Does Native American count as URM and should I file as one? Forum

[OneKnight]

AFAIK, the URM "boost" is designed to bring diversity to law schools AND give a leg up to those who have been historically oppressed/disadvantaged and/or have had to deal with racism. It sounds like neither applies to the OP.

[Anastasia Dee Dualla]

.

[orphanarium]

...

[badfish]

In response to OP yes and yes.

In response to the people saying OP shouldn't file as NA. While I sympathize with you I think ICE T has TCR: "Don't hate the player, hate the game".

and to think: I used to like you.

Now, I'm going to just keep PMing you YouTube videos of Sublime with their fat replacement singer.

Listen, I'm just saying that the system is flawed and OP is a product of a flawed system. Yelling at him doesn't do anything but treat the symptoms.

Also, I don't think anyone deserves that fate ... player-hater.

[badfish]

People claiming URM status without identifying as URMs are not "symptoms," they are the f'n disease.

Disagree, law schools not caring about what URM should actually mean is the disease. So long as you have identification you qualify, regardless of whether or not you actually bring diversity to the table.

[PrayingforHYS]

What are you looking for, OP? You know it is unethical, and admit as much...do you want a little angel and a little devil to appear on your shoulders and talk you through it?

You're just exploiting an imperfect system.

And what would be wrong with that? Isn't that what America and capitalism are all about? Taking advantage of the system to the best of your ability? That's just the nature of life...

I'm not advocating one way or the other--I just want info. I just recently found out about this heritage, so it's not as if I could've taken advantage of these opportunities earlier in my life. You can't fault me for at least looking into the potential advantages..

[holydonkey]

People claiming URM status without identifying as URMs are not "symptoms," they are the f'n disease.

+1

law schools not caring about what URM should actually mean is the disease.

+1

Fake diversity ftl

[PrayingforHYS]

I fault you for pretending you're not advocating one way or the other, yet constantly defending one way.

devil's advocate?

If everyone in this thread were advising me "yea, go ahead and do it, man!" then my natural response would be "but what if X and shouldn't I do Y?"

it's a means of trying to balance the discussion.

I'm clear on which side of the argument you support, but a greater range of opinions would be better -- with others (not just me) asking questions to "defend" both sides.

[dbt]

is this true? I don't think it is.

It's probably more true than saying that a 155+ LSAT is good enough for a NA to get into Yale.

lol I stand by it. 155 may be a little low, but I would definitely think that a 158-160/good GPA Native American would be a contender for Yale.

<--- 170+; expecting his call any day.

you must not be the right tribe.

[sca218ml]

"praying for HYS" (gunner) is definitely checking the NA box. There is so much wrong with that profile name and this thread.

[PrayingforHYS]

"praying for HYS" (gunner) is definitely checking the NA box. There is so much wrong with that profile name and this thread.

(in an argument completely unrelated to this thread) -- sorry for having the aspirations to go to HYS. God, there must be something horribly wrong with me if I aspire to attend one of those schools..

Why don't I just settle into a nice TTT and be content not to show anybody up

[09042014]

Nightrunner, does my family owning land swindled from your tribe make me URM?

[PrayingforHYS]

Nightrunner, does my family owning land swindled from your tribe make me URM?

Probably not, but it's likely to get you a philosophical quote from him..

[badfish]

People claiming URM status without identifying as URMs are not "symptoms," they are the f'n disease.

Disagree, law schools not caring about what URM should actually mean is the disease. So long as you have identification you qualify, regardless of whether or not you actually bring diversity to the table.

That's like saying the problem with the "take a penny, give a penny" system is that the cashiers don't monitor the karmic balance of penny giving v. penny taking.

Personal responsibility and ethics FTMFW.

I'm sorry dude, but that analogy fails on the grounds that nobody has an overwhelming incentive to cheat the penny system (unlike the URM system).

IMHO, schools should be screening URM candidates via an interview for exactly this reason. Unfortunately, they don't because all they care about is that little % on their information booklet. One could make the argument that the best way to expose the flaws of said system and to incentivize schools to take extra precautions is to encourage this kind of behavior. Unfortunately we all have a good bit at stake in this process and for that reason people tend to get up in arms about URM abuses b/c it directly impacts their cycle.

[holydonkey]

I'm clear on which side of the argument you support, but a greater range of opinions would be better

"A greater range of opinions"???

There are two opinions here: #1 do it, #2 don't do it.

/End magical spectrum of opinions.

[PrayingforHYS]

People claiming URM status without identifying as URMs are not "symptoms," they are the f'n disease.

Disagree, law schools not caring about what URM should actually mean is the disease. So long as you have identification you qualify, regardless of whether or not you actually bring diversity to the table.

That's like saying the problem with the "take a penny, give a penny" system is that the cashiers don't monitor the karmic balance of penny giving v. penny taking.

Personal responsibility and ethics FTMFW.

I'm sorry dude, but that analogy fails on the grounds that nobody has an overwhelming incentive to cheat the penny system (unlike the URM system).

IMHO, schools should be screening URM candidates via an interview for exactly this reason. Unfortunately, they don't because all they care about is that little % on their information booklet. One could make the argument that the best way to expose the flaws of said system and to incentivize schools to take extra precautions is to encourage this kind of behavior. Unfortunately we all have a good bit at stake in this process and for that reason people tend to get up in arms about URM abuses b/c it directly impacts their cycle.

+1 -- this thread wouldn't even be an issue if these things were clearly established. I'm overwhelmingly leaning towards not checking the box even if I'm allowed to, but some of the responses are just comical. How naive of me to think that we could have an objective discussion without me being chastised as a "gunner" and "disease" and faulted for the demise of western civilization..

[PrayingforHYS]

I'm clear on which side of the argument you support, but a greater range of opinions would be better

"A greater range of opinions"???

There are two opinions here: #1 do it, #2 don't do it.

/End magical spectrum of opinions.

When a normal person decides to do something, is it merely between "do it" or "don't do it," or does one weigh the pros and cons on each side (normally in a discussion, whether public or private)?

Those 2 options apply to EVERY decisions, but what are the reasons here for selecting 1 or 2? THAT'S the "greater range of opinions" that I'd like.

[FloridaGirl]

+1 -- this thread wouldn't even be an issue if these things were clearly established. I'm overwhelmingly leaning towards not checking the box even if I'm allowed to, but some of the responses are just comical. How naive of me to think that we could have an objective discussion without me being chastised as a "gunner" and "disease" and faulted for the demise of western civilization..

Wrong civilization.

[PrayingforHYS]

<--- still wants to know how often you point with your lips

I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

[PrayingforHYS]

<--- still wants to know how often you point with your lips

I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

That's the point.

I see. Please excuse my ignorance then, my Holy Creator.

[badfish]

I guess the point I'm trying (but failing) at making is that you can't legislate morality.

If OP is a self interested actor (and I mean self interested in a very myopic way) he will check the box regardless of whether or not he should. With that said, you can either waste your time arguing with OP knowing full well that if it isn't him it will be somebody else, or you can take it out of OP's hands. Regardless of who holds the blame, there's an efficient way of effectuating change and an inefficient way of doing it. I would simply opt for the former.

[sca218ml]

"praying for HYS" (gunner) is definitely checking the NA box. There is so much wrong with that profile name and this thread.

(in an argument completely unrelated to this thread) -- sorry for having the aspirations to go to HYS. God, there must be something horribly wrong with me if I aspire to attend one of those schools..

Why don't I just settle into a nice TTT and be content not to show anybody up

Just trying to point out it's not something you generally pray for -- somewhat offensive...

[orphanarium]

...

[holydonkey]

I'm clear on which side of the argument you support, but a greater range of opinions would be better

"A greater range of opinions"???

There are two opinions here: #1 do it, #2 don't do it.

/End magical spectrum of opinions.

When a normal person decides to do something, is it merely between "do it" or "don't do it," or does one weigh the pros and cons on each side (normally in a discussion, whether public or private)?

Those 2 options apply to EVERY decisions, but what are the reasons here for selecting 1 or 2? THAT'S the "greater range of opinions" that I'd like.

#1 - do it
Possible Reasons: 'F the system', 'for the lulz'

#2 - don't do it
Possible Reasons: morals, ethics, fear of God, sincere belief in Affirmative Action

[OneKnight]

I'm clear on which side of the argument you support, but a greater range of opinions would be better

"A greater range of opinions"???

There are two opinions here: #1 do it, #2 don't do it.

/End magical spectrum of opinions.

When a normal person decides to do something, is it merely between "do it" or "don't do it," or does one weigh the pros and cons on each side (normally in a discussion, whether public or private)?

Those 2 options apply to EVERY decisions, but what are the reasons here for selecting 1 or 2? THAT'S the "greater range of opinions" that I'd like.

#1 - do it
Possible Reasons: 'F the system', 'for the lulz'

#2 - don't do it
Possible Reasons: morals, ethics, fear of God, sincere belief in Affirmative Action

You'd think at least this one would affect the OP given that he's "praying" for HYS...