Do URM vary from school to school? Forum

[itachiuchiha]

For example, If I am in the minority in one school, but not in the minority race in another school.

How would this work?

For example, let's say I want to go to UF Law whose minority is asians (just an example, idk if its true), and I am an asian, would I be considered a URM at UF?

Am I confused on how this works?

[dingbat]

For example, If I am in the minority in one school, but not in the minority race in another school.

How would this work?

For example, let's say I want to go to UF Law whose minority is asians (just an example, idk if its true), and I am an asian, would I be considered a URM at UF?

Am I confused on how this works?

All schools adhere to the same definition of URM, which is basically African-American, Native American, Mexican-American and Puerto Rico-American (I think)

Schools are not allowed to count anyone else as URM

[Nova]

Asians are not URMs anywhere. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 14&t=35568

[itachiuchiha]

I was looking here http://www.law.illinois.edu/prospective ... nt-profile and saw that Asians are very low in number at the school. Would there be a boost for asians who apply?

Sorry for all the noobish questions

[subtle]

Puerto Ricans ARE Americans.

[Nova]

I was looking here http://www.law.illinois.edu/prospective ... nt-profile and saw that Asians are very low in number at the school. Would there be a boost for asians who apply?

Sorry for all the noobish questions

No.

Asians are about 5% of the US population. They are 6% of Illinois Law.

[francesfarmer]

I was looking here http://www.law.illinois.edu/prospective ... nt-profile and saw that Asians are very low in number at the school. Would there be a boost for asians who apply?

Sorry for all the noobish questions

Nope.

[slawww]

All schools adhere to the same definition of URM, which is basically African-American, Native American, Mexican-American and Puerto Rico-American (I think)

Schools are not allowed to count anyone else as URM

Source? I am very skeptical of this claim, and I think it varies from school to school. For instance, Hispanics make up about 16% of the population, but account for only 6% of law students. By definition URM means underrepresented; so I don't get where the claim that schools aren't only "allowed" to count anyone else as URM comes from. You are either of an ethnicity that is underrepresented or not.

[dproduct]

All schools adhere to the same definition of URM, which is basically African-American, Native American, Mexican-American and Puerto Rico-American (I think)

Schools are not allowed to count anyone else as URM

Source? I am very skeptical of this claim, and I think it varies from school to school. For instance, Hispanics make up about 16% of the population, but account for only 6% of law students. By definition URM means underrepresented; so I don't get where the claim that schools aren't only "allowed" to count anyone else as URM comes from. You are either of an ethnicity that is underrepresented or not.

Please visit this thread as this has been discussed, in full, multiple times.

[PDaddy]

There's another component being ignored in these discussions. The emphasis is not just on "UNDERREPRESENTED" minorities...the emphasis is on HISTORICALLY UNDERREPRESENTED minorities, meaning newly immigrated (or even second and third generation) Native Africans should NOT count. Whether or not schools use them to boost their numbers insofar as "Black students" are concerned is another matter.

There is a widely held perception that, due to the same increased familial and cultural pressures that drive Asian students, native African students generally tend to be more disciplined than do their U.S. born counterparts.

Adcoms are very aware of this when they read files. All else held equal, an African student can sometimes win-out over an American-born Black student (depending on the school and its diversity goals/needs). It really isn't fair or correct under the law, but the schools conceivably kill two birds with one stone: (a) contribute to racial diversity, and (b) minimize risks of sub-par performance(s) and/or attrition.

Because the "historically underrepresented" element is unsatisfied, there's no way an African student should be able to get in line with an American-born Black student - thus receiving benefits to which they are not entitled.

In principle, Africans and other minorities (including GLBT students) must fight through two barriers "historically" AND "underrepresented", which is why only American-born Blacks ("African-Americans"), Native Americans ("American Indians"), Mexicans (part of the "Native American" group), and Puerto Ricans are the only URM's by definition.

I am quite sure that regional concerns affect how schools employ the URM designation. In NY, for example, Puerto Ricans may be in larger demand because there is a larger population of Puerto Ricans (and Dominicans) than in Los Angeles - where Mexicans are more dominant.

Other groups can certainly argue their cases for "admissions diversity", but they won't receive the 5-10 LSAT pt/.25-.5 GPA boosts.

None of this is without flaw or unintended/undeserved penalties for others, but it is "equitable" (i.e. proper, reasonable, unbiased, and characterized by the intent of acting with fairness).

[bk1]

All schools adhere to the same definition of URM, which is basically African-American, Native American, Mexican-American and Puerto Rico-American

Generally, yes.

Schools are not allowed to count anyone else as URM

Not really. It's not clear what is "allowed" and what isn't, but nobody is currently holding schools to a standard that says only these 4 groups are capable of receiving an admissions boost.

Source? I am very skeptical of this claim, and I think it varies from school to school. For instance, Hispanics make up about 16% of the population, but account for only 6% of law students. By definition URM means underrepresented; so I don't get where the claim that schools aren't only "allowed" to count anyone else as URM comes from. You are either of an ethnicity that is underrepresented or not.

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 they can to survive possible scrutiny (though private universities technically aren't held to the same bar). So it's not that they are not allowed to, it's more that they choose only to give boosts to those 4 groups because they want their admissions programs to adhere to the law.

As for your Hispanics example, it might be possible that if you sliced up the group thinly enough, that groups other than MX/PR aren't actually underrepresented. I don't think that's the case, but it's possible. On top of that, when you start talking about other Hispanic groups, you're often talking about groups that make up a very thin sliver of the population. For example, Chileans are around 0.03% of the US and it would take something like 10-15 Chilean law students total to make them proportionally represented. It would be hard to make a case that Chileans are underrepresented since their representation would be subject to wild swings based on just a few individuals. MX and PR account for around 10% and 1-2% of the US population respectively, making them by far the largest Hispanic groups in the US. Thus the current URM boost does account for most US Hispanics, although it is possible to argue that it isn't entirely fair.

[UAX09]

Yeah Op, Asians are not given "urm" status. Asians are considered minorities but are not underrepresented in law school. Asians have excelled in academics as a group and are overrepresented in law schools. Not all Asian groups are overrepresented in law schools. Folks with origins from China, India, South Korea and Japan are overrepresented but Southeast Asians, due to their recent immigration, are underrepresented in law school. Law schools do not care about this distinction. Most Americans view Asians as one big family and admission officers usually are unable or unwilling to distinguish between Asian groups.

URMs in America mean Black, Hispanics and Native Americans. You can be a poor white applicant or recently immigrant from Southeast Asia and you would not be given URM status. URM status is dependent on skin color and not on socioeconomic status. A rich black applicant who took Testmasters prep course would be given an admissions boost over a poor white/Asian student from a trailer park.

Welcome to America.

[Nova]

URM status is dependent on skin color and not on socioeconomic status.

Its based on ancestry. Not skin color.

[bk1]

Southeast Asians ... are underrepresented in law school.

Do you have any data for this claim or are you just making it up out of thin air?

admission officers usually are unable ... to distinguish between Asian groups.

lolwut

[andythefir]

Not precisely on point but still relevant is that some schools (like ND) really struggle to get some demographics to come so they may exaggerate the boost they give those groups. ND is definitely not hurting for Asians (sorry, OP), but Hispanic/Native/Black folks seem reluctant to come to sunny South Bend, so in order to get a representative class it wouldn't surprise me if they gave a bigger boost.
Also, some regions are really hurting for Hispanic students, for example, to keep their classes representative of the exploding Hispanic population in their regions. So a Hispanic student may be more valuable to, say, Indiana than Texas, and therefore get a bigger boost than black students, for example.

[UAX09]

Law schools do not differentiate between the different groups of Asians. If you look at law school applications, there is only one box for "Asian." It seems that admissions officers can't or won't separate the groups of Asians. It's important to remember that SE Asians are relatively newcomers to the United States. The "main" Asian groups comprising of Chinese, Japanese, Indians and South Koreans all have populations in excess of 1 million people. There are nearly 3 million Chinese or Chinese Americans in the United States and nearly 2 millions Indians. Compare those figures with immigrants from Sri Lanka (25,000 ppl), Indonesia, Myanmar (17,000 ppl), Laos (200,000), Thailand (200,000), etc. If you add up all the immigrants from ASEAN countries, the total is less than the number of Chinese or Indians in America. I'm sure most people will agree that Southeast Asian countries are poorer than China, Japan, India and South Korea. When people talk about "Asian-Americans," they don't mean SE Asians. "Asian-American" usually means Asians from the big four Asian countries. Am I drawing an unwarranted assumption by assuming that Chinese people who number nearly 3 million in population or Indians with a population of nearly 2 million outnumber SE Asians in law schools? Look at all the news articles discussing Asian Americans and affirmative action. All these articles mention Chinese Americans and Indian Americans.

Until universities differentiate between the different Asian groups, we won't know for sure the exact percentages.

All I'm saying is that law schools should give preferences based on socioeconomic backgrounds. A Rohingya immigrant from the war torn part of Myanmar should be given an admissions boost over a rich black or Hispanic student. Also, affirmative action isn't based on ancestry, it's based on race. What ancestry does a Hispanic student need to have to gain AA benefits?

[francesfarmer]

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... ate+thread