3.79/171 urm Forum

[JamMasterJ]

If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.

That's because you're wrong.

Isn't this where you provide your citations so people can determine for themselves?

burden of proof doesn't rest with him

[ColtsFan88]

Why does AA male get such a larger boost than AA female? I'm curious and am just wondering.

[JamMasterJ]

Why does AA male get such a larger boost than AA female? I'm curious and am just wondering.

rarer

[Blessedassurance]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... rger+boost

Ad infinitum...etc

[Blessedassurance]

for OP of this thread, if AA URM, then yeah I think "likely in" is a good prognosis.

The OP is a college freshman. I think he might be a sophomore now.

[xmrmckenziex]

If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.

I think this is it. NA isn't always a big bump, and schools appear to be highly skeptical of many who check the NA box. However, someone who provides credentials or who writes a detailed DS that makes clear their ancestry and personal ties to their tribe is likely to get a significant boost, from what I understand. It's complicated, but if you want a simplified version it's something like this:

Registered NA >>> Other URMs >>> unregistered/box-check NA

Someone else beat me to the punch with the information for a previous question I asked months ago. But, I would like to see some verifiable evidence/studies done on the above point (the checking of the box versus the description of the actual "Native" experience). While I am native and did write about my experience in my PS, I would find it hard to somehow quantify someone's "Native-ness" (for lack of a better term) based upon the degree in which they described their experiences. I'd just be curious to hear an application reviewer's take on the subject.

[Bodhi_mind]

How else can you quantify someone's "nativeness"? It seems like the best method possible. And I always thought it went AA male > NA, but I'm not sure. Maybe someone with more knowledge could chime in

If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.

I think this is it. NA isn't always a big bump, and schools appear to be highly skeptical of many who check the NA box. However, someone who provides credentials or who writes a detailed DS that makes clear their ancestry and personal ties to their tribe is likely to get a significant boost, from what I understand. It's complicated, but if you want a simplified version it's something like this:

Registered NA >>> Other URMs >>> unregistered/box-check NA

Someone else beat me to the punch with the information for a previous question I asked months ago. But, I would like to see some verifiable evidence/studies done on the above point (the checking of the box versus the description of the actual "Native" experience). While I am native and did write about my experience in my PS, I would find it hard to somehow quantify someone's "Native-ness" (for lack of a better term) based upon the degree in which they described their experiences. I'd just be curious to hear an application reviewer's take on the subject.