Top Law Schools

Making LSAC account to register for June LSAT. Got to the race section.

I'm white as snow, and I am sure if I don't report they will assume that. But do you think that maybe, if it came down to a split decision, they might lie to themselves and say "well maybe he's a URM"?

There's no advantage to saying I'm white, so, wondering what I should do.

Should probably not go to law school.

I can't wait to hear what "I want to be a lawyer to fight injustice" baloney you'll be writing for your PS.

Nebby wrote:Should probably not go to law school.

cruel

I'll assume the negative responses mean I should put white.

GoLandcrabs wrote:I'm white as snow, and I am sure if I don't report they will assume that. But do you think that maybe, if it came down to a split decision, they might lie to themselves and say "well maybe he's a URM"?

No. Law people don't think like that.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

GoLandcrabs wrote:I'm white as snow, and I am sure if I don't report they will assume that. But do you think that maybe, if it came down to a split decision, they might lie to themselves and say "well maybe he's a URM"?

No. Law people don't think like that.

There we go. I saw other threads and I saw a link saying there was a slight boost for not reporting, and that was the only reason I could think of.

So you would concur there is no functional difference between putting white v. refuse to report?

I think you should answer honestly, but if you don't want to answer, don't. It's not going to give you a boost though - they don't get to report non-reporters in any of the URM categories.

If I was an adcom, the only thing I would assume about someone refusing to report is that they are a dickhead.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think you should answer honestly, but if you don't want to answer, don't. It's not going to give you a boost though - they don't get to report non-reporters in any of the URM categories.

Of course not. But when they report race, are they not judged on what percent is white? Do schools have "not stated" percentage when giving their stats, or are they excluded.

Because if they do that, it might make the % URM of the class go up a little, even if there isn't an actual additional URM.

sublime wrote:If I was an adcom, the only thing I would assume about someone refusing to report is that they are a dickhead.

Man the other threads didn't get this much hate. Apologize for my apparent ignorance. Just trying to maximize my chances.

GoLandcrabs wrote:Making LSAC account to register for June LSAT. Got to the race section.

I'm white as snow, and I am sure if I don't report they will assume that. But do you think that maybe, if it came down to a split decision, they might lie to themselves and say "well maybe he's a URM"?

There's no advantage to saying I'm white, so, wondering what I should do.

You want to not report on the slim hope you will inadvertently receive an undeserved URM boost? How do you see that working?

GoLandcrabs wrote:

sublime wrote:If I was an adcom, the only thing I would assume about someone refusing to report is that they are a dickhead.

Man the other threads didn't get this much hate. Apologize for my apparent ignorance. Just trying to maximize my chances.

I got it. Probably not the way to do so though.

Npret wrote:

GoLandcrabs wrote:Making LSAC account to register for June LSAT. Got to the race section.

I'm white as snow, and I am sure if I don't report they will assume that. But do you think that maybe, if it came down to a split decision, they might lie to themselves and say "well maybe he's a URM"?

There's no advantage to saying I'm white, so, wondering what I should do.

You want to not report on the slim hope you will inadvertently receive an undeserved URM boost? How do you see that working?

Not a URM boost, of course, but rather if it came down to me v. another white candidate, they might choose the "refuse to state".

I don't know if they would, which is why I asked.

sublime wrote:

GoLandcrabs wrote:

sublime wrote:If I was an adcom, the only thing I would assume about someone refusing to report is that they are a dickhead.

Man the other threads didn't get this much hate. Apologize for my apparent ignorance. Just trying to maximize my chances.

I got it. Probably not the way to do so though.

Perhaps not, considering the negative reaction.

GoLandcrabs wrote:Making LSAC account to register for June LSAT. Got to the race section.

I'm white as snow, and I am sure if I don't report they will assume that. But do you think that maybe, if it came down to a split decision, they might lie to themselves and say "well maybe he's a URM"?

There's no advantage to saying I'm white, so, wondering what I should do.

Shame on you.

GoLandcrabs wrote:

sublime wrote:If I was an adcom, the only thing I would assume about someone refusing to report is that they are a dickhead.

Man the other threads didn't get this much hate. Apologize for my apparent ignorance. Just trying to maximize my chances.

This is not the way to maximize your chances and in fact you will piss people off in the tiny chance they think you are URM and find out, no, you just intentionally omitted info hoping to gain an undeserved edge.

@Alexandros: would this constitute "gaming" to you? Because to me this is just lying and beyond what I thought "gaming" meant.

Npret wrote:

GoLandcrabs wrote:

sublime wrote:If I was an adcom, the only thing I would assume about someone refusing to report is that they are a dickhead.

Man the other threads didn't get this much hate. Apologize for my apparent ignorance. Just trying to maximize my chances.

This is not the way to maximize your chances and in fact you will piss people off in the tiny chance they think you are URM and find out, no, you just intentionally omitted info hoping to gain an undeserved edge.

@Alexandros: would this constitute "gaming" to you? Because to me this is just lying and beyond what I thought "gaming" meant.

How would they know I did it to get an edge? I assume they include that option for a reason.

But I understand the TLS opinion is that option not be included on LSAC.

This must the first step for those white straight dudes that apply for diversity SAs.

Also I don't see how it's lying, that would be putting down a race I am definitively not, like AA or something because you "identify" as it because your great grand aunt was AA or something.

sublime wrote:This must the first step for those white straight dudes that apply for diversity SAs.

I'd imagine that those are poor white guys who were told by the diversity office that being poor is diversity and it's not just based on race, even though that doesn't seem to be the case (not poor tho not claiming to be diverse).

GoLandcrabs wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think you should answer honestly, but if you don't want to answer, don't. It's not going to give you a boost though - they don't get to report non-reporters in any of the URM categories.

Of course not. But when they report race, are they not judged on what percent is white? Do schools have "not stated" percentage when giving their stats, or are they excluded.

Because if they do that, it might make the % URM of the class go up a little, even if there isn't an actual additional URM.

No, there'd be a white percentage, a URM percentage, and a "did not disclose" percentage. Lawyers and people who track these kinds of statistics are nothing if not precise.

Generally the option not to report is to allow people who don't identify as any of the given categories not to have to list something they're not, or for an applicant to basically say "I don't want you to consider this in my application."

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

GoLandcrabs wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think you should answer honestly, but if you don't want to answer, don't. It's not going to give you a boost though - they don't get to report non-reporters in any of the URM categories.

Of course not. But when they report race, are they not judged on what percent is white? Do schools have "not stated" percentage when giving their stats, or are they excluded.

Because if they do that, it might make the % URM of the class go up a little, even if there isn't an actual additional URM.

No, there'd be a white percentage, a URM percentage, and a "did not disclose" percentage. Lawyers and people who track these kinds of statistics are nothing if not precise.

Generally the option not to report is to allow people who don't identify as any of the given categories not to have to list something they're not, or for an applicant to basically say "I don't want you to consider this in my application."

Alright, if they don't do that, there is no functional difference, so I may as well do either.

GoLandcrabs wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

GoLandcrabs wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think you should answer honestly, but if you don't want to answer, don't. It's not going to give you a boost though - they don't get to report non-reporters in any of the URM categories.

Of course not. But when they report race, are they not judged on what percent is white? Do schools have "not stated" percentage when giving their stats, or are they excluded.

Because if they do that, it might make the % URM of the class go up a little, even if there isn't an actual additional URM.

No, there'd be a white percentage, a URM percentage, and a "did not disclose" percentage. Lawyers and people who track these kinds of statistics are nothing if not precise.

Generally the option not to report is to allow people who don't identify as any of the given categories not to have to list something they're not, or for an applicant to basically say "I don't want you to consider this in my application."

Alright, if they don't do that, there is no functional difference, so I may as well do either.

You clearly don't get it.

Are you actually that unconfident in your credentials to get into law schools, or do you really need to game the system in the most petty/unnecessary way possible. Perhaps your time is better spent crafting that amazing Diversity Statement.

Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:

GoLandcrabs wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

GoLandcrabs wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think you should answer honestly, but if you don't want to answer, don't. It's not going to give you a boost though - they don't get to report non-reporters in any of the URM categories.

Of course not. But when they report race, are they not judged on what percent is white? Do schools have "not stated" percentage when giving their stats, or are they excluded.

Because if they do that, it might make the % URM of the class go up a little, even if there isn't an actual additional URM.

No, there'd be a white percentage, a URM percentage, and a "did not disclose" percentage. Lawyers and people who track these kinds of statistics are nothing if not precise.

Generally the option not to report is to allow people who don't identify as any of the given categories not to have to list something they're not, or for an applicant to basically say "I don't want you to consider this in my application."

Alright, if they don't do that, there is no functional difference, so I may as well do either.

You clearly don't get it.

Are you actually that unconfident in your credentials to get into law schools, or do you really need to game the system in the most petty/unnecessary way possible. Perhaps your time is better spent crafting that amazing Diversity Statement.

I'm not unconfident at all, I just admitted there's no point to doing it - I'd only do it if there is an advantage to.

Pretty sure the school wouldn't much care for a Diversity statement from me, so I'll pass.

GoLandcrabs wrote:

Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:

GoLandcrabs wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

GoLandcrabs wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think you should answer honestly, but if you don't want to answer, don't. It's not going to give you a boost though - they don't get to report non-reporters in any of the URM categories.

Of course not. But when they report race, are they not judged on what percent is white? Do schools have "not stated" percentage when giving their stats, or are they excluded.

Because if they do that, it might make the % URM of the class go up a little, even if there isn't an actual additional URM.

No, there'd be a white percentage, a URM percentage, and a "did not disclose" percentage. Lawyers and people who track these kinds of statistics are nothing if not precise.

Generally the option not to report is to allow people who don't identify as any of the given categories not to have to list something they're not, or for an applicant to basically say "I don't want you to consider this in my application."

Alright, if they don't do that, there is no functional difference, so I may as well do either.

You clearly don't get it.

Are you actually that unconfident in your credentials to get into law schools, or do you really need to game the system in the most petty/unnecessary way possible. Perhaps your time is better spent crafting that amazing Diversity Statement.

I'm not unconfident at all, I just admitted there's no point to doing it - I'd only do it if there is an advantage to.

Pretty sure the school wouldn't much care for a Diversity statement from me, so I'll pass.

You clearly still don't get it lol

The 2017 TLS "Most Likely to Rip out pages from library books" Award goes to: Golandcrabs