( to what degree and extent is another topic that does not need to be brought up/ discussed in this thread), and schools may take that into consideration. If you feel you have a unique and convincing story- write an essay about it and send it in. That will help them get a better picture of you instead of merely checking a box on an optional question in the application.

your sexual orientation is a part of your lifestyle- and any information about your lifestyle is completely optional to disclose or not. it all depends on how comfortable you are with it.

northwood wrote:your sexual orientation is a part of your lifestyle- and any information about your lifestyle is completely optional to disclose or not. it all depends on how comfortable you are with it.

Let's not get into the "is sexual orientation a lifestyle choice" debate here, again, thanks.

I do wholeheartedly agree about how identifying is optional, and a personalized DS would matter more than checking a box. I think that's true of any sort of diversity someone might add.