Top Law Schools

Asian female. Should I not disclose my ethnicity? If I don't, will I still be discriminated against?

Law schools admit people primarily on the basis of GPA/LSAT, with softs considered around the edges and a boost given to URMs. They will not ding applicants on the basis of gender or race.

Not sure why this is a concern. You won't get a URM boost but they can't deny you because of your ethnicity. In my opinion, you should disclose whatever they ask for.

two responses so far seem woefully naive. Asians are over-represented in law school. Law schools operate on what is basically a soft quota system. So yes saying you're Asian can hurt you, and withholding it can help. Yes it is discriminatory and it does suck. Obviously though it depends a lot on the school and what their pool of qualified applicants looks like.

FWIW I'm Asian and I disclosed it though.

ModestMewtwo wrote:two responses so far seem woefully naive. Asians are over-represented in law school. Law schools operate on what is basically a soft quota system. So yes saying you're Asian can hurt you, and withholding it can help. Yes it is discriminatory and it does suck. Obviously though it depends a lot on the school and what their pool of qualified applicants looks like.

FWIW I'm Asian and I disclosed it though.

Please elaborate on "soft quota system" and show evidence that people are being denied specifically because they are Asian (not simply not receiving a URM boost). For what you're saying to be true, law schools would have to be actively discriminating against Asian applicants, not just failing to give them a boost. That's a major accusation, so it would be helpful to know how you think you know this. If this were widely believed to be true in law school admissions, no Asian person would ever reveal their ethnicity.

tada77 wrote:

ModestMewtwo wrote:two responses so far seem woefully naive. Asians are over-represented in law school. Law schools operate on what is basically a soft quota system. So yes saying you're Asian can hurt you, and withholding it can help. Yes it is discriminatory and it does suck. Obviously though it depends a lot on the school and what their pool of qualified applicants looks like.

FWIW I'm Asian and I disclosed it though.

Please elaborate on "soft quota system" and show evidence that people are being denied specifically because they are Asian (not simply not receiving a URM boost). For what you're saying to be true, law schools would have to be actively discriminating against Asian applicants, not just failing to give them a boost. That's a major accusation, so it would be helpful to know how you think you know this. If this were widely believed to be true in law school admissions, no Asian person would ever reveal their ethnicity.

If law schools were dinging people for being Asian, this would've been on the front page of the NYT yesterday - and we'd have multiple class-action suits moving through the courts.

No, only Asian men are discriminated against. Law schools can still use you to kill two birds with one stone: to meet their gender quota and to pretend as if they don't discriminate against Asians.

In law school, you also shouldn't hesitate to apply for diversity scholarships. For the same reason I stated above, these groups will always want to select at least 1 Asian woman.

QContinuum wrote:

tada77 wrote:

ModestMewtwo wrote:two responses so far seem woefully naive. Asians are over-represented in law school. Law schools operate on what is basically a soft quota system. So yes saying you're Asian can hurt you, and withholding it can help. Yes it is discriminatory and it does suck. Obviously though it depends a lot on the school and what their pool of qualified applicants looks like.

FWIW I'm Asian and I disclosed it though.

Please elaborate on "soft quota system" and show evidence that people are being denied specifically because they are Asian (not simply not receiving a URM boost). For what you're saying to be true, law schools would have to be actively discriminating against Asian applicants, not just failing to give them a boost. That's a major accusation, so it would be helpful to know how you think you know this. If this were widely believed to be true in law school admissions, no Asian person would ever reveal their ethnicity.

If law schools were dinging people for being Asian, this would've been on the front page of the NYT yesterday - and we'd have multiple class-action suits moving through the courts.

Law schools don't ding people for being Asian: they hold people of Asian descent to a higher standard: higher than those standards applied to Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites. Harvard is facing a class action for discriminating against Asians at the undergraduate level: the case survived summary judgment and is going to trial.

Wild Card wrote:

QContinuum wrote:

tada77 wrote:Please elaborate on "soft quota system" and show evidence that people are being denied specifically because they are Asian (not simply not receiving a URM boost). For what you're saying to be true, law schools would have to be actively discriminating against Asian applicants, not just failing to give them a boost. That's a major accusation, so it would be helpful to know how you think you know this. If this were widely believed to be true in law school admissions, no Asian person would ever reveal their ethnicity.

If law schools were dinging people for being Asian, this would've been on the front page of the NYT yesterday - and we'd have multiple class-action suits moving through the courts.

Law schools don't ding people for being Asian: they hold people of Asian descent to a higher standard: higher than those standards applied to Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites. Harvard is facing a class action for discriminating against Asians at the undergraduate level: the case survived summary judgment and is going to trial.

So IOW, Harvard Law School is not facing suit for discriminating against Asians. Undergraduate admissions are very different from law school admissions, as is generally known. Elite colleges generally use a "holistic" approach where "softs" may be equally or even more important than high school GPA/SAT. In contrast, law school adcoms (excepting Yale and Stanford to some extent) are notorious for running an almost exclusively numbers-based process. It's why folks can predict with almost perfect certainty which law schools an applicant will get into, given his/her GPA and LSAT. Impossible to do the same with GPA/SAT in college admissions.

The numbers-based process means it'd be comically simple to tell if Asian applicants were routinely underperforming their GPA/LSAT. And comically easy to sue.

QContinuum wrote:

Wild Card wrote:

QContinuum wrote:

tada77 wrote:Please elaborate on "soft quota system" and show evidence that people are being denied specifically because they are Asian (not simply not receiving a URM boost). For what you're saying to be true, law schools would have to be actively discriminating against Asian applicants, not just failing to give them a boost. That's a major accusation, so it would be helpful to know how you think you know this. If this were widely believed to be true in law school admissions, no Asian person would ever reveal their ethnicity.

If law schools were dinging people for being Asian, this would've been on the front page of the NYT yesterday - and we'd have multiple class-action suits moving through the courts.

Law schools don't ding people for being Asian: they hold people of Asian descent to a higher standard: higher than those standards applied to Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites. Harvard is facing a class action for discriminating against Asians at the undergraduate level: the case survived summary judgment and is going to trial.

So IOW, Harvard Law School is not facing suit for discriminating against Asians. Undergraduate admissions are very different from law school admissions, as is generally known. Elite colleges generally use a "holistic" approach where "softs" may be equally or even more important than high school GPA/SAT. In contrast, law school adcoms (excepting Yale and Stanford to some extent) are notorious for running an almost exclusively numbers-based process. It's why folks can predict with almost perfect certainty which law schools an applicant will get into, given his/her GPA and LSAT. Impossible to do the same with GPA/SAT in college admissions.

The numbers-based process means it'd be comically simple to tell if Asian applicants were routinely underperforming their GPA/LSAT. And comically easy to sue.

it took a couple decades of the practice in UG admissions to prompt a lawsuit that is now finally getting some traction. The decision from that case would set a precedent for graduate schools as well, which may be why no group has found it necessary to file a parallel action specific to law schools.

ModestMewtwo wrote:

QContinuum wrote:

Wild Card wrote:

QContinuum wrote:

tada77 wrote:Please elaborate on "soft quota system" and show evidence that people are being denied specifically because they are Asian (not simply not receiving a URM boost). For what you're saying to be true, law schools would have to be actively discriminating against Asian applicants, not just failing to give them a boost. That's a major accusation, so it would be helpful to know how you think you know this. If this were widely believed to be true in law school admissions, no Asian person would ever reveal their ethnicity.

If law schools were dinging people for being Asian, this would've been on the front page of the NYT yesterday - and we'd have multiple class-action suits moving through the courts.

Law schools don't ding people for being Asian: they hold people of Asian descent to a higher standard: higher than those standards applied to Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites. Harvard is facing a class action for discriminating against Asians at the undergraduate level: the case survived summary judgment and is going to trial.

So IOW, Harvard Law School is not facing suit for discriminating against Asians. Undergraduate admissions are very different from law school admissions, as is generally known. Elite colleges generally use a "holistic" approach where "softs" may be equally or even more important than high school GPA/SAT. In contrast, law school adcoms (excepting Yale and Stanford to some extent) are notorious for running an almost exclusively numbers-based process. It's why folks can predict with almost perfect certainty which law schools an applicant will get into, given his/her GPA and LSAT. Impossible to do the same with GPA/SAT in college admissions.

The numbers-based process means it'd be comically simple to tell if Asian applicants were routinely underperforming their GPA/LSAT. And comically easy to sue.

it took a couple decades of the practice in UG admissions to prompt a lawsuit that is now finally getting some traction. The decision from that case would set a precedent for graduate schools as well, which may be why no group has found it necessary to file a parallel action specific to law schools.

Just because that could be true doesn't mean we can or should assume it is. You've offered literally no evidence other than your personal belief that Asians are being actively discriminated against in law school admissions. Come on.

i was wondering the same thing
as somebody who is biracial (half east asian and half native american) but adopted transnationally from an east asian country, I dont know how to represent myself in my application. i think that urm status may give you a "plus" factor while being asian would not count against you (it would just not be considered a plus that makes you a more "attractive" applicant).

dhas wrote:i was wondering the same thing
as somebody who is biracial (half east asian and half native american) but adopted transnationally from an east asian country, I dont know how to represent myself in my application. i think that urm status may give you a "plus" factor while being asian would not count against you (it would just not be considered a plus that makes you a more "attractive" applicant).

IMO, you can check both the Asian and Native American boxes, and write a diversity statement explaining your unique experience as a biracial international adoptee. I believe you'll still get the Native American URM boost (it's not like being half-Asian "erases" your Native American half!).

ETA: Assuming you do check the Native American box, I'd definitely recommend writing the diversity statement described above if you don't have a traditionally Native American name. If, e.g., you have a traditionally Asian surname, you don't want adcoms to question why you checked the Native American box.

Just put down your ethnicity.....

Hilarious how people struggle with whether or not disclosing their ethnicity will hurt them, but 95% of the time, their PS or DS is going to be about "why I'm proud to be (insert ethnicity that you're hesitant to disclose because you think it might hurt your chances)".

Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:Just put down your ethnicity.....

Hilarious how people struggle with whether or not disclosing their ethnicity will hurt them, but 95% of the time, their PS or DS is going to be about "why I'm proud to be (insert ethnicity that you're hesitant to disclose because you think it might hurt your chances)".

Also, in many cases (such as for Asians, like OP), one's last name can be a pretty strong indicator of ethnicity.

Wild Card wrote:No, only Asian men are discriminated against.

Is this generally true? As an Asian man, personally I do feel this to be generally true, not just for schools but also for work and jobs, and other areas of life here in America. Wondering what others think about this, or experienced this.

JoblessAndHopeless wrote:

Wild Card wrote:No, only Asian men are discriminated against.

Is this generally true? As an Asian man, personally I do feel this to be generally true, not just for schools but also for work and jobs, and other areas of life here in America. Wondering what others think about this, or experienced this.

Asian men don't get a URM boost in law school admissions (nor do Asian women, for that matter). And Asian men (Asian women too, actually) may be at a disadvantage in networking, especially with older white lawyers. It's possible, I guess, that Asian women have it easier in certain respects than Asian men (although I'd argue that Asian women face stereotypes about gender, pregnancy, and motherhood that no man will ever have to overcome).

But at least for law school admissions, I'm pretty sure Asian men aren't discriminated against. As I noted earlier ITT, law school admissions are notoriously numbers-driven. It'd be comically easy to tell if Asian men were generally underperforming their GPA/LSAT relative to white men. If this were the case, it would've been all over the news a long time ago.

JoblessAndHopeless wrote:

Wild Card wrote:No, only Asian men are discriminated against.

Is this generally true? As an Asian man, personally I do feel this to be generally true, not just for schools but also for work and jobs, and other areas of life here in America. Wondering what others think about this, or experienced this.

Yes, it is difficult to live here as an Asian man. One of the most stereotypical difficult issue is that Asian men do not usually receive much acknowledgement or respect from all. Interesting why not, but that's been my experience.

Asian women probably have it worse in a professional setting though. I think they face a lot more stereotypical expectation and pressure, which is probably worse than what Asian men faces. I think male Asian lawyers have it easier than female Asian lawyers.

But it is not either either way. I was mistaken for a client on three different occasions this month, by opposing counsel, court clerk, and judge, in three different cases. I guess practicing Asian litigators are rare in my neck of the woods.

Fyi, the fact Harvard Undergrad is being sued does not mean the problem is limited to the undergrad or to Harvard. It only means the lawyers want to start at one school because it’s easier to prove, and less costly. This isn’t a case they’ll turn a profit on. They just want the credit for implementing a new rule. No reason to include the law school.

Does the fact that Asian applicants are being used by a white man to underpin his continued assault against affirmative action (through this Harvard litigation) bother anyone? It sort of solidify the role of Asians in the grand scheme of things in this county.

r6_philly wrote:Does the fact that Asian applicants are being used by a white man to underpin his continued assault against affirmative action (through this Harvard litigation) bother anyone?

Yup.

OP, don't take claims in lawsuits too seriously on their face. Not disclosing or disclosing your Asian identity will not affect your application process.

UBETutoring wrote:Fyi, the fact Harvard Undergrad is being sued does not mean the problem is limited to the undergrad or to Harvard. It only means the lawyers want to start at one school because it’s easier to prove, and less costly. This isn’t a case they’ll turn a profit on. They just want the credit for implementing a new rule. No reason to include the law school.

All of the above is absolutely true, but even if the lawsuit's allegations regarding the College were proven in court, that still would not say anything about the law school, especially given the radically different admissions process used by law schools vs. colleges. As I noted earlier ITT, any anti-Asian discrimination (beyond a lack of URM preference) would be comically easy to spot in the law school admissions context, so the fact that it hasn't been remarked upon leads me to believe it doesn't exist.

Is it true that it would be comically easy to spot? Is there any systematic linking of LSAT/GPA to admissions outcomes by race outside of URM status?

Also, do we know whether Asian Americans outperform caucasians in the same way they do on college entrance exams? (see, e.g., https://www.insidehighered.com/admissio ... ions-elite). If that's not true for the LSAT, then it would somewhat complicate whether there's a detriment to disclosing Asian-American status in law school admissions (and for anyone who doubts this for undergrad, compare the differences in Asian American class proportions between the elite state schools in California, where racial preferences were banned, and those in other elite undergrad institutions).

BlackAndOrange84 wrote:Is it true that it would be comically easy to spot? Is there any systematic linking of LSAT/GPA to admissions outcomes by race outside of URM status?

Yes. "URM" is an entirely made-up designation; schools and LSAC collect racial reporting data using the standard classifications you see on most forms that ask that question. Unless large chunks of Asian Americans are choosing to not report, that data is definitely available.

cavalier1138 wrote:

BlackAndOrange84 wrote:Is it true that it would be comically easy to spot? Is there any systematic linking of LSAT/GPA to admissions outcomes by race outside of URM status?

Yes. "URM" is an entirely made-up designation; schools and LSAC collect racial reporting data using the standard classifications you see on most forms that ask that question. Unless large chunks of Asian Americans are choosing to not report, that data is definitely available.

Sorry, wasn't clear. I get the data exist. Is there any hint of it out in the public domain short of filing a lawsuit and getting discovery? For instance, in the undergraduate admissions issue, there had been some academic studies done, including a book-length treatment. I'm not sure there's ever been anything similar in the public domain on law school admissions. And if Asian Americans don't outperform on the LSAT/GPA measures (especially LSAT), any discrimination would be a bit tougher to spot than at the UG level where it's pretty obvious (they've been killing college entrance exams, which is well known publicly, which in part is probably what has attracted so much attention both academically and now legally). If it's not as obvious for law school admissions (e.g., something like Asian Americans perform about the same as caucasians on LSAT but seem to have just slightly worse relative admissions outcomes) then I think it's fairly easy to see why this wouldn't attract a ton of attention. Even anecdotally, this is the first I've heard of Asian Americans not disclosing for law school admissions (anecdotally, Asian American parents and college applicants are well aware of the negative undergrad admissions bump and look for ways not to disclose).