Top Law Schools

I'm still confused about what is considered a URM? I am Nicaraguan and I am the first person from my mom's family to graduate from college. Can I expect to get a boost from that?

No.

URM = African American, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native American

bk187 wrote:No.

URM = African American, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native American

You forgot Native Alaskan/Eskimo bro

rglifberg wrote:I'm still confused about what is considered a URM? I am Nicaraguan and I am the first person from my mom's family to graduate from college. Can I expect to get a boost from that?

Doesn't this count? hispanic? IDK.

bk187 wrote:No.

URM = African American, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native American

Why? Hispanic is a pretty broad category and Central Americans in the US are both numerous and poor, as a whole. I would think Nicaraguans are URM. South Americans maybe less so.

Do you have a source to show that law schools limit Hispanic URM status to Puerto Rican and Mexican?

larsoner wrote:

bk187 wrote:No.

URM = African American, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native American

Why? Hispanic is a pretty broad category and Central Americans in the US are both numerous and poor, as a whole. I would think Nicaraguans are URM. South Americans maybe less so.

Do you have a source to show that law schools limit Hispanic URM status to Puerto Rican and Mexican?

My thoughts exactly...

larsoner wrote:

bk187 wrote:No.

URM = African American, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native American

Why? Hispanic is a pretty broad category and Central Americans in the US are both numerous and poor, as a whole. I would think Nicaraguans are URM. South Americans maybe less so.

Do you have a source to show that law schools limit Hispanic URM status to Puerto Rican and Mexican?

LSAC. But it still counts as diversity.

larsoner wrote:Why?

Because law schools say so.

larsoner wrote:Hispanic is a pretty broad category and Central Americans in the US are both numerous and poor, as a whole. I would think Nicaraguans are URM. South Americans maybe less so.

Non-Mexican Central Americans are not really that numerous and it has nothing to do with being poor. The concept is that the percentage of a given group is lower in the legal field than it is in population as a whole. So even if a given group was 0.01% of the legal profession, if they were 0.01% of the US population they wouldn't be underrepresented. That being said, I bet that there are groups other than AA/NA/MX/PR that are technically underrepresented but law schools have chosen those groups (likely due to the data showing they are clearly underrepresented whereas other groups, since they are much smaller, are harder to verify).

larsoner wrote:Do you have a source to show that law schools limit Hispanic URM status to Puerto Rican and Mexican?

Conventional wisdom of TLS that MX/PR's get URM boosts. Looking at all the anecdotes I think it's pretty easy to say that they are the only Hispanics that definitively get a boost are those two. Other Hispanics have gotten boosts (see http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=133626 for people discussing anecdotes regarding other Hispanics), but the boosts they get aren't automatic like it is more MX/PR and the boosts aren't nearly as large.

That thread has some people getting boosts who are other Hispanic (e.g. Cubans). It also gets wildly off topic a lot of the time. My opinion is that you shouldn't expect a boost as a non-MX/PR Hispanic. However you might end up doing better than your numbers suggest so definitely throw in more/higher reach schools than a normal non-URM would traditionally apply to.

It has nothing to do with being poor. It is all about statistical representation. There are actually quite a fair number of students with South and Central American ancestry in law schools. I would venture a guess that the proportion of South/Central Americans in law school is greater than the proportion of South/Central Americans in the US. Many students have parents who immigrated to the US, and note that they have Peruvian, Argentinian, Cuban ancestry, etc. The statistical representation isn't far off from what it should be. For example, Japanese-Americans make up less than 1/3 of a percent of the US population. Thus, having one person of Japanese descent would mean that they have proper statistical representation relative to society at large.

Compare that to blacks. They make up a fairly substantial percentage of the population, yet the percentage of blacks that make up law school classes is much lower than the percentage of society that they comprise. Thus, they are underepresented in law schools. Mexicans would be the same. We have many Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the US, and the low number of such students in law schools leads to a percentage that is lower than the percentage of society that they comprise. Thus, these 2 groups get additional boosts due to the fact that they are statistically underrepresented.

This simply isn't the case for South/Central Americans. Just within my group of friends alone, I have an Argentinian parent, and a close friend has a Cuban parent. I can only imagine how many other students have such heritage in the class and we wouldn't even know about it. So they certainly aren't underrepresented, and would receive little boost unless they can truly make a case for diversifying the class based on their life experiences in a way that other students cannot.

kaiser wrote:It has nothing to do with being poor. It is all about statistical representation. There are actually quite a fair number of students with South and Central American ancestry in law schools. I would venture a guess that the proportion of South/Central Americans in law school is greater than the proportion of South/Central Americans in the US. Many students have parents who immigrated to the US, and note that they have Peruvian, Argentinian, Cuban ancestry, etc. The statistical representation isn't far off from what it should be. For example, Japanese-Americans make up less than 1/3 of a percent of the US population. Thus, having one person of Japanese descent would mean that they have proper statistical representation relative to society at large.

Compare that to blacks. They make up a fairly substantial percentage of the population, yet the percentage of blacks that make up law school classes is much lower than the percentage of society that they comprise. Thus, they are underepresented in law schools. Mexicans would be the same. We have many Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the US, and the low number of such students in law schools leads to a percentage that is lower than the percentage of society that they comprise. Thus, these 2 groups get additional boosts due to the fact that they are statistically underrepresented.

This simply isn't the case for South/Central Americans. Just within my group of friends alone, I have an Argentinian parent, and a close friend has a Cuban parent. I can only imagine how many other students have such heritage in the class and we wouldn't even know about it. So they certainly aren't underrepresented, and would receive little boost unless they can truly make a case for diversifying the class based on their life experiences in a way that other students cannot.

I understand it's from a statistical perspective, but I don't think all South/Central American countries are in the same category. For instance, Argentina's country is far wealthier than Nicaragua and other similarly poor countries. When coming to the U.S. wealthier immigrant's have greater opportunities, and have more professional careers, so maybe some Hispanic countries are over-represented in law school, but I think it's pretty safe to say others besides the one's stated are urm are not.... That's just my opinion

Well, then maybe the schools will construe Nicaraguan-American as closer to Mexican-American. I have a friend who is Guatemalan, and certainly got a boost in admissions. So make sure to describe in a diversity statement the circumstances you come from, the situation your family had back in Nicaragua, etc. If you show that you have this diverse heritage, and rose up from less than advantageous circumstances, perhaps you can parlay that into a boost. But no one can say "oh, you will get 2 points boost" or "you get no boost". It is much more individualized than people make it seem.

kaiser wrote:Well, then maybe the schools will construe Nicaraguan-American as closer to Mexican-American. I have a friend who is Guatemalan, and certainly got a boost in admissions. So make sure to describe in a diversity statement the circumstances you come from, the situation your family had back in Nicaragua, etc. If you show that you have this diverse heritage, and rose up from less than advantageous circumstances, perhaps you can parlay that into a boost. But no one can say "oh, you will get 2 points boost" or "you get no boost". It is much more individualized than people make it seem.

Hahaha yeah that's what I was thinking. Appreciate the input.

URM means under represented minority. The key word is under represented. The way it works is if Your representation with in the US is far less than your representation as a lawyer.
Ex: African American US:16% Lawyers:1%
Mexican American US:15-18% lawyers:1%
Nicaraguan American US:1% Lawyers don't really know but you get the point.

You may get a diversity boost, but you won't get a URM boost because you aren't one.

benburns214 wrote:

bk187 wrote:No.

URM = African American, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native American

You forgot Native Alaskan/Eskimo bro

Thats NA brah

MichelFoucault wrote:

benburns214 wrote:

bk187 wrote:No.

URM = African American, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native American

You forgot Native Alaskan/Eskimo bro

Thats NA brah

Beleedat

You won't get a "URM" boost like AA, MA, or PRs get, but you will probably get a bump. Check out my LSN profile (I'm South American descent and wrote diversity statements).

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/bro2baseball

If you write a diversity statement, you very well may. I am a non-URM Hispanic, 170, 4.06, and I got into Harvard in November... so basically I was an auto-admit, with non auto-admit numbers, which seems to suggest I got a boost.

LaCumparsita wrote:If you write a diversity statement, you very well may. I am a non-URM Hispanic, 170, 4.06, and I got into Harvard in November... so basically I was an auto-admit, with non auto-admit numbers, which seems to suggest I got a boost.

So a 170 4.06 is not an auto admit? Seriously ppl are giving way to much credit to being an actual/perceived urm.

LaCumparsita wrote:If you write a diversity statement, you very well may. I am a non-URM Hispanic, 170, 4.06, and I got into Harvard in November... so basically I was an auto-admit, with non auto-admit numbers, which seems to suggest I got a boost.

a male that is half white and half asian would have a damn good chance to get accepted to Harvard with those numbers.

Haha thanks Mr. Pancakes, but in November? If you look on lawschoolnumbers, the other kids with my numbers who went complete at the same time as me haven't heard yet, and I heard in November... which leads me to believe that my diversity pushed me over the edge. Although I thought my personal statement was pretty cool too

LaCumparsita wrote:Haha thanks Mr. Pancakes, but in November? If you look on lawschoolnumbers, the other kids with my numbers who went complete at the same time as me haven't heard yet, and I heard in November... which leads me to believe that my diversity pushed me over the edge. Although I thought my personal statement was pretty cool too

your heritage probably helped.