Top Law Schools

.

jjrialva wrote:I read the LSAC statistical report on the LSAT (type "2003-2004 Through 2009-2010 Testing Years" on Google and you'll find it.. it's a PDF) and notice that Puerto Ricans underperformed consistently compared to the rest of the population and probably even dragged the whole Southeast score average down.

The median was about 138.

Anyway, seeing the Puerto Ricans score distribution in the report I could safely conclude that my 163+ score (prep test score) is in the 95%+ percentile probably 98%+ for our ethnic group.

feel better about yourself now?

jjrialva wrote:Before you make an assumption that we're dumb on our defense the LSAT is just a one third or less weight requirement for law schools in Puerto Rico so they don't pay that much attention to it. A lot of us also don't use English on a daily basis.

jesus, could you be more defensive? you know this is a subforum FOR URMs, right?

They're not going to take into account your ethnic/racial group's performance, but they do give boosts to URMs (which includes PRs in addition to AAs, NAs, and Mexican-Americans).

horrorbusiness wrote:

jjrialva wrote:I read the LSAC statistical report on the LSAT (type "2003-2004 Through 2009-2010 Testing Years" on Google and you'll find it.. it's a PDF) and notice that Puerto Ricans underperformed consistently compared to the rest of the population and probably even dragged the whole Southeast score average down.

The median was about 138.

Anyway, seeing the Puerto Ricans score distribution in the report I could safely conclude that my 163+ score (prep test score) is in the 95%+ percentile probably 98%+ for our ethnic group.

feel better about yourself now?

jjrialva wrote:Before you make an assumption that we're dumb on our defense the LSAT is just a one third or less weight requirement for law schools in Puerto Rico so they don't pay that much attention to it. A lot of us also don't use English on a daily basis.

jesus, could you be more defensive? you know this is a subforum FOR URMs, right?

Trying to figure out what attitude does the author of a paragraph has on the statement he or she just made without prior knowledge of the person, especially on the web, can be very difficult and words are often deceiving. I was not talking about others condescendingly, if that's the appropriate word, if not I think you get the what I'm trying to say. Try to find a way in which I could have expressed my specific inquiry without mentioning the score I got (a fact and nothing more), which is by the way overall not that impressive or else I wouldn't be here asking this. Maybe I could have asked "Do schools know which percentile are you within your own race/ethnicity?" and nothing more but then again not mentioning my brief calculation of the percentile I'm in would have probably not serve my purpose of letting you know that I'm thinking that because I'm in a better standing in relation to me specific ethnic group I think, If the admission official took it into consideration, that I have a better chance. I could get some more feedback on that underlying assumption of my question. (ex. "yes they do notice your percentile but being 95% percentile doesn't help that much") I do not see a reason for not stating a fact.

I don't quite understand what do you mean by asking if I know this is URM forum. I'm Puerto Rican and I felt the need to address a possible erroneous assumption other people who read this forum, who are not necessarily URM, might get from this information. It's a fair possible explanation. I do not write what you say it's defensive because of fear of retaliation. I write it to address a possible misinterpretation and further stereotyping of us URM. We overall score less because we are at an obvious socioeconomic disadvantage and I wanted to state an exact explanation derived from that fact. I'm glad you personally wouldn't think less of Puerto Ricans but others might.

bk187 wrote:They're not going to take into account your ethnic/racial group's performance, but they do give boosts to URMs (which includes PRs in addition to AAs, NAs, and Mexican-Americans).

Thank you.

jjrialva wrote:I read the LSAC statistical report on the LSAT (type "2003-2004 Through 2009-2010 Testing Years" on Google and you'll find it.. it's a PDF) and notice that Puerto Ricans underperformed consistently compared to the rest of the population and probably even dragged the whole Southeast score average down.

The median was about 138.

Before you make an assumption that we're dumb on our defense the LSAT is just a one third or less weight requirement for law schools in Puerto Rico so they don't pay that much attention to it. A lot of us also don't use English on a daily basis.

Anyway, seeing the Puerto Ricans score distribution in the report I could safely conclude that my 163+ score (prep test score) is in the 95%+ percentile probably 98%+ for our ethnic group.

Is this is something the admission office takes into consideration or at least is able to see when they are judging my application? Are they able to tell in what percentile I'm at compared to rest of Puerto Ricans or do they just ignore it maybe because in general Hispanics distribution is higher and we are thrown in the same group?

Also, if you are Puerto Rican or know someone Puerto Rican who has applied to law school I would like to hear your or their experience and possibly see the PS.

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I would like to know also. I am a Puerto Rican female and I am non-traditional (33, single mom). I have looked at the application data to many different schools and you are right - Puerto Ricans have low numbers. Add to that that hardly any PR's even applied to half of the schools, I can't help but wonder if that helps or hurts my chances. I have not taken the LSAT yet, but my practice tests (without real studying) are in the 160's. My issue is my LSAC GPA which is a 2.59. There are several circumstances that affected this. One of my undergrad institutions lied and said they were accredited - when they weren't and I wound up stopping attendance bc of that (after drop periods). That is my fault for not researching how that would affect me in the future. My GPA at my current undergrad (Penn State) is a 3.84, so obviously I am capable of more.

I wish that we could find straight answers to these questions, but I am not sure there are any, lol. The best course of action seems to be to study your butt off for the LSAT and get as high of a score as you possibly can and hope that counts for something (regardless of your race).

79radiohead:

It seems we are all pooled into the Hispanics category and that's why we get about the same URM boost as Mexicans. I don't think Law Schools take into consideration that less than 400 Puerto Ricans enroll in law schools each year in the US to represent the 4.6 million and growing population (I'm talking about continental US). They just see the Hispanics category were most are Mexican. (I LOVE MEXICANS, nothing against them)

You seem to have a fine explanation for why a low LSAC GPA which can be explained in an addendum on your application. I would try to explain what happened to you with the unaccredited courses in a way that it doesn't hurt your application, because, like you said, it might look like you were not responsible enough to do the research. On the other hand, I think the lsac GPA just won't let you get into some of the very top law schools. (I'm in the same situation 3.36 LSAC GPA)

If you have already been scoring above 160 with hardly any study you probably will be able to score consistent high 160's and beyond with practice so try to study for at least 4 months and take 10 or more prep test. I hope you don't have the language barrier problem that I have, which I think it's holding me back at least a somewhat.

Good Luck!

jjrialva wrote:79radiohead:

It seems we are all pooled into the Hispanics category and that's why we get about the same URM boost as Mexicans. I don't think Law Schools take into consideration that less than 400 Puerto Ricans enroll in law schools each year in the US to represent the 4.6 million and growing population (I'm talking about continental US). They just see the Hispanics category were most are Mexican. (I LOVE MEXICANS, nothing against them)

Huh? No i dont think so. There is a different box to check for PR/MA, and LSs do take into account the differences. Other Hispanics get practically no boost.

Nova wrote:

jjrialva wrote:79radiohead:

It seems we are all pooled into the Hispanics category and that's why we get about the same URM boost as Mexicans. I don't think Law Schools take into consideration that less than 400 Puerto Ricans enroll in law schools each year in the US to represent the 4.6 million and growing population (I'm talking about continental US). They just see the Hispanics category were most are Mexican. (I LOVE MEXICANS, nothing against them)

Huh? No i dont think so. There is a different box to check for PR/MA, and LSs do take into account the differences. Other Hispanics get practically no boost.

Is there any actual evidence behind this besides TLS posts?

PMan99 wrote:Is there any actual evidence behind this besides TLS posts?

AA/NA/MX/PR are the 4 groups that UMLS clearly demarcated as URMs and gave boosts to (see Grutter v. Bollinger). It is quite possible that other groups are actually underrepresented, but admissions departments likely hew as close to UMLS's admissions policies as possible to survive possible scrutiny (though private universities technically aren't held to the same bar).

It comports generally with what I've seen on TLS. That being said, other Hispanics sometimes get boosts, but it is not nearly as large or as regular as what MX/PR get.

.

vulpixie wrote:

Rickjames11 wrote:I have read that MA/PR get +5 on the LSAT.

No. The MA boost is around +5 or +7 (it's been shrinking for the past couple of years). PR, however, is much larger. More like +10 or +12, according to Anna Ivey. "Other Hispanics" get no bump.

Well I pretty much disagree with this completely. LOL @ +7 points for MAs. Yeah right. WTF does that even mean?? Boost to median?? Boost to the 25th?? Boost to the LSAT floor?? You cant really numerically qualify how big of an LSAT boost candidates get. You can try though...

ATL;Baylor Data wrote:I see about a three to four point bump for African-American or Hispanic students. By “bump,” I mean to say that if you were a white student, you had a fighting chance to get into Baylor with a 161 or 162 LSAT score. If you were black or Latino, you were in the running with a 159 or 158. There are some outliers, of course — a black kid with a 156, a white kid with a 158 — but, in general, I’m eyeballing the mode for white students at 162, and the mode for blacks and Hispanics at 159 or 158.

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/04/the-bayl ... olarships/

BTW, the black kid with a 156 has a 3.9. He deserves Baylor. When I look at the data on page 2, I see plenty of Hispanics and Blacks who were admitted with 160s. This hardly suggests AAs getting a near 10 point boost at relatively decent schools.

Anyway...

DaRascal, the average score for PRs is not 138. The median score is. The reason for this is because, like OP said, a significant amount of PR test takers are in Puerto Rico, taking the test to attend a Puerto Rican law school. You can pretty much disregard those test takers. The median is surely much higher for the resident population who speak English fluently.

According to the 2010 census, Puerto Rico's resident population was 3,725,789/308,745,538. That is slighly over 1 percent of the population. Meaning PRs only need to make up 1% of a law school to be considered represented.
--LinkRemoved--

AAs made up slighly over 12 percent of the population.

But honestly, Schools do not come close to representing any URM as a whole.

The Columbia study found that among the 46,500 law school matriculants in the fall of 2008, there were 3,392 African-Americans, or 7.3 percent, and 673 Mexican-Americans, or 1.4 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/education/07law.html

So since schools are not pressured to make even 1% of their class PR, then it makes sense that there are very few PRs at top law schools. There is no quota. Most schools simply will not dip close to 10 points below their LSAT floor for the sake of picking up minorities. Not even close.

To be honest, all URMs need to just forget about any sort of boost when they are studying for the test. There is no magic number of points a race is bumped. It varies dramatically from school to school. If you are below the LSAT median, you are a crapshoot candidate. Write your own ticket to a top law school. SCORE MEDIAN.

.

Nova wrote:

The Columbia study found that among the 46,500 law school matriculants in the fall of 2008, there were 3,392 African-Americans, or 7.3 percent, and 673 Mexican-Americans, or 1.4 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/education/07law.html

So since schools are not pressured to make even 1% of their class PR, then it makes sense that there are very few PRs at top law schools. There is no quota. Most schools simply will not dip close to 10 points below their LSAT floor for the sake of picking up minorities. Not even close.

I've read that article before but I don't see any support for the conclusions that "schools are not pressured to make even 1% of their class PR" and that "There is no quota" from that article alone.

DaRascal wrote:

Nova wrote:

The Columbia study found that among the 46,500 law school matriculants in the fall of 2008, there were 3,392 African-Americans, or 7.3 percent, and 673 Mexican-Americans, or 1.4 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/education/07law.html

So since schools are not pressured to make even 1% of their class PR, then it makes sense that there are very few PRs at top law schools. There is no quota. Most schools simply will not dip close to 10 points below their LSAT floor for the sake of picking up minorities. Not even close.

I've read that article before but I don't see any support for the conclusions that "schools are not pressured to make even 1% of their class PR" and that "There is no quota" from that article alone.

The supporting evidence is that there is a significantly smaller percentage of AAs and MAs in law school relative to the percentage of AAs and MAs that are US citizens. Im drawing the inference that it is the same for other URMs.

True quotas are illegal. http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com ... ction.html

DaRascal wrote: 1. And doesn't LSAT boost just mean that you would add +7 to your score turning (for example) a 162 into a 169 for some schools?

2.Are they really not obligated to take ANY Puerto Ricans though?

3.I can't imagine that admitting a handful of PRs below median would hurt the school's median at all.

1.The problem with this logic is that imaginary numerical boost or not, at the end of the day, the candidate is below median. Im cynical in the sense I believe admissions is mostly a numbers game. There is no difference between admitting a URM 2 points under the median or 7 points under the median for the purpose of medians, which are important because they affect the perceived quality of the class and rankings. Yes, the URM only 2 points under the median is the stronger candidate, but its foolish to say that if they score 165 and the median is 167 that they are perceived to have a 172. It does not work like that.

Bumps vary too greatly across the board to assign any sort of number to them. Just look at the Baylor example. AAs are not getting 10 point boosts there, are they? Most are only 1 to 4 points below the median. Some are at and above the median.

2.NO. Schools are not obligated to admit anyone based on race. That is illegal!!

3.If you cant imagine it, you must not have a good grasp on how medians work. By admitting applicants below the medians, it means the median student is shifted, and if that student has lower numbers, the median becomes lower.

.

.

DaRascal wrote:

Nova wrote: The supporting evidence is that there is a significantly smaller percentage of AAs and MAs in law school relative to the percentage of AAs and MAs that are US citizens. Im drawing the inference that it is the same for other URMs.

True quotas are illegal. http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com ... ction.html

How many AAs and MAs even apply to law school relative to the number of AAs and MAs in the United States? That could easily explain why the percentage of AAs and MAs in law school isn't proportional to the number of AAs and MAs in the country.

Yeah, thats definitely part of it. Less URMs than non-URMs graduate high school, go to college, graduate college, take graduate exams, and subsequently apply to graduate schools. Which is why it would be insane for schools to dip low enough to have their class make up the same percentage of URMs as there are in the US total. This all goes back to supporting why PRs are much less represented in law schools (<1%) relative to their presence in the general US population.

DaRascal wrote:

Nova wrote:
3.If you cant imagine it, you must not have a good grasp on how medians work. By admitting applicants below the medians, it means the median student is shifted, and if that student has lower numbers, the median becomes lower.

I'm just saying that I thought if a given school had a target median of 171 for a given year they would only admit non-URMs with 173+ and high GPAs so that they could afford to accept URMs well below median throughout the cycle.

If the target median is 171, then they will accept many many white/asian students with 171s. It seems like you are confusing mean and median. Solely for the sake of medians, there is no incentive to admit a student above median over a student at median.

Many admitted URMs who are below the LSAT median have median or above GPAs. There are some seats for applicants under both medians, but there are very very few of them. Some are filled my URMs, some are filled by non URMs.

PR 2L here. I had a 170+ with a decent GPA. Definitely got nowhere near the type of boosts a lot of these posts are talking about. Maybe got a couple of scholarships above what LSN would predict, out of 15 schools I applied to. The numbers game schools have to play with LSAT and GPA rankings definitely means they're not just going to give all minorities a 10pt boost or something. I also think many here are vastly underestimating the number of minorities with high LSAT scores, which means T14s don't even have to dip to get some minorities.

.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:PR 2L here. I had a 170+ with a decent GPA. Definitely got nowhere near the type of boosts a lot of these posts are talking about. Maybe got a couple of scholarships above what LSN would predict, out of 15 schools I applied to. The numbers game schools have to play with LSAT and GPA rankings definitely means they're not just going to give all minorities a 10pt boost or something. I also think many here are vastly underestimating the number of minorities with high LSAT scores, which means T14s don't even have to dip to get some minorities.

Well, the "boost" would definitely be less significant once your scores are high enough. E.g., if you had a 4.0 and a 179, I doubt you'd perceive any boost at all.
In terms of pure admissions, it makes a bigger difference for those with borderline T14 numbers and, by blanketing the T14, hispanic candidates seem more likely to see a lot of rejections peppered by admission to the occasional reach.
That aside, I think your experience regarding scholarships is notable and fairly representative of the hispanic URM admissions experience.
Ultimately, a couple LSAT points separates T14 from T25 or T6 from lower T14, so a small boost in admission plus the unexpected scholarship is a pretty big deal.

DaRascal wrote:Nova, you've convinced me that you're right about PRs needing to score close to median at their target schools given the cycles of PRs on LSN, the PRs on here who didn't experience a 10-12 point boost, and the fact that there aren't many at all in law school. I just didn't know what to make of Vulpixie's posts.

vulpixie wrote:It is often better than AA (this makes sense since PRs on average score considerably lower than AAs), but less predictable since there are so few PRs in America. For instance, if a school hasn't had enough qualified PR applicants to fill its quota, it would dip down much lower than it ever would for AA applicants to accept them. There was a PR on this forum a couple years ago who had 164/163 and a 3.4 and was accepted at Harvard with no remarkable softs. An AA in that situation wouldn't have stood a chance.

Well, there are no quotas. Also, she does not take into account the reason their median is so low is because many PR test takers are actually in Puerto Rico and only applying to PR law schools. Those applicants are not nearly as proficient in English as American born PRs. American born PRs undoubtedly have a much higher median.